# karl malone vs. tim duncan



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

who was better in their respective prime? 

explain if you want, or just vote. thanks.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

It's very close. However, I think Duncan has to get the nod just by a tad, mostly due to defensive reasons and because I think he has a slightly better post game

If Jordan had never played, Karl would have won two titles IMO, so the titles argument isn't totally valid in this debate


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i picked duncan for his defense and championships.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> It's very close. However, I think Duncan has to get the nod just by a tad, mostly due to defensive reasons and because I think he has a slightly better post game
> 
> If Jordan had never played, Karl would have won two titles IMO, so the titles argument isn't totally valid in this debate



good point about the championships.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

I think Malone has a slight edge as his tenacity was unmatched. His post game was great during his whole career (2nd all-time in points scored), and he developed a nice outside jumpshot later in his career.

We'd have to see in the next 5 or so years, if Duncan is still doing as well as he has been. Malone proved he could do it (as in, be a top 5 player in the league) for about 16 years straight.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

unluckyseventeen said:


> I think Malone has a slight edge as his tenacity was unmatched. His post game was great during his whole career (2nd all-time in points scored), and he developed a nice outside jumpshot later in his career.
> 
> We'd have to see in the next 5 or so years, if Duncan is still doing as well as he has been. Malone proved he could do it (as in, be a top 5 player in the league) for about 16 years straight.



damn, your post makes me wanna change my vote. :biggrin:


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

It definitely is close, it seems. But Malone was just awesome for so many years straight. A lot of people on here weren't older than 15 during the majority of his great years.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/karl_malone/?nav=page

Check out 89-90. 31 ppg, 11 rpg, 56% from the field, 3 apg, 1.5 spg

It was unusual to see him with a game less than 25/10 throughout his career.


----------



## StackAttack (Mar 15, 2006)

Timmy wouldn't have a ship if he had to play against MJ's Bulls either.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I'll give it to Malone at this point because his peak was higher (in my opinion) and longer. It's close, though. Malone was a good defender, but Duncan has been in a higher league in that regard. Malone was a more dominant scorer, although Duncan has been a consistently strong offensive force. Most other areas are a wash. 

(Now I'm waiting for someone to parachute into this thread and try to settle the whole thing with a review of PERs...)


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

This is a really difficult question because Malone began to plays at a very high level at the age of 25 and maintained that high level for 12 seasons.Duncan has only played 9 seasons,but he played at pretty high level from his rookie year on.Malone's peak is higher right now,but that's distorted by the fact that DUncan should still be in his prime and he just suffered through a season in which his productivity was greatly reduced by plantar fascitis.Hard to see how Duncan could match Malone for sustained excellence,but right now it's pretty close based on comparing them by age.I don't know if Tim will be so fanatical about his conditioning late in his career.Honestly I have to admit that this question made me wonder if Malone was not doing more than lifting weights,but that just shows you how the times have altered our perspective on the achievements of past players.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> It's very close. However, I think Duncan has to get the nod just by a tad, mostly due to defensive reasons and because I think he has a slightly better post game
> 
> If Jordan had never played, Karl would have won two titles IMO, so the titles argument isn't totally valid in this debate


How does Michael Jordan and the Bulls owning the east rectify the fact that Malone still only lead the Jazz to the NBA Finals 2 times in 18 years (and taking him 12 years to get the first one)? Where were the Jazz when the Rockets took over for two years? Where were they the year after Jordan retried?

Michael Jordan is just an excuse. The story has already been written so it's easy to say the Bulls were unbeatable now, it was far from the case then (particularly during the first three-peat). The reason Karl Malone doesn't have any championships is because his team didn't get it done and Jordan's did. Not simply because Jordan existed.

Duncan has lead his team to 3 championships in only 9 years. Forget Jordan, at that point in Malone's career he couldn't overcome Hakeem, Payton, or Drexler.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd take Malone. I think his peak was higher and he has incredible career value. Duncan closes the gap with a superior defensive impact. Overall, I think they're somewhat close but I think Malone is top-10 all-time and Duncan more like top-15 or so.


----------



## Fatboy (Mar 7, 2003)

Look at Duncan's number. Is he still in his prime? Maybe, but his stats consistantly declined since 02-03. Not only ppg, but also rpg, FGP. 

MPG FGP RPG APG PPG
02-03 SAS 39.3 .513 12.9 3.9 23.3 
03-04 SAS 36.6 .501 12.4 3.1 22.3 
04-05 SAS 33.4 .496 11.1 2.7 20.3 
05-06 SAS 34.8 .484 11.0 3.2 18.6 

Career 37.9 .505 12.0 3.1 22.1 

I guess TD's career stats will be like 
.490 11+ 3 21

No as good as Malone's 
.516 10.1 3.6 25





unluckyseventeen said:


> It definitely is close, it seems. But Malone was just awesome for so many years straight. A lot of people on here weren't older than 15 during the majority of his great years.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/karl_malone/?nav=page
> 
> ...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

What's really amazing is that Malone didn't have his best two season until he was 33 and 34,Actually if you only counted what they did until Duncan's current age(30) then his best season is about the same
as Duncan's four best seasons(the four prior to last season with the injury).So in theory Duncan is ahead of Malone right now and ahead by a decent margin.


----------



## wightnoiser (Oct 29, 2003)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> If Jordan had never played, Karl would have won two titles IMO, so the titles argument isn't totally valid in this debate


Except Duncan has 3 titles not 2. So 3 > 2 and the titles argument should be valid.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Titles matter when u're comparing 2 great players who were part of great teams. So TD it is!


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Also take into account Malone had Stockton to boost his scoring numbers, and Duncan didn't have someone like that. Duncan gets my vote.


----------



## beamer05 (Feb 24, 2006)

I think the argument about mj dominating is valid for karl never winning a title. A few great players would argue that mj and his bulls had something to do with them not winning a title- malone,stockton, payton,barkley just to name a few. It's a valid "excuse", I think. This is such a tough question. At this point, even though it seems somewhat contradictory to what i said above, I think duncan and his 3 trophies are the deciding factor. Finals mvp etc. Numbers may prove otherwise, and some people say championships are overrated, but I think it's duncan. And I don't even like the spurs all that much.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

MLKG said:


> How does Michael Jordan and the Bulls owning the east rectify the fact that Malone still only lead the Jazz to the NBA Finals 2 times in 18 years (and taking him 12 years to get the first one)? Where were the Jazz when the Rockets took over for two years? Where were they the year after Jordan retried?
> 
> Michael Jordan is just an excuse. The story has already been written so it's easy to say the Bulls were unbeatable now, it was far from the case then (particularly during the first three-peat). The reason Karl Malone doesn't have any championships is because his team didn't get it done and Jordan's did. Not simply because Jordan existed.
> 
> Duncan has lead his team to 3 championships in only 9 years. Forget Jordan, at that point in Malone's career he couldn't overcome Hakeem, Payton, or Drexler.


I second this. Duncan won his titles and malone didnt. Duncan also had to play against a great lakers team of shaq+kobe, so may be we should count 5 or 6 titles for him if you are going to count 2 for malone.


Duncan was clearly the superior defender, and its closer than it seems in offense imo. And duncan still should have 6+ years at a very high level, so if you consider malone a top 10 all time player, i think is more than likely that duncan will take his place.

Stats dont tell the whole story about a player like Duncan.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Duncan. LIke WTChan said, Malone played with one of the greatest point guards of all time in Stockton.

Malone had the better statistical prime, but Duncan had the better prime overall, as it amounted to titles.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Actually, I think this is about as even as a poll we've had....but a few things separate Duncan from Malone.....He takes higher percentage shots, he dominates Defensively, and he Knows when to dominate in any aspect when the time calls....if the time calls for him to kick it out to Horry / ETC for 3, he does it, if it comes time for him to buckle down defensively, he does it..

But IMO, Karl Malone is a great player, but John Stockton made him greater IMO.....Duncan doesn't need a PG to set him up like Malone did, he just needs anyone to kick it in to him down low and he can creat his own shot, Malone's game (especially later on in his career) was more dependant on being open due to a great pass from Stockton, he wasn't really that good at creating his own shot in his later years.

I'll comment more in my next post, but I wanna see what other people have to say.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Hypathetical Question...

Let me ask you guys this, Do you agree if Karl Malone played in D'Antoni's system his whole career with Stockton or Nash, that he would've been the All-Time leading scorer in NBA History?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

WTChan said:


> Also take into account Malone had Stockton to boost his scoring numbers, and Duncan didn't have someone like that. Duncan gets my vote.



good point, all duncan has had are avery johnson, tony parker, and manu ginobili, among others.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Hypathetical Question...
> 
> Let me ask you guys this, Do you agree if Karl Malone played in D'Antoni's system his whole career with Stockton or Nash, that he would've been the All-Time leading scorer in NBA History?



i don't think so. he doesn't seem like a fast break type of player.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> i don't think so. he doesn't seem like a fast break type of player.


What? Karl Malone couldn't run ? are you serious?


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

When it comes to the elite players in league history, I tend to judge and seperate greatness by championships won, so Duncan gets my vote. I believe the elite players win in this league as well as in other sports, so this is where I stand. I understand many may have a problem with this, but this is my belief.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Generally people put this argument on the other foot when they argue that Stockton wasn't as good as his numbers or that anyone could have fed Malone in the post 30 times a game.I think there's a limit to how much you can contribute the success of one Hall of Fame player to another.If you're talking about a player who gets all his points off the fast break and he benefits from playing with a great PG that's one thing.

Malone scored his share off the break(although Utah was merely oppurtunistic in their running) and Stockton definitely increased his effectiveness,but he was the centerpiece of Utah's offense for a very good reason and he probably would have been almost anywhere and no matter who else was on his team.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

ralaw said:


> When it comes to the elite players in league history, I tend to judge and seperate greatness by championships won, so Duncan gets my vote. I believe the elite players win in this league as well as in other sports, so this is where I stand. I understand many may have a problem with this, but this is my belief.


And correct me if i'm mistaken, but I could've swore you were debating on another thread about how you really couldn't compare players by championships.


----------



## hawaiianjazzfan (Jul 25, 2006)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nNDbydC98HY&search=Karl Malone

Vintage Karl for those of you young'ns who didn't watch him in his younger days.... and for the person who said he couldn't run the fast break.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

hawaiianjazzfan said:


> http://youtube.com/watch?v=nNDbydC98HY&search=Karl Malone
> 
> Vintage Karl for those of you young'ns who didn't watch him in his younger days.... and for the person who said he couldn't run the fast break.


Thank you, and for that other poster....Karl Malone wasn't really a feed in the paint 30 times a game type player, it was all about the Pick-N-Roll for Utah, only in Karl's younger days he would slash more to the rim off the P-N-R, like Amare does now.

But later in his career he'd spot up more off P-N-R, but don't get it twisted...Malone could bang down low, but his post moves were limited, and his coordination down low was kind of akward.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

hawaiianjazzfan said:


> http://youtube.com/watch?v=nNDbydC98HY&search=Karl Malone
> 
> Vintage Karl for those of you young'ns who didn't watch him in his younger days.... and for the person who said he couldn't run the fast break.





Prolific Scorer said:


> What? Karl Malone couldn't run ? are you serious?



if you guys are gonna quote me, at least quote me correctly. i said that he wasn't a fast break type player, as the jazzs' offense was predicated by the pick and roll. i never said he couldn't run, just that he would be most efficient in the system that allowed him to be one of the best scorers in the history of the game.

the clip you posted, is that supposed to prove me wrong?

watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_FbzLQHgOUA&search=shaq fast break


i guess shaq would also be perfect in the suns' system.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> the clip you posted, is that supposed to prove me wrong?
> 
> watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_FbzLQHgOUA&search=shaq fast break
> 
> ...


lol, now now boot....we love you.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> And correct me if i'm mistaken, but I could've swore you were debating on another thread about how you really couldn't compare players by championships.


I don't know what you are talking about, but if you could provide me a link I'd be happy to explain, as this pretty much is my stance unless it's involving special circumstances (ie a KG situation).


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i voted for malone for chrissakes!!!


----------



## bigeyedjazzfan69 (Jul 25, 2006)

I voted for malone obviously if you see my user name, but the real reason I do so is because all malone had was stockton because larry miller was way to cheap to give malone what he needed to win championships, I mean come on ostertag was our starting center for many years when he is at best a backup, then we had bryon russell as the starting small forward thanks but no thanks. the spurs have many good players. you cant just look at the one player you have to look at the team as well i mean look at michael jordan "the greatest to play the game" I didn't see him get very far in his little stint with the wizards whats up with that.


----------



## jazzfan_03 (Jul 25, 2006)

Diable said:


> Generally people put this argument on the other foot when they argue that Stockton wasn't as good as his numbers or that anyone could have fed Malone in the post 30 times a game.I think there's a limit to how much you can contribute the success of one Hall of Fame player to another.If you're talking about a player who gets all his points off the fast break and he benefits from playing with a great PG that's one thing.
> 
> Malone scored his share off the break(although Utah was merely oppurtunistic in their running) and Stockton definitely increased his effectiveness,but he was the centerpiece of Utah's offense for a very good reason and he probably would have been almost anywhere and no matter who else was on his team.


I totally agree with you. Stockton and Malone obviously made each other better, but I think they would have both been great players even if they didn't play together. I'm not sure but I think Stockton missed the game where Malone scored is career high (63). Also, in 97-98 Stockton missed the first 18 games and the Jazz still finished with the best record in the league.

Anyways, back to the Malone vs. Duncan thing. I would have to go with Malone because honestly, I'm a Jazz fan. The championship point is a very good argument, but I think the Spurs have much deeper teams than the Jazz ever had. The Jazz had Stockton, Malone, and Hornaceck and thats about it. The Jazz were extremely cheap during the Stockton and Malones' primes which is what I think cost the Jazz at least one championship.


----------



## Fatboy (Mar 7, 2003)

Agree. I think people overated the rings for players. That's things for GMs and owners!
If you can't get good role players around your star(s), you never will get a ring.



bigeyedjazzfan69 said:


> I voted for malone obviously if you see my user name, but the real reason I do so is because all malone had was stockton because larry miller was way to cheap to give malone what he needed to win championships, I mean come on ostertag was our starting center for many years when he is at best a backup, then we had bryon russell as the starting small forward thanks but no thanks. the spurs have many good players. you cant just look at the one player you have to look at the team as well i mean look at michael jordan "the greatest to play the game" I didn't see him get very far in his little stint with the wizards whats up with that.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Poll even at 22 a piece right now.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> i don't think so. he doesn't seem like a fast break type of player.


I'm pretty sure the Mailman was 1 of the better running power forwards the game has ever seen. John Stockton's 2-3 spg lead to many easy transition baskets for Malone. If he wasn't scoring on fastbreaks, the Jazz' pick and rolls/pick and pops were 1 of the most unstoppable set plays ever. They ran it beatifully & there were no 2 players IMO that were more coherent than Stockton & Malone. 

Duncan didn't have that other HOF player except the Admiral but he was on the decline mostly b/c he was humble enough to allow Duncan be "the guy". Duncan also proved that he could win a ship w/o Robinson in 2005. 

It's a really close comparison. These 2 guys are the 2 greatest to play their position. Mailman had a better midrange game, better passer & was 1 of the most durable stars ever but Duncan is both a great post player & defensive presence inside. The championships are really what decides this so Duncan.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

I picked Malone. Why? Because he was the most dominat PF to ever play the game, that's why. It's amazing that Malone even made it to a Championship at all with the teams he had. And he did it two years in a row. It was Stock, Malone....maybe Horny, and the ugliest bunch of scrubs that ever made an NBA roster that defeated some damn good teams in the Playoffs. Malone brought it every night. Every stinking night. And he played with injuries. He was a freaking machine.

That highlight vidio that was shown was great. But what's scarry is that you could easily make another highlight vid of his outside shots. And no, Malone didn't need to be open to score. In fact, I think he scored better when the defender was really trying to stop him. Most of his oustside shots were fade away jumpers right over the defender. Or if that wasn't there, he just drove to the hoop(in his middle years anyway) and dunked on you, or made a layup while his head was being taken off by some goon. 

Don't give me any of this Duncan crap. Duncan should really be called a center anyway. But alas, I'd still take Malone. And this is a team sport the last time I checked. Duncan didn't win those Championships by himself. If he had, he would be a 9 time Champion. No, Duncan's teams were by far, better than anything the Jazz have ever had. But those Jazz teams, because of Malone, were always in it. No one, I repeat no one, could stop Malone. If you wanted to beat the Jazz, you had to stop everyone else.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

neoxsupreme said:


> I'm pretty sure the Mailman was 1 of the better running power forwards the game has ever seen. John Stockton's 2-3 spg lead to many easy transition baskets for Malone. If he wasn't scoring on fastbreaks, the Jazz' pick and rolls/pick and pops were 1 of the most unstoppable set plays ever. They ran it beatifully & there were no 2 players IMO that were more coherent than Stockton & Malone.
> 
> Duncan didn't have that other HOF player except the Admiral but he was on the decline mostly b/c he was humble enough to allow Duncan be "the guy". Duncan also proved that he could win a ship w/o Robinson in 2005.
> 
> It's a really close comparison. These 2 guys are the 2 greatest to play their position. Mailman had a better midrange game, better passer & was 1 of the most durable stars ever but Duncan is both a great post player & defensive presence inside. The championships are really what decides this so Duncan.


read post #31.


that part about shaq, however is not intended for you.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

3 Karl malone fans with similar nicks, similar arguments, and all 3 of them with 1 post.

Seems to me like someone really wants malone to win this poll

Edited:And all 3 of them registered today. Someone is really insecure about Malone's game to do that.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Man this so tough, logical thing would be to vote for Duncan, because he has the rings to show for it.


But if there's going to be a prototype Power Forward by definition, it should be modeled after Karl IMO, I just cant find one major flaw in his game (besides the occasional jab at him being a dirty player).He had a unstoppable low post game, he had speed, strength and range to go with it, he can give you double digits in rebounds , is one of the best player to execute the pick and roll game, he's an ironman throughout his career, he's been a efficient defender. Malone just had it all. The final revelation: His defense, Ive seen Karl numeorus times shut his man down defensively. He is one of those rare players. He's been relentless, year after year he brought his team to the post season and lead them twice to the Finals.



Its obvious, to a certain degree Duncan mirrors Malone's game depending on which point of view you look at it, and in some aspects does it better than Karl... but my vote still goes to Malone.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Thufir said:


> I picked Malone. Why? Because he was the most dominat PF to ever play the game, that's why. It's amazing that Malone even made it to a Championship at all with the teams he had. And he did it two years in a row. It was Stock, Malone....maybe Horny, and the ugliest bunch of scrubs that ever made an NBA roster that defeated some damn good teams in the Playoffs. Malone brought it every night. Every stinking night. And he played with injuries. He was a freaking machine.
> 
> That highlight vidio that was shown was great. But what's scarry is that you could easily make another highlight vid of his outside shots. And no, Malone didn't need to be open to score. In fact, I think he scored better when the defender was really trying to stop him. Most of his oustside shots were fade away jumpers right over the defender. Or if that wasn't there, he just drove to the hoop(in his middle years anyway) and dunked on you, or made a layup while his head was being taken off by some goon.
> 
> Don't give me any of this Duncan crap. Duncan should really be called a center anyway. But alas, I'd still take Malone. And this is a team sport the last time I checked. Duncan didn't win those Championships by himself. If he had, he would be a 9 time Champion. No, Duncan's teams were by far, better than anything the Jazz have ever had. But those Jazz teams, because of Malone, were always in it. No one, I repeat no one, could stop Malone. If you wanted to beat the Jazz, you had to stop everyone else.


Preach on. dude, preach on...

For me, it's Malone and it's not even close.

I don't care about all that "Duncan is a superior defender" crap. Peeps just didn't score on Malone easily. They never did.

Malone's humongous edge on the offensive edge is the decider, for me.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Wow, very surprised Karl is this close. Timmy is a much, MUCH better player. That alone, of course doesn't really mean much here, but combine that w/ the kiddie factor.... wonder how the mailman is getting so much respect. Must be stats.


----------



## bigeyedjazzfan69 (Jul 25, 2006)

carlos710 said:


> 3 Karl malone fans with similar nicks, similar arguments, and all 3 of them with 1 post.
> 
> Seems to me like someone really wants malone to win this poll
> 
> Edited:And all 3 of them registered today. Someone is really insecure about Malone's game to do that.


what are you trying to argue that when karl was around they had a good TEAM because if so then you are seriously smoking something. people are arguing that duncan is better because of his rings, I was just saying that it takes more then one player to win a championship. I bet if you put duncan with a bunch of scrubs he wouldn't be winning a championship either. I am in no way insecure that malone was one of the greatest players ever. and the reason that I registered today was because there was a link from www.jazzfanz.com in one of the posts and I just wanted to share some info to some of the people that made absolutely no sense. :mrt:


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

SeaNet said:


> Wow, very surprised Karl is this close. Timmy is a much, MUCH better player. That alone, of course doesn't really mean much here, but combine that w/ the kiddie factor.... wonder how the mailman is getting so much respect. Must be stats.


Dude, you're acting like we're comparing Duncan with Malik Rose. Malone was virtually the consensus pick for best PF of all time by the zenith of his career, and just a few short years later you're contending that Duncan is "much, MUCH better"? On what basis do you think the gulf is that wide? 

I would say Malone was at least as good a scorer, and arguably more dominant year in and year out. He ran better, was more durable, was probably a better passer. I'd give Duncan a slight edge in rebounding and a big edge on defense, although Malone was no slouch as a defender.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

I would take Duncan. But the edge is slight. Malone is better on offense by a reasonable margin. But I think Duncan's edge on D is slightly larger. Slight edge to Duncan in prime two season value. Plus Timmy tended to do better in the playoffs (might be luck, but maybe not).


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

I think Duncan has the slight advantage when comparing their primes because of his defense.

But he has a good deal to go to reach Malone's level when discussing all-time rankings and career value.


----------



## M.D.E (Feb 26, 2005)

Give me a TD


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

This must be the 50th time since I started posting on bbb.net that I've responded to this topic. I'll dig up some old posts for my responses why sometime.

Tim Duncan.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

Here's a career regular season, per 48 min. average:

Malone is better in all except rebounds and blocks.

Compare 

Now let's see Duncan do it for ten more years. Oh, and while were at it, let's give Duncan Oasterfat and Russell as part of his starting five and see how he does.....

Malone won 64 games that year

Please.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Thufir said:


> Here's a career regular season, per 48 min. average:
> 
> Malone is better in all except rebounds and blocks.
> 
> ...



What part of "prime" don't you understand? The question did state "prime."


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

What's funny is how close this poll is when the Duncan or Shaq poll was also really close. By this rational would a Malone/Shaq be close too?


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

If I was selecting a player to build a team around, I'd take Duncan. 

If it was fantasy basketball, I'd take Malone.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> What part of "prime" don't you understand? The question did state "prime."


Well, name a year when Malone wasn't in his prime......maybe his last, 19 years in the NBA?

His best scoring year was 1990. Tim's was 2002. Malone still scored 5 more points a game. 

And Malone didn't get blocking credit for his waist high strips of the ball from the offensive player's hands. He did get credit for a few more steals though.....but not all of those strips ended up in a steal. but they certainly disrupted the other team.

Duncan is a great player, don't get me wrong. But Malone(at least to this point) is the greatest PF to ever play the game.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Thufir said:


> Well, name a year when Malone wasn't in his prime......maybe his last, 19 years in the NBA?
> 
> His best scoring year was 1990. Tim's was 2002. Malone still scored 5 more points a game.
> 
> ...



19 prime years? Doubtful. Malone's prime was probably 1990-1998. His worst year was his rookie season, not his last season. Malone also used more possessions on the offensive end than Duncan has (so far).

To compare points is useless. Duncan, on average, has attempted 3 less FG's and 2 less FT's per game over his career. Duncan was the better rebounder and defender.

Malone's "strips" were classified as steals, a change in possession cannot occur without it being labelled a turnover, steal, rebound, team rebound, etc.. If they didn't classify it as a block, then it was a steal. They didn't scribble it down as an unforced turnover on the offensive player. That's why Malone's steal rate is so high, unfortunately he had a nack for getting stripped at key times (Jordan, playoffs).

I'll still take Duncan, he's every bit the player Malone was (so far) with more team glory. Duncan's been the out and out leader in San Antonio during their championship seasons, which speaks volumes about his intangible qualities.

Was Malone the leader of the Jazz, or Stockton, in your opinion?


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Lots of new, good posters in here. It's good to see some new blood, I'm sick of arguing with Minstrel over Duncan or KG.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

I would take Karl Malone because I think he was more connistant and stayed healthy.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

SeaNet said:


> Wow, very surprised Karl is this close. Timmy is a much, MUCH better player. That alone, of course doesn't really mean much here, but combine that w/ the kiddie factor.... wonder how the mailman is getting so much respect. Must be stats.


Give me a break. Tim Duncan is not a much, MUCH better player. That's absurd. If you want to argue he's better, that's fine. About half the people in the thread have made the same argument. But to say that either is much, MUCH better than the other doesn't help your argument. 

Granted Duncan has always been the better defensive player. Not because Malone wasn't good defensively (he was always a wily defender), but because Duncan was just phenomenal as a defender. 

Likewise, Malone was always the better offensive player. Timmy is good, but Malone was great.

I chose Malone. Why? Because I watched both in their primes. Malone was dominant. In his prime he was a monster. Duncan was great, and he's always been an intimidating defensive presence, but I think Malone was the better overall basketball player in his prime *based on just watching the games*.

You want to argue titles? That's fine. But it's hard to deny that those Bulls teams were better than any team the Spurs have had to face in the finals. And for that reason, Malone leading his team to within 2 games of the championship against the Bulls holds the same weight to me as Duncan leading his team to the championship over the Nets.

Put it this way: There's no guarantee that the Spurs of Duncan's prime would have beaten the Jazz of Malone's prime, in my opinion. That's just based on watching them both play basketball. And that's why I don't consider the titles to be relevant in this discussion.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> To compare points is useless. Duncan, on average, has attempted 3 less FG's and 2 less FT's per game over his career. Duncan was the better rebounder and defender.


Okay, you lost me here. How is it useless to compare points? I can understand wanting to adjust for pace of game, average league-wide offensive output, or something like that. But without some kind of qualifier I don't see how you can discount points scored. 

Rather than compare averages, how about we look at some other measure of offensive output. Malone was pretty consistently among the top 5 scorers in the NBA for many years. The same can't be said of Duncan. Not that Duncan hasn't been an excellent scorer; I would just argue that Malone was generally more dominant in that regard, and that that should be taken into account in any comparison between the two.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Wow, very surprised Karl is this close. Timmy is a much, MUCH better player. That alone, of course doesn't really mean much here, but combine that w/ the kiddie factor.... wonder how the mailman is getting so much respect. Must be stats.


Please do not attack fellow posters. Try the ignore function if you do not wish to debate.

- *Premier*


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Wow, very surprised Karl is this close. Timmy is a much, MUCH better player. That alone, of course doesn't really mean much here, but combine that w/ the kiddie factor.... wonder how the mailman is getting so much respect. Must be stats.


Humor me and tell me why Tim Duncan's the better player, I agree that he is as well......but I doubt you could back it up with anything intelligent.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> If they didn't classify it as a block, then it was a steal. They didn't scribble it down as an unforced turnover on the offensive player.


Are you kidding me? Do you think every time a ball is deflected that it gets written in the stat sheets? Do you think that every time Duncan blocks a shot that it means the other team can't get it right back and score? Malone was just as disruptive defensivly as Duncan......he just didn't get much credit for it becuase he stripped the ball down low whereas Duncan blocked the shot while the player was going up. The Jazz didn't alwasy take possesion just because Malone stripped the ball.



> That's why Malone's steal rate is so high, unfortunately he had a nack for getting stripped at key times


Well, maybe if he had the best player from Australia, the best player from Europe, one of the best rebounders of all time, The best three point % shooter of all time, and one of the best all around players of all time on his team, he would have others to help shoulder the burden. As I recall, Jordan didn't always take the last shot. Not taking away from Jordan here, but I'm just saying it was more lopsided than the Jazz made it look. I credit Malone, Stock, and Sloan for even getting two wins against what many consider the greatest team of all time.

You can say Malone choked, but that's just your misguided opinion that you've been brainwashed with. And to get 64 wins out of that team is in my opinion one of the greatest coaching jobs ever, and shows that Malone had to be clutch.....because HE was the one making baskets in the final minutes.

But let's not change the subject. Where was Duncan in the Olympics....winning a bronze? Who played against the better competition? Who has TWO MVPs? And I might add that Malone won those durring Jordans riegn.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Thufir said:


> Who played against the better competition? Who has TWO MVPs? And I might add that Malone won those durring Jordans riegn.


I agree with your premise, but for completeness you should also be aware that Tim Duncan also won 2 MVPs.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

jericho said:
 

> Okay, you lost me here. How is it useless to compare points? I can understand wanting to adjust for pace of game, average league-wide offensive output, or something like that. But without some kind of qualifier I don't see how you can discount points scored.
> 
> Rather than compare averages, how about we look at some other measure of offensive output. Malone was pretty consistently among the top 5 scorers in the NBA for many years. The same can't be said of Duncan. Not that Duncan hasn't been an excellent scorer; I would just argue that Malone was generally more dominant in that regard, and that that should be taken into account in any comparison between the two.


By points I was referring to ppg, instead I brought up USG. The reasons you list are exactly why ppg is useless across generations. ORtg tells the story. I never disagreed that Malone wasn't the better scorer, he is, no questions asked. Their offensive ratings however leave it pretty close. 4 points different over 100 possessions isn't as big a gap as their ppg differences. That's why you don't compare ppg over generations, because nowadays we have specific formula's which will account for generation gaps.

Any advantage Malone has over Duncan is lost when you compare defensive ratings. Malone was +4 for ORtg, Duncan is +7 (he lets in 7 less points) for DRtg.

Duncan leads Malone in nearly all developed statistical categories over their respective careers. The only downside to comparing this way is, perhaps Duncan will experience a decline (or increase) in his stats as his career isn't finished. And it doesn't take into account what everyone believes is the players true prime.

I hope that makes it a little more clear.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Thufir said:


> Are you kidding me? Do you think every time a ball is deflected that it gets written in the stat sheets? Do you think that every time Duncan blocks a shot that it means the other team can't get it right back and score? Malone was just as disruptive defensivly as Duncan......he just didn't get much credit for it becuase he stripped the ball down low whereas Duncan blocked the shot while the player was going up. The Jazz didn't alwasy take possesion just because Malone stripped the ball.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Deflections are a totally different beast. A deflection can lead to a TO, or the team can keep possession (sometimes in a better situation). Sure Malone disrupted the offense once and a while, but he was not the defensive presence that Duncan brings as a shotblocker. The psychological advantage of being a shotblocker helps Duncan on defense, offensive players freeze up and panic occassionally. I consider Duncan to be more disruptive on the defensive end. A shotblocker is more intimidating for the offensive player in my experience.

Now I'm not a big stats man, I believe there is more to the game of basketball than stats. I've had a couple of discussions (arguments) with people on here about it before. But we're talking about NBA careers here, and Duncan gets the nod as a leader.

Malone's a great player who probably came around at the wrong time, but it's not as if he didn't have ample opportunities to lead his team to a championship. As you mentioned, he was in his prime for 19 years in your opinion. If that's so why couldn't he get to the promised land before, after, or during MJ's reign? The Bulls were a great team, and MJ one of the finest. But Jordan didn't win the championship every year. Malone made it to the finals twice with the Jazz (and once with the Lakers). All things being fair, Tim Duncan gets to the finals, and wins every time. Tim Duncan is successful in his generation, you can't hold it against him he didn't play 10 years ago.

Put TD in Malone's shoes back then, sure he probably would have lost to the Bulls. No argument. They're both fantastic players, but still give me Duncan. He's still got some good years left in him.

Karl Malone had THE perfect teammate for any big man on his team. It can be argued that Stockton made Malone. Stockton is far better than anyone Duncan has had on his team. I'd love to see a Duncan and Stockton pairing.

Duncan it is for me, and it probably will be when all is said and done too. The advanced statistics tell us so, the championships add substance, and they're even in MVPs. Duncan's still got another 5-6 years of basketball, he won't be around as long as Malone. Few are. Malone was a true specimen.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> unfortunately he had a nack for getting stripped at key times (Jordan, playoffs).


One instance makes for a "nack?" I don't recall him being stripped in the playoffs any more than any other player who handled the ball a lot. Jordan, I guess, also had a nack for being stripped at key times (Nick Anderson, playoffs). 



> I'll still take Duncan, he's every bit the player Malone was (so far) with more team glory.


So quality of teammates is the tie-breaker in an individual comparison? That doesn't make sense to me. I don't think if you replace Duncan with a prime Malone on those Spurs teams from 1999 until now, they are any less favoured or successful.

Malone played with one other great player and a bunch of overall mediocre players. Duncan played with no other _great_ players, but had a significantly higher caliber of talent around him in total.



> Duncan's been the out and out leader in San Antonio during their championship seasons, which speaks volumes about his intangible qualities.


That speaks volumes about never having a player on his level on his team. Had he played with Stockton, he wouldn't have been "unquestioned leader."



> Lots of new, good posters in here. It's good to see some new blood, I'm sick of arguing with Minstrel over Duncan or KG.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> ...Karl Malone had THE perfect teammate for any big man on his team. It can be argued that Stockton made Malone. Stockton is far better than anyone Duncan has had on his team. I'd love to see a Duncan and Stockton pairing...



how about if malone had robinson, ginobili, parker, horry, and bowen as his teammates?


edit: minstrel, you beat me to the post. we have the same exact thoughts on it.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> Malone made it to the finals twice with the Jazz (and once with the Lakers).


And had Malone not been injured, I think that series would have been much different.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> One instance makes for a "nack?" I don't recall him being stripped in the playoffs any more than any other player who handled the ball a lot. Jordan, I guess, also had a nack for being stripped at key times (Nick Anderson, playoffs).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



May we never forget Nick Anderson. My beloved Magic, how they have fallen.

It's more along the lines of the options Stockton created for Malone offensively. Of course the Spurs were a better team, no question. Utah did a poor job surrounding Stockton and Malone with talent, however they got bounced out of the playoffs in the first round 9 out of 19 seasons. 5 times in game 5 situations (back when it was a 5 game series). The Jazz weren't that bad with Malone as their go-to guy, surely.

The '99 Spurs were as bad as any team Malone was apart of. A declining David Robinson and Sean Elliott. They had teamwork.

I agree that Malone in San Antonio probably puts them in the same situation. But what would Tony do without Duncan's intimidation in the paint on defense?

Anyhow, I didn't feel I could repeat all of my mumble-jumble statistical back up again so I ventured off and compared championships. We always seem to argue over these issues, last time it was Duncan and Garnett this time Duncan and Malone. Perhaps I have a subconcious liking for Duncan. But I'm not a big fan of Spurs Basketball, it's effective but not entertaining. Go Figure. I think I play this part because I enjoy being the one who tries to row against the current and not follow the stream. It also develops some good discussions and thoughts. Sometimes I question my own opinion, and re-think my stance. Oh, some of the good things that come with posting in here.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Thufir said:


> And had Malone not been injured, I think that series would have been much different.


Agreed. A healthy Malone with the Lakers would have caused havoc. I despise Gary Payton for causing unrest, and ruining the chances. Not to mention the Pistons outclassed the Lakers in every aspect of the game. They were far too cocky. Malone deserved at least one title, I hate to see a great player leave without reaching that goal, especially a guy that worked so hard for it (I even felt a little sad for Reggie, I think).


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> May we never forget Nick Anderson. My beloved Magic, how they have fallen.
> 
> It's more along the lines of the options Stockton created for Malone offensively. Of course the Spurs were a better team, no question. Utah did a poor job surrounding Stockton and Malone with talent, however they got bounced out of the playoffs in the first round 9 out of 19 seasons. 5 times in game 5 situations (back when it was a 5 game series).  The Jazz weren't that bad with Malone as their go-to guy, surely.
> 
> ...



i think that them(jazz) getting bounced 9 out 19 times in the first round has a lot to do with depth. playoffs are tough. there are adjustments that are made to stop the opposing team's best players, and that is when the role players step up. jazz didn't have any role players that produced that much, besides hornacek. 

getting past the first round 11 out of 19 times with the teams he was on, malone did great.

damn, i didn't even know that malone got in the playoffs for 19 years. damn he's good.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

bootstrenf said:


> i think that them(jazz) getting bounced 9 out 19 times in the first round has a lot to do with depth. playoffs are tough. there are adjustments that are made to stop the opposing team's best players, and that is when the role players step up. jazz didn't have any role players that produced that much, besides hornacek.
> 
> getting past the first round 11 out of 19 times with the teams he was on, malone did great.
> 
> damn, i didn't even know that malone got in the playoffs for 19 years. damn he's good.


I'm surprised that a team relatively good at the half-court set couldn't adjust to the playoffs so well.

I think you're forgetting good ol' Jeff Malone. He was quite a good role player during his 4 Utah years. He was a scoring option, and a good one at that.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

Duncan of course. scoring isn't what wins championships. plus malone took more shots...thus scored more points. with arguable the best pg in history setting him up. be real ppl. plus duncan BRINGS it in the playoffs, ESPECIALLY the finals. numerous times ive seen duncan CARRY a team on his back. even as a big man you can give the ball to him anywhere for a last second shot and he will deliver. Malone coughed up the ball several times in the crunch. remember that shot over shaq that preceded 0.4? duncan was damn near the 3 point line. and the shot he hit before that was just as unreal. not to mention the beating he put on detroit in the finals. malone had 19 chances, and hall of famers to win something...he did nothing of the sort. he might score 4 more points a game than duncan when he has a hall of fame pg...but thats about it. duncan is the best pf in history RIGHT NOW...not to mention when it is all said and done


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Malone having to play against Jordan is no excuse. A prime Shaquille O'Neal was every bit as good as the 90's Jordan, and if not for Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal would have atleast 5-6 titles. The fact that Tim Duncan *did* defeat him two times, and the fact that Malone didn't defeat Jordan, makes the legacies of Shaq and Jordan different. 

Who is to say that if Tim Duncan played in the 90's, that he wouldn't have kept Jordan to only 3 or 4 titles? What if Karl Malone played his prime more recently and couldn't stop Shaquille from winning 5 titles in a row (99-03)? People would be forming the same argument that they do now with Jordan, that Duncan didn't have to play against Shaquille O'Neal.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'd take Tim Duncan. Malone was a better scorer, but Duncan is a great scorer too. Duncan takes the lead with everything else. He is a much better defender than Malone was, and a better rebounder too. For a big man, having a clear advantage in defense and rebounding is pretty important.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

duncan2k5 said:


> even as a big man you can give the ball to him anywhere for a last second shot and he will deliver. Malone coughed up the ball several times in the crunch. remember that shot over shaq that preceded 0.4?


Anecdotal evidence isn't too useful. I remember how Duncan and his Spurs were beaten twice by the Lakers in playoff series (the second time it was a total crushing, as the Spurs lost two or three games by nearly 30 points), and Duncan quite obviously was ineffective in the second halves of games. At that point in time, he was being called a choker and too docile in the clutch (much as Garnett is). Two titles later, he's suddenly a great playoff clutch performer. Coincidentally, the difference between those two "eras" in Duncan basketball is the addition of Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker as effective quasi-stars.

There's a lot to be said for quality of teammates and how that helps you function. It can be the difference between looking like a deer caught in the headlights (as Duncan did against LA in 2000-01 and 2001-02) and looking like a champion.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'd take Tim Duncan. Malone was a better scorer, but Duncan is a great scorer too. Duncan takes the lead with everything else. He is a much better defender than Malone was, and a better rebounder too. For a big man, having a clear advantage in defense and rebounding is pretty important.


Duncan doesn't have a clear advantage in rebounding. He has a small edge in rebounding, Malone had a small edge in passing. Malone was definitely the better scorer (scoring significantly more and at higher efficiency during his prime) while Duncan was definitely the better defender.

It's not at all as one-sided as you present.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

nothing constructive, just something funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nao67akvjgU&search=karl malone kimmel


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

duncan2k5 said:


> Duncan of course. scoring isn't what wins championships.


Malone's consistency offensively makes people believe that all he can do is score, he was so efficient in putting points in the bucket that people often misunderstood this, His failure in not winning a championship has nothing to do with his capability to score at will, or lacks the capacity to make his teammates better. 

Duncan, had a great supporting cast to begin with, not saying that Malone did not have his, with his Hornacek and Stockton, and maybe to a short span of his career the Byron Russell. Duncan had a , Robert Horry, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Ginobili and that lock HOF'er Mr Robinson. This is not a way to discredit Duncan's legitimate status as one of the greatest in the league but rather a statement to show that Malone had less help in his time.

Circumstances did not help either, Malone had to face the greatest team ever assembled in our era...Twice!


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> There's a lot to be said for quality of teammates and how that helps you function. It can be the difference between looking like a deer caught in the headlights (as Duncan did against LA in 2000-01 and 2001-02) and looking like a champion.


Actually Duncan was great in 2001-02, even vs LA. He might have not performed excellent down the stretch of games but statistically he was awesome. Even in the 2001 series where the Lakers crushed the Spurs, he still put up 40+ against the Lakers in Game 2. The team just gave up, and was too old in terms of supporting cast (plus no Derek Anderson).

But yeah Duncan had some poor playoffs as well, coincidently they came while playing with developed Ginobili and Parker. Duncans best years were 2002 and the 2003 playoffs. He had great runs in 1999 and even 2001 before the Spurs crumbled vs LA.

I have to give the edge to Duncan because of his defense. I think it outweighs Malone's edge on offense.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Nikos said:


> Actually Duncan was great in 2001-02, even vs LA. He might have not performed excellent down the stretch of games but statistically he was awesome.


My point was down the stretch. Malone has performed tremendously well, statistically, as well. But all people point to about the playoffs is him missing two free throws at the end of one playoff game or being stripped by Jordan in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals.

What I said about anecdotes not proving anything applies to my comments about Duncan looking like a deer caught in the headlights too. I was simply showing that anecdotes can illustrate what you want. Duncan has overall been a great playoff performer, but you can point to times when he was ineffective/unimpressive. Just as you can point to times when Malone was ineffective/unimpressive despite him being a great playoff performer, too.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Duncan doesn't have a clear advantage in rebounding. He has a small edge in rebounding, Malone had a small edge in passing. Malone was definitely the better scorer (scoring significantly more and at higher efficiency during his prime) while Duncan was definitely the better defender.
> 
> It's not at all as one-sided as you present.


I have to agree with everything said in this post.

The only thing Duncan is really better at compared to Malone is his defensive presence in the post.

Malone just elbowed people.

Duncan is not near the scorer Malone was. I don't care about pace and all that stuff. Malone was the better scorer. The guy has over 36000 points, 12 2000+ point seasons, and still scored 20.6 ppg when he was 39. Duncan won't come close to any of that.

I think Malone is the greatest PF ever. But Duncan is still far from retirement. When he calls it quits their statistical difference should be more equalized. Both have 2 MVPs. Yes Duncan has 3 rings but one can hardly fault Malone for losing against MJ. Yes who knows if Duncan's Spurs would have beat MJ? We don't know that but who knows if MJ's Bulls would have beaten the 80s Lakers and 80s Celtics. Malone was a great player and the Jazz finals teams were very good but he lost to a greater player (who many say is the greatest) and against one of the greatest teams the league has ever seen (certainly in 97' but even in 98' the Bulls won 62 games with Pippen missing 38 games when Pippen was on the floor the Bulls were 36-8). I think in the end, Duncan will overtake Malone as the greatest PF ever (even though the guy is really a C).

If I was running a franchise and I had to pick between the two in their respective primes, I would probably take Duncan but it is easily arguable that Malone was the better player.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

why was this thread moved? it's getting absolutely no traffic anymore. move it back if you can. please.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Prolific Scorer said:


> You never back anything up with anything, you're a horrible poster who obviously knows nothing about basketball, stick to your William Shattner Fan Club.


Easy there, I generally have a lot of respect for SeaNet's posts. (Plus he/she/it occasionally makes me laugh.) That's why I was surprised with this categorical dismissal of Malone as compared to Duncan, without any supporting argument.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> I hope that makes it a little more clear.


Yes, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

duncan took the lead...


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

Well if we stuck them both in Mad Max's Thunder Dome, who would win?

Again, the answer would be Malone.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Thufir said:


> Well if we stuck them both in Mad Max's Thunder Dome, who would win?
> 
> Again, the answer would be Malone.


Not so fast. Rodman would reach in with a cheap shot and distract the Mailman.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> It's not at all as one-sided as you present.


I didn't mean to present it one-sided. Malone is the 2nd best power forward of all-time and I think he is close to Duncan, and also has an argument for top 10 of all-time. 

As far as your analysis, I don't think there was any advantage for passing. They both averaged about 4 assists per 40 minutes, and Malone had better teammates for collecting assists. Ginobili and Parker are off the dribble guys, and Stockton and Hornacek were great at catch and shoot. 

Malone was clearly the better scorer, but I think that gap is noticably smaller than the gap between them defensively. The scoring advantage is tainted by the fact that defenses can just sit in the lap of post players nowadays, while back then, a simple pass fake threw any defense back into their strict man-to-man. Duncan draws way more attention than Malone ever did, and that's what has given Parker and Ginobili so much freedom off the dribble, as they've admitted on several occasions. That's also why I didn't even tackle the assist numbers because I feel Duncan makes things easier for his teammates far more than Malone ever did.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually the rule changes make this even tougher to gauge.I think it is very close and muddled by the fact Malone played almost twice as long as Duncan has.However Malone's career was played under completely different rules and there is no doubt that these changes have made it more difficult for the true post player to operate.The illegal defense always problematic and never strictly enforced as lots of teams played disguised zones for much of a game,but it obvious allowed post players far more space in which to operate and made double-teaming more difficult and more likely to result in missed assignments and open shots.

Honestly when I look at the second half of Malone's career I find it rather difficult not to think of Barry Bonds.I have absolutely nothing upon which to base any suspicions,but I can think of no other players who continued to improve their production into their mid thirties.It seems quite difficult to understand how Malone's best two seasons could come at the age of 33 and 34.Now most people think of steroids as only making you bigger and that this might not be the best thing for a basketball player.However they also allow you to train more often than you otherwise could and recover from many nagging type injuries better(for which they are often legally prescribed).I really have difficulty not being suspicious when I think about it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> As far as your analysis, I don't think there was any advantage for passing. They both averaged about 4 assists per 40 minutes, and Malone had better teammates for collecting assists. Ginobili and Parker are off the dribble guys, and Stockton and Hornacek were great at catch and shoot.


Duncan has had plenty of catch-and-shoot guys like Bowen, Horry, Ferry, etc. And slashers provide assists as well, taking passes from the post on their way to the hoop.

The teammates edge clearly goes to Duncan, which has helped him generate assists considerably more than Malone. Further, Malone didn't get to handle the ball to start the offense nearly as much as Duncan because the Jazz had a Hall of Fame pass-first point guard. The Spurs don't, so they just dump the ball into Duncan and start things there. If the Spurs had a prime Stockton, they wouldn't do that, as a point guard is a better triggerman.



> Malone was clearly the better scorer, but I think that gap is noticably smaller than the gap between them defensively. The scoring advantage is tainted by the fact that defenses can just sit in the lap of post players nowadays, while back then, a simple pass fake threw any defense back into their strict man-to-man.


That also "taints" the defensive advantage for Duncan. You can't both argue that scoring is harder now due to relaxed defensive rules and that playing defense is unchanged. That's disingenuous. Duncan's defensive presence has been increased by changes to defensive rules allowing zone defense. If Malone were able to simply play zone, he'd have been a greater defensive presence.



> That's also why I didn't even tackle the assist numbers because I feel Duncan makes things easier for his teammates far more than Malone ever did.


Sure, the numbers are hard to guage. But most consider Malone one of the better passing big men ever, while Duncan has never been anything more than ordinary as a passer. Duncan being able to make things easier for teammates is simply a result of the rules.

In the end, both players benefited from different rules and were hindered by different rules which speak directly to their strengths and "weaknesses" (neither player was really weak at any facet of the game).

These are two nearly dead even players. I think Malone was slightly better at his peak, though that's arguable, and, of course, his career value is one of the greatest ever. If Duncan has an incredibly long and productive career, he could match Malone.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hard to pick this one apart.

Malone was a better scorer who for the most part was more efficient as well. Both players were pretty sketchy from the FT line.

Malone looks like he has a small significant edge in passing as well. As he average well over 4 and 5 assists per 40 minutes compared to Duncan who hasn't cracked 4.

Duncan I would say has (for a big man) a small but significant edge on the boards: his best rebound rate is consistently above Malone's best season.

Defense in terms of stats: Malone is ahead on steals but Duncan is WAY ahead in terms of block.

Defense in terms of impact, pretty clearly Duncan.

Pretty equal

I'd go with Duncan who for being a "PF" is really a center in every respect. If you're going to pick btw 2 pretty equal players I'd rather go with the guy who can defend various positions and (although Malone was a better scorer) the one who is more difficult for shorter defenders to matchup


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Diable said:


> Honestly when I look at the second half of Malone's career I find it rather difficult not to think of Barry Bonds.I have absolutely nothing upon which to base any suspicions,but I can think of no other players who continued to improve their production into their mid thirties.It seems quite difficult to understand how Malone's best two seasons could come at the age of 33 and 34.Now most people think of steroids as only making you bigger and that this might not be the best thing for a basketball player.However they also allow you to train more often than you otherwise could and recover from many nagging type injuries better(for which they are often legally prescribed).I really have difficulty not being suspicious when I think about it.


Unlike Bonds however, Malone was always big even going back to college. Compare that from Bonds who was not only a stringbean during his rookie year but pretty much his entire early career only to mushroom radically before his HR surge


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Duncan has had plenty of catch-and-shoot guys like Bowen, Horry, Ferry, etc. And slashers provide assists as well, taking passes from the post on their way to the hoop.
> 
> The teammates edge clearly goes to Duncan, which has helped him generate assists considerably more than Malone. Further, Malone didn't get to handle the ball to start the offense nearly as much as Duncan because the Jazz had a Hall of Fame pass-first point guard. The Spurs don't, so they just dump the ball into Duncan and start things there. If the Spurs had a prime Stockton, they wouldn't do that, as a point guard is a better triggerman.
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Further, Malone didn't get to handle the ball to start the offense nearly as much as Duncan because the Jazz had a Hall of Fame pass-first point guard.


That also works against Malone, that he had a Steve Nash type point guard spoonfeeding him easy buckets that he would otherwise have had to work a lot harder for. 



Minstrel said:


> That also "taints" the defensive advantage for Duncan. You can't both argue that scoring is harder now due to relaxed defensive rules and that playing defense is unchanged. That's disingenuous.


It doesn't taint Duncan's defensive advantage, because defense is much more subjective than offense. There aren't any stats to back up Duncan's clear defensive advantage, but most people agree that it's there, and that has little to do with the rules. It has to do with ability. Duncan is longer, taller, as athletic with much better discipline, timing and anticipation. Most people pointing out Malone's scoring advantage would point to statistics first and foremost, which like I said, aren't fair to compare over significant rule changes. 



Minstrel said:


> Duncan's defensive presence has been increased by changes to defensive rules allowing zone defense. If Malone were able to simply play zone, he'd have been a greater defensive presence.


I don't see how Malone would have been a great defensive presence if he were allowed to play the loose zones that are allowed today, because he was only 6'9, a good 3 inches shorter than Duncan, didn't have near the same length, wasn't a great leaper, and never was even an average shotblocker for his position. He went for strips down low more often than blocks up top. He played in the same era with players such as Hakeem and Robinson, who are both comparable to Duncan defensively in terms of presence and ability, and both had no problems being dominant defenders.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> Honestly when I look at the second half of Malone's career I find it rather difficult not to think of Barry Bonds.I have absolutely nothing upon which to base any suspicions,but I can think of no other players who continued to improve their production into their mid thirties.It seems quite difficult to understand how Malone's best two seasons could come at the age of 33 and 34.Now most people think of steroids as only making you bigger and that this might not be the best thing for a basketball player.However they also allow you to train more often than you otherwise could and recover from many nagging type injuries better(for which they are often legally prescribed).I really have difficulty not being suspicious when I think about it.


There's one big difference. Malone values his body. Like I said, the guy is a machine. There are only a few that could ever match Malone's work ethic, if any. He was just a physical monster, that's all there is to it. What sucks is that because of baseball, all athletes are under the microscope and that isn't really fair. Besides, if you want to look at Malone, then you also have to look at players like Jordan and Robinson.

I know that's the natural conclusion some people would come to, but after being a fan of the guy his whole career, and listening to him on every interview, I am absolutely positive that Malone wasn't the type to cheat to get ahead. Malone didn't believe in drugs and his body was his temple. But one thing was always certain, he was going to outwork you....on the court or in the off-season. It didn't matter to him.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That also works against Malone, that he had a Steve Nash type point guard spoonfeeding him easy buckets that he would otherwise have had to work a lot harder for.


Sure, both players have things you can "dock" them for by conventional basketball wisdom. Duncan's job was made easier by having an overall better team around him to pull defensive attention away from him. When players swarmed Duncan, Ginobili and Parker (and Elliott, Anderson and Robinson before him) rip defenses apart. Defenses, therefore, can't swarm Duncan much.

Malone, however, didn't have as many good teammates drawing defenses away. You could still double- and triple-team players in the '90s, it just had to be a hard double on the ball. Malone faced those all the time.



> It doesn't taint Duncan's defensive advantage, because defense is much more subjective than offense. There aren't any stats to back up Duncan's clear defensive advantage, but most people agree that it's there, and that has little to do with the rules.


That's not true at all. Duncan is given more lattitude to roam and hang in the middle of the zone, allowing him to make more plays. Observationally, that makes him look much better defensively than if he had to follow his opponent out to the foul line extended, leaving the middle undefended. In such a case, he'd make many fewer plays, be less effective and _look_ much less effective.

Because, in the end, Duncan's defensive edge is in team defense. In man defense, Malone was also very good and Duncan is only insignificantly better, if at all. It's Duncan's help defense that puts him clearly ahead of Malone on defense and a lot of that help defense wouldn't have been allowed in previous eras.



> I don't see how Malone would have been a great defensive presence if he were allowed to play the loose zones that are allowed today, because he was only 6'9, a good 3 inches shorter than Duncan, didn't have near the same length, wasn't a great leaper, and never was even an average shotblocker for his position. He went for strips down low more often than blocks up top.


The numbers on his size and leap belie his intimidation. He was a massive and yet athletic player with good defensive instincts. When he did get in front of a slasher, he changed shots frequently because he was a powerful presence. Shot-blocking may not have been his game, but that's because he played in an era where big men were less able to lurk in the middle and had to play more man defense. In the deliberate post game, his size made shot-blocking on other big men tough, so he used his quickness to get steals. Had he been able to sit in the middle, he would have made slashers think twice about going to the hoop, the way Shaq has even since he got lazy and uncaring about defense.



> He played in the same era with players such as Hakeem and Robinson, who are both comparable to Duncan defensively in terms of presence and ability, and both had no problems being dominant defenders.


Olajuwon and Robinson were both quite a bit better than Duncan defensively, arguably two of the three or four best defenders ever. So, yes, they'd look great in _any_ defensive era. Duncan only looks somewhat comparable to them due to favourable rules. In non-zone eras, he wouldn't even be close to Olajuwon and Robinson, defensively.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm not really buying the fact that Duncan has a better all around team around him without considering that all of those teams were built around Timmy.You can sit there and claim that they were better,but nearly every guy he's played around except the Admiral was a role player.Tony Parker is developing into a star,but much of the reason is that he's a great penetrator and people are afraid to leave Duncan when he beats his man.Ginobili is a good player,but he's not nearly so good as some people try to make him out to be.He benefits tremendously from playing with Timmy.

Duncan has played with better teams,but none of the individuals on those teams were never much better than Stockton and most of them were not better than Hornacek or Jeff Malone.It would be pretty easy to argue that those teams were better because Duncan is one of the best players ever to build a successful team around.It doesn't take a genius to see what must be done,all you have to do is execute the obvious.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> Duncan has played with better teams,but none of the individuals on those teams were never much better than Stockton and most of them were not better than Hornacek or Jeff Malone.


Ok, first of all, no one on any of Duncan's teams was EVER better than Stockton except Duncan and Robinson, if even them. Now that that is outta the way.... 

Horny was a great shooter. One of the best. But he was never, or could he ever be as good as Ginobili as an all around player. I don't know where you're getting your info on Jeff Malone, but it's wrong.

And Tony Parker is as good a point guard as you will find. Not Stockton level, but certainly All-star caliber. And at the moment, at least a top 3 point guard in the league. Add that with the other "better" role players and you have a team that Malone would have drooled over. Hell, I drool over it.

Take it from a Jazz fan.....the Spurs of today are a much better team than anything Malone ever had. The Jazz won with execution and precision, a Jerry Sloan trait. And when that was lacking some nights.....God it was awful to watch!


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Duncan doesn't have a clear advantage in rebounding. He has a small edge in rebounding, Malone had a small edge in passing. Malone was definitely the better scorer (scoring significantly more and at higher efficiency during his prime) while Duncan was definitely the better defender.
> 
> It's not at all as one-sided as you present.


Duncan has +2.2 on Malone in their respective RbRs.

Glad some others took over Duncan's argument for me.

Thufir, in Utah Jeff Malone was a good player. 20ppg as the 3rd most important player on the team is impressive.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> Thufir, in Utah Jeff Malone was a good player. 20ppg as the 3rd most important player on the team is impressive.


Yes, but Horny was better. and I've already explained that Horny was good, but nothing like what the Spurs have. And Sloan's teams of past are riddled with guys that play great here because of the system, but really wouldn't be that good with other teams. I mean, Horny was traded straight across for Jeff Malone....who got the better end of that deal? but again, was it all Horny, or did Sloan's system get him his shots?

The Jazz were not talented except for Stock and Malone. Every other player except for Horny was a bench warmer for any other team. They weren't built for the playoffs as they had no depth. But Malone, Stock, and Horny were good enough to win thier fair share of regular season games. And because of thier will to win, Malone and Stock carried those scrubs to some lofty hieghts. Some of those Spurs teams were dominant. The Jazz could never be called dominant in any era.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> Duncan has +2.2 on Malone in their respective RbRs.


Malone, having finished his career, has already gone through his decline phase. Duncan hasn't yet. Thus, it's not reasonable to compare their career rates.

At their primes, it was closer to a +1 in RbR, which is very close.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Malone, having finished his career, has already gone through his decline phase. Duncan hasn't yet. Thus, it's not reasonable to compare their career rates.
> 
> At their primes, it was closer to a +1 in RbR, which is very close.


That makes more sense. Duncan should go through a decline (especially with his injuries). Malone didn't have too great of a decline though RbR-wise, I supposed from '01-'03 he went through his "decline."


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

MLKG said:


> How does Michael Jordan and the Bulls owning the east rectify the fact that Malone still only lead the Jazz to the NBA Finals 2 times in 18 years (and taking him 12 years to get the first one)? Where were the Jazz when the Rockets took over for two years? Where were they the year after Jordan retried?
> 
> Michael Jordan is just an excuse. The story has already been written so it's easy to say the Bulls were unbeatable now, it was far from the case then (particularly during the first three-peat). The reason Karl Malone doesn't have any championships is because his team didn't get it done and Jordan's did. Not simply because Jordan existed.
> 
> Duncan has lead his team to 3 championships in only 9 years. Forget Jordan, at that point in Malone's career he couldn't overcome Hakeem, Payton, or Drexler.


I dont think it was Malones job to overcome Hakeem, being as Mark Eaton would have played on Hakeem during the glory years. Payton? Well, I think Stockton and/or Hornacek would have filled that role and Drexler.....Stockton/Hornacek/Russell. Name one PF from Malones era who matches him? I cant. Shawn Kemp? Nope....Larry Johnson, no way. Kevin McHale....close but no cigar. Charles Barkley? Yeah I guess, but not as superior and not as much longevity. 
I went Malone, only because so far Duncan still has a bit to prove. Dont get me wrong, its a damn hard choice, but ask the same question in 5 years and it may be a different story.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't too useful. I remember how Duncan and his Spurs were beaten twice by the Lakers in playoff series (the second time it was a total crushing, as the Spurs lost two or three games by nearly 30 points), and Duncan quite obviously was ineffective in the second halves of games. At that point in time, he was being called a choker and too docile in the clutch (much as Garnett is). Two titles later, he's suddenly a great playoff clutch performer. Coincidentally, the difference between those two "eras" in Duncan basketball is the addition of Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker as effective quasi-stars.
> 
> There's a lot to be said for quality of teammates and how that helps you function. It can be the difference between looking like a deer caught in the headlights (as Duncan did against LA in 2000-01 and 2001-02) and looking like a champion.


see...thats where u meesed up. for one, tony and manu were there for the losses. and they were absent for the win in 99. so that point is moot (though i would admit they...at least manu was important in the 2005 one). and the second point is that its not as if they were stars to begin with...manu was chosed 57, and tony at the end of the first round. nobody wanted them. they were nobodies in the eyes of most NBA teams. who is to say duncan wasnt the one that made them effective? i love when its an arguement about duncan...ppl are quick to say "he has good teammates"...but when it is an arguement about his teammates, they say "oh, they play with tim duncan...he makes them able to do what they do" its not as if they traded for an already established NBA star. duncan made them become stars...something malone couldn't do in 19 years. duncan won it with 3 different starting lineups. only player to do that in damn near 15 years


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

Thufir said:


> Ok, first of all, no one on any of Duncan's teams was EVER better than Stockton except Duncan and Robinson, if even them. Now that that is outta the way....
> 
> Horny was a great shooter. One of the best. But he was never, or could he ever be as good as Ginobili as an all around player. I don't know where you're getting your info on Jeff Malone, but it's wrong.
> 
> ...


 and guess why that is? hmmm...


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

Are you people telling me that Parker is only good because of Duncan? That guy would be great on any team. So he was overlooked, so what. Malone was drafted number 13. No one even knew who Stockton was when the Jazz called his name. Horny was second rounder. And I recall Manu beating a Duncan led team in the Olympics. Do you think Horny could have done that to a Malone led team?

Please! I can't believe some of you are debating that the Jazz had anywhere near the same talent as today's Spurs. Bowen can shut people down. Horry is just a clutch player, even though he's getting a little long in the tooth right now. And as I recall, having Robinson on your team would help anyone. The Jazz have never had favors from superstars that take smaller contracts. No one ever wanted to come to Utah to play. Utah was a struggling franchise through much of Malone's career. We are the smallest market in the NBA. That's a lot to overcome for any owner or player. Malone always wanted to play with a dominant center, but sadly when he got his chance he was older and injured.

Like I said earlier, I find it amazing that Malone even got to the finals with the teams he had. If anything, it's a testament to how good the guy really was. Same could be said for Stockton. I mean, you could throw almost anyone out there with those two and they would win games that they weren't supposed to. They may not win all the time in the playoffs, but they would be tough. If those two had Manu and Robinson....and Parker to play backup to Stock :biggrin: there would be no question that they would have Titles.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

so the spurs is not a small franchize? and free agents aren't exactly running to the spurs u know. we have never had a superstar free agent...EVER. all our stars come drafted. and manu didnt beat a US team BEFORE he was a spur. he did it AFTER he had several years under timmy. and tony would have been just as good on any other team? while i agree, i dont think he would have had the opportunity that duncan game him to become as good as he is this quickly. ppl tend to overlook the fact that DUNCAN MAKES PPL BETTER!!!!!!! TONY WASNT A STAR BEFORE THE SPURS, MANU WASNT A STAR BEFORE THE SPURS, BOWEN WASNT 1st TEAM DEFENSE BEFORE THE SPURS, ROBINSON WAS OLD FOR BOTH CHAMPIONSHIPS. HORRY WAS CONSIDERED WASHED UP BY THE LAKERS. STEVEN JACKSON WASN'T EVEN IN THE NBA. i said it before and i will say it again...TIM DUNCAN'S GREATNESS AND ABILITY TO MAKE PPL BETTER IS WHAT ALLOWED MOST OF THEM TO BECOME GOOD-STAR PLAYERS. MALONE NEVER DID THAT. im tired of the "duncan has great players and we never had none" arguement. if malone was to great, he would make them better


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> if malone was to great, he would make them better


Ummmm, he did. He and Stock took a bunch of scrubs to the finals.....twice.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

A good thread, hijacked.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

duncan2k5 said:


> see...thats where u meesed up. for one, tony and manu were there for the losses. and they were absent for the win in 99.


I know they were there, but they weren't as good. Ginobili and Parker, early on, were more like role-players. It took them two or three years to become good to very good players on their own. Bowen had also not yet emerged.

In 1999, Duncan had Robinson and Elliott, who were quite good. The years they got beaten by the Lakers twice (and the Suns, once, but Duncan was hurt for that, so no point talking about it) were their transition years: still good, but not great outside of Duncan.



> i love when its an arguement about duncan...ppl are quick to say "he has good teammates"...but when it is an arguement about his teammates, they say "oh, they play with tim duncan...he makes them able to do what they do" its not as if they traded for an already established NBA star.


I don't argue that Parker and Ginobili are only good because they play with Duncan. It's pretty obvious that they're dynamic players on their own. I don't think Duncan made them stars...they were talented players who the Spurs were smart enough to snag when other teams overlooked them.

I don't think Malone failed to help anyone reach potential. I think Hornacek, Russell, J. Malone, et al, reached their potential. They were just not star-level or near star-level players.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

duncan2k5 said:


> so the spurs is not a small franchize? and free agents aren't exactly running to the spurs u know. we have never had a superstar free agent...EVER. all our stars come drafted. and manu didnt beat a US team BEFORE he was a spur. he did it AFTER he had several years under timmy. and tony would have been just as good on any other team? while i agree, i dont think he would have had the opportunity that duncan game him to become as good as he is this quickly. ppl tend to overlook the fact that DUNCAN MAKES PPL BETTER!!!!!!! TONY WASNT A STAR BEFORE THE SPURS, MANU WASNT A STAR BEFORE THE SPURS, BOWEN WASNT 1st TEAM DEFENSE BEFORE THE SPURS, ROBINSON WAS OLD FOR BOTH CHAMPIONSHIPS. HORRY WAS CONSIDERED WASHED UP BY THE LAKERS. STEVEN JACKSON WASN'T EVEN IN THE NBA. i said it before and i will say it again...TIM DUNCAN'S GREATNESS AND ABILITY TO MAKE PPL BETTER IS WHAT ALLOWED MOST OF THEM TO BECOME GOOD-STAR PLAYERS. MALONE NEVER DID THAT. im tired of the "duncan has great players and we never had none" arguement. if malone was to great, he would make them better



tony and manu weren't stars before they were on the spurs, because the spurs were the only nba team they ever played on.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

yes, but many star players WERE stars before they got drafted, thus were drafted high. you dont see too many stars being drafted at the 57th pick. get real, duncan made them stars. malone isnt on his level. stockton made malone better because he was a hall of famer. duncan has had an old robinson, and several second round draft picks, and won 3 championships...malone isnt in his class. compare duncan to shaq, not malone


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> malone isnt in his class.


You obviously don't know what you're talking about, or you're just biased enough to believe that. Timmy himself would slap your face for that comment.

If anything, they're on an equal level. And that's coming from a Jazz fan. And seeing that Tim is a center, you really shouldn't compare them anyway. If it were Shaq or Malone for instance, I'd take Shaq every time.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

duncan2k5 said:


> yes, but many star players WERE stars before they got drafted, thus were drafted high. you dont see too many stars being drafted at the 57th pick. get real, duncan made them stars. malone isnt on his level. stockton made malone better because he was a hall of famer. duncan has had an old robinson, and several second round draft picks, and won 3 championships...malone isnt in his class. compare duncan to shaq, not malone



jeez. you are too far gone for anyone to help you. good luck.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

duncan2k5 said:


> yes, but many star players WERE stars before they got drafted, thus were drafted high. you dont see too many stars being drafted at the 57th pick. get real, duncan made them stars. malone isnt on his level. stockton made malone better because he was a hall of famer. duncan has had an old robinson, and several second round draft picks, and won 3 championships...malone isnt in his class. compare duncan to shaq, not malone


You sure do have a way with words.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

this poll is going to finish out tied?


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

duncan2k5 said:


> malone isnt on his level. stockton made malone better because he was a hall of famer.


How the hell did Stockton make him better by being a HOFer? He wasnt a HOFer when he played with him. Is he even one now? I dont think he is actually. You talk like Malone was nothing.....he was an absolute SUPERSTAR. He could dunk on anyone, drop a 15 footer, run the transition beautifully, post up, rebound like a monster, he was quick for a big man, strong as an ox and.....I have to say it......had hard elbows! :biggrin:


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

Thufir said:


> You obviously don't know what you're talking about, or you're just biased enough to believe that. Timmy himself would slap your face for that comment.
> 
> If anything, they're on an equal level. And that's coming from a Jazz fan. And seeing that Tim is a center, you really shouldn't compare them anyway. If it were Shaq or Malone for instance, I'd take Shaq every time.


Duncan is a PF most of the time.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> My point was down the stretch. Malone has performed tremendously well, statistically, as well. But all people point to about the playoffs is him missing two free throws at the end of one playoff game or being stripped by Jordan in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals.
> 
> What I said about anecdotes not proving anything applies to my comments about Duncan looking like a deer caught in the headlights too. I was simply showing that anecdotes can illustrate what you want. Duncan has overall been a great playoff performer, but you can point to times when he was ineffective/unimpressive. Just as you can point to times when Malone was ineffective/unimpressive despite him being a great playoff performer, too.


I am just saying that statistically Duncan has had 2-3 playoffs that were superior to Malone's, and they came at a time where Drob was in the twighlight of his career and Parker/Ginobili didn't reach their relative peaks. Of course Timmy and Karl played different teams in different eras, but I just wanted to point out that Duncan exceeded his regular season output in 01, 02, and 03 playoff time-- even when he didn't have much offensive support at all. Karl Malone always at least had John Stockton to help him offensively, you can't really say the same for Duncan in 2002 and 2003. But yet Duncan still put up great numbers in the playoffs that not only exeeded his regular season contributions, but were higher than Malone's. 

There is a database on APBR that shows how much a player improves in the playoffs relative to his regular season efforts. Of course players don't always play the same teams, and much of it might be more luck than anything -- but it still is interesting that Duncan played better when his teamattes were weaker on offense. Could be a coincidence or maybe it shows that Duncan can carry a team with mediocre offensive support (ala Hakeem in 1994). Duncan deserves some sort of credit for anchoring some great defensive teams and stepping up statistically in 2-3 playoffs a to a high degree despite minimal/erratic offensive help/support.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> How the hell did Stockton make him better by being a HOFer? He wasnt a HOFer when he played with him. Is he even one now? I dont think he is actually.


WTF?!!! Are you for real? Stockton not a HOF player? OMG....



> Duncan is a PF most of the time.


You say tomato, I say tamato. You can call Shaq a PF as well, doesn't make him one though.

And Malone averaged more points per game thoughout his playoff career than Duncan has to this point.


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

Thufir said:


> WTF?!!! Are you for real? Stockton not a HOF player? OMG....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stockton is a HOF calibre player, no doubt about that....but is he actually in the HOF yet? If I remember correctly, when the Spurs won their last championship, Duncan played PF and Nazr played C. Im not saying Duncan cant play C, but with the team built around him, he's a PF. Without Nazr, Duncan will probably spend alot more time in the middle than he used to though.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think Duncan would have played his career at center had he landed on virtually any other team. With an entrenched Robinson, he had to play power forward by default.

I guess he got comfortable there.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> Stockton is a HOF calibre player, no doubt about that....but is he actually in the HOF yet?


Oh, I get what you were saying.....Sorry for the knee jerk response.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

magohaydz said:


> Stockton is a HOF calibre player, no doubt about that....but is he actually in the HOF yet? If I remember correctly, when the Spurs won their last championship, Duncan played PF and Nazr played C. Im not saying Duncan cant play C, but with the team built around him, he's a PF. Without Nazr, Duncan will probably spend alot more time in the middle than he used to though.


Except then they signed Butler and Elson...


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

magohaydz said:


> *Stockton is a HOF calibre player, no doubt about that....but is he actually in the HOF yet? * If I remember correctly, when the Spurs won their last championship, Duncan played PF and Nazr played C. Im not saying Duncan cant play C, but with the team built around him, he's a PF. Without Nazr, Duncan will probably spend alot more time in the middle than he used to though.


wow...thats has nothing to do with the arguement. not to mention that yes...he is a hal of famer. just like when gary and karl was with the lakers...ppl said they had 4 hall of fame players. same thing with stock. duncan never had a prime hall of famer...and a pg to boot. i think its safe to say without stock, malone would not be as good as he is. duncan scores most of his points off isolations. malone received more assistance scoring than timmy ever did...and that was from his pg. and the fact that timmy has raised his game to an unbelievable level when it matters most gives him more of an edge. i remember the closeout game in the 03 finals he almost became the only player to get a quadrouple double. dude had 20+ points, 20+ rebounds, the record for blocked shots (8), and i think 10 assists. dont **** with that. thats greatness right there.

malone never had the capability of placing his foot on the opponent's neck...well...he kinda did, but not in the way i mean. he couldnt close out games because he is not as good 1-on-1 as tim duncan is. and you need to be able to score like that when the game is on the line. think of all the moments where a gamewinning, or crucial shot was made. it was off 1-on-1 play. not pick and rolls (not to say malone exclusively did the pick and roll, but a lot of his scoring was from stock...just as amare's was from nash in 05). thats why duncan NUMEROUS times has been able to carry his team (3 different teams) on his back on the way to the chip. he would have done it again this year if manu didnt foul dirk. i think ppl give the past greats too much credit...but trust me, when timmy's career is over...many of you will be like "WTF was i thinking!?!?"


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

and what about duncan makes him a center? his size? then that means Penny wasn't a pg...he was a sg/sf. and neither Magic. is it his skills? then lebron, wade, Divac are pgs. is its skills then that means most star pfs should be centers...but then what does that make the star centers (since they dont produce as much as the pfs)? if the man never played center for a season...then he is a pf.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

someone plz vote duncan to even this up or i will go crazy with anger at this BLASPHEMY!!!!


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i'm sure that there would be a lot more votes cast for both sides, if the thread wasn't moved, but it was.

i have no idea why it was moved in to the "NBA History (ABA, too)" forum, as it is getting no traffic.

maybe if it was in the general forum, a lot more people would actually see it.

honestly, how often does anyone come into the "NBA History (ABA, too)" forum?


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Wow, Dunkan2k5, your posts are not only absurd, they are completely invalid. You're making points that are very obviously incorrect if you knew both teams and both players. You are way beyond saving yourself at this point.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Wow, Dunkan2k5, your posts are not only absurd, they are completely invalid. You're making points that are very obviously incorrect if you knew both teams and both players. You are way beyond saving yourself at this point.


 Repped


----------



## ThaRegul8r (Jun 8, 2004)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> If Jordan had never played, Karl would have won two titles IMO, so the titles argument isn't totally valid in this debate





StackAttack said:


> Timmy wouldn't have a ship if he had to play against MJ's Bulls either.





beamer05 said:


> I think the argument about mj dominating is valid for karl never winning a title. A few great players would argue that mj and his bulls had something to do with them not winning a title- malone,stockton, payton,barkley just to name a few.


You know, I'm sick of people excusing Malone by saying, "Well, the reason he has no rings is because he ran into MJ." I’ve seen this over and over on so many places, and I’ve had to address this before. Karl Malone doesn't have any rings because he *choked* when it mattered most. Everyone just writes him off as simply being unfortunate enough to play at the same time as the Bulls without even looking into what happened. But let’s actually look deeper:


In Game 1 of the 1997 NBA Finals against the Chicago Bulls, Malone, the regular season MVP, was fouled with 9.2 seconds left with the game tied at 82-82 and went to the line with a chance to put the Jazz ahead. He missed both free throws. (Scottie Pippen told Malone that “The Mailman doesn’t deliver on Sundays.”) Jordan, who finished second to Malone in the MVP voting, proceeded to hit a 21-footer at the buzzer for the 84-82 win. 


If Malone had made his free throws, Jordan's shot would have merely sent the game into overtime. It’s to Jordan’s credit that he made the shot, but it was Malone’s fault that Jordan had the opportunity to win the game in the first place.


In Game 2, Malone had 20 points on _6-of-20 shooting_ (*30 percent*), and the Bulls won 97-85.


Having your star player shoot only 30 percent doesn’t go a long way toward winning. It doesn’t matter _who_ you’re facing.


In Game 5, which Utah lost *90-88*, Malone had 19 points on _7-of-17 shooting_ (*41.2 percent*) and seven rebounds.


Two point loss, and the Mailman didn’t deliver. Oh, what could’ve been if he had…


In Game 6, Malone had only 21 points and seven rebounds, and shot _7 of 15_ from the free throw line (*46.7 percent*) and the Bulls won 90-86 to finish the Jazz.

For the series, Malone shot only *44.3 percent from the field*, *60.3 percent from the free throw line* and averaged *23.8 points per game*, far from his regular-season numbers of *27.4 points per game* on *55.0 percent shooting from the floor* and *75.5 percent from the line*. The Jazz didn't lose “because they faced Jordan," they lost because the supposed "MVP" *disappeared*. *FACT:* In Utah’s 4 losses in the ’97 Finals, Malone’s numbers were *20.8 points* on *40.5 percent shooting*, and *54.8 percent from the line*. In their two wins, Malone's numbers were *30 points* on *50 percent shooting* and *75 percent from the line*. Hmmm... 20.8 ppg on 40.5% from the floor and 54.8% from the line and the Jazz _lose_, 30 ppg on 50% from the floor and 75% from the line and the Jazz _win_. Not too hard to see the reason why the Jazz didn't win the title, is it? It wasn’t because “they faced Jordan,” but because the “MVP” didn’t play like one. 



Thufir said:


> those Jazz teams, because of Malone, were always in it. No one, I repeat no one, could stop Malone. If you wanted to beat the Jazz, you had to stop everyone else.


Look at those games Utah lost. If the Mailman *delivered*, those games would be completely different, and who knows what would’ve happened if Malone had played the way that earned him the MVP. He should've given the trophy back after that, or given it to Jordan, who should’ve won it anyway. 

With Malone playing like that, it didn’t matter WHO the Jazz faced, they weren’t going to win a championship. Let me say that again. With Malone playing like that, it didn’t matter WHO the Jazz faced, they weren’t going to win a championship


In Game 1 of the ’98 Finals against the Bulls, Malone had 21 points on _9-of-25 shooting_ (*36 percent*), though Utah won 88-85 in overtime despite him, thanks to *Stockton*, who had 24 points on 9-of-12 shooting, including 7 of Utah’s 9 points in overtime, the points that put them up for good, 84-82, and a runner with 9 seconds left and two free throws with 3 seconds left to ice it.


Malone went back to his choking ways in Game 1 of the Finals, but fortunately for the Jazz, John Stockton pulled his fat out of the fire.


In Game 2, Malone had _16 points on 5-of-16 shooting_ (*31.3 percent*), and Chicago won 93-88.


How on earth can Utah expect to have a chance with their star player playing like this? Utah didn’t win because they faced Jordan? They wouldn’t have won regardless *who* they faced with Malone playing like this. Jordan’s got nothing to do with this.


In Game 6, Malone had the ball with Utah leading 86-85 with 22.5 seconds left and turned the ball over, getting stripped by Jordan who hit the game-winning jumper over Byron Russell.

Now, everyone wants to negate the fact that Duncan has three rings to Malone’s 0 by saying that Malone had to play the Bulls, but the fact of the matter is that every time Malone got to the Finals, he would either disappear, make a crucial miss, or make a crucial turnover. That had nothing to do with “stiff competition.” And even _in_ those games, it’s not like the Bulls blew Utah away. Take a look. They won that Game 2 of the ’97 Finals by 12, but all those other games were close. Duncan put up 28/11.8/4.8 on 52.9 shooting on the three-time defending champion LA Lakers, and dropped 37 and 16 on them in the deciding game IN LA. While guarded by SHAQ. When’d Malone ever do anything like that? NEVER. You think Utah couldn’t have benefited from that kind of performance? Charles Barkley was more clutch than Malone ever was. He put up 27.3/13/5.7 against the Bulls in ’93, and was the second-best player on the court the whole series. Barkley’s choking wasn’t the reason the Suns didn’t lose. Switch Charles of ’93 with Malone and it’s a different series. Whoever says Malone wasn’t a choker is a Malone apologist. 




MLKG said:


> Michael Jordan is just an excuse. The story has already been written so it's easy to say the Bulls were unbeatable now, it was far from the case then (particularly during the first three-peat). The reason Karl Malone doesn't have any championships is because his team didn't get it done and Jordan's did. Not simply because Jordan existed.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Thufir said:


> You can say Malone choked, but that's just your misguided opinion that you've been brainwashed with.


Well I’ve come with the FACTS to prove it. The proof is above. There’s a clear pattern of choking when the stakes are highest. Who’s greater between Duncan and Malone? I’ll take Duncan every day of the week without hesitation.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

magohaydz said:


> Stockton is a HOF calibre player, no doubt about that....but is he actually in the HOF yet?


In that case, Jordan isn't a hall of famer either......other than the fact that they are probably going to build the guy his own wing in Springfield.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

And to the point of Malone's supporting cast, it was awful in the Finals' years. Other than Stockton, a sure fire first ballot hall of famer, and Jeff Hornacek, a great shooter but who was a complete defensive liability those years, this is what the Jazz roster looked like:

Bryon Russell
Greg Ostertag
Howard Eisley
Shandon Anderson
Adam Keefe
Greg Foster
Antoine Carr
Chris Morris

and how can I forget Jacque Vaughn. What a collection of talent right there!


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> Look at those games Utah lost. If the Mailman delivered, those games would be completely different, and who knows what would’ve happened if Malone had played the way that earned him the MVP. He should've given the trophy back after that, or given it to Jordan, who should’ve won it anyway.


So I guess every team he beat to get to the finals means nothing? Malone beat Barkley's team. Malone beat a lot of good teams. But the Bulls were a different story. Defensively, they were a total nightmare for the Jazz, while the Bulls could just lock down on Malone and make the rest of the team beat them, and as you can see by the roster up above, that wasn't going to happen.

Who the hell did we have to take Pippen? who the hell did we have to take Jordan? I'm amazed we even won two games to tell you the truth. Brian Williams was a monster, all they had to do was double Malone every time.....that left Oasterfat to beat the Bulls....yeah, good luck with that.

Stockton was a great player, but he wasn't going to beat you with jumpshots. Horny couldn't outrun the guys in the croud, much less anyone on the Bulls. The Jazz got the most out of those teams, and won a few to boot against one of the greatest teams in history. I call that pretty damn good. Malone got us there, but we really had no chance, Duncan on that team would have changed nothing in my mind. In fact, it might have been worse.


----------



## ThaRegul8r (Jun 8, 2004)

Thufir said:


> So I guess every team he beat to get to the finals means nothing?


It was *John Stockton*, not “MVP” Karl Malone, who gave the Jazz their first trip to the NBA Finals in the first place, scoring 15 of 25 points in the fourth quarter of Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals against the Houston Rockets, including the game-winning three-pointer that gave the Jazz a 103-100 win. When comparing Duncan and Malone, whenever someone brings up Duncan’s rings, the response is, “but Malone had to play MJ.” Malone *choked*, that’s why Utah lost. Look at what he did. How could Utah win with their star player disappearing? Barkley put up 27.3/13/5.7 against the Bulls in ’93 when _he_ was MVP. Why was Malone incapable of playing at that level when _he_ was the MVP? _Barkley_ put up *44 points* and *24 boards* in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals to lead Phoenix to the Finals during his MVP year, while it was *Stockton* who put Utah in the Finals during Malone’s MVP year. Address why Malone kept coming up short in the biggest of games.



Thufir said:


> The Jazz got the most out of those teams, and won a few to boot against one of the greatest teams in history. I call that pretty damn good. Malone got us there, but we really had no chance


And that’s the attitude of a loser (not a personal attack on you, I’m just saying). You think like that and you’ve lost before the series even starts. The Bulls weren’t invincible those last years, and could’ve been had. If Malone had played in the Finals the same way he played during the regular season that got him MVP, then the Jazz would’ve stood a chance: *30 ppg* on *50% shooting* from the floor and *75%* from the line and they win, *20.8 ppg* on *40.5% shooting* from the floor and *60.3%* from the line and they lose. _How does it get any more clear than that?_ How can you possibly argue with that?

EDIT: (Added to avoid double posting) Hmmm… let’s look at the other stars of the Bulls’ opponent during their championship run…

First Run:
Magic: 18.6 ppg, 8 rpg, 12.4 apg
Drexler: 24.8 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.33 spg, 1 bpg
Barkley: 27.3 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg

Second Run:
Shawn Kemp: 23.3 ppg (UP from his regular season average of 19.6), 10 rpg, 2 bpg *.551 FG%*, .857 FT%

That’s funny, none of them seemed to have the problem Malone did. In the ’96 Finals, Shawn Kemp faced the same Bulls team Malone did, but at the end, I remember there was some Shawn-Kemp-for-Finals-MVP talk even though he was on the losing team. So what’s the excuse there? How is it that against the defensive nightmare that was the Bulls, Kemp INCREASED his scoring from the regular season and shot *55 percent* against them and *85.7 percent* from the line (UP from 74.2% in the regular season), unlike “MVP” Malone, who DECREASED across the board? Explain Malone’s *54.8 percent shooting from the free throw line* in Utah’s losses. Missing the potential game-winning free throws? Shooting *7 of 15* from the line in that Game 6 that they lost by *four points*? Were the Bulls still “locking him down” on the free throw line too?

Excuses… that’s all anyone has to offer…


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

> The Bulls weren’t invincible those last years, and could’ve been had.


You see, that's where you're wrong. Barkley couldn't do it while averaging 27 points a game. And in 98 when the Jazz were down 3-1 in the series, Malone came back in game 5 and scored 39 to keep the Jazz alive. And in game 6, there are many peole here who think a foul should have been called. And Stockton took the last shot that didn't go in.

Barkley played with a better offensive point guard, and probably a better team in general. KJ was no slouch and would have demanded a stronger pull from the defense.

The Jazz just didn't match up well at all. Malone really didn't have anyone to pull away the defense. They also didn't have anyone who could break the defense down and they relied on thier half court game and execution because of that. KJ was great at breaking defenses


----------



## ThaRegul8r (Jun 8, 2004)

ThaRegul8r said:


> The Bulls weren’t invincible *those last years*, and could’ve been had.





Thufir said:


> You see, that's where you're wrong. Barkley couldn't do it while averaging 27 points a game.


Hmmm... I didn't know Barkley faced the Bulls during those last years. I always thought he faced Chicago during their first run, when Jordan and Pippen were both younger. My mistake... 

As I said in my initial post, Barkley’s choking wasn’t the reason Phoenix didn’t win. I compared them because (a) they play the same position, and (b) they both won league MVP during the regular season and then played Chicago in the Finals. Barkley played like an MVP during the Finals against Chicago, while Malone didn’t. That’s indisputable. As I also said, you take Barkley playing like he did then and plug him into the Jazz, and it’s a different series.

And as far as my being wrong about the Bulls not being invincible, Indiana took Chicago to 7 games in the Eastern Conference Finals in ’98, something that hadn’t been done during their whole championship run. They were vulnerable. They were beatable. And then Pippen was injured and played only 26 minutes in Game 6 of the Finals, and would’ve been questionable for Game 7. No, the Bulls weren’t invincible. Now, you're just buying into the whole "Jordan mystique"...



Thufir said:


> And in 98 when the Jazz were down 3-1 in the series, Malone came back in game 5 and scored 39 to keep the Jazz alive.


About time he had a big game. He had 37 points in Game 3 in ’97 as well. You’ve merely proved my point: Malone delivering = Jazz win, Malone _not_ delivering = Jazz lose. Thank you for agreeing with me…



Thufir said:


> And in game 6, there are many peole here who think a foul should have been called.


Perhaps (I think so as well), but it doesn’t change the fact that his turnover made Jordan’s game-winner possible, just like his missed free throws in Game 1 in ’97 _also_ made Jordan’s game-winner possible…



Thufir said:


> And Stockton took the last shot that didn't go in.


Ah… so it’s Stockton’s fault for not bailing Malone out as he did in Game 1... or for bringing victory like he did in the ’97 Western Conference Finals when he put them in the Finals for the first time... I see…

Malone was the star of the team and didn’t play like one. Barkley was the star of the team in ’93 and he _did_ play like one. Shawn Kemp was considered for *Finals MVP* the previous year despite the fact Seattle lost. Why did _they_ play big against Chicago, while Malone didn’t? You’re in denial that Malone didn’t do his part to help Utah win a championship…


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bulls>Jazz.....haha, they suck. Duncan is so humble so he has to be better. What is the NBA going to do when Thabo Sefolosha hits his prime? I'm told he'll be better than Jordan.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

ThaRegul8r said:


> Malone *choked*, that’s why Utah lost. Look at what he did. How could Utah win with their star player disappearing?


Malone averaged 24/10 in the '97 Finals, and 25/11 in '98. It's not surprising that his scoring decreased slightly when playing against one of the best defensive teams in the league and being guarded by one of the best defensive power forwards in the league. He did do well on the boards. Rodman only averaged approximately half the rebounds he did in the regular season. The Bulls were one of the top rebounding teams, but the Jazz managed to outrebound them in both Finals, mainly thanks to Malone.



> Barkley put up 27.3/13/5.7 against the Bulls in ’93 when _he_ was MVP. Why was Malone incapable of playing at that level when _he_ was the MVP? _Barkley_ put up *44 points* and *24 boards* in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals to lead Phoenix to the Finals during his MVP year, while it was *Stockton* who put Utah in the Finals during Malone’s MVP year. Address why Malone kept coming up short in the biggest of games.


The Suns were one of the all time great offensive teams. They had several scorers at various positions to draw defensive attention away from Barkley. As someone already mentioned, they had KJ, who was great at that. His game was basically penetrating and waiting for the defense to collapse. The Jazz, on the other hand, had just Malone, Stockton (a terrific passer, but not nearly the scorer KJ was) and Hornacek.

Also, while you harp on a few instances over Malone's 18-year career in which he "choked", realize that, like every other superstar, he's had plenty of great playoff performances, too. Like his 37/15 average over the last two games of the WC semis in '97 against a very good Lakers team, or his 32/14/5 to put them away again the next year. Or his 27/12/5 average against the '96 Sonics, who were an excellent defensive side (one that gave Olajuwon all sorts of trouble in the Conference Semis). Or his 30/13/4 average against the champion Rockets in '95. Or his 31/16 average against the Warriors in '89... 

And what about Jordan getting stripped by Nick Anderson in '95? No NBA player should make that sort of mistake at that stage in the playoffs, let alone the GOAT, right? Or what about when he averaged only 27 ppg on 41% from the field in the '96 Finals? The difference between Malone and he is that Malone wasn't fortunate enough to be on a team that was good enough to win despite any poor performances from him.



> The Bulls weren’t invincible those last years, and could’ve been had. If Malone had played in the Finals the same way he played during the regular season that got him MVP, then the Jazz would’ve stood a chance: *30 ppg* on *50% shooting* from the floor and *75%* from the line and they win, *20.8 ppg* on *40.5% shooting* from the floor and *60.3%* from the line and they lose. _How does it get any more clear than that?_ How can you possibly argue with that?


Malone averaged 27 ppg in the regular season. In the '97 Finals he averaged 24 ppg on 44%, and in '98, 25 ppg on 50%. You can't expect him to have raised his scoring when playing against one of the best teams of all time with a very good defensive power forward.



> First Run:
> Magic: 18.6 ppg, 8 rpg, 12.4 apg
> Drexler: 24.8 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.33 spg, 1 bpg
> Barkley: 27.3 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg


Magic put up those numbers in 46 mpg. In the regular season, he averaged only 37 mpg, yet put up 19.4/7/12.5. Extrapolated to 46 mpg, that's 24.1 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 15.4 apg. Also, he shot at 48% from the field in the regular season, but was only 43% in the Finals. Obviously, he's not going to be able to play at the same level when playing 9 extra mpg, but it's still clear that he performed significantly worse in the Finals. It's a well-known fact.

Same goes for Drexler. He was trashed by the media and fans for his performance in the Finals. He was 47% from the field in the regular season, but was only 41% in the Finals. His ppg did not increase, despite the fact that he played 4 more mpg.

Barkley was 52% from the field in the regular season, but shot at only 48% in the Finals.



> Second Run:
> Shawn Kemp: 23.3 ppg (UP from his regular season average of 19.6), 10 rpg, 2 bpg *.551 FG%*, .857 FT%
> 
> That’s funny, none of them seemed to have the problem Malone did. In the ’96 Finals, Shawn Kemp faced the same Bulls team Malone did, but at the end, I remember there was some Shawn-Kemp-for-Finals-MVP talk even though he was on the losing team. So what’s the excuse there? How is it that against the defensive nightmare that was the Bulls, Kemp INCREASED his scoring from the regular season and shot *55 percent* against them and *85.7 percent* from the line (UP from 74.2% in the regular season), unlike “MVP” Malone, who DECREASED across the board?


In the first two games of the '96 Finals, the Bulls did not double Kemp nearly as much as teams usually did. In the remaining four games, Kemp averaged 19.8 ppg in 40 mpg. In the regular season he averaged 23.6 pts per 40 mins. The Kemp-for-Finals-MVP talk came up because Jordan had performed poorly



> Explain Malone’s *54.8 percent shooting from the free throw line* in Utah’s losses. Missing the potential game-winning free throws? Shooting *7 of 15* from the line in that Game 6 that they lost by *four points*? Were the Bulls still “locking him down” on the free throw line too?


How does it matter what Malone's free throw shooting was like in Utah's losses exclusively? Obviously, he's going to hit more foul shots in some games than others. That's how it is. The figure that's relevant is his ft% for the series. 60% in '97 and 79% in '98. I seriously doubt he got so nervous in the '97 Finals that he couldn't make his free throws. This is a guy who had performed at a very high level on the world's biggest stage for over a decade. If nervousness had been such an issue for him, you'd think it would have manifested itself at some other points in his career. He had some series in which he shot very well from the foul line (e.g. '91, '92, '93, '98), and others in which he shot poorly (e.g. '86, '95, '97). Natural variation.



> Ah… so it’s Stockton’s fault for not bailing Malone out as he did in Game 1... or for bringing victory like he did in the ’97 Western Conference Finals when he put them in the Finals for the first time... I see…


So missing a shot is "not bailing Malone out" now? A missed shot is a missed shot. Also, it was Malone who set the perfect screen right at the end of the '97 WCF that allowed Stockton to take the open shot. Anyone can hit an open shot. But that screen was brutal (and definitely a foul that Malone knew wouldn't be called). If he had this tendency to choke in high-pressure situations, how did he manage that perfectly-timed, perfectly-judged screen in the dying seconds of one of the most important games of his career? Could it be that he wasn't a choker, and, like everyone else, performed well at times and not so well at other times?



> Malone was the star of the team and didn’t play like one. Barkley was the star of the team in ’93 and he _did_ play like one. Shawn Kemp was considered for *Finals MVP* the previous year despite the fact Seattle lost. Why did _they_ play big against Chicago, while Malone didn’t? You’re in denial that Malone didn’t do his part to help Utah win a championship…


As I said, Barkley was on a team loaded with scoring talent. You doubled and tripled Barkley and you found KJ knifing through to the hoop and Majerle, Ainge and Chambers knocking down threes and Ceballos and Dumas finishing with vicious dunks. Kemp... Kemp didn't face that swarming help defense of the Bulls, either, until Game 3. And it's not like Malone averaged 20.6 ppg on 42% from the field like Duncan in the '05 Finals. His combined average of 24.5 ppg on 47% is still very healthy. It's absurd to say that he didn't do his part to help Utah.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

> Explain Malone’s 54.8 percent shooting from the free throw line in Utah’s losses. Missing the potential game-winning free throws? Shooting 7 of 15 from the line in that Game 6 that they lost by four points? Were the Bulls still “locking him down” on the free throw line too?


So, all of a sudden Duncan is a good free throw shooter?

Jeez, if you're boiling down the argument to Malone having tough stretches for very few minutes in a couple of games, it's a testament to how close this is.

If either is better, it's by the most miniscule margin, it can't even be measured.

As far as teams played on and competition during the Finals, Malone has had a much tougher road than the Spurs, also accompanied with FAR inferior players. That, no matter what, cannot be argued as it is a fact.

Every other advantage/disadvantage from player to player offsets itself.

You also claim that Barkley, Kemp, Drexler, etc were sooooo great in the finals. Did they win? Hmmm...

Arguing championships as far as determining which is the better player is so stupid. Tracy McGrady is much better than Rip Hamilton. Who has the most rings? It doesn't matter.

Teams win championships, not players. It's pretty remarkable that the Jazz team from 97 and 98 actually MADE it to the finals with the awful set of supporting cast they had, AND challenged the Bulls the most any team had during the finals.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

ThaRegul8r said:


> You know, I'm sick of people excusing Malone by saying, "Well, the reason he has no rings is because he ran into MJ." I’ve seen this over and over on so many places, and I’ve had to address this before. Karl Malone doesn't have any rings because he *choked* when it mattered most. Everyone just writes him off as simply being unfortunate enough to play at the same time as the Bulls without even looking into what happened....
> 
> Not too hard to see the reason why the Jazz didn't win the title, is it? It wasn’t because “they faced Jordan,” but because the “MVP” didn’t play like one.


All of your examples are used to support the notion that Malone is a choker (which I disagree with, but won't address because Hakeem did that quite well in his above post). The statements you originally replied to stated that without Jordan in the league, Malone would have won 2 titles. Your claims about Malone do little to prove them wrong.



> In Game 2, Malone had _16 points on 5-of-16 shooting_ (*31.3 percent*), and Chicago won 93-88.
> 
> How on earth can Utah expect to have a chance with their star player playing like this? Utah didn’t win because they faced Jordan? They wouldn’t have won regardless *who* they faced with Malone playing like this. Jordan’s got nothing to do with this.


Here is an example of what I mentioned above. In this segment, what exactly disproves that without Jordan, Malone would have won? The Jazz lost by 5 points. It's poor logic to solely attribute it to Malone and assume that if Jordan wasn't there, that the outcome would be the same. The results of games are always multifactorial. It's not one or the other.



> With Malone playing like that, it didn’t matter WHO the Jazz faced, they weren’t going to win a championship. Let me say that again. With Malone playing like that, it didn’t matter WHO the Jazz faced, they weren’t going to win a championship


You can say it as many times as you'd like, but it doesn't make your argument any stronger. All you have done is selectively point out instances in which Malone didn't play well (all against the same outstanding defensive team, rendering it a poor sample to make generalized statements), and taken that to reach the conclusion that it didn't matter who the Jazz played, they would have not won the title. That's quite a gap in logic there. How can you absolutely state that whatever Eastern Conference team made the Finals would have knocked them off? Because it didn't seem like any Western Conference team was able to do the same in those 2 years.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

ThaRegul8r said:


> It was *John Stockton*, not “MVP” Karl Malone, who gave the Jazz their first trip to the NBA Finals in the first place, scoring 15 of 25 points in the fourth quarter of Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals against the Houston Rockets, including the game-winning three-pointer that gave the Jazz a 103-100 win. When comparing Duncan and Malone, whenever someone brings up Duncan’s rings, the response is, “but Malone had to play MJ.” Malone *choked*, that’s why Utah lost. Look at what he did. How could Utah win with their star player disappearing? Barkley put up 27.3/13/5.7 against the Bulls in ’93 when _he_ was MVP. Why was Malone incapable of playing at that level when _he_ was the MVP? _Barkley_ put up *44 points* and *24 boards* in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals to lead Phoenix to the Finals during his MVP year, while it was *Stockton* who put Utah in the Finals during Malone’s MVP year. Address why Malone kept coming up short in the biggest of games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


okay, so who actually beat the bulls?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Tim has done it all, and has done it without cheap-*** punk filthy, dirty , intent-to-injure playing.

I like a physical style of play, but Karl went over the line way too many times, breaking noses, and cheekbones, etc with those elbows of death.


----------



## Scatocephalus (Jul 29, 2003)

Wow, just wow. I can't believe all the misinformation in this thread. Karl Malone had no low post game? Karl Malone was awkward? Karl Malone took low percentage shots? Karl Malone didn't have a fast break game? Karl Malone was only the product of John Stockton's passing? Karl Malone played poor defense?

I'm beginning to think that most of the posters in this thread are too young to have seen Malone play when he was in his prime and everything they know about him is due to misinformation spread on these boards by others that never saw him play in his prime. Malone revolutionized the 4 position.

Malone spent most of his years in the low post putting up 25+ and 10+ facing double and even triple team defenses. You don't put up numbers like this night in and night out without low a post game. At a 50+% even. His midrange jump shot was non existent until the year they swept the Lakers. I still remember the interview with him on NBC where he was aksed about this new found weapon in his aresenal. With no long range jumper and no mid range jumper where did all his thousands of points come from if he had no low post game??

Malone was an excellent runner. Many times he would get the defensive rebound, hit Stockton with the outlet pass _and then beat the defense down the floor for the bucket_. He did this for years and years. Malone is one of the best running 4's _ever_. Malone was also incredubly graceful for his size. While it's true that he often used brute strength to get to the hole he would also make incredible circus shots while falling to the ground and avoid getting a charging violation as he was barreling to the basket by using graceful athleticism. While not on the same level as someone like Gervin or Drexler he certainly was not the plodding brute many here make him out to be.

The low percentage shot thing is absurd. You don't hit 50+% of your shots if your taking low percetage shots. Common sense here folks.

Malone's defense was pretty good. He was selected to 3 NBA all defensive teams and one second team. You don't get this type of recognition without having outstanding defense. He didn't block alot of shots which gets held against him but I once read an article that said if "blocks below the waist" were counted Malone would lead the league in blocked shots. Malone regularly stripped the ball away as the opposing player would turn and be moving the ball upwards for the shot.

Malone holds multiple records. 

In regards to the whole Malone had Stockton argument... while it's true that Stockton got Malone the ball, it is Malone that still had to finish and score. 

And just on a fun note, on November 28, 2003, while playing with the Lakers, Malone became the oldest NBA player ever to post a triple-double (at age 40). He totaled 10 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists in just 26 minutes against the San Antonio Spurs. His competition? Duncan had 11 points (on 3-10 shooting), 11 rebounds, and 2 assists in 26 minutes as the Lakers destroyed the Spurs 103-87.

In any case, I take Malone in a heartbeat over Timmy.


----------



## pup2plywif (Dec 20, 2005)

Scatocephalus said:


> Wow, just wow. I can't believe all the misinformation in this thread. Karl Malone had no low post game? Karl Malone was awkward? Karl Malone took low percentage shots? Karl Malone didn't have a fast break game? Karl Malone was only the product of John Stockton's passing? Karl Malone played poor defense?
> 
> I'm beginning to think that most of the posters in this thread are too young to have seen Malone play when he was in his prime and everything they know about him is due to misinformation spread on these boards by others that never saw him play in his prime. Malone revolutionized the 4 position.
> 
> ...


Great post. 
Also what about if you put Tim on the 98 Jazz team at the way he is playing now? Does he lead them to a Championship? Hell no! If you put Karl Malone in his prime around the San Antonio team from a few years ago. There would no discussion who's better because Malone would have won the Championship. Thats why I take Karl Malone by a long shot. It is really pitiful how Duncan got more votes than Karl Malone.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

With any then vs now arguments, there are going to be a lot of votes for the "now" tem or player, simply because people cannot remember things from back then. Malone's prime was from about 88 to 97. I was between the ages of 3 and 12... you think I could have understood everything and remembered all the details, like I do Duncan? Nope.

However, I have watched a plethora of film on Malone, and the dude is just a freakin beast. I know enough to say that Malone would get my vote in the argument simply because I know enough details about either player, not only because Malone played on my team.

Still, it is a very close bout. Both will finish as top 10 to top 20 players of all-time, and there's no doubt they will both be HOFers.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

A few small points:

(a) Jeff Hornacek was a good to very good defensive guard. He put consistent effort in, played his man well, played the passing lanes. His weaknesses were lack of size (for a two) and slow feet (particularly if guarding ones) but he made up for them with positioning and intelligence.

(b) Anyone who thinks Malone was slow never saw him play. He was famous for being out on the break; truly a scary sight bearing down on you at full speed. He always had a solid midrange game (and of course a nasty lowpost game), the new trick was that big fallaway he added.

(c) The big advantage of Duncan is his shotblocking. Malone was a solid on-the-ball defender and as hard to muscle in the post as anyone not named Shaq, but not a great shotblocker. But great shotblockers are gamechangers defensively and Duncan has that ability.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> A few small points:
> 
> (a) Jeff Hornacek was a good to very good defensive guard. He put consistent effort in, played his man well, played the passing lanes. His weaknesses were lack of size (for a two) and slow feet (particularly if guarding ones) but he made up for them with positioning and intelligence.


Maybe when he played for the Suns or his first couple seasons with the Jazz, but on those Finals' teams he was a complete defensive liability. Espeically with the Bulls and their huge lineup.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

> (a) Jeff Hornacek was a good to very good defensive guard. He put consistent effort in, played his man well, played the passing lanes. His weaknesses were lack of size (for a two) and slow feet (particularly if guarding ones) but he made up for them with positioning and intelligence.


His knees were garbage is last few seasons here. He was an OK defender before then, but in Utah he looked like a statue many, many times.

Edit: Dang, our Jazz lurkers are quick.

Also, the point about defense, Duncan is almost 3 inches taller than Malone, and has longer arms. The blocked shots should be a given considering the size difference.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

timmy duncan , by a significant margin.

Malone in his prime was great, he was nearly unstoppable.

but tim in his prime is actually unstoppable, there is no one who could stop duncan 1 on 1, and he has the full batch of ways to score....he only scores 20 or so a game but his 20 is like any1 else's 30 because letting him go to work in the post w/o a double team is giving the spurs points.

and then there is defense 7 straight all defensive team selections to start his career.

Tim Duncan is the best power forward of all time.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> timmy duncan , by a significant margin.
> 
> Malone in his prime was great, he was nearly unstoppable.
> 
> ...


Malone in his prime was a more unstoppable scorer, but that's pretty much his big advantage. That said, I feel Duncan should probably be compared with more physically similar players - centers, perhaps.


----------



## Thufir (Jul 25, 2006)

Well, let's educate the kiddies....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdpMbRvoH8&search=karl malone

Brings a tear to my eye to watch Stock pass like that. We should celebrate thier careers, not diss them because they never won a team sport championship.

The dunk over Kareem is pretty funny....


----------



## GuYoM (Jun 2, 2005)

i think malone has a bit advantage in scoring and tim in block shoot.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Nate505 said:


> And to the point of Malone's supporting cast, it was awful in the Finals' years. Other than Stockton, a sure fire first ballot hall of famer, and Jeff Hornacek, a great shooter but who was a complete defensive liability those years, this is what the Jazz roster looked like:
> 
> Bryon Russell
> Greg Ostertag
> ...


That is a very good supporting cast for a superstar to have. A HOF point guard and a good shooting guard are enough. Add a few minor pieces -- Shandon Anderson, Bryon Russell, Howard Eisley and Adam Keefe were all passable, and Ostertag was a good rebounder and defender -- and you have a 60-win team. 

Duncan, Nash, Rip Hamilton and a bunch of roleplayers would win a lot of games, too.

You can't say "I'd take this guy in a heartbeat". It's very close.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

Scatocephalus said:


> Wow, just wow. I can't believe all the misinformation in this thread. Karl Malone had no low post game? Karl Malone was awkward? Karl Malone took low percentage shots? Karl Malone didn't have a fast break game? Karl Malone was only the product of John Stockton's passing? Karl Malone played poor defense?
> 
> I'm beginning to think that most of the posters in this thread are too young to have seen Malone play when he was in his prime and everything they know about him is due to misinformation spread on these boards by others that never saw him play in his prime. Malone revolutionized the 4 position.
> 
> ...



for one, championships aren't won in novermber. and for a next one, why dont you post his stats vs duncan when he was on the jazz? the jazz never beat the spurs with duncan playing while malone was on the jazz. talk about that. not a meaningless november game.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

pup2plywif said:


> Great post.
> Also what about if you put Tim on the 98 Jazz team at the way he is playing now? Does he lead them to a Championship? Hell no! If you put Karl Malone in his prime around the San Antonio team from a few years ago. There would no discussion who's better because Malone would have won the Championship. Thats why I take Karl Malone by a long shot. It is really pitiful how Duncan got more votes than Karl Malone.


if u say so nostradamus. i can easily say dunca would have won then. but we cant say that. all we can do is look at the results. 3 rings. 3 finals MVPs. 2 MVPs. the only player to be named ALL NBA 1st team his first 8 years. led the league in total double doubles since he came into the league. has an INCREASE in his finals averages for his career. malone is good...but he's no duncan


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

unluckyseventeen said:


> His knees were garbage is last few seasons here. He was an OK defender before then, but in Utah he looked like a statue many, many times.
> 
> Edit: Dang, our Jazz lurkers are quick.
> 
> Also, the point about defense, Duncan is almost 3 inches taller than Malone, and has longer arms. The blocked shots should be a given considering the size difference.


blocking shots isnt about size. just ask ben wallace and dwane wade. its all desire baby.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

duncan2k5 said:


> the jazz never beat the spurs with duncan playing while malone was on the jazz. talk about that. not a meaningless november game.


The Jazz beat the Spurs in 5 games in '98.


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

Wow, this is crazy. Karl Malone was and still is the best PF to ever play the game of basketball. He defined the way the PF position was played. A lot of these young kids don't remember what Malone was doing in his prime. Malone was an iron man, I swear. he would get hit hard get hurt bad, and still play the next game. You could coun't the games he missed on 1 hand before the laker season (He was 41 years old, you can't blame him for that). Duncan misses more games in 1 season than malone missed in his career (minues laker season). The jazz team of the late 90's would of won as many rings as the spurs did if they were playing in the league at that time the spurs dominance was. Also, the spurs had a better supporting cast than the jazz. the jazz mostly had Stockton, Malone, Hornacek. When you have Ostertag starting as your center, you know your are in trouble.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

i pick duncan(not just b/c im the spurs mod either lol)
stat to stat...its to close to call. 
i choose duncan b/c
1.avg 30 plus points a game in the dallas series shows hes still in his prime and he has more yrs to play
2. his ability to take over the game is greater then malones 
3.his ability to create open shots and make his team overall better is greater then malones.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> The Jazz beat the Spurs in 5 games in '98.


duncan was a rookie lol its kinda hard to count that


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

AK-47 said:


> Wow, this is crazy. Karl Malone was and still is the best PF to ever play the game of basketball. He defined the way the PF position was played. A lot of these young kids don't remember what Malone was doing in his prime. Malone was an iron man, I swear. he would get hit hard get hurt bad, and still play the next game. You could coun't the games he missed on 1 hand before the laker season (He was 41 years old, you can't blame him for that). Duncan misses more games in 1 season than malone missed in his career (minues laker season). The jazz team of the late 90's would of won as many rings as the spurs did if they were playing in the league at that time the spurs dominance was. Also, the spurs had a better supporting cast than the jazz. the jazz mostly had Stockton, Malone, Hornacek. When you have Ostertag starting as your center, you know your are in trouble.



very valid point. on the issue of who was better, it could go either way. however, a lot of these posters claiming that duncan is/was head and shoulders above malone, makes me think that they never got to see malone play during his prime. don't mean to offend anyone, but i'm thinking a lot of the posters claiming that duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>malone were probably learning to talk/walk during malone's prime.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

I never liked Malone, but he sure isn't getting much love in this thread! I think most of the people bashing Malone are doing it for the _wrong_ reasons. He is, hands down, the best scoring power forward of all time. He's one of the strongest, toughest, and most durable players to ever play the game. Even though he doesn't get much mention for his athleticism, he ran the floor like crazy and could get up pretty high for blocks and dunks (he just wasn't nearly as quick off the floor as Kemp, McDyess, Stoudemire, etc). His work ethic was legendary: reporting to training camp with less than 4% body fat in his late 30's.

Plus, Malone adapted his game throughout his career: much like Jabbar, Jordan, or any other player who has been successful past their prime. He began as an absolute monster in the post: he was so far ahead of his time physically that nobody could stop him. Later in his career, he developed an array of deadly mid range jump shots (I can still remember Karl mocking the Dream Shake with Hakeem guarding him) and turned into an effective passer.

While Malone could never provide the presence in the paint that Duncan does in terms of team defense, he was a iron tough man-to-man defender in the post. His only limitations there were probably his own lack of focus or going for too many of those strips. But judging him a defensive light weight based on his latter days is stupid and not just for the fact that he was much better in his prime: ask the Lakers how their defense would have fared with a healthy Malone in the 2004 NBA Finals.

I'm not a Jazz fan by any stretch, and I'm as glad as the next hater that Malone didn't break Jabbar's scoring record. But, give the man his due. For all his faults, his game was brutal.

(BTW my pick is Duncan, but Malone needed some help here lol)


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

Nate505 said:


> In that case, Jordan isn't a hall of famer either......other than the fact that they are probably going to build the guy his own wing in Springfield.


Yes, but he isnt a HOFer YET! The key word being YET! There is no doubt he will get in. Same with Stockton.....but as Duncan2k or whatever his name is said before about Gary Payton, Shaq, Malone and Kobe being HOF.....who knows? Maybe Kobe will fall into a hole. Had Shawn Kemp kept playing like he did in the mid 90's for another few years I would say he would have made it. If Penny had of played at his mid-late 90's calibre and kept it going until now he'd definitely be a HOFer. The list goes on and on and on.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

I think it's safe to say that Shaq, MJ and Karl Malone will all be in the Hall of Fame someday. Let's not get carried away with the notion of "we can't assume anything if we don't know for sure!"


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

magohaydz said:


> Yes, but he isnt a HOFer YET! The key word being YET! There is no doubt he will get in. Same with Stockton.....but as Duncan2k or whatever his name is said before about Gary Payton, Shaq, Malone and Kobe being HOF.....who knows? *Maybe Kobe will fall into a hole*. Had Shawn Kemp kept playing like he did in the mid 90's for another few years I would say he would have made it. If Penny had of played at his mid-late 90's calibre and kept it going until now he'd definitely be a HOFer. The list goes on and on and on.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL...that literally had me cracking up. not because it was absurd...it was truly funny. i pictued it happening in my head.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

JPSeraph said:


> Malone in his prime was a more unstoppable scorer, but that's pretty much his big advantage. That said, I feel Duncan should probably be compared with more physically similar players - centers, perhaps.



actually during malone's "prime years" he was less of a scorer despite scoring more.

thats why they didn't evelove into a title contender until he was well in his 30's in his 20's the Jazz were an also ran winning 50 -55 games but never a real contender because malone's offensive game lacked diversity...but as time wore on he improved his J, got a few new moves in the post and learned to handle double and triple teams better ....by the time malone could consistently score in the clutch against the good teams and he was in his 30's...and by that time he was less of a rebounder and all around defender.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> actually during malone's "prime years" he was less of a scorer despite scoring more.
> 
> thats why they didn't evelove into a title contender until he was well in his 30's in his 20's the Jazz were an also ran winning 50 -55 games but never a real contender because malone's offensive game lacked diversity...but as time wore on he improved his J, got a few new moves in the post and learned to handle double and triple teams better ....by the time malone could consistently score in the clutch against the good teams and he was in his 30's...and by that time he was less of a rebounder and all around defender.


You make good points about how Malone maintained his offensive production late into his career, but I would take a young Malone - who was _murder_ in the post - over the older Malone shooting jumpers. It's a close call because Malone improved so much throughout his career, but I think the younger Malone simply had more to give, even if it was in a less sophisticated package.

I suspect the main difference between the young Jazz losing and the older Jazz winning was experience. They were talented, but usually lacked key components over the years. By the mid-90's, they had a solid contender and the competition was vulnerable enough to allow them to make it into the Finals in 97 and 98. 

They had certainly reached the Conference Finals before, but there was usually somebody better waiting. As the Rockets began declining and the Sonics imploded, there were plenty of good teams in the West, but not one which was clearly better than the Jazz: for once, they had peaked at about the right time to make it to the Finals. It's too bad the Bulls dysnasty was still reigning.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

JPSeraph said:


> You make good points about how Malone maintained his offensive production late into his career, but I would take a young Malone - who was _murder_ in the post - over the older Malone shooting jumpers. It's a close call because Malone improved so much throughout his career, but I think the younger Malone simply had more to give, even if it was in a less sophisticated package.
> 
> I suspect the main difference between the young Jazz losing and the older Jazz winning was experience. They were talented, but usually lacked key components over the years. By the mid-90's, they had a solid contender and the competition was vulnerable enough to allow them to make it into the Finals in 97 and 98.
> 
> They had certainly reached the Conference Finals before, but there was usually somebody better waiting. As the Rockets began declining and the Sonics imploded, there were plenty of good teams in the West, but not one which was clearly better than the Jazz: for once, they had peaked at about the right time to make it to the Finals. It's too bad the Bulls dysnasty was still reigning.


the team karl malone had when he was younger was comparable to the teams he had when he was older.

lets look at a team 15 years ago .

jeff malone 18 points above 50%fg
stockton when he was putting out 17 and 14and shooting over 50% from the field.
mark eaton (5 points 8 reb 2.5 blk)
thurl baily (12 points .458 fg%)
blue edwards. (9.3 points .526 fg%)
plus griffin mike brown and delany rudd.

all the elements of a usual jazz team ...stockton malone , big clogger at center a good defensive swingman and a very competent player in bailey some depth thrown in there.....and now the team that faced the bulls in the finals.

malone, stockton(avg. 14 and 10) hornacek(14.5 points 48% fg) ostertag(7 points 7 reb 2 blocks.) bryon russell(10.8 points ) carr (7.4 pts)anderson & eisley.

pretty much the same really as far as the supporting cast , the difference is really malone coming through at the end of games. the 90-91 team won 54, 5 years later they won 64...i dont see 10 more games worth of talent in the supporting cast in fact i think he had slightly less help.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> the team karl malone had when he was younger was comparable to the teams he had when he was older.
> 
> lets look at a team 15 years ago .
> 
> ...


I'm not sure you actually digested my argument: I did not say that the Jazz in 97 and 98 were a better team on paper (although it's certainly arguable).

And I seem to recall Stockton shooting them into their first Finals appearance.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> pretty much the same really as far as the supporting cast , the difference is really malone coming through at the end of games. the 90-91 team won 54, 5 years later they won 64...i dont see 10 more games worth of talent in the supporting cast in fact i think he had slightly less help.


The West was weak in '97 and '98. In '97 there were five teams in the West who won 30 or fewer games. The only real contenders outside of the Jazz were the Sonics and the Rockets. The next year there were five teams in the West who won less than _20_ games. The other contenders were the Lakers, Sonics and Spurs. But the Spurs weren't even that good. It was just a post-injury Robinson, a rookie Duncan, and Avery Johnson.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

JPSeraph said:


> I'm not sure you actually digested my argument: I did not say that the Jazz in 97 and 98 were a better team on paper (although it's certainly arguable).
> 
> And I seem to recall Stockton shooting them into their first Finals appearance.


i got what you said , that the difference was experience .

to which i say whose experience?

in 91 bailey,jeff malone darrell griffith and mark eaton were actually all vets, all at least 27-28 ...as were mike brown and delany rudd in his 2nd season but was born in 1962 making him 28-29

karl malone and stockton were 29 and 30 respectively in their 7th and 8th seasons. 

blue edwards was a 2nd year player too but was born in 1965, making him 25 throught that season...stockton was past his prime and while still a good player not the guy at 36 that he was at 30...so...whose experience?

i am guessing you mean malone because the rest makes no sense...but at 35 he was no longer the defender and rebounder he was in his earlier years...to prove it ( in his 9 seasons he avg. at least 10.4 every year but his rookie year...but after that point never got that high again only reaching 10 1nce at 10.3 in 97-98 ) still a good rebounder but no longer an elite 1.

he got better at some points but fell off in others , and at no point was he the full package Tim duncan has been consistently throughout his career who was always a dominant defender, rebounder and post scorer.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> but at 35 he was no longer the defender and rebounder he was in his earlier years...to prove it ( in his 9 seasons he avg. at least 10.4 every year but his rookie year...but after that point never got that high again only reaching 10 1nce at 10.3 in 97-98 ) still a good rebounder but no longer an elite 1.
> 
> he got better at some points but fell off in others , and at no point was he the full package Tim duncan has been consistently throughout his career who was always a dominant defender, rebounder and post scorer.


Malone's rebound rate in '98 was the third-highest of his career, and only 0.3 lower than his career high. His rebounds per game were down because he was playing fewer minutes per game and the league was slowing down. I don't remember noticing any dropoff in his defense, either. He never relied on his athleticism a whole lot for his defense. He held Barkley to 16 ppg on 42% from the field in the '97 WCF.

But I do agree with you that he peaked offensively in '97.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Malone's rebound rate in '98 was the third-highest of his career, and only 0.3 lower than his career high. His rebounds per game were down because he was playing fewer minutes per game and the league was slowing down. I don't remember noticing any dropoff in his defense, either. He never relied on his athleticism a whole lot for his defense. He held Barkley to 16 ppg on 42% from the field in the '97 WCF.
> 
> But I do agree with you that he peaked offensively in '97.


barkley fell off himself he used to kill malone , but as he got older he had alot of trouble with taller 4's who could stand their ground against his bull rushes...malone used to better against the rest of the league because he had no flaws defensively , he was quick , but also strong and big..he lost a step as he got older quick forwards could give him trouble if they protected the ball.(he was always good at slapping at the ball away when they went up)


----------

