# Why is the Mailman so underated?



## FlyingTiger (Aug 4, 2002)

i hate this guy with a passion, but hes very underated. nobody ever seems to put him in the top 10 list. i think because he such an butthole people over look his numbers. sure he didnt win any championships, but his numbers are just out of the world.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

I think some people also think that John Stockton and the Utah system inflated his numbers.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

id say if he is being underrated in the grand scheme, its because he hasnt won a championship


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FlyingTiger</b>!
> i hate this guy with a passion, but hes very underated. nobody ever seems to put him in the top 10 list. i think because he such an butthole people over look his numbers. sure he didnt win any championships, but his numbers are just out of the world.


I don't think he is underrated. Unliked? Even Hated? Yes.

But his career speaks for himself. Really, is there anybody who doesn't consider him at least All-Time Top 15 (till now)?


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

Just look at the top ten, who would you be able to take off the list? He just doesn't have the credentials.


----------



## roastedtoaster (Mar 16, 2004)

hes the best power foward ever.....atleast until duncan logs some more years in. thats quite a feat.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

He could be Top 10.

MJ
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
Big O
Kareem
Hakeem
Erving
K Malone

Then West, M Malone, Stockton, etc.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jokeaward</b>!
> He could be Top 10.
> 
> MJ
> ...


Then it´s top-11.

No way Malone was better than The Logo. NO WAY!


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

People argue for Malone as the best PF of all time fairly often. I don't think that's underrated in the least.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> I think some people also think that John Stockton and the Utah system inflated his numbers.


I'm of the ilk that believes it was actually the Mailman that inflated Stockton's numbers.

That's not to take anything away from Stockton though. He was obviously an amazing player.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

Malone is a regular season players and often chokes in 
playoff and clutch time. He's definitely not top 10 worthy.

Most of the top 10 players are definitions of clutch except
Wilt and Shaq. Wilt was also more of a regular season 
player but he was just too dominant. Shaq always saves 
his game for the playoff.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>snowmt</b>!
> Malone is a regular season players and often chokes in
> playoff and clutch time. He's definitely not top 10 worthy.
> 
> ...


so, for the reasons you stated, you hate KG's guts, huh?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Tim Duncan > Karl Malone


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> so, for the reasons you stated, you hate KG's guts, huh?



I have gained a lot more respect for KG this year.

By the way, I am not saying Malone is garbage. He's 
obviously a top 15 player of all-time. But top 10 is 
pretty high standard and they are expected to play 
better in big games.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>snowmt</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Point taken... :greatjob:


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Tim Duncan > Karl Malone


He really isn't though. Not at this point.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spriggan</b>!
> 
> 
> He really isn't though. Not at this point.


But at the pace Duncans at, I think he takes over the best PF spot of all time in a couple years.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> 
> 
> But at the pace Duncans at, I think he takes over the best PF spot of all time in a couple years.


If Duncan never wins another title or MVP award and only keeps up his current statistical pace for another 5 years, I would definitely put Malone ahead of Duncan. But if he wins another title and MVP this season or at some point in his career, I'd say his case for greatest PF of all time over Malone would be stronger than any case you could make for Malone, assuming Duncan produces statistically for at least another 5 years.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Considering that Duncan may show some of the same longevity that Malone did on top of winning and leading his team to two titles and nabbing two MVPs (so far) makes me think that Duncan will definitely be remembered as the greatest power forward of all time. Hell, Malone didnt even win his MVP awards until his mid-30s, I think Duncan will be a legit MVP candidate until hes 35, and the Spurs look like they'll be a contender until he retires, with Popovich, Parker, Manu, etc. So its not that far off to think Duncan could have anywhere from 3-5 MVP awards and 3-5 titles by the end of his career.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> Hell, Malone didnt even win his MVP awards until his mid-30s, I think Duncan will be a legit MVP candidate until hes 35, and the Spurs look like they'll be a contender until he retires, with Popovich, Parker, Manu, etc. So its not that far off to think Duncan could have anywhere from 3-5 MVP awards and 3-5 titles by the end of his career.


I don't think determining player value by MVPs or titles is valid. MVPs are very context-sensitive. Malone was up against much tougher competition for MVP awards, like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Those are five of the all-time top-ten players.

Duncan would not have won MVP awards over Jordan, for example (mustache Jordan of the Wizards aside).

Titles, of course, are team-dependant and competition matters there, too. Duncan's Spurs would not have beaten the Showtime Lakers or the Jordan/Pippen Bulls.

Tim Duncan (or Kevin Garnett) *might* eclipse Karl Malone in the end. But it's certainly no guarantee. Malone's utter dominance is being totally forgotten due to his lackluster last couple of years. For the better part of two decades, he was scoring between 25-30 points per game, rebounding extremely well and playing very good defense. Malone was a *much* more destructive offensive force in the post than Duncan.

In Malone's prime, which was very long, he simply couldn't be stopped. Duncan cannot be characterized that way. He's very good, but he can be slowed and even marginalized. He's had plenty of games like that.

Malone hasn't, until his recent decline. When people talk about him "collapsing" in the playoffs, all they mean is his team lost or Rodman tripped him twice. His numbers were still outstanding.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think determining player value by MVPs or titles is valid. MVPs are very context-sensitive. Malone was up against much tougher competition for MVP awards, like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Those are five of the all-time top-ten players.
> ...


i agree with the whole of this post - malone's prime years are superior to duncan's best seasons, and matches TD's MVP's 2-2 in the michael jordan era, though he didnt win a title, 3 finals appearances are significant as well as never missing the playoffs - very significant in my eyes


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I don't think determining player value by MVPs or titles is valid. MVPs are very context-sensitive. Malone was up against much tougher competition for MVP awards, like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Those are five of the all-time top-ten players.
> 
> Duncan would not have won MVP awards over Jordan, for example (mustache Jordan of the Wizards aside).


I am of the opinion that players should be judged by how good they were compared to the rest of the league, because otherwise Wilt Chamberlain wouldnt be so high on the top 10 list, neither would Bill Russell. They couldnt do the things they did back then in todays game, but they did it in their time. I compare them based on how dominant they were in their own era.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> I don't think determining player value by MVPs or titles is valid. MVPs are very context-sensitive. Malone was up against much tougher competition for MVP awards, like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Those are five of the all-time top-ten players.


That's completely unrealistic. Malone was a rookie the last year Kareem was a mvp-caliber player. You don't win MVPs as a rookie (unless you're wilt chamberlain).

Larry Bird was starting to slip by the time Malone became really good.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> That's completely unrealistic. Malone was a rookie the last year Kareem was a mvp-caliber player. You don't win MVPs as a rookie (unless you're wilt chamberlain).
> ...


:yes: Malone's competition for MVP is from Jordan, Barkeley,
Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq. Only Jordan was absolutely 
better than him.

Hakeem, Barkeley, Robinson were all seriously declined when
Malone won his MVPs. He beated them by longevity.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that players should be judged by how good they were compared to the rest of the league, because otherwise Wilt Chamberlain wouldnt be so high on the top 10 list, neither would Bill Russell. They couldnt do the things they did back then in todays game, but they did it in their time. I compare them based on how dominant they were in their own era.


Dominance in an era should be a factor, but I don't think it should be the only factor. Otherwise, Chamberlain should be #1 all-time and no one else should really even be close. Not Jordan, no one.

There's always the issue of adding context to the era accomplishments, especially when you're looking at things that depend on the era, like MVP awards. While talent overall may not vary too much from era to era, some eras may happen to have it concentrated in the top levels...which I think happened in the '80s and '90s. The top five over that stretch is superior to the top five players today, in my opinion. Would Duncan have won MVPs over Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon and Michael Jordan? I don't think he would. Is it fair, then, to penalize Malone for not doing so?

I'm not saying Duncan doesn't compare to Malone. As I said, he could very well surpass Malone. But the suggestions that Duncan has already surpassed a guy who had an utterly dominant 15 years or so, or that he's guaranteed to do so, is very much jumping the gun. Duncan *could* do it. He by no means is guaranteed to do so.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Yeah, and it's not like Duncan's competition for MVP was bad.

Malone
Garnett
Shaq
Kobe
Kidd
Mourning

Plus all the upcoming MVP candidates while Duncan will still be dominant.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> That's completely unrealistic. Malone was a rookie the last year Kareem was a mvp-caliber player. You don't win MVPs as a rookie (unless you're wilt chamberlain).
> ...


Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were the top players in the league for a number of very good Malone seasons. Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, David Robinson and Michael Jordan all had huge overlap with Malone.

The only players concurrent with Duncan on that level were Shaquille O'Neal (who began his decline when Duncan won his first MVP) and Kevin Garnett.

There's no one to even come close to rivalling Jordan today, who took *six* MVPs during Malone's prime.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> There's no one to even come close to rivalling Jordan today, who took *FIVE* MVPs during Malone's prime.


And Malone got a MVP when Jordan was more deserving in 1996.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Yeah, and it's not like Duncan's competition for MVP was bad.
> 
> Malone
> ...


Those players arent anywhere near comparable.

Malone and O'Neal had both begun their decline phases when Duncan won his MVP. So they barely count. Mourning is barely relevant, as he's been essentially a non-factor since Duncan became an MVP candidate. Sure, they all were competitors for maybe three years of his career or so (O'Neal a couple years more).

Garnett is comparable.

Kobe and McGrady are the next most talented players and they're not on the level of Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Charles Barkley or David Robinson. The first four are all-time top-ten players and the last two are usually put in the next five or ten players.

Kidd doesn't come close to sniffing this caliber of player.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>snowmt</b>!
> 
> 
> And Malone got a MVP when Jordan was more deserving in 1996.


And many people thought Kevin Garnett was more deserving of Duncan's second MVP award. So what's your point?

It's not like Jordan was undervalued by people by that point in his career. It's an incredible accomplishment by Malone to win an MVP over a hallowed Jordan...the most respected player in the game at the time.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Minstrel, if you want to compare ability, Duncan vs. Malone is a lot like Garnett vs. Barkley. Malone was the far superior scorer, like Barkley, but Duncan was a better rebounder, defender and created more opportunities for his teammates. He was better in every other aspect, just like Garnett in comparison to Barkley. 

I think the MVPs and titles reflect his ability.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Those players arent anywhere near comparable.
> ...


Well, in that case, why list Kareem, Magic, and Bird, who weren't even in the league when Malone won his first MVP?



> So they barely count. Mourning is barely relevant, as he's been essentially a non-factor since Duncan became an MVP candidate. Sure, they all were competitors for maybe three years of his career or so (O'Neal a couple years more).


Huh? Duncan is a realistic MVP candidate since his _first season_, and while we're on the subject, he should have won it instead of Malone in 99.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Minstrel, if you want to compare ability, Duncan vs. Malone is a lot like Garnett vs. Barkley. Malone was the far superior scorer, like Barkley, but Duncan was a better rebounder, defender and created more opportunities for his teammates. He was better in every other aspect, just like Garnett in comparison to Barkley.


It's really not like that. Duncan was only a marginally better rebounder at their primes. You state that Duncan was better at creating more opportunities for his teammates like that's some sort of fact, when Malone was well-known for being a very good passing big man. The assists per game (while not conclusive) don't bear your claim out, as Malone often had more than Duncan. Duncan was also not necessarily a superior defender. He's a better help defender, but Malone was a stronger, more physical individual defender.

In my opinion, Malone was the far superior scorer, the better passer and the better individual defender. Duncan was a little bit better as a rebounder and a better help defender.

That doesn't sound to me at all like Duncan was simply superior at everything but scoring.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Another thing that makes Duncan elite. He has been on the all-nba first team EVERY YEAR. The only two people I can think of who were on the all-nba first team their first 7 years are Oscar Robinson and Larry Bird (top 5 players on most people's lists). And barring injury, there is no reason to think he won't be on it at least another 2 or 3 years.

edit: oh, Bob Pettit did it too.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, in that case, why list Kareem, Magic, and Bird, who weren't even in the league when Malone won his first MVP?


I'll drop Abdul-Jabbar, just as Mourning shouldn't have been included at all. But Bird and Johnson were still top players for a group of great Malone seasons.



> Huh? Duncan is a realistic MVP candidate since his _first season_


There's no way in hell anyone considered Duncan a legitimate MVP candidate in his rookie season.

And it goes directly against your own quote: _"You don't win MVPs as a rookie (unless you're wilt chamberlain)."_

Contradicting yourself when it's convenient to your argument is not a good way to make your case.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

If you're going to claim that Malone is a far superior scorer, like I think its reasonable to, atleast take into account one of the main reasons for that is the zone ruling. That allowed Malone to tackle single coverage much more often than Duncan does. 

You cant have it both ways though, Duncan gets doubled much more than Malone ever did, simply because teams *can* without getting called for it. Malone could pump fake a pass, and defenses would be back to their man. 

Duncan creates more opportunities because he recieves those hard double and triple teams that throws the defense off and gives his teammates an advantage when attacking. 

I think Duncan was the better man defender by a slight margin, and a better help defender by a large margin. That to me makes him the superior defender by a pretty good margin. 

On top of that, Duncan is the better rebounder, not by a huge margin, but its a distinct margin. 

That *does* sound like a player who is better than Malone at everything except scoring.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> In my opinion, Malone was the far superior scorer, the better passer and the better individual defender. Duncan was a little bit better as a rebounder and a better help defender.


Malone was a better defender? He averaged over 1 blks three
times(1.54, 2 x 1.04). As the best PF in the 90s, he's been on
all-defensive 1st team 3 times and 2nd team once.

Duncan averages 2.53 blks for his career and has been on the
all-defensive 1st team 5 times and 2nd team once. His team 
is always the top 2 defensive team in the league.

Talking about what you want most from your bigman?

Rebs: Duncan 12.30 Malone 10.1
Blks: Duncan 2.53 Malone .78


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> In my opinion, Malone was the far superior scorer, the better passer and the better individual defender. Duncan was a little bit better as a rebounder and a better help defender.


Well, if you're going to break down defending into categories, might as well do the same for scoring.

Duncan is much better at posting up. His low post moves are far superior.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> That *does* sound like a player who is better than Malone at everything except scoring.


Well, if you feel Duncan was a superior passer and individual defender, I disagree with you on those appraisals.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> I'll drop Abdul-Jabbar, just as Mourning shouldn't have been included at all. But Bird and Johnson were still top players for a group of great Malone seasons.


But you're not holding them to the same standard.

You said Malone and Shaq were on the decline by the time Duncan won his MVP. But Bird and Johnson weren't even in the NBA by the time Malone won his first MVP.

If you say Bird and Johnson "were still top players for a group of great Malone seasons," isn't that also true of Malone and Shaq for a group of great Duncan seasons?

So either Malone, Shaq, Johnson, and Bird *all* count, or none of them count. You pick, I don't care either way.



> There's no way in hell anyone considered Duncan a legitimate MVP candidate in his rookie season.


I believe he was 3rd or 4th in MVP voting his rookie year.



> And it goes directly against your own quote: "You don't win MVPs as a rookie (unless you're wilt chamberlain)."
> 
> Contradicting yourself when it's convenient to your argument is not a good way to make your case.


No, rookies don't win MVP awards because they'll never give one to a rookie again (unless some rookie puts of 30/15 numbers, which isn't going to happen). They can still be candidates though, if you count receiving votes as being a candidate, which Duncan did. And Duncan's rookie and sophmore numbers are nearly identical, *and he should have won it as a sophmore*.

The whole point was that Kareem can't be considered competition for Malone because Malone wasn't anywhere near an MVP candidate his first year. His numbers were 14 and 8. He was a pretty good rookie, and that's it.

Duncan on the other hand instantly became an elite player as soon as he touched the hardwood.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> But you're not holding them to the same standard.
> ...


I actually meant to use the standard "MVP candidate" not "won his first award." My mistake. I felt Duncan was only a legitimate candidate for most dominant player in the league in 2002. Prior to that, he didn't even hold a candle to O'Neal.



> They can still be candidates though, if you count receiving votes as being a candidate, which Duncan did.


I don't count "receiving votes" as being a candidate. To me, being a candidate means that people genuinely think you might be the most dominant player in the game. I don't anyone who thought Duncan might be the most dominant player in the game in his first few seasons. A great player, sure.



> And Duncan's rookie and sophmore numbers are nearly identical, *and he should have won it as a sophmore*.


No agreement on that count from me. I think Malone was the most dominant player that year and O'Neal took over as the clear-cut most dominant upon the arrival of Phil Jackson.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> No agreement on that count from me. I think Malone was the most dominant player that year and O'Neal took over as the clear-cut most dominant upon the arrival of Phil Jackson.


Malone dominant in 98-99? 

23.8 pts 9.4 rbs 4.1 ast .57 blks 1.27 stls 3.31 TOs .493 FG

vs Duncan who was the best player on the best team
21.7 pts 11.4 rbs 2.4 ast 2.52 blks .9 stls 2.92 TOs .495 FG

And Shaq
26.3 pts 10.7 rbs 2.3 ast 1.65 blks .75 stls 2.45 TOs .576 FG

Dominant my a**. 

And Duncan was the final MVP which Malone would dream to exchange with him.

In 99 playoff:

Malone choked again
21.8 pts 11.3 rbs 4.7 ast .7 blks 1.2 stls 3.65 TOs .417 FG

Duncan
23.2 pts 11.5 rbs 2.8 ast 3 blks .7 stls 3 TOs .51 FG


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Talk about beating a dead horse. I swear I went over the Duncan having to play against a zone and Malone not thing with JTCK just a while ago, but maybe I'm imagining it.

Either way, I think anyone who claims that the Duncan we're watching now is better than a prime Malone is doing themselves a disservice if they haven't watched any film on the Mailman from the very late 80's/early 90's. Duncan is a fantastic player, but I honestly don't believe he ever has had the same level of "unstoppableness" that Malone had for a good 4-5 years.

I've seen enough of both of them at their peaks (assuming Duncan is indeed at his peak now) to say that I would want Malone without any hesitation - at this point, at least. Duncan surely has a fantastic career ahead of him and will likely finish it with enough accolades to easily vault himself ahead of Malone in most people's "Greatest of all-time"-type lists.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>snowmt</b>!
> 
> 
> Malone dominant in 98-99?


Malone _was_ most valuable (maybe not most dominant) in that his team would be complete garbage without him, their next highest scorer being Bryon Russell that season, with a crippled Jeff Hornacek and a Stockton that wasn't capable of playing more than 28 minutes a night.. The Spurs still had David Robinson (who had yet to have his big fall off) and a flurry of awesome roleplayers like Elliott, A. Johnson, Elie, Rose, Kerr, etc..

And by the way, the Spurs and Jazz had the same record in the lockout season.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> 
> Malone _was_ most valuable (maybe not most dominant) in that his team would be complete garbage without him, their next highest scorer being Bryon Russell that season. The Spurs still had David Robinson (who had yet to have his big fall off) and a flurry of awesome roleplayers like Elliott, A. Johnson, Elie, Rose, Kerr, etc..
> ...



Then how can you explain Jazz almost sneaked into playoff 
with Stockton/Malone retired and their best player injured? 
Keep in mind Stockton was still the best point guard in 1998. 
Jazz wouldn't have been crap as long as they had Sloan and 
Stockton.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> Talk about beating a dead horse. I swear I went over the Duncan having to play against a zone and Malone not thing with JTCK just a while ago, but maybe I'm imagining it.
> 
> Either way, I think anyone who claims that the Duncan we're watching now is better than a prime Malone is doing themselves a disservice if they haven't watched any film on the Mailman from the very late 80's/early 90's. Duncan is a fantastic player, but I honestly don't believe he ever has had the same level of "unstoppableness" that Malone had for a good 4-5 years.
> ...


I dont think we ever settled the whole zone thing? I sure didnt change my mind about it. I saw plenty of prime Malone, and all he really did better than Duncan is score, I dont think his overall impact on the game was as great as Duncans. Duncan has the same level of unstoppableness because it takes a hard double and triple to stop him as a scorer, but he still creates opportunities. On top of this, he is the anchor for the best defensive team in the league and is a top 2-3 rebounder in the league every year. To me, that is the same level of unstoppableness. Not from a raw scoring aspect, but if you look at the overall impact.


----------



## dk1115 (Aug 27, 2004)

why hasn't anyone mentioned he's about to be 1st all time in points?


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

I havent read the whole thread but this is my stance: I don't think he's underrated because whenever I see a "Best All-Time Team" thread, he is either the starting PF or 1st off the bench, being the best or second best power forward *ever* isn't underrating him


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> If you're going to claim that Malone is a far superior scorer, like I think its reasonable to, atleast take into account one of the main reasons for that is the zone ruling. That allowed Malone to tackle single coverage much more often than Duncan does.
> 
> You cant have it both ways though, Duncan gets doubled much more than Malone ever did, simply because teams *can* without getting called for it. Malone could pump fake a pass, and defenses would be back to their man.


the illegal defense rules were changed for the '01-'02 season. the same season that saw duncan's scoring go up from 22.2 to 25.5 ppg, and his fg% go from 49.9% to 50.8%.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> 
> Malone _was_ most valuable (maybe not most dominant) in that his team would be complete garbage without him, their next highest scorer being Bryon Russell that season, with a crippled Jeff Hornacek and a Stockton that wasn't capable of playing more than 28 minutes a night.. The Spurs still had David Robinson (who had yet to have his big fall off) and a flurry of awesome roleplayers like Elliott, A. Johnson, Elie, Rose, Kerr, etc..
> ...


AND duncan actually came in 3rd, behind mourning.


----------



## Dulli (Sep 7, 2004)

Many reasons why Malone would be underrated:

1. He played in Utah
2. He played in the same era as several other distinctly better, or more high profile, stars - Jordan, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, David, Barkley, Shaq to name the first 7 that came to mind. 
3. He never (hasn't yet anyway) led his team to a championship
4. He is not very well liked
5. His game wasn't very pretty or flashy, and was very workmanlike. Unlike Duncan, who is praised for this aspect, alot of critics instead chose to focus on Malone's percieved dirty play.
6. The question of how much of his success should be attributed to John Stockton or Sloan's system in Utah. (To be fair, Malone was a pretty good player under Frank Layden for a few years as well)

There are six pretty good reasons why he would be underrated. I am not saying all these are valid or correct reasons to underrate him, but they are there. Judging by just his numbers, he certainly has a legit claim to the spot of Best Power Forward ever, and by rights, should be considered a Top 10-15 player ever.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dk1115</b>!
> why hasn't anyone mentioned he's about to be 1st all time in points?


I agree. Same thing for Moses, who's fifth all-time.

We should give him some credit for longevity and long greatness. It's not just the longevity like Parish or Willis, Mailman was really good for a long time, and no just in scoring.

We do have to look at how things sustained. Are Baylor and McGrady better scorers than Mailman and, say, Drexler? Well maybe if we look at short bursts, but we should probably look at the bigger picture.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont think we ever settled the whole zone thing? I sure didnt change my mind about it.


No, I don't think it's really a thing that can be settled at this point. On the one hand, you do have Duncan's scoring being a career best the year the zone was first allowed, but on the other hand it was obviously underutilized at that point.

One of my main points though, was that you could still double team a guy when he had the ball before the new rules. Malone would have been more often double teamed (he still was, to a point), but because of the team he was playing for (with Utah's execution and shooters, you couldn't really get away with DT'ing Malone), it was essentially a "pick your poison" situation. With the addition of Barry, one would think teams will shy away from collapsing on Timmy a bit more, but we'll have to see.


----------

