# Has Garnett surpassed Malone and Barkley?



## EGarrett (Aug 12, 2002)

Malone - 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6a, 1.4spg....23.9 PER (peak 28.9), 19 seasons, 2 MVP's, 0 Championships

Barkley - 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.apg, 1.5spg...24.6 PER (peak 28.9), 16 seasons, 1 MVP, 0 Championships

Garnett - 19.8ppg, 10.8rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.6bpg...23.6 PER (peak 29.4), 15 seasons and counting...1 MVP, 1 DPOY, 1 Championship


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Here's what Celtics homer, Bill Simmons, had to say recently:



> KEVIN GARNETT
> 
> Limped around all season, looked washed-up, got his legs back for the playoffs, enjoyed a monster Cleveland series, then faded noticeably against Orlando. I have no idea what to expect from him in the Finals. None. But he hasn't gotten enough credit for reinventing himself in the playoffs as a complementary asset -- a little like Pippen on the 2000 Blazers, David Robinson on the 2003 Spurs or Karl Malone on the 2004 Lakers -- something I never thought his ego would allow. *I had him ranked No. 21 in my NBA Hall of Fame Pyramid, with Barkley at No. 19 and Malone at No. 18. If he wins a second ring? I think he leapfrogs both of them.*
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100602&sportCat=nba


I'd rank KG above both already but they've got their arguments. However KG was a more complete player on both ends of the court though imo, especially defensively.


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

Both ends of the court? He may be the best defensive player of the 3 but Malone and Barkley both were better offensive players.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Sorry, meant that he was a more complete overall player than Barkley or Malone. However offensively he easily had more range than either of them IIRC.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

If KG wins again, he may pass Barkley in my book.

1a. Barkley
1b. KG
3. Malone


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

I was just coming to start this same exact thread. He has passed Barkley right now. Another title and it would be arguable about Malone. But you just don't pass the 2nd leading scorer all time that easily even with rings.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Meh. I have a hard time unequivocally putting Garnett over either of the two just because of a second championship.

Garnett wouldn't have gotten past Jordan's Bulls any more than Barkley's Suns or Malone's Jazz.

And that's without even debating whether KG is the No. 1 guy on the Celtics these days.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

EGarrett said:


> Malone - 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6a, 1.4spg....23.9 PER (peak 28.9), 19 seasons, 2 MVP's, 0 Championships
> 
> Barkley - 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.apg, 1.5spg...24.6 PER (peak 28.9), 16 seasons, 1 MVP, 0 Championships
> 
> Garnett - 19.8ppg, 10.8rpg, 4.2apg, 1.3spg, 1.6bpg...23.6 PER (peak 29.4), 15 seasons and counting...1 MVP, 1 DPOY, 1 Championship


Don't think so.
KG is no longer a 20-10 player. Nor a franchise player. And hasn't been since he was, like, 30.
I don't know how winning (another) championship as the second/third best player of a team will wnhance his career as mightly has to put him above Charles or Karl.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Because KG is a better 2-way player than both Malone or Barkley ever were... That, and he was arguably the most important player in the '08 run. It's not like this dude was some irrelevant scrub off the bench. Boston isn't in the finals right now... w/o KG. And they dont have a ring right now... w/o KG.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

The fact that Garnett won a ring as his team's most important player throughout that championship season put him in the conversation with Malone and Barkley. I don't think any additional rings are likely to elevate his status more or change his legacy much, given the deterioration in his game.

I think at this point folks like us will differentiate between those three players on the basis of personal taste - and rate them accordingly.

How much importance do you place on defense? Longevity, or length of peak? Offensive range? Passing ability? Persona and character? 

To me they're close enough that the significant question should not be "which one had the best career?" but instead "which one would you choose, in hindsight, as the cornerstone of your franchise?"

In that light, I'd probably rank them 1) Malone, 2) Garnett, and 3) Barkley.

Barkley was really the most dynamic and streaky, able to come up huge in big games. He was versatile, efficient, and cocky. He loses points for high numbers of fouls and turnovers, being a lackluster defender too often, and being a knucklehead. 

Garnett was the superior defender, consistently a very good passer, and a player with virtually no real weaknesses in his game. He loses points for lacking a killer instinct on offense (he had it on defense, but he was basically a high-caliber complimentary player on offense), not having a bread-and-butter move, and being a knucklehead.

Stylistically I prefer both of them to the Mailman, but I think Malone still (barely) gets the nod as the 2nd (or at worst, 3rd) best PF of all time. An underrated team defender, a complete load on offense, a terrifically conditioned athlete given his size, obviously ridiculously consistent over a long plateau, a good teammate, and (eventually) a good passer. My main beef with Malone's game is that I wanted him to be a slightly more dominant rebounder.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

jericho said:


> Stylistically I prefer both of them to the Mailman, but I think Malone still (barely) gets the nod as the 2nd (or at worst, 3rd) best PF of all time. An underrated team defender, a complete load on offense, a terrifically conditioned athlete given his size, obviously ridiculously consistent over a long plateau, a good teammate, and (eventually) a good passer. My main beef with Malone's game is that I wanted him to be a slightly more dominant rebounder.


...And a knuckle head. 

Malone's flying knees, kick jumpers, and flagrant elbows, are enough to cement his knuckle head status in my book. He talked just as much trash to the press as these other 2, he pushed people out of his way, and pretty did whatever on the court to muscle his way to the basket... Even if it meant injuring players around him with, w/o flagrant knees to the groin. He is a knucklehead, to the core.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Another negative quality about Malone was that he arguably came up short in his playoffs. He's a guy that shot 52% for his career (over 50% for 12 seasons) yet only met that mark four times in the postseason. In his two most important postseasons he averaged 43% and 47%. In Karl's final season where he jumped on the LA bandwagon, he unfortunately got injured in the Finals. KG shot 50% for his most important postseason. 

There are a ton of qualities you can look at though. I very much doubt we'll see another PF like Malone especially in terms of longevity and physicality. Still, Malone's legacy involves coming up short when it mattered the most.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> ...And a knuckle head.
> 
> Malone's flying knees, kick jumpers, and flagrant elbows, are enough to cement his knuckle head status in my book. He talked just as much trash to the press as these other 2, he pushed people out of his way, and pretty did whatever on the court to muscle his way to the basket... Even if it meant injuring players around him with, w/o flagrant knees to the groin. He is a knucklehead, to the core.


Ha! I guess you're right - I do remember that stuff. Unlike the other two, though, I'm pretty sure he never took unwarranted swings at teammates (Barkley at Ceballos, Garnett at Rickert and whoever else).


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Here's how I tend to rank them overall:

1) Tim Duncan 
2) Bob Pettit
3) Karl Malone
4) Kevin Garnett
5) Charles Barkley
6) Elvin Hayes
7) Dirk Nowitzki
8) Jerry Lucas
9) Kevin McHale
10) Chris Webber


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Meh. I have a hard time unequivocally putting Garnett over either of the two just because of a second championship.


This is one of those things that drives me crazy. Because the whole title question is stupid. And that whole line of argument should come to an end with the words "Bill Russell". If Malone had had the good fortune to be picked a couple of spots earlier, having a pile of rings would have him perceived as a top 5 all time player, instead that team decided to trade the pick for Charles Oakley and he ended up in Utah, where his prime came during the era of Jordan/Pippen (where he should have been the third leg of the greatest team in NBA history) and Hakeem. Garnett deserves recognition for being an engine of destruction on the defensive end while being an extremely good offensive player, but I'm not sure where I'd place him on the PF list. But wherever I put him it will have nothing to do with Boston winning its 18th title. :bsmile:


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jakain said:


> Another negative quality about Malone was that he arguably came up short in his playoffs. He's a guy that shot 52% for his career (over 50% for 12 seasons) yet only met that mark four times in the postseason. In his two most important postseasons he averaged 43% and 47%. In Karl's final season where he jumped on the LA bandwagon, he unfortunately got injured in the Finals. KG shot 50% for his most important postseason.
> 
> There are a ton of qualities you can look at though. I very much doubt we'll see another PF like Malone especially in terms of longevity and physicality. *Still, Malone's legacy involves coming up short when it mattered the most*.


And Garnett's doesn't? It's not Malone's fault that he didn't have two all star closers in Pierce and Allen during his prime. Atleast Malone made it out of the first round consistantly as the undisputed number one option.

Note that I'm not even putting Malone above KG, I'm simply stating that using Malone's choking tendencies against him whilst comparing him against Kevin freaking Garnett is retarted.


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

Karl Malone happily hunting for pretty Mexican girls.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

VanillaPrice said:


> And Garnett's doesn't? It's not Malone's fault that he didn't have two all star closers in Pierce and Allen during his prime. Atleast Malone made it out of the first round consistantly as the undisputed number one option.
> 
> Note that I'm not even putting Malone above KG, I'm simply stating that using Malone's choking tendencies against him whilst comparing him against Kevin freaking Garnett is retarted.


On the other hand, Malone's #2 was one of the greatest point guards in NBA history, and they generally had competent to good shooting guards to run with, while Garnett's #2 was Wally Szczerbiak Szczuperstar. Put Malone, even a prime one, on those squads and I'll wager that he struggles to make the playoffs, much less get out of the first round. The one year that Garnett had the remains of Latrell Sprewell and a 48 year old Sam Cassell the T'wolves made the Western Conference Finals, and had the squad not been decimated by injuries by the time they got there, they might have been the ones to get run over by the Pistons rather than the Lakers. 

(And, mind you, are you prepared to say the same things about Mr. Bean given 2005-2007? :bsmile


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> This is one of those things that drives me crazy. Because the whole title question is stupid. And that whole line of argument should come to an end with the words "Bill Russell". If Malone had had the good fortune to be picked a couple of spots earlier, having a pile of rings would have him perceived as a top 5 all time player, instead that team decided to trade the pick for Charles Oakley and he ended up in Utah, where his prime came during the era of Jordan/Pippen (where he should have been the third leg of the greatest team in NBA history) and Hakeem. Garnett deserves recognition for being an engine of destruction on the defensive end while being an extremely good offensive player, but I'm not sure where I'd place him on the PF list. But wherever I put him it will have nothing to do with Boston winning its 18th title. :bsmile:


^this


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> On the other hand, Malone's #2 was one of the greatest point guards in NBA history, and they generally had competent to good shooting guards to run with, while Garnett's #2 was Wally Szczerbiak Szczuperstar. Put Malone, even a prime one, on those squads and I'll wager that he struggles to make the playoffs, much less get out of the first round. The one year that Garnett had the remains of Latrell Sprewell and a 48 year old Sam Cassell the T'wolves made the Western Conference Finals, and had the squad not been decimated by injuries by the time they got there, they might have been the ones to get run over by the Pistons rather than the Lakers.
> 
> (And, mind you, are you prepared to say the same things about Mr. Bean given 2005-2007? :bsmile


You're missing my point. I'm in the Garnett > Malone/Barkley club too. But, Jakain was coming in here saying that Malone blew it time and time again in the clutch and that's what seperated him and KG, and that's simply not true. First of all Garnett did not shoot 50% for his most important postseason, and he's only done that once (2003) to Malone's twice. Oh, and Malone never shot *39*% from the floor for a postseason run either (Check Garnett's run in 2000). Fact is Garnett is a choker and there's no way around it.

Yeah, Garnett's teammates sucked. There's no denying that. But (in the postseason) he generally did aswell. Through his Minnesotta tenure he shot under 46% during the playoffs. That's pathetic for a big man. And, unlike Bryant, his teams rarely put up a fight, only streching to a decisive game five once in his first six attempts at the playoffs.


Oh, and as a side-note. **** that '04 Lakers team, in my entire life I can never remember disliking a Lakers team more, I almost wish the Wolves did knock us off so we wouldn't have had to face the embarassment of the Pistons./rant


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

E.H. Munro said:


> On the other hand, Malone's #2 was one of the greatest point guards in NBA history, and they generally had competent to good shooting guards to run with, while Garnett's #2 was Wally Szczerbiak Szczuperstar. Put Malone, even a prime one, on those squads and I'll wager that he struggles to make the playoffs, much less get out of the first round. The one year that Garnett had the remains of Latrell Sprewell and a 48 year old Sam Cassell the T'wolves made the Western Conference Finals, and had the squad not been decimated by injuries by the time they got there, they might have been the ones to get run over by the Pistons rather than the Lakers.
> 
> (And, mind you, are you prepared to say the same things about Mr. Bean given 2005-2007? :bsmile


Yup, KG had absolutely NO help for the majority of his career(the Marbury years and '04, were the only good years). The Joe Smith fiasco was a killer. And if Hitman Sammy Sam doesn't fall apart in the '04 playoffs, I still believe Minny goes on to the Finals. That was a great team. After that season tho, it was all down hill.... 

Latrell 'I cant feed my kids' Sprewell demanding a big contract, and Sam Cassell's chronic injuries, pretty much destroyed any kind of chemistry that group had together the next year... KG is a loyal dude tho, so I give him credit. He didn't want to be traded, but Minny took care of him for his loyalty. That is one thing he has over Chuck and Karl... Those two will always be remembered as failed ring chasers, lol.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

VanillaPrice said:


> You're missing my point. I'm in the Garnett > Malone/Barkley club too. But, Jakain was coming in here saying that Malone blew it time and time again in the clutch and that's what seperated him and KG, and that's simply not true. First of all Garnett did not shoot 50% for his most important postseason, and he's only done that once (2003) to Malone's twice. Oh, and Malone never shot *39*% from the floor for a postseason run either (Check Garnett's run in 2000). Fact is Garnett is a choker and there's no way around it.


I'm only objecting to the dissing of Garnett for being only very good at one facet of the game. He was never Malone or Barkley on offense, but Jesus, he wasn't Russell, either. But he's one of the best defensive bigs of this era, the first year he got to play for a competent GM they won a title. I do fault him for not leaving Minnesota for better management years ago. Thankfully he'll have a second title to assuage his regrets in a couple of weeks. :bsmile:


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> *I'm only objecting to the dissing of Garnett for being only very good at one facet of the game. He was never Malone or Barkley on offense, but Jesus, he wasn't Russell, either.* But he's one of the best defensive bigs of this era, the first year he got to play for a competent GM they won a title. I do fault him for not leaving Minnesota for better management years ago. Thankfully he'll have a second title to assuage his regrets in a couple of weeks. :bsmile:


I agree, he was a good offensive player.

The only complaint I have about your post is your utterly horrible prediction making


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

What? You expect Boston to win in five games? :bsmile:


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> What? You expect Boston to win in five games? :bsmile:


Lakers in six! 

If Garnett mistakes Rondo for a 6'1 Laker player because of all of the tears in his eyes (While the Lakers are being handed the trophey, ofcourse) and beats the crap out of him on national T.V. then that will solidify him as the second best power forward :champagne:


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

VanillaPrice said:


> You're missing my point. I'm in the Garnett > Malone/Barkley club too. But, Jakain was coming in here saying that Malone blew it time and time again in the clutch and that's what seperated him and KG, and that's simply not true. First of all Garnett did not shoot 50% for his most important postseason, and he's only done that once (2003) to Malone's twice. Oh, and Malone never shot *39*% from the floor for a postseason run either (Check Garnett's run in 2000). Fact is Garnett is a choker and there's no way around it.


Didn't mean to give the impression that KG shot 50% in the playoffs for his entire career or that he didn't come up short himself; however KG didn't come up as short as Malone did in their respective Finals runs compared to their career averages. KG also doesn't come up as short when compared to their overall career regular season versus playoffs FG% and TS%.

KG's regular season career = .497 FG%; .548 TS% 

KG's career playoffs = .472 FG%; .521 TS%

Difference of .025 FG%, .027 TS%

----

Malone's reg season career = .516 FG%; .577 TS%

Malone's playoffs career = .463 FG%, .526 TS%

Difference of .053 FG%, .051 TS%

--



> First of all Garnett did not shoot 50% for his most important postseason


KG's Championship playoffs average: .495 FG%, .542 TS% Thats basically a 50% FG and those numbers are also higher than his playoffs career averages. 

Malone 1997 Finals run: .471 FG%, .501 TS% --- Exceeded career playoffs FG% but came short in TS%. Also a noticeable drop off from his reg season career .516 FG% and .577 TS% 

1998 Finals run: .417 FG% , .534 TS% --- Came up noticeably short from his career playoffs .463 FG%


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

IMO, a lot of you are vastly underrating Karl Malone's defensive ability. Not sure if that's due to forgetfulness, or if you're too young to remember. Malone was a fantastic post defender. He had ridiculously quick hands and a rock solid frame. Almost certainly a better tougher post defender than Garnett. But, Garnett has that extra length and is probably the better help defender and shot altering presence.

I'm not a fan of Malone as a person in the least, but he definitely in my book was a better player than Garnett, and undoubtedly a top 3 all time PF. Him and Stockton led some very underwhelming casts to contender status, even if they never closed the deal thanks to a #23.

Barkley and Garnett are probably a much closer comparison. I would say they are side by side on the all-time list, and Malone is a notch above both of them since he had almost no weaknesses as a player combined with his longevity.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

This is absolutely crazy and none of you have any idea what you're talking about. Kevin Garnett isn't as good as either of them. Not close.

In fact, Kevin Garnett is possibly the single most over-rated player in the history of basketball. That's not to say he hasn't been a great player and hall of famer, but he doesn't deserve anywhere close to the praise he receives.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

It's clear that you guys are way too impressed with 20, 10, and 5 and have very little recollection of what KG was actually like.

Kevin Garnett is a 36 minute player. He is a career choker and consistently fades away during 4th quarters and crunch time. Kevin Garnett is the guy that will miss the big free throw, turn the ball over at the worst possible time, and come up short in the last minute. His woofing and tough guy act just masks the fact that he's mentally weak.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the only year his team, and let me repeat, HIS team, got out of the first round was the year he played with Sam Cassell, one of the great 4th quarter and clutch players of the last generation? Who do you think got the ball with two minutes to go? It wasn't Kevin Garnett.

Blaming Garnett's supporting cast for his failures is absurd, as the real reason why he consistently came up empty was because he was never a reliable go to guy. He was never much of a threat to take over and dominate a game offensively, even in his prime. 

The problem is that Kevin Garnett is a support player. Always has been. He has never been a capable alpha but he's celebrated like one anyway and that's what bothers me about him. He is a glorified Pippen yet he is celebrated like a Jordan by stat-loving buffoons. And at no point in his career has Kevin Garnett ever been capable of being the best player on a championship team.

In fact, here's what Scottie Pippen had to say about him, "He really set the tone for self-destruction. He's very productive but unproductive. He gets you all the stats you want, but at the end of the day his points don't have an impact on [winning] the game. He plays with a lot of energy and a lot of enthusiasm, but in the last five minutes of the game he ain't the same player as in the first five."

He could not have said it better.

The truth is that even though he's been a great player and is certainly a Hall of Famer, he doesn't belong anywhere in the conversation of greatest power forwards.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Pretty much agree on Garnett. He is a sidekick and could never "lead" a team to a title. He's never been the best player on a great team either. I'd argue that in '04 Cassell was definitely more valuable. Guy took and made every big shot.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> It's clear that you guys are way too impressed with 20, 10, and 5 and have very little recollection of what KG was actually like.
> 
> Kevin Garnett is a 36 minute player. He is a career choker and consistently fades away during 4th quarters and crunch time. Kevin Garnett is the guy that will miss the big free throw, turn the ball over at the worst possible time, and come up short in the last minute. His woofing and tough guy act just masks the fact that he's mentally weak.
> 
> ...


Here's Pippen on Barkley: Link



> Pippen went on the offensive, and then some. ''I probably should've listened to Michael a year ago when he said that Charles will never win a championship because he doesn't show any dedication,'' Pippen said in an ESPN interview. ''He's a very selfish guy. He doesn't show the desire to want to win. That's my reason for wanting to get away from playing with him, because he just doesn't show the dedication.''
> 
> Asked if he would apologize to Barkley for asking out of Houston, Pippen said: ''I wouldn't give Charles Barkley an apology at gunpoint. He can never expect an apology from me. If anything, he owes me an apology for coming to play with his sorry fat butt.''



and on Malone...



> The Mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays...


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

What's your point?

Scottie speaks the truth, but even still, those comments have nothing to do with how over-rated Garnett is.

The major difference is that those guys were alphas and KG was never capable of it.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> What's your point?
> 
> Scottie speaks the truth, but even still, those comments have nothing to do with how over-rated Garnett is.
> 
> The major difference is that those guys were alphas and KG was never capable of it.


The point is that you used Pippen's quotes as an indictment of Garnett's career... when Pippen had incredibly critical things to say about the players we're comparing Garnett to as well. 

The argument that those guys were 'alphas' and KG wasn't doesn't make much sense to me... Malone and Barkley never won titles, and when they did play on great teams, they were surrounded by talent far superior to anything Garnett played with until he arrived in Boston.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I think you're both right. 

Like I said earlier, Garnett has/had a killer instinct and take-over-a-game attitude on defense that he's never really had on offense. In his prime he was incredibly skilled and effective on offense, but didn't really have the mindset (or possibly the game) of a high-caliber lead scorer. Barkley and Malone, on the other hand, each scored 60 points in a game and were consistently a threat to go for 40 under pressure. And again, how much weight you give to defensive prowess should factor into whether Barkley and Malone rank above Garnett because of their offensive edge. 

Honestly, I'm not sure Garnett or Barkley could have done any better than Malone on those Jazz teams. That franchise was two stars, a decent shooting guard and a bunch of schmoes for a long, long time. Barkley's Phoenix episode may have been the best team any of the three guys ever got to play on. KJ, Majerle, Chambers, Dumas, Ainge, and Ceballos was a lot of firepower, and if I had to rely on a bunch of useful stiffs at the center position I'll take Mark West and (gasp) Oliver Miller over Greg Ostertag or Radoslav Nesterovic.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

jericho said:


> I think you're both right.
> 
> Like I said earlier, Garnett has/had a killer instinct and take-over-a-game attitude on defense that he's never really had on offense. In his prime he was incredibly skilled and effective on offense, but didn't really have the mindset (or possibly the game) of a high-caliber lead scorer. Barkley and Malone, on the other hand, each scored 60 points in a game and were consistently a threat to go for 40 under pressure. And again, how much weight you give to defensive prowess should factor into whether Barkley and Malone rank above Garnett because of their offensive edge.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure Garnett or Barkley could have done any better than Malone on those Jazz teams. That franchise was two stars, a decent shooting guard and a bunch of schmoes for a long, long time. Barkley's Phoenix episode may have been the best team any of the three guys ever got to play on. KJ, Majerle, Chambers, Dumas, Ainge, and Ceballos was a lot of firepower, and if I had to rely on a bunch of useful stiffs at the center position I'll take Mark West and (gasp) Oliver Miller over Greg Ostertag or Radoslav Nesterovic.


The Jazz had other solid contributors. One of my favorites from the 80s was Mark Eaton. A great center, and one of the best shot blockers of all time. They also had Jeff Malone, Jeff Hornacek, and Thurl Bailey. These guys are not chop liver. Especially when comparing them to the guys Garnett was playing with in Minnesota. And 20/20 Hindsight really tells us that Malone/Stockton played with much much better role players in Utah, and IMO had a better head coach as well to guide them in Frank Layden/Jerry Sloan, but mainly Sloan for Stockton/Malones careers.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

How many times since 1979-1980 a MVP winner didn't make it to the playoffs the year after recieving the award?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> How many times since 1979-1980 a MVP winner didn't make it to the playoffs the year after recieving the award?


This is a terrible way to try and knock KG.

It doesn't really matter though, What counts is the year they won the MVP. And to my knowledge no MVP has ever not made the playoffs.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

> Garnett wouldn't have gotten past Jordan's Bulls any more than Barkley's Suns or Malone's Jazz.


Gamesetmatch


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Sliccat said:


> Gamesetmatch


I disagree. Garnett never would have been capable of getting a team to face Jordan's Bulls in the first place.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

How quickly 2008 has vanished down the memory hole...


----------



## and1king (Jan 15, 2010)

Short answer to thread question - no...


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> How quickly 2008 has vanished down the memory hole...


Indeed, people forget how much of a force KG was on defense for the Celtics, he was their most important player that season.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> I disagree. Garnett never would have been capable of getting a team to face Jordan's Bulls in the first place.


Why not? He really never had an impressive supporting cast around him until he moved to Boston. Even when Cassell and Sprewell helped him get the 'Wolves 58 wins in 03-04, the team was essentially 3 players deep. 

The only other player who averaged double figures in ppg was Wally, who played in 28 games (and posted a whopping 10.2 ppg). The best rebounder after Garnett was (ahem) Olowokandi with 5.7 rpg in 43 games. After the big 3, the leaders in minutes played were (in order) Trenton Hassell, Fred Hoiberg, and Mark Madsen. 

I mean really, that 58-win team was three good-to-great players playing their minds out, and a bunch of debris from an expansion team. Give him two more legitimate starters to play alongside and see what happens.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Game3525 said:


> Indeed, people forget how much of a force KG was on defense for the Celtics, he was their most important player that season.


That's the thing about Garnett that people seem to ignore. 2008 showed up just how awful McHale had been in Minnesota. Garnett's game has always been defensive domination combined with good offense. Guys like that are rare, defensive anchors tend to be guys like Ben Wallace (i.e. offensive liabilities). The ones that can seize control of the game on the defensive end while being offensive assets aren't common. I mean, how many under-30 guys can you say that about? Dwight? Jury's out on Oden until we know that he can play a full season. So what that Garnett was never a dominating scorer? Give him two guys that could work off his passing and you could win with the aging Cassell & Sprewell. He should have demanded out of Minnesota years ago, a competent GM would have been able to build a dynasty around the prime Garnett.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> That's the thing about Garnett that people seem to ignore. 2008 showed up just how awful McHale had been in Minnesota. Garnett's game has always been defensive domination combined with good offense. Guys like that are rare, defensive anchors tend to be guys like Ben Wallace (i.e. offensive liabilities). The ones that can seize control of the game on the defensive end while being offensive assets aren't common. I mean, how many under-30 guys can you say that about? Dwight? Jury's out on Oden until we know that he can play a full season. So what that Garnett was never a dominating scorer? Give him two guys that could work off his passing and you could win with the aging Cassell & Sprewell. He should have demanded out of Minnesota years ago, a competent GM would have been able to build a dynasty around the prime Garnett.


I agree 100%, KG should have left Minnesota 5-6 years prior to 2007 IMO. Garnett is really easy to play with too, you could pair him up with anyone. A unselfish guy like Nash or Kidd, or difficult guys like Iverson, and they would have been successful. It is too bad Garnett was a loyal guy, his legacy would have been far greater if he had left the Wolves in the middle of his prime, instead of the tail end.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I guess the way I see it, if I'm starting a franchise and I have rookie Kevin Garnett, rookie Karl Malone, and rookie Charles Barkley to choose from, I'm not quite sure who I'd take. That tells me they're on about the same tier.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

If i had to choose one ...it would be garnett rather easily.

malone and barkley were better scorers but they weren't ever the best scorer in the league so better is relative in a sense ...garnett has been the best defender in the league...at times the best player overall something during the MJ era never happened with barkley and malone.

garnett as a dominant defender /very good scorer is the rarer commodity and if he had a stockton or a KJ i have to believe he would have been alot more successful than either barkley or malone because he wouldn't have had to create everything for himself in the 4th, while still being being a dominant defender...when he had good help they were a contender...that simple.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Steph has done alot of dumb things in his career, but leaving KG behind was probably one of his worst ****-ups. :nonono: Him & KG would've done some great things together. It's a shame, cause Steph changed alot after that. I think for his own sanity, he would've been alot more stable if stayed in Minny.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I just keep hearing that Garnett was this great defensive anchor, but when push came to shove, he simply wasn't good enough to lead his team. In 2008, he was not the leader in crunch-time at all. Nor in 2004, 2009 or this year. In the four best years of his career team performance wise, he hasn't been counted on to take and make big shots. Sorry, but that's not better than Charles or Karl in my eyes.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

HKF said:


> I just keep hearing that Garnett was this great defensive anchor, but when push came to shove, he simply wasn't good enough to lead his team. In 2008, he was not the leader in crunch-time at all. Nor in 2004, 2009 or this year. In the four best years of his career team performance wise, he hasn't been counted on to take and make big shots. Sorry, but that's not better than Charles or Karl in my eyes.


Garnett's defensive presence makes up for his lack of crunch time ability IMO, some of you guys are seriously overlooking how important KG was in 2008 to the Celtics, more important then Pierce and Ray.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

HKF said:


> I just keep hearing that Garnett was this great defensive anchor, but when push came to shove, he simply wasn't good enough to lead his team. In 2008, he was not the leader in crunch-time at all. Nor in 2004, 2009 or this year. In the four best years of his career team performance wise, he hasn't been counted on to take and make big shots. Sorry, but that's not better than Charles or Karl in my eyes.


Garnett was the grease in the Celtics defense in 2008. There's no way to dispute that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Makes for a lack of crunch-time ability? What? If you can't win games when they matter most, who cares what you did for the first 36 minutes? You guys are way too blinded by stats.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

HKF said:


> Makes for a lack of crunch-time ability? What? If you can't win games when they matter most, who cares what you did for the first 36 minutes? You guys are way too blinded by stats.


Defense isn't played just 36 minutes a game though, getting a stop in the closing minutes of a game is just as important as nailing a big shot.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

HKF said:


> Makes for a lack of crunch-time ability? What? If you can't win games when they matter most, who cares what you did for the first 36 minutes? You guys are way too blinded by stats.


This logic puts Bill Russell pretty low on the list of all-time greatest players, though.

(To be clear - and to anticipate some criticism - I'm not equating Garnett with Russell. Just pouncing on what I think is an undervaluing of great defense.)


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> If i had to choose one ...it would be garnett rather easily.
> 
> malone and barkley were better scorers but they weren't ever the best scorer in the league so better is relative in a sense ...garnett has been the best defender in the league...at times the best player overall something during the MJ era never happened with barkley and malone.
> 
> garnett as a dominant defender /very good scorer is the rarer commodity and if he had a stockton or a KJ i have to believe he would have been alot more successful than either barkley or malone because he wouldn't have had to create everything for himself in the 4th, while still being being a dominant defender...when he had good help they were a contender...that simple.


I'm not convinced Garnett would've been more successful than Barkley or Malone under those circumstances, but he certainly would've been more successful on those Utah or Phoenix teams than he was with the players he ran with in Minnesota.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> garnett as a dominant defender /very good scorer is the rarer commodity and if he had a stockton *or a KJ* i have to believe he would have been alot more successful than either barkley or malone because he wouldn't have had to create everything for himself in the 4th, while still being being a dominant defender...when he had good help they were a contender...that simple.


This may be nitpicky, but I think Barkley had his best offensive years before he ever teamed up with KJ.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

You have Tim Duncan, Bob Pettit, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Dirk Nowitzki when discussing the greatest power fowards of all time. No other power foward ranks above them, and it's impossible to come to any type of consensus that any of these players were better than any other.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Sliccat said:


> Gamesetmatch





HKF said:


> Makes for a lack of crunch-time ability? What? If you can't win games when they matter most, who cares what you did for the first 36 minutes? You guys are way too blinded by stats.


Exactly. Kevin Garnett is strictly a 36 minute player. 3 quarter players don't belong in the conversation, regardless of how good their defense is. You can make the argument that Garnett was Boston's most important player in 2008 (though I wouldn't necessarily agree), but you can't make the argument that he was their best player.

By the way, Dirk Nowitzki is a much better player than Kevin Garnett ever was.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Nightmute said:


> You have Tim Duncan, Bob Pettit, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Dirk Nowitzki when discussing the greatest power fowards of all time. No other power foward ranks above them, and it's impossible to come to any type of consensus that any of these players were better than any other.


I think if Garnett and especially Nowitzki are in the conversation, I would argue for including Elvin Hayes - extremely durable, a better rebounder and shotblocker (and arguably defender), and has a title on his resume.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Exactly. Kevin Garnett is strictly a 36 minute player. 3 quarter players don't belong in the conversation, regardless of how good their defense is. You can make the argument that Garnett was Boston's most important player in 2008 (though I wouldn't necessarily agree), but you can't make the argument that he was their best player.
> 
> By the way, Dirk Nowitzki is a much better player than Kevin Garnett ever was.


So again, Bill Russell doesn't belong in the conversation of greatest centers ever because he wasn't a crunch-time offensive dynamo? 

As for Nowitzki being a "much better player than Kevin Garnett ever was," I would agree if we're talking about shooting, ballhandling and scoring versatility. Balance that against superior defense, rebounding, and playmaking. Sounds like a matter of personal taste to me.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Exactly. Kevin Garnett is strictly a 36 minute player. 3 quarter players don't belong in the conversation, regardless of how good their defense is. You can make the argument that Garnett was Boston's most important player in 2008 (though I wouldn't necessarily agree), but you can't make the argument that he was their best player.
> 
> *By the way, Dirk Nowitzki is a much better player than Kevin Garnett ever was*.


No, he wasn't it, KG was a better overall player then Dirk. Dirk is the better offensive player, but Garnett was the better passer, defender, and rebounder. He never had the all-around game Garnett had.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Game3525 said:


> No, he wasn't it, KG was a better overall player then Dirk. Dirk is the better offensive player, but Garnett was the better passer, defender, and rebounder. He never had the all-around game Garnett had.


Yeah, Garnett had pretty numbers. You're impressed. 20, 10, and 5. Dirk had a bigger impact and I would bet you anything that the Wolves would have been better in 2005, 2006, and 2007 if they had Nowitzki instead of Garnett.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Yeah, Garnett had pretty numbers. You're impressed. 20, 10, and 5. Dirk had a bigger impact and I would bet you anything that the Wolves would have been better in 2005, 2006, and 2007 if they had Nowitzki instead of Garnett.


Dirk only impacts one side of the game though, Garnett does both. If you put Dirk on the Celtics in 2008 instead of Garnett, they don't win the championship.


----------



## and1king (Jan 15, 2010)

The biggest problem with this is that he has played out of position most of his career. He's a small forward. There's not much that has ever been 'powerful' about his game. Karl Malone, on the other hand, is the epitome of a power forward.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Yeah, Garnett had pretty numbers. You're impressed. 20, 10, and 5. Dirk had a bigger impact and I would bet you anything that the Wolves would have been better in 2005, 2006, and 2007 if they had Nowitzki instead of Garnett.


The Wolves wouldn't have made the playoffs then either. _Worse_ defense wouldn't have improved those teams.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

and1king said:


> The biggest problem with this is that he has played out of position most of his career. He's a small forward. There's not much that has ever been 'powerful' about his game. Karl Malone, on the other hand, is the epitome of a power forward.


I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I suspect that you don't either.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Figure out a way to put Nowitzki and Garnett together, and THEN you'd have something.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jericho said:


> Figure out a way to put Nowitzki and Garnett together, and THEN you'd have something.


As in combine them in a single player? I don't think they'd work all that well together. Garnett with prime Shaq? You'd have a team that would probably break the 70 win mark.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I suspect that you don't either.


Well, Garnett started out his career playing mostly SF, partly because he was reed-thin, partly because he was so mobile and quick as a perimeter defender, and partly because Laettner and Gugliotta were already on the team. I do think PF was his most natural position, though.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jericho said:


> Well, Garnett started out his career playing mostly SF, partly because he was reed-thin, partly because he was so mobile and quick as a perimeter defender, and partly because Laettner and Gugliotta were already on the team. I do think PF was his most natural position, though.


Yeah, he needed a couple of years to grow into his body, but once he filled out, playing the 4 was his best and highest usage. You want Garnett as the primary help defender not covering SFs.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> As in combine them in a single player?


 Yeah, that's what I meant, actually. I'm not sure they'd work well on the floor together, although it would have been an experiment worth trying. Make Garnett guard the small forwards, and try to land a Dampier- or Haywood-like center who supplied some bulky oomph in the paint on defense.


----------



## and1king (Jan 15, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I suspect that you don't either.


lol - vodka or cognac?

next round on me....


----------



## and1king (Jan 15, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, he needed a couple of years to grow into his body, but once he filled out, playing the 4 was his best and highest usage. You want Garnett as the primary help defender not covering SFs.


Yep. On that team with Sprewell and Cassell - when Cassell got hurt, and Troy Hudson was hurt also, KG would play the 1 at times. Historically, the most versatile players are the small forwards. That's why I see KG as a extremely long small forward.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jericho said:


> Yeah, that's what I meant, actually. I'm not sure they'd work well on the floor together, although it would have been an experiment worth trying. Make Garnett guard the small forwards, and try to land a Dampier- or Haywood-like center who supplied some bulky oomph in the paint on defense.


I'd much prefer Garnett with a two way SF than elsewise. From the 4 Garnett impacts everything, while from the 3 he would (in theory) have a much more limited impact. This is why AK-47 has largely vanished since the Jazz signed Boozer. As a 3 his impact is mostly limited to whatever he can do to opposing SFs, while at the 4 he was able to disrupt opposing offenses by cutting off penetration, blocking shots, jumping the pick & roll, and disrupting the passing lanes. Garnett at the 3 would be a waste of defense.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

and1king said:


> Yep. On that team with Sprewell and Cassell - when Cassell got hurt, and Troy Hudson was hurt also, KG would play the 1 at times. Historically, the most versatile players are the small forwards. That's why I see KG as a extremely long small forward.


But at the 3 you take away his biggest impact by limiting his defensive role. You want Garnett free to disrupt the opposing offense, not chasing around SFs. Garnett did run Minnesota's offense at times, but he wasn't the 1. He just did it from the 4 spot (as Bird did way back in the day).


----------



## and1king (Jan 15, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> I'd much prefer Garnett with a two way SF than elsewise. From the 4 Garnett impacts everything, while from the 3 he would (in theory) have a much more limited impact. This is why AK-47 has largely vanished since the Jazz signed Boozer. As a 3 his impact is mostly limited to whatever he can do to opposing SFs, while at the 4 he was able to disrupt opposing offenses by cutting off penetration, blocking shots, jumping the pick & roll, and disrupting the passing lanes. Garnett at the 3 would be a waste of defense.


How do you figure this? At the 3, he would wind up in the post a lot because he would have a definite size advantage over the defender. If the other team decided to play with a big, then the true 4 would have the size advantage in the post. His range is the problem. He would need to be able to hit the 3 more consistently - but his midrange jump shot is one of the best in the league right now.

And about blocking shots from the 3 - ask Lebron James if you can be a good shot blocker from the weakside at the 3. I don't understand that argument. Same reason why Pau and Bynum are having field days now. Garnett is a good weakside defender - but at the 4, he is exposed to being posted up by a true power forward. Beasley, Jamison, and Lewis could not expose this weakness in the earlier rounds. You could make a case that those players are true 3 men as well - but KG is a better 3 than them. They shoot the 3 better - but that's about it...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

and1king said:


> How do you figure this? At the 3, he would wind up in the post a lot because he would have a definite size advantage over the defender. If the other team decided to play with a big, then the true 4 would have the size advantage in the post. His range is the problem. He would need to be able to hit the 3 more consistently - but his midrange jump shot is one of the best in the league right now.


Garnett's just a good offensive player. He's never been anything more than that. His biggest impact is on the other side of the ball.



and1king said:


> And about blocking shots from the 3 - ask Lebron James if you can be a good shot blocker from the weakside at the 3. I don't understand that argument. Same reason why Pau and Bynum are having field days now. Garnett is a good weakside defender - but at the 4, he is exposed to being posted up by a true power forward. Beasley, Jamison, and Lewis could not expose this weakness in the earlier rounds. You could make a case that those players are true 3 men as well - but KG is a better 3 than them. They shoot the 3 better - but that's about it...


James doesn't have the same impact because his primary task is shutting down the opposing three. Garnett's struggles this year in the finals have nothing to do with "weakness", it's that he no longer has the quickness or lift that he had prior to the knee injury. He'd be a disaster at the 3 because everyone would be getting by him. Even Artest.

If Boston had taken the surgical route in October of 2008, when the problem was first found on an MRI, we wouldn't be having this debate because he'd still be (largely) the guy that killed the Lakers two years ago. Unfortunately Boston left the bone spur alone and waited for it to do more serious damage before addressing it. (Garnett bears some responsibility here, too, as he wanted to wait until the end of the year to do anything, but if he'd had surgery that October he would have been able to give Boston something in the 2009 playoffs and he'd have been back to snuff this year.)


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

The best PF of all time is Duncan. A huge clear gap between him and everyone else.

Kevin Garnett is below Karl Malone, Moses Malone IMO. There might be a case for being above Barkley, but it's not clear cut. I also think Dirk was a more valuable player throughout his career than KG, though not by a lot.

End of the day, I feel like Garnett constantly shrank in the eye of pressure. Garnett is probably a great number 2 guy, but not good enough to be the top player and lead a team to a title.

I think at best, KG is the 4th best PF, although I have him at 6th right now.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Moses Malone was a center for the majority of his career, so I don't think he belongs in the discussion. If you look at the portion of his career that he played the 4, he definitely doesn't belong. Because by then he wan't all that great. Dirk is absolutely less valuable than Garnett.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

At the end of the day, I think that a team with Dirk as the lead player has a better chance of winning a title than KG.

Also, I feel that KG's game is going to decline a lot faster over the coming years whereas Dirk is going to keep up his highly efficient production even as he ages. This is going to be evident over the next three to four years IMO.

KG while a great defender but has had an overstated defensive impact. Much in the same way that Ak47 could rack up steals and blocks while having less impact than a prime Mutumbo. I feel the same way about KG, a very good defensive player, but not enough to compensate for his disappearing act under pressure, or his capacity to carry a team offensively.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Except that Garnett did have an immense impact on the 2008 Celtics, and as great an impact as Mutumbo, _while not being an offensive liability_. That's the important part of the equation. Mutumbo may have been one of the best one way players, but he had basically zero impact on the other end of the floor. Dirk in his prime was a better shooter/scorer, but was a pretty bad defensive player and not quite the playmaker Garnett was. Garnett still remains a rarity, a guy that could take over a game defensively while still being good on the other end of the floor. I definitely put Duncan over him, but not one-way guys like Nowitzki.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Kenneth said:


> The best PF of all time is Duncan. A huge clear gap between him and everyone else.
> 
> Kevin Garnett is below Karl Malone, Moses Malone IMO. There might be a case for being above Barkley, but it's not clear cut. I also think Dirk was a more valuable player throughout his career than KG, though not by a lot.
> 
> ...





Kenneth said:


> At the end of the day, I think that a team with Dirk as the lead player has a better chance of winning a title than KG.
> 
> Also, I feel that KG's game is going to decline a lot faster over the coming years whereas Dirk is going to keep up his highly efficient production even as he ages. This is going to be evident over the next three to four years IMO.
> 
> KG while a great defender but has had an overstated defensive impact. Much in the same way that Ak47 could rack up steals and blocks while having less impact than a prime Mutumbo. I feel the same way about KG, a very good defensive player, but not enough to compensate for his disappearing act under pressure, or his capacity to carry a team offensively.


This is exactly right.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

You guys realize that the 2008 Celtics were one of the greatest defensive teams of all-time right? To say Garnett was merely a great defender is an understatement, he had more impact on that side of the ball then Dirk did on offense.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Game3525 said:


> You guys realize that the 2008 Celtics were one of the greatest defensive teams of all-time right? To say Garnett was merely a great defender is an understatement, he had more impact on that side of the ball then Dirk did on offense.


More to the point, his offensive impact was several orders of magnitude greater than Dirk's defensive impact.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Honestly, Dirk has improved over the years as a defender, going from being a liability to a decent team defender at worst. But Garnett, in his extended prime, was certainly a higher-impact offensive player than Dirk was a defender.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

it's crazy how difficult it can be for some to grasp the importance of defense.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

SlamJam said:


> it's crazy how difficult it can be for some to grasp the importance of defense.


Yeah, except as I said on pg. 2, people are severely underrating Karl Malone's defense...

Every person who says KG was the best two-way player either forgets or just never saw Malone on defense.

I don't count KG's 1 title as a knock against Malone, afterall KG had a much deeper team to work with in 2008 than Malone ever had.

The list IMO is:

1. Duncan

2. Malone

3. KG, Dirk, Barkley -- all on same level


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I guess I don't recall Malone being a defender on the level of a Garnett or a Duncan... I suppose it has been a decade or so since I watched the mailman with regularity. He certainly wasn't the rebounder or shotblocker that those two were.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> He certainly wasn't the rebounder or shotblocker that those two were.


Well rebounding wise he was right up there when in his prime, in the 10-12 rpg range. He was absolutely an elite rebounder. Certainly lost some of that in his mid-30's, but so are Duncan and KG.

While he never was a shotblocker, he was a great defender in the same way Dennis Rodman was a great defender. Very quick hands, quick feet, solid positioning, and immovable on the block.

His trademark defensive move I remember is that ball poke he always did in the post. There's a reason the guy averaged around 1.5 steals for most of his career. 

And this coming from a guy who really hated the Jazz.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Well rebounding wise he was right up there when in his prime, in the 10-12 rpg range. He was absolutely an elite rebounder. Certainly lost some of that in his mid-30's, but so are Duncan and KG.


Malone's 5 best rebounding seasons were: 11.1, 10.8, 10.7, 10.7, 10.5


Garnett's 5 best rebounding seasons were: 13.9, 13.5, 13.4, 12.8, 12.7


Duncan's 5 best rebounding seasons were: 12.9, 12.7, 12.4, 12.4, 12.2



Really, Garnett and Duncan are elite level rebounders, Malone, while certainly not bad, just wasn't on that level. And overall I'm not saying Malone is a bad defender, don't get me wrong... I'm just saying there's a decent gap between him and the KG/Duncan level defenders.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Malone was a very good man defender, and a good defender within Sloan's team schemes. Not as effective a help defender as Garnett or Duncan. He didn't have the length or lift to be a good shotblocker, and he didn't have Garnett's lateral quickness (although he was plenty quick for his bulk).

Yes, Malone tends to be underrated as a defender. No, he was not on Garnett's or Duncan's level, nor was he on Rodman's.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

jericho said:


> Barkley was really the most dynamic and streaky, able to come up huge in big games. He was versatile, efficient, and cocky. He loses points for high numbers of fouls and turnovers, being a lackluster defender too often, and being a knucklehead.
> 
> Garnett was the superior defender, consistently a very good passer, and a player with virtually no real weaknesses in his game. He loses points for lacking a killer instinct on offense (he had it on defense, but he was basically a high-caliber complimentary player on offense), not having a bread-and-butter move, and being a knucklehead.
> 
> Stylistically I prefer both of them to the Mailman, but I think Malone still (barely) gets the nod as the 2nd (or at worst, 3rd) best PF of all time. An underrated team defender, a complete load on offense, a terrifically conditioned athlete given his size, obviously ridiculously consistent over a long plateau, a good teammate, and (eventually) a good passer. My main beef with Malone's game is that I wanted him to be a slightly more dominant rebounder.


So Barkley and Malone get docked for being knuckleheads, but the unrepentant deadbeat dad and perhaps dirtiest player in the history of the game gets a free pass?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

jericho said:


> Ha! I guess you're right - I do remember that stuff. Unlike the other two, though, I'm pretty sure he never took unwarranted swings at teammates (Barkley at Ceballos, Garnett at Rickert and whoever else).


Yeah, but Barkley and Garnett didn't regularly put opponents in the hospital. 

I'll never forget Malone breaking Brian Grant's nose in the playoffs, and the first time he got the ball in the next game. 

Grant was guarding him, Malone drove around him from the right side of the basket. Should have gone up for the layup with his right hand, instead he shot with his left hand so he could take a swing at the trailing Grant with his right elbow. 

That pretty much sums up the great Karl Malone - scum of the earth if it ever existed.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Best rebounders? 

1. Barkley - by far the best offensive rebounder of the four
2. Duncan - second best offensive rebounder, best defensive rebounder. 
3. Garnett
4. Malone


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Malone was a dirty player...but he was hardly the dirtiest player. In his era that sort of thing was pretty much par for the course for a NBA big man. Oakley, Mahorn, Laimbeer...All of them were dirtier than Malone...Hell John Stockton was dirtier than Malone, he just wasn't big enough to hurt people. Same thing goes for Isiah Thomas. If Malone were playing now he'd be the dirtiest player in the league, but in his era he wasn't really in the Upper Echelon. Malone was not a good defender though...that's absurd. Charles Barkley's defense was beyond turrible...in fact it could hardly be described as such.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Diable said:


> Malone was a dirty player...but he was hardly the dirtiest player. In his era that sort of thing was pretty much par for the course for a NBA big man. Oakley, Mahorn, Laimbeer...All of them were dirtier than Malone...Hell John Stockton was dirtier than Malone, he just wasn't big enough to hurt people. Same thing goes for Isiah Thomas. If Malone were playing now he'd be the dirtiest player in the league, but in his era he wasn't really in the Upper Echelon. Malone was not a good defender though...that's absurd. Charles Barkley's defense was beyond turrible...in fact it could hardly be described as such.


Those players may have been dirty. None of them come even close to the history Malone has of causing serious injury. 

This isn't even a debate - Stockton might have done more grabbing and holding, but Malone was straight up heartless and borderline criminally dirty.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

Dornado said:


> Really, Garnett and Duncan are elite level rebounders, Malone, while certainly not bad, just wasn't on that level. And overall I'm not saying Malone is a bad defender, don't get me wrong... I'm just saying there's a decent gap between him and the KG/Duncan level defenders.


correct


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Those players may have been dirty. None of them come even close to the history Malone has of causing serious injury.
> 
> This isn't even a debate - Stockton might have done more grabbing and holding, but Malone was straight up heartless and borderline criminally dirty.


... I'd add Anthony Mason as another I'd consider dirtier than Malone... and really, putting guys in the hospital with elbows doesn't necessarily make you dirty... Bill Cartwright probably led the league in breaking peoples noses...


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

And how about Kevin Garnett ending a teammate's season by whacking him in practice during training camp?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Can someone please explain to me HTF Garnett's career comes into comparison with Karl Malone's?


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Can someone please explain to me HTF Garnett's career comes into comparison with Karl Malone's?


People are impressed with numbers.

Twenty, ten, and five.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

No, I'd say more leading a team to a championship. That's what sparked this thread.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

jericho said:


> No, I'd say more leading a team to a championship. That's what sparked this thread.


Kevin Garnett never lead no team to a championship.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Mmm. Neither did Bill Russell, I suppose.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

jericho said:


> Mmm. Neither did Bill Russell, I suppose.


If you remember correctly, KG was blasted inumerous times in this same Forum from avoiding the Ball in the 4th quarter. Peeps were making a field day of it back in 2008.
And in the Finals it was Weelchair Pierce who carried the team.
So, yeah, KG never carried a team to the champsionship.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> ... I'd add Anthony Mason as another I'd consider dirtier than Malone... and really, putting guys in the hospital with elbows doesn't necessarily make you dirty... Bill Cartwright probably led the league in breaking peoples noses...


No player has come even remotely close to Malone when it comes to consistently causing serious injury to opponents. The league did everything in its power to protect their star, but that doesn't change reality. 

If causing more serious injuries doesn't make you "more dirty", I would like to know your definition of "dirty"? 

Putting up Anthony Mason as more dirty than Malone is an absolute freaking joke. Mason played physical and shave words into his hair. Malone put people in the hospital.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> If you remember correctly, KG was blasted inumerous times in this same Forum from avoiding the Ball in the 4th quarter. Peeps were making a field day of it back in 2008.


Mostly angry, bitter, Laker fans.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Garnett is a great player, but he never put the team on his back and won when it mattered on offense. Comparing a winner like Russell to him is just not making any sense. Not to mention as much as I like Russell, all of his numbers are inflated for the league he played in.

Anything before the merger, is quite skeptical IMO.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> If you remember correctly, KG was blasted inumerous times in this same Forum from avoiding the Ball in the 4th quarter. Peeps were making a field day of it back in 2008.
> And in the Finals it was Weelchair Pierce who carried the team.
> So, yeah, KG never carried a team to the champsionship.


Exactly.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

HKF said:


> Garnett is a great player, but he never put the team on his back and won when it mattered on offense. Comparing a winner like Russell to him is just not making any sense. Not to mention as much as I like Russell, all of his numbers are inflated for the league he played in.
> 
> Anything before the merger, is quite skeptical IMO.


Regardless of Russell's numbers, he was the guiding force behind the greatest team in sports history. Garnett carried the '08 Celtics defensively, and that team won its title because it was one of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history. Swap out Nowitzki for Garnett and the '08 Celtics probably don't make it past the Cavaliers in the second round.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

I'm a KG hater but there's no denying his defensive impact for the Celtics. He also contributes a ton of locker-room intangibles since he's always in his teammates face and trying to motivate. It does seem annoying to watch but every team could use a personality like his to keep players in check (although KG seems to grab too many technicals). 

KG also exceeded his career playoff averages for his championship season: .473% FG (career) versus .495% FG (2008). Basketball-reference has KG's 2010 playoffs FG% at .490, again higher than his career playoffs average even though he's athletically deprived. His 2008 and 2010 playoffs FT% also exceed his career playoffs average for what its worth.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

HKF said:


> Garnett is a great player, but he never put the team on his back and won when it mattered on offense. Comparing a winner like Russell to him is just not making any sense. Not to mention as much as I like Russell, all of his numbers are inflated for the league he played in.
> 
> Anything before the merger, is quite skeptical IMO.


My point is that Russell didn't carry his team offensively, either - in fact, he arguably did less so than Garnett.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Mostly angry, bitter, Laker fans.


He wasn't playing the Lakers, then. Creepy Old Man.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> He wasn't playing the Lakers, then. Creepy Old Man.


Precisely, it's why you guys cried and stomped your feet so much. It's OK, Paolo, one day the Lakers will find another Magic Johnson and finally be able to beat the Celtics when it matters again.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

No. He's a tremendous player but not better than Malone and Barkley in my opinion. KG is a bigger version of Pippen. Tremendous team and individual defender, versatile, capable of doing everything at a high level. However, like Pippen, he wasn't a "go to guy". When the game was on the line, the ball was in the hands of Malone and Barkley. KG is probably the third of fourth option for the Celtics in those situations.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

As expected, KG played like it was the 4th quarter of a game 7.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I wish Ray Allen had "choked" like Kevin Garnett.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Yes, because defense matters and KG was a scary defender in his prime. He actually looked pretty damn good this postseason too minus a couple games. He's still got it, and might have another season of ball in him before really going off the cliff.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> Precisely, it's why you guys cried and stomped your feet so much. It's OK, Paolo, one day the Lakers will find another Magic Johnson and finally be able to beat the Celtics when it matters again.


Apparently, Adam Morrison was that guy.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

No, I still would take Karl Malone and Charles Barkley over Kevin Garnett. Choosing KG solely on the evaluation of a team success is silly to me.

BTW, The Mailman was known universally as the dirtiest player in the NBA during his prime. He earned that reputation by this third season in the NBA, when Dominique Wilkins called Malone out for his tactics. Malone consistently threw elbows and cheap shots.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Yes, he has.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

Blu said:


> Yes, he has.


What a joke. Malone nearly outscored Kareem for his career, and now KG has surpassed him. 

Perhaps we should start comparing LeBron with MJ too?

And let's not forget that Steve Nash with his two MVP's is superior to Oscar Robertson and Jerry West.


----------



## Dr. Dunkenstein (Sep 16, 2010)

simply_amazing said:


> What a joke. Malone nearly outscored Kareem for his career, and now KG has surpassed him.
> 
> Perhaps we should start comparing LeBron with MJ too?
> 
> And let's not forget that Steve Nash with his two MVP's is superior to Oscar Robertson and Jerry West.


What he said . . .


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

KG is winner.  

Something LBJ n Nash are not.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

That's funny, I remember all those first-round flameouts in Minnesota during the KG era. 

Just saying.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Plus the three straight years the Wolves missed the playoffs entirely.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

Yes, KG has passed Malone and Barkley. While the worst offensive player amongst the three, he's far and away the best defensive player. Overall he's the best two way player, and has the biggest on court impact (that's not always measured in stats) - not to mention off court impact. 

That's my overall opinion though. The best offensive player was Barkley, while Malone had incredible longevity with very good, consistent production. 

1. Duncan
2. Garnett
3. Malone
4. Barkley


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

just being honest i'd rather have a prime garnett than a prime malone .

if you put KG on that jazz team running the P & R with stockton he'd have been lethal (although maybe not as good as malone) while being the league's best defender or at least among the top few and a better rebounder.

no doubt malone has longevity on him ....but garnett in his place might have won a title in utah.

the team he took to the WCF was the best team he had and it was no match for the supporting cast malone enjoyed in utah most years.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

I'd say that Garnett is the best complimentary player of the three, but probably no better in terms of sheer value as a "Franchise Player" (i.e. max contract star surrounded by mostly mediocre talent in a league with too many lousy teams and expected to deliver a championship). In fact, Barkley would be my pick for the latter role.


----------

