Celticfan, I totally respect your opinion with Karl Malone being the greatest PF of all time, but I'm with valo and CB32 that Tim Duncan is the greatest PF of all time.-No doubt Karl Malone is the greatest scoring PF of all time. Not even a question. But you have to realize that he was the scorer for the Jazz and given the freedom to take that kind of offensive load that he had. Duncan has never had to score 27-29PPG for the team to win as the Spurs are built around defense, whereas the Jazz were built for offense. When Duncan WAS expected to score big numbers, he put up 26PPG (along with 13RPG, 4APG, 2.5BPG). He has also had series' with around 28-30PPG. What I am getting at is that Duncan can score and do it very effectively. On the block alone, he is proibably the most unstoppable PF to ever play the game.-Passing is a wash. Duncan has had seasons of around 4APG, series' of 6APG or so, and is one of the best I have seen at passing out of the post. Also remember that Malone was on a high-offense team that relied on motion and cutting from other players, whereas the Spurs offense has always been a lot less potent in terms of that. -Rebounding is Duncan. Duncan's minutes has dropped the past few seasons due to better teammates/saving for playoffs/injuries, but when he plays 38-40MPG he is a 13RPG guy. -Defense is easily Duncan. You keep using the fact that Malone was great at steals, but he never averaged more than 1.9SPG and in the post it is a LOT more important to be more physically imposing as a shot blocker than just swiping at the ball. Remember, a great shot blocker doesn't always affect his assignment, but he affects almost every guard or forward penetrating the paint. Thus, he affects the whole defensive game, and allows for his teammates to play to their strengths and be a bit more daring as they know the big man is backing them up. Malone only affected his man.-Clutch ability, to me, is Duncan. Malone was either hit or miss in the playoffs/Finals, and notoriously didn't play well in the waning moments of the game. Duncan can take over a game and get the job done down the stretch, and his soon to be 4 rings is a great indication of that.-Duncan is the more accomplished player, and he still has a lot left in his tank IMO. His career totals may not match Malone's due to Malone's ridiculously long career, but that means very little to me.So yeah, to me it's Duncan, although you can make a great case for Malone as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jun 12 2007, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's not necessarily true. Amare would not be the same in a halfcourt setting without a ridiculous playmaker like Nash. I don't know what percentage of Amare's points come off pick-n-rolls and/or dunks in transition, but I'm sure it's a large portion. I'll take the guy I can go to on any possession and expect him to score 1-on-1 than a guy that needs a little skip pass or a jump start to get himself going.</div>Again, he averaged 20 points in only his 2nd season, some of that time with not even Marbury there. He also put up better numbers when Nash was injured. Amare is one player that Nash doesn't make offensively. He does boost his FG% by a few and his ppg by a couple though, but it's all Amare baby. When they are both in their mid 30's and past their prime, Jefferson's post moves will shine and make him better. But as long as he's young, he's athletic ability, his strength making him one of the best at getting a 3-point play and his very nice jumper make him a top scoring big man, not Nash. Nash makes him THE most efficient scorer though, but he'd still put up similar numbers without him.Actually it is pretty arguable who'll be the better scorer in the paint, especially since Amare's older and that's partly why he's better now and he does get a good chunk of points out of that nice jumper. I like Jefferson. So my bad, he will be a better post scorer, but don't try to take away from what Amare can do just because of Nash. Amare can do it on his own also. I just wish they'd get him the ball more. Off-topic, sorry.Back to Duncan's post moves vs. Malone's numbers. Goodbye.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Jun 12 2007, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sure TD is a much better post scorer technically speaking</div>"Technically speaking, but"... but nothing. You just re-stated my point.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for being more complete. Malone shot the ball better, avg more assits and steals and was more reliable on the FT line. I consider their rebounding numbers a wash or a slight edge to Duncan.</div>"He averaged more assists"... yeah, by a 0.6 margin. ZERO point six, give me a break. Hey guys, this is ANOTHER example of using stats in an argument that pisses me off. He tried to say Malone was the better passer and that he averaged more assists... the margin is 0.6. Give me a break, that means absolutely nothing. Duncan was still the better passer, IMO, because he's the smarter player that didn't force things as much as Malone did."He averaged more steals"... blah blah. So what, Delonte West gets more steals than Bruce Bowen, does that mean he's the better defender. Hell no. Don't even try to make an argument that Malone was as good a defender as Duncan.I'll give you the free throw shooting though, no doubt about that. Tim Duncan is a horrible free throw shooting.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Duncan obviously get a nod for the titles, but again that's a team win and Duncan had the better team and sometimes a more diluted league IMO.</div>Duncan has the better team? Are you aware that Karl Malone played with one of the best point guards of all-time in John Stockton, one of the best shooters of all-time in Jeff Hornacek, a great role player in Bryon Russell, and one of the greatest coaches of all-time in Jerry Sloan? Duncan had Robinson nearing the end of his career, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and solid role players (in which Malone had as well in Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, etc.).
I love the fact that some people have mentioned that Duncan would have averaged many more points etc if he played in a faster environment. What, in Duncan's career so far, has made any of you think Duncan would have been able to play at that speed for a whole season? He would probably have started to break down a lot more by now than he already has. Duncan has been lucky that his team situation means he can play less regular season minutes so he has that little extra playoff energy. Malone didn't have that luxury.Not one of the Duncan camp here have said that his stats won't take a dip, and when asked seem to avoid the question. He has another 2 good seasons left in him then he will probably be playing less than 30 mins a game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Jun 13 2007, 03:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I love the fact that some people have mentioned that Duncan would have averaged many more points etc if he played in a faster environment. What, in Duncan's career so far, has made any of you think Duncan would have been able to play at that speed for a whole season? He would probably have started to break down a lot more by now than he already has. Duncan has been lucky that his team situation means he can play less regular season minutes so he has that little extra playoff energy. Malone didn't have that luxury.Not one of the Duncan camp here have said that his stats won't take a dip, and when asked seem to avoid the question. He has another 2 good seasons left in him then he will probably be playing less than 30 mins a game.</div>No one is saying that a faster enviorment would have increased Duncan's stats, but it certainly did help Malone as he was the kind of scorer that feeded off of that kind of play. What I DID say is that Duncan, only for a few seasons (back in 2001-2003), was expected to be a big time scoring threat for a whole season. He delivered those seasons with averages of 26PPG and 24PPG. He CAN score in the mid-high 20's if need be, but he simply doesn't have to for his team to win rings. And while Malone never had that luxory offensively, he also didn't have to be the kind of presence Duncan has to be for the Spurs to consistently be the top defensive team in the league.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Jun 13 2007, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one is saying that a faster enviorment would have increased Duncan's stats,</div>If you have read the whole thread then you would see it has been said.
[quote name='CelticFan' post='379112' date='Jun 12 2007, 10:50 PM']well gee that's swell and all, but it's all based on your subjective opinion. Malone was an excellent defender who shut down some very talented players with his style of defense. He was much more physical than Duncan because that's the way the game was played. If Duncan was allowed to be more physical.. well he's scrawny and is more of a finese player. Malone was a great physical specimen. How the hell are you gonna factor in shot altering? Malone was better at stealing passes and creating turnovers, thus lower the other teams shot attempts. Both methods are effective. (see how easy it is to switch this around. We could turn this into a game of tennis going back and forth and yet it proves nothing) Malone was a very good defender and the difference between the two is not that great.[/quote]Since you like to use stats, how about we show that Malone only averaged 1.4 steals per game. Since Duncan averaged .8 that's a .6 difference per game. Now we look at blocks where Duncan has averaged 2.5 blocks per game, compared to where Karl Malone only averaged .8 blocks per game, not even a full block. So if you average those out, that comes to 2.5 plus .8 which would equal 3.3 and then you have 1.4 plus .8 which would equal 2.2. So on defense Duncan alters the game 1.1 times more per game than what Karl Malone does. Now given how hard defensive stats are to come by, considering a whole steal per game in itself is hard to come by for most players, that's a big margin.Now onto real basketball, Duncan is not paper thin, he was able to hold his own when Shaq tried backing him down who was as big and rough as anyone that tried backing down Malone. So I really doubt that. He also never got pushed or backed down by Dwight Howard who is just as strong as what Malone was. He's not as scrawny as you paint him out to be, and he wouldn't have a problem with physical play. Especially considering those rules never changed into 2001 I believe, so he got to play with the more physical side for his first two years in the league. Furthermore to say Duncan is a finesse player, means you haven't watched him play. Defensively he plays as physical as players are aloud to get these days. He is not a finesse player at all, so if you don't even know that, how can you claim he's not as good as Malone when you haven't sat down to watch him play?And on more basketball, in the post, shot blocking and shot altering have a much larger impact on the game than Steals do. Like Nitro said, shot blocking and shot altering cause problems for the other teams wing players and slashers to the lane, as well as your man also. No one is afraid to pass the ball down low to someone that swipes the ball away, they are still going to attempt to do so. Shot blocking presences cause people not to drive to the lane as much, settle for more jumpers, and generally cause the other team to shoot a much worse percentage. That is how you factor in shot altering, as anyone that has played high school basketball knows how much it sucks to enter the paint on someone that blocks shot. It makes you real hesitant about going to the rim again, and when you do enter the paint you try a different type layup/dunk than you did before which might cause you to miss more. That's why shot blocking and shot altering is huge compared to someone that causes steals. His shot altering more than makes up for his 4 less points per game scoring, as it causes the other team to miss to keep it closer for his team. So in the end he was a better man to man defender, and caused the much more problems defensively for the other team, than Malone did. That is why the gap between the two is very wide in my opinion. Because anyone that has played before, and watched alot of basketball, knows that often times the best scorer does not help you out as much. Once again, teams like Golden State, the Utah Jazz from old, Golden State, and Denver can everyone score alot of points. But they don't have the defense to win championships, as it is defense that wins your team championships more often than offense. Look at past winners like Detroit, San Antonio, Chicago all of these teams played very good defense and were winning championships. I'm not trying to make it sound like Malone was easy to score on by any means, and I'm sorry if that's the way it came off, he was just easier to score on than Duncan is, and can't effect the outcome of a basketball game as much defensively like Duncan can. Scoring more points does win games, but you don't have to be the better scorer to score more points. Often times the one that plays the better defense can keep it close while being able to score enough points to end up scoring more and win. So in the end, defense has a heavier outcome than offense does. Your making it sound like he had nothing, when that is not the case at all. He had Stocton, Malone, Hornaceck, Russell, Ostertag, Anderson, and Howard Eisley. He had three players on his team that shot from over 40 percent from 3 point range, which opens up alot of room for you offensively. There is a big difference between an entire rebound per game more, and .4 assists per game more. He didn't even average an entire half of an assist more. And when you take in that Malone turned the ball a very slight .2 times more per game, that evens it out to really being .2. Duncan could make any pass out of any double team just as well as Malone could. He is better good at hitting the cutter down the middle of the lane out of the double team, as Malone had trouble with that more often because his height didn't allow him to be able to see out of the double team as well.Once again, Duncan was able to get more rebounds on less rebound oppurtunities per game because of pace of play. That kind of goes a long way towards why Duncan was better at rebounding. For example, If one person is getting 38 chances to do one thing, and the other is getting 43, then guy with 43 chances should be able to grab more rebounds. Obviously if he is grabbing an entire rebound less, then they are not as good at rebounding. Duncan is definately a better rebounder than Malone is. You keep on "bleating" how scoring is the most important part of basketball, when that is not the case. If you stopped saying that over and over again, then I wouldn't have to explain to you how the game of basketball works. Defense is just as important, if not more important on the game of basketball. When being able to stop someone else from scoring, you don't have to score as much to win. Duncan is able to keep his team in the game at all times with his superior defense. Then you go along and see that Duncan can also score alot in the game, to go along with keeping his man/the other team from scoring as much, and his impact on a game is much more felt than what Malone's impact on the game is. That's funny, because your not really giving and taking either, and alot of the smart posters like CB32 and Nitro agree with me. You just throw out stats, and don't really understand what those stats mean or how they actually effect a basketball game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Jun 12 2007, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so rather than stats, we'll go on opinion, feeling and hypothesis?stats should be used to back up a valid point. It's the basis for having a discussion.especially when it comes to sports.otherwise you get dipsticks saying Gerald Green nearly as good at Lebron James...btw it's more than career highs. Malone was a much more prolific scorer.I just like the story behind his career high :winkglasses:</div>No dude...You can't just use stats to back up your argument fully. Stats only tell part of the story - they're only numbers. In a basketball debate, you also have to talk about who is better in different areas of basketball.Only retards would say that....I'm not talking about just stating your opinion. There are other ways to back up your opinions besides stats..Malone scored more points...Okay...He also had the 2nd greatest PG of all time, who was amazing at passing off of pick and rolls. Duncan creates for himself in the post...Duncan is better at defense, he is much more of a winner, better post game.I didn't even have to think about this before I got my answer.
Whichever way you see it Karl Malone and Tim Duncan you could compare to see whose better forever because they are right at the same level. Malone played tougher competition and played as a whole with his team a much better ball game in their primes. They had the greatest passer ever at pg and were a very deep defense. They ended up playing agaist teams like The Rockets(Hakeems Primedays) The Suns(Barkley and KJ) Seattle(GP in his prime playing the best perimeter defense the nba has ever seen) and the Lakers(Elden Cambell,a young Kobe,Nick Van Exel in his prime,and Shaq in his best days). Now compare those teams to the modern day west(even though the west is good, I dont think it ranks up to even those teams and the west went even deeper back then.
[quote name='CelticBalla32' post='379220' date='Jun 13 2007, 02:12 AM']"Technically speaking, but"... but nothing. You just re-stated my point.[/quote]oh hey way to cut off my quote to an angle that justifies you smarmy reply. My point was that while duncan may score better than Malone in a certain way, Malone scored better by doing it differently. Malone was a great post player too btw. I think you're forgetting that.[quote name='CelticBalla32' post='379220' date='Jun 13 2007, 02:12 AM']"He averaged more assists"... yeah, by a 0.6 margin. ZERO point six, give me a break. Hey guys, this is ANOTHER example of using stats in an argument that pisses me off. He tried to say Malone was the better passer and that he averaged more assists... the margin is 0.6. Give me a break, that means absolutely nothing. Duncan was still the better passer, IMO, because he's the smarter player that didn't force things as much as Malone did.[/quote]LOL this was mostly directed at Valo who was trying to make a big deal over 1 rpg difference. It's actually quite assinine to hold on to such a small number so much. I just switched it around to show him how stupid it was... he didn't get it. Both are great passers. I see nothing wrong with trying to create something by forcing things. Larry Bird took chances all the time.[quote name='CelticBalla32' post='379220' date='Jun 13 2007, 02:12 AM']"He averaged more steals"... blah blah. So what, Delonte West gets more steals than Bruce Bowen, does that mean he's the better defender. Hell no. Don't even try to make an argument that Malone was as good a defender as Duncan.[/quote]and why the hell not? becuase you said so? Malone was able to hold his own in the post vs Barkley, Olajuwon (yes he quite often played him in big games and the playoffs down the stretch), and a healthy David Robinson. He's even played fairly well vs a in his prime Shaq because he couldn't be bullied by him. I said Duncan is a better defender, but it's not a huge difference. If I had to pick one of them to shut someone down, I'd probably pick Duncan, but I wouldn't feel bad if I had Malone either.[quote name='CelticBalla32' post='379220' date='Jun 13 2007, 02:12 AM']I'll give you the free throw shooting though, no doubt about that. Tim Duncan is a horrible free throw shooting.[/quote] yes and it's weird how he's gotten worse over his career. Must be a mental thing.[quote name='CelticBalla32' post='379220' date='Jun 13 2007, 02:12 AM']Duncan has the better team? Are you aware that Karl Malone played with one of the best point guards of all-time in John Stockton, one of the best shooters of all-time in Jeff Hornacek, a great role player in Bryon Russell, and one of the greatest coaches of all-time in Jerry Sloan? Duncan had Robinson nearing the end of his career, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and solid role players (in which Malone had as well in Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, etc.).[/quote]please, lets compare the players on each team. Yes Stockton is a top 3-4 all time PG and as I've stated before, Malone and Stockton made each other better. Stockton by setting Karl up in spots where he could score, Malone by his great touch around the basket and on the break to finish passes a lot of players wouldn't have made. other than that, the rest of the team was average role players or sub-par. No 3rd all-stars there.Malone scored 13 more ppg than the next player on the team the year they went to the finals and nearly 5 more rpg than the 2nd rebounder.see here http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/te...g=n&yr=1997did he do this because he's a selfish player or because the players around him were not that good?With Duncan, well he's got 2 players within 4 ppg of his scoring. Rebounding, like Malone he was pretty much alone. It's the quality of Depth this team has while the Jazz relied a lot on Adam Keefe for crying out loud.http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/stats?team=sasit's splitting hairs, but we're talking about the best and 2nd best players at the PF posistion ever. It's gonna be close.
I don't feel like quoting, and I haven't read past page 2 but the dude saying malone is better then td on page two is who I'm responding tooduncan didn't come into a championship contending team, he came to a playoff contending team, but duncan put us over the hill, david robinson is my all time favorite player, but he could never get it done, duncan did and continues to get it done by winning 1 more after david left, and he's working on his latest championship with one win away, and that's four more rings then malone could ever dream of having, hell malone had to jump on the lakers nuts to try to win one of course he couldn't, also without duncan san antonio doesn't even have a pro team anymore, without tim duncan, pop isn't even an assistant in college, without duncan, peter holt (our owner) would still be in rehab (he's an alcoholic) and with no team just his tracker company, without tim, tony is back in franch with no eva or championship rings, without tim manu is still flopping in italy, without tim bowen is homelesstim makes this team what it is, he didn't come into a good situation, he makes the situation good with how great he isif he would've went to the celtics he would've been in the finals 8 straight years with how weak the east istim is a lock for the hall of fame..............and he's a lock as going down as the greatest power foward to play this game
I quit, I don't see this going anywhere but ending in a stalemate. I know a lot of people love Duncan and are in the spur of the moment with the Finals etc and all of these announcers proclaiming him as the best PF of all time, but I'm adamant in saying that it's too early to give him the crown. Like I said, Malone's longevity and consistency is amazing; his work ethic is unheard of compared to players today (not at all taking away from that of Tim Duncan's) and his will to win was unbending. That is what I think edges him sightly over Duncan for the number one spot. Maybe it's just a certain respect for throwback NBA players, but right now I'd have Malone over Duncan on my team any day. Duncan still has a few years to go to show me that he can do what Malone did as a player with his consistency and as a person.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noballer07 @ Jun 13 2007, 09:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I quit, I don't see this going anywhere but ending in a stalemate. I know a lot of people love Duncan and are in the spur of the moment with the Finals etc and all of these announcers proclaiming him as the best PF of all time, but I'm adamant in saying that it's too early to give him the crown. Like I said, Malone's longevity and consistency is amazing; his work ethic is unheard of compared to players today (not at all taking away from that of Tim Duncan's) and his will to win was unbending. That is what I think edges him sightly over Duncan for the number one spot. Maybe it's just a certain respect for throwback NBA players, but right now I'd have Malone over Duncan on my team any day. Duncan still has a few years to go to show me that he can do what Malone did as a player with his consistency and as a person.</div>no thank you, I rather duncan be him and not malone cause if he was like malone he'd be a failure when it matters............... I'll take duncans finals mvp and championship rings, over malone's longivity, stats and failures
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (koopa @ Jun 14 2007, 04:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>no thank you, I rather duncan be him and not malone cause if he was like malone he'd be a failure when it matters............... I'll take duncans finals mvp and championship rings, over malone's longivity, stats and failures</div>There is no way in hell Duncan wins the titles if he was playing in the 90s. I think I'll bow out now too as a stalemate is all this looks to be. Duncan fans say that stats don't tell the true story then throw some more stats out there.
[quote name='CelticFan' post='379833' date='Jun 13 2007, 09:55 PM']oh hey way to cut off my quote to an angle that justifies you smarmy reply. My point was that while duncan may score better than Malone in a certain way, Malone scored better by doing it differently. Malone was a great post player too btw. I think you're forgetting that.[/quote]That's not the point. The point is that I've been saying Duncan is a better post player and some people tried to go against it, then you said exactly what I said. Did you not read Valo's last post? Again... thank you for restating my point. Malone was a pretty good defender, no doubt about it, but Duncan is one of the best defenders of all-time. There is a pretty big difference. San Antonio has relied on a ton of role players as well, bro. Sean Elliot, Robert Horry, Fabricio Oberto, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, Malik Rose, Antonio Daniels, a young Stephen Jackson. I mean let's take a look at Duncan's 2nd title, shall we?He had Tony Parker (not what he is today), a young Stephen Jackson (also not what he is today), an old David Robinson putting up 8 points a night, Bruce Bowen, Malik Rose, a young Ginobili that was 1/10 of what he is today, an old Kevin Willis, an old Steve Kerr, etc. Are you gonna tell me that was better than John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, Shandon Anderson, and the whole 9? Duncan didn't have much that year. And yeah, so you say "the competition wasn't better"... they knocked off Shaq/Kobe and the Lakers in round 2.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Jun 12 2007, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A whole rebound per game is actually kind of big, as that is one more time he allowed his team to get the ball per game compared to what Malone was able to do. When it comes down to close games at the end, that one extra possession off of that one extra rebound can mean the difference between loosing by one, or winning by one. So I believe there is a big difference in a whole rebound per game difference especially in a close game.</div>umm yeah CB 32, I did read what he said.. and as I said it was asinine to argue over 1 rebound per game.so to show what it sounded like I went over an even more minute detail.and then he came right back with even more silly minute stat details. So call me out about mentioning assists, but give Valvo a free pass on adding blocks and steals and subtracting turnovers because he's talking about Duncan. That's not TOO obvious now is it..bottom line both are great players, it comes down to preference.I prefer Malone who's speed and strength have never been matched. A guy who improved his game all the time and gave 100% all of the time and seldomly missed a game. Did everything you could ask for from a PF and did it better than anyone.Valvo and yourself are off the opinion that Duncan is better.I'd call it 1 and 1A it's so close.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Jun 14 2007, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>umm yeah CB 32, I did read what he said.. and as I said it was asinine to argue over 1 rebound per game.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Since you like to use stats, how about we show that Malone only averaged 1.4 steals per game. Since Duncan averaged .8 that's a .6 difference per game. Now we look at blocks where Duncan has averaged 2.5 blocks per game, compared to where Karl Malone only averaged .8 blocks per game, not even a full block. So if you average those out, that comes to 2.5 plus .8 which would equal 3.3 and then you have 1.4 plus .8 which would equal 2.2. So on defense Duncan alters the game 1.1 times more per game than what Karl Malone does. Now given how hard defensive stats are to come by, considering a whole steal per game in itself is hard to come by for most players, that's a big margin.Now onto real basketball, Duncan is not paper thin, he was able to hold his own when Shaq tried backing him down who was as big and rough as anyone that tried backing down Malone. So I really doubt that. He also never got pushed or backed down by Dwight Howard who is just as strong as what Malone was. He's not as scrawny as you paint him out to be, and he wouldn't have a problem with physical play. Especially considering those rules never changed into 2001 I believe, so he got to play with the more physical side for his first two years in the league. Furthermore to say Duncan is a finesse player, means you haven't watched him play. Defensively he plays as physical as players are aloud to get these days. He is not a finesse player at all, so if you don't even know that, how can you claim he's not as good as Malone when you haven't sat down to watch him play?</div>That was valo... saying "since you like to talk stats" then he countered your statistical arguments and countered your points.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>and then he came right back with even more silly minute stat details. So call me out about mentioning assists, but give Valvo a free pass on adding blocks and steals and subtracting turnovers because he's talking about Duncan. That's not TOO obvious now is it..</div>The point you aren't understanding is that valo countered your arguments with stats, because you used them to begin with... so he used stats to his advantage to prove you wrong.
Here's how I see the Duncan vs. Malone Argument.Scoring:Malone has this, but not by as much as one would initially think. Malone was the #1, 2, and 3 scoring option on his team and played in a faster paced era on a far faster paced team. Malone's scoring advantage, Adjusting for pace and fga, there is probably about a point an a half per game difference between the two of them in the scoring dept.Passingretty much a dead heat, but it's notable that Malone was getting more turnoversReboundinguncan has this by a mile. Duncan's worst rebound rate ever was a 17.6. Malone's best rebound rate ever was 17.4. And Duncan also had the disadvantage of having D-Rob on his team in terms of rebound rate. In similar situations, Duncan would outrebound Malone by a lot more than one per game.Defense:Malone was a very good defender, getting all defense second team a couple times. Duncan is a phenomenal defender and probably has deserved some DPOY awards.Clutch Playretty even. To tell the truth neither is as clutch as they are made out to be and the Spurs are notorious for losing close games.Successuncan is one of the 10 most successful players of all time, Malone never won a ringReally, the only advantage Malone has is scoring, and it's not a big enough scoring advantage to forget deficits everywhere else.
