Bill Simmons now ranks Dirk the 2nd greatest PF ever.

[Blame Rasho]

Oh ok. I wasn't sure how to define greatness. Thanks for breaking it down for me.

I'd like to see Dirk go up against MJ and Scottie Pippen. Then he wouldn't be "greatness" either.

Remember, until last year, Dirk's most distinguishable quality was that he was a choker in the big games.

One nice playoff series, and he's the 2nd best PF in history and you're riding his nuts.

Malone has been to the playoffs 19 times. I guarantee you that had Dirk made it to the playoffs 19 times, his #'s would be less than Malone's.

Malone's top 5 PO ppg: 30.7, 30.2, 29.7, 29.7, 29.1
Dirks: 28.4, 27.7, 27, 26.8, 26.8 (notice Dirk's top isn't even higher than Malone's 5th best?

Your playoff comparisons are lame.

Why not take a look at both players best PO-PERs?

Malone: 25.8, 25, 24.6, 24.6, 24.2
Dirk: 28.4, 28.3, 27.4, 26.3, 26.3

So none of Malones best PO-PERs cracks Dirks Top-5 list.

And in the stats you can also see one of the reasons for Malones lack of PO-success. He has only one time in his career been abled to have a TS% of over 60, something Dirk has done his last three years in the row.

You can't compare PERs across seasons you guys... and it just as bad to use ppg as a measure with a decade apart of each other.

[BmanInBigD]

Of course those Rockets teams were excellent, but when it comes to greatness, you have to have a career defining moment somewhere and that has to happen in playoffs. Being THE guy is only determined in the tournament everybody wants to win, the NBA-Playoffs. Regular season games are all nice and shiny, but you regularly play teams well below your talent level, or teams having a bad night, giving up on games. Thats why regular season number give an indication on the potential a player has.
The only real challenge that the game offers for the very best to not only show their potential, but to actually fullfill it, is the NBA-Finals. Thats why titles matter and thats why perfomance in those high pressure situations, that not only define you as a player, but your whole franchise, seperates the great from greatest.
Karl Malone was not abled to come through with his game, when the stage was set, regardless of him playing the MJ-Bulls. It isn't like Dirk didn't have to beat the supposedly best team this league has seen since the Bulls with the Heat. He did, he came through and that what puts him ahead of Malone.

Remember, until last year, Dirk's most distinguishable quality was that he was a choker in the big games.

One nice playoff series, and he's the 2nd best PF in history and you're riding his nuts.

OK, I'm not reading this thread anymore. These are a couple of the most asinine points I've ever read on here. Back to back, no less.

[mysticbb]

You have no idea about Garnett's passing impact either.

Why? Because you say so? So far you haven't provided anything to back up your claim and the only numbers which could help your case are not useful in your eyes. So, what exactly is a good measurement for the greatness of Garnett in comparison to Nowitzki? Some kind of versatility index which is poor at predicting and explaining? Because the supposed to be crazy difference between those two is not seen in any kind of numbers.

Oh, they played differently, that is fine. Different players tend to play differently, but in the end all that matters is how much they can influence the result. How much are they able to impact the game in away that their team can win the game more often. And it is neither seen in advanced boxscore based metrics nor in +/- based metrics that Garnett over his career exceeded Nowitzki by a lot in any given season.

So, Garnett's versatility and his defensive greatness might be impressive to some, but at the end of the day the game is decided by the scoring margin, and at that Garnett did not show that he had such a huge advantage over Nowitzki at his peak nor in average for their respective careers. And no, that does not mean that I think Garnett sucked offensively, not at all. Garnett was a pretty awesome offensive player, completely underrated in clutch situations, in which he still showed way above league average performance level, Garnett was for sure a 1st option, he was for sure the best and most important player on those 2008 Celtics, I don't dispute anything like this. Heck, I even agree that Garnett has to be listed ahead of Nowitzki in an All-Time list, I just disagree, when someone is claiming there would be a huge difference between those two when in fact no evidence of that is really there.

[mysticbb]

You can't compare PERs across seasons you guys... and it just as bad to use ppg as a measure with a decade apart of each other.

Actually you can, if you keep in mind that PER would give you an estimate of how much the player seperated himself from the league average (league average is always 15). With that limitation in mind, you can very easily compare players using PER. PER has much bigger issues than the difference caused by season to season changes in performance level of the league.

[doctorfunk]

I'm cherry picking stats? You found the only two stats where Dirk is better than Malone.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nka01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tdi01.html

you don't need too look to long to find more than two

And PER and TS favor 3 point shooters, which Malone isn't.

1. dwight howard is not much of a threepoint shooter either
2. everybody is allowed to shoot threes
3. dirk took less than 2 3PA per game in his last 3 playoffs, he played most of the time in the post

but stats don't really mean that much
players impact often go beyond that; which is a case with dirk and many other players
to see how valuable his offense/passing was you gotta see how it made mavs offense click, watch the games

[questionmark]

nice cherry picking the PO series Tubal
fun stat of that would be that if you put them by TS% it would look like
dirk
malone
dirk
dirk
dirk
dirk
and that Malone 2 highest scoring PO came on 3 and 5 games appearances
you see how i can 'proove' stuff with stats too

I'm cherry picking stats? You found the only two stats where Dirk is better than Malone. And PER and TS favor 3 point shooters, which Malone isn't.

Dirk is good, but he's not Malone good.

Malone, Barkley, Duncan, and then take your pick out of Dirk and KG.

PER and TS% are not enough? So how about WS/48?

Malone Top5: .220, .209, .194, .184, .171

Dirk Top5: .291, .287, .263, .238, .210

The issue with PPG is that they are not pace adjusted and that they don't say anything about your efficency.
And TS% favours perimeter players, because a 3 is more than a 2. Thats how simple it is. And also includes you FT-shooting, which is very important in crunch time.

[Blame Rasho]

You can't compare PERs across seasons you guys... and it just as bad to use ppg as a measure with a decade apart of each other.

Actually you can, if you keep in mind that PER would give you an estimate of how much the player seperated himself from the league average (league average is always 15). With that limitation in mind, you can very easily compare players using PER. PER has much bigger issues than the difference caused by season to season changes in performance level of the league.

The thing is that the avg player in the 70s,80s,90s,00, and today... isn't universally the same.

[doctorfunk]

The thing is that the avg player in the 70s,80s,90s,00, and today... isn't universally the same.

true for every stat(you don't put em on some universal teams of robots, plus they don't show entire story), that is why ultimately you should watch players at their primes rather than watching boxscores

[Chocobanana]

The thing is that the avg player in the 70s,80s,90s,00, and today... isn't universally the same.

true for every stat, that is why ultimately you should watch players at their primes rather than watching boxscores

but you cant tell how good players are without the boxscore!

[Blame Rasho]

The thing is that the avg player in the 70s,80s,90s,00, and today... isn't universally the same.

true for every stat, that is why ultimately you should watch players at their primes rather than watching boxscores

It is just lame to go... ah ha.... look at PER. I am right and you are wrong and blah blah blah. At the end of the day... PER is a very good guide, but it isn't the end all and be all and has some shortcomings esp when you put it in the scope of various seasons which isn't comparable.

[mysticbb]

The thing is that the avg player in the 70s,80s,90s,00, and today... isn't universally the same.

I don't disagree with that, but the seperation from the league average is at least a useful starting point for comparisons across seasons. When you think that PER captures the impact by two players to the same extend, you can very well use it.

Well, as I said, there are bigger issue with PER than that. Using Win Shares per 48 minutes is a better way, because that can explain and predict much better than PER.

[doctorfunk]

The thing is that the avg player in the 70s,80s,90s,00, and today... isn't universally the same.

I don't disagree with that, but the seperation from the league average is at least a useful starting point for comparisons across seasons. When you think that PER captures the impact by two players to the same extend, you can very well use it.

Well, as I said, there are bigger issue with PER than that. Using Win Shares per 48 minutes is a better way, because that can explain and predict much better than PER.

you still put up all stats vs different teams

and still stats are flawed;

you're doubled in the post and passed each time with your team capitalizing on every possession

sadly cutting matt bonner missed the layup just to tip in 0,4sec later

five other times defense defended the first shot but broke down after 2nd/3rd/4th pass

two halfcourt prayers at the end of quarters 0/2 fg

you rebound a shot that didn't grazed the back board with 0.5 left on the clock you try to put in, close but no cigar 0/1

tip in your own miss three times 3/6

gj you just went 3/9 with 0 assists for the game while converting on 100% of your looks and creating great looks for your team

that's my problem with boxscores mate

[droponov]

You have no idea about Garnett's passing impact either.

Why? Because you say so? So far you haven't provided anything to back up your claim and the only numbers which could help your case are not useful in your eyes. So, what exactly is a good measurement for the greatness of Garnett in comparison to Nowitzki? Some kind of versatility index which is poor at predicting and explaining? Because the supposed to be crazy difference between those two is not seen in any kind of numbers.

Oh, they played differently, that is fine. Different players tend to play differently, but in the end all that matters is how much they can influence the result. How much are they able to impact the game in away that their team can win the game more often. And it is neither seen in advanced boxscore based metrics nor in +/- based metrics that Garnett over his career exceeded Nowitzki by a lot in any given season.

So, Garnett's versatility and his defensive greatness might be impressive to some, but at the end of the day the game is decided by the scoring margin, and at that Garnett did not show that he had such a huge advantage over Nowitzki at his peak nor in average for their respective careers. And no, that does not mean that I think Garnett sucked offensively, not at all. Garnett was a pretty awesome offensive player, completely underrated in clutch situations, in which he still showed way above league average performance level, Garnett was for sure a 1st option, he was for sure the best and most important player on those 2008 Celtics, I don't dispute anything like this. Heck, I even agree that Garnett has to be listed ahead of Nowitzki in an All-Time list, I just disagree, when someone is claiming there would be a huge difference between those two when in fact no evidence of that is really there.

I've explained it to you. You underrated the role Garnett had in those Wolves teams.

When you write:

H

He doesn't need to be at the level of Garnett in terms of passing in order to make an impact with that., Yes, Garnett was able to make better passes in traffic, but overall he was not an a level with that in order to make a much bigger impact here.

it shows you have no clue what you're talking about. Just like as some other poster pointed out, the way you talked about Garnett and Malone defense shows you've never seen them playing or you don't understand what you're watching. Or your idea that a 38 year old Malone was near his peak.

I'll repeat it to you:

Garnett was the de facto point-guard for those Wolves teams. Having the same role Kidd has for the Mavs (he'd even bring the ball up sometimes). He was the one making the first pass on offense, the guy deciding where to go, how to attack, trying to put his teammates in position to score. The know-nothings claim the Wolves offense was always mediocre with Garnett or something, but they were a top-5 offense pretty much whenever Garnett had some help - even if it was a 34 years old Sprewell in his last season, Wally and then Troy Hudson and Trenton Hassell). This was only possible because Garnett was so good offensively - and great running an offense and passing the ball, not just scoring like Dirk.

Maybe you can find some dvds with their games or film to download in order to see a prime Garnett or a prime Malone playing. Stats can only take you so far. The other day there was a thread on Adrian Dantley that was a good example of that.

[Biff]

I have:

Duncan
Dirk
Garnett
Barkley
Malone
McHale

I actually think Dirk and Garnett are really close but Dirk is a better playoff performer, in my opinion. My reasoning behind this is that Dirk has a higher playoff PER than regular season. Garnett does not. I put a lot more emphasis on how a player performs in the playoffs when having greatest of all time discussions. Which is also why I feel Barkley is better than Malone. (McHale was second fiddle and didn't have the longevity) And of course it is why I think Jordan is far and away the best player in NBA history. The man brought it up about 5 notches when the playoffs rolled around which seems just as impossible in retrospect as it did when it was happening. Bird described him best after that 63 point performance in the playoffs.

Anyway, after Duncan it is pretty close for the next 3-4 spots, so you could make the argument for any of them at any spot really. It can be tricky doing these things and is often more like comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples.

[Grahf]

I'd say Malone over Dirk too, partly because of what someone already brought up, Malone's ability to consistently score on tough defenders. I can't help but feel like Dennis Rodman would kill Nowitzki with his physical toughness and endless tricks.

[ahonui06]

I'd say Malone over Dirk too, partly because of what someone already brought up, Malone's ability to consistently score on tough defenders. I can't help but feel like Dennis Rodman would kill Nowitzki with his physical toughness and endless tricks.

Did you see what DIRK did to prime KG in their playoff series? KG is considered a tough defender. Rodman on DIRK would be even easier since Dennis is much shorter.

[HeartBreakKid]

It's hard for me to rate Dirk, I used to think he was unbeatable a few years ago. I thought his game would change the way basketball would be played (heck, it might in a few years). Over the course of a few years, I started realizing his weaknesses as a big man more and more, while during his prime years I used to wash it off due to how tremendous his offensive impact was.

I look highly to rebounding, defense and getting a little rough (which I think is important for most big men in less they use their length very well like Duncan), which are three things Dirk does not do at an elite level, or even a step below that.

Malone is better than Dirk to me, and it isn't really much of a question. Karl Malone is an offensive juggernaut, I have no idea how anyone can say other wise. Dirk is a stylistic nightmare, but what Malone gives up in unorthodox attacking, he makes up with it with force. Either way, I would give Dirk the advantage here, but it is more or less a wash because Malone is still so good when it comes to scoring.

But then you have things like passing, drawing fouls, rebounding, man to man defense and help defense, all things Malone trumps Dirk in very well (I know Dirk draws a lot of fouls, but I'd be surprised if it was near Malone's).

The argument that Malone never won a ring is silly, especially when comparing him to Dirk in 2012. I mean really, Dirk JUST won a ring, so that makes him automatically better? The comparison doesn't even make sense since they played against different competition. As for the person who mentioned that Malone lost to Jordan, Duncan & Hakeem, which is a bit of a strawman, I'll counter with my own strawman, all three of those players are better than Dirk anyway - so why hold it against Malone?

Why can't it be that Malone merely never had a ring because he and his team lost to people who were better than him? I don't get why he has to be a choke (yes, he did drop the ball a few times, but he also had amazing performances, and you know what, you could say the same stuff for Dirk up in till last year. Dirk was treated unfairly for years.).

I'm going to have to take KG's versatility over Dirk as well. Dirk is no question the superior offensive player, but Garnett can enhance a team in so many ways. KG's speed, length, defensive tenacity, leadership abilities, passing and ball handeling (for his size) all make up for hell of an athlete. As someone else said, his ability to score gets down played a lot in GOAT conversations. Garnett does too many things too well, and he also completes all the assets on what makes a big man so important in basketball, I can't say the same for Dirk.

So I'm at #4 (because Duncan is #1), it's between Dirk or Barkley. I initially had Barkley over Dirk, but this thread did make me think about it quite a few times. When I think about it, Dirk's offensive abilities should be greater than Barkley's or at the very least harder to stop, and offense is both what these guys are paid to do. However, it is hard to deny that Barkley was still a great rebounder, passer, could run the fast break. I also think of Barkley's awesome playoff performances, and they just stick out as more impressive than Dirk's (weak point on my side, but a detail I had to mention). I should rewatch some Sir Charles footage to see if he was as good as I remember.

So yeah, my top 5 off the top of my head.

1) Duncan
2) K Malone
3) Garnett
4) Barkley
5) Nowitski

[ahonui06]

McHale
Barkely
Malone
Garnett
Duncan (yes he's a PF)


so which one of these guys is Dirk better than ? I'll wait all day.

Although Barkely and Malone are statistically in the discussion, they are also both automatically disqualified because they've never won a ring. You can argue the absurdity of this, but in comparing players you have to look at distinguishing categories like championship rings to further separate the best of the best. This leaves us with:

McHale
Garnett
Duncan
Nowitzki

McHale has multiple championship rings, but at the very best was second banana to Bird. Garnett, although dominate for years statistically, will never be regarded as the leader of the championship Celtics. Dirk was alpha on his club, has had years of 50 win seasons in Dallas and has played in 2 finals with one finals MVP to boot. Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom, that's how you get to Diggler at number 2.

Exactly. This man speaks the truth.

[ahonui06]

I love Dirk. He is the man, but Tyson Chandler was very instrumental to his title run. He covered all of the defensive weaknesses Dirk possessed. If Chandler played with the Celtics the last few years they would have won more than just a single title. So I'm not going to put Dirk above Garnett. Barkley would destroy this era of basketball. I never liked Malone. Duncan, Barkley, Garnett, Dirk, Malone, McHale...

yes agreed, tyson was huge. scottie was also instrumental in guarding magic in the finals that led to the bulls first title, i dont see anyone mentioning that to discredit jordan same way to discredit dirk.

I guess because on one has ever seen Jordan choke at any point in his career or get punked. We have all witnessed these things from Dirk before Tyson Chandler had his back. Perhaps if we had seen Jordan choke or get punked before he began playing with Scottie more people would look at it the way you presented above.

Would you consider Jordan getting swept twice in the playoffs by Larry Bird getting choked/punked? DIRK has never been swept in the postseason.

The choked/punked argument is silly when it comes to the PF position. If we used your argument, then KG shouldn't be in the top 5 because he missed the playoffs 3 years in a row during his prime and had constant first round exits.....

[BmanInBigD]

McHale
Barkely
Malone
Garnett
Duncan (yes he's a PF)


so which one of these guys is Dirk better than ? I'll wait all day.

Although Barkely and Malone are statistically in the discussion, they are also both automatically disqualified because they've never won a ring. You can argue the absurdity of this, but in comparing players you have to look at distinguishing categories like championship rings to further separate the best of the best. This leaves us with:

McHale
Garnett
Duncan
Nowitzki

McHale has multiple championship rings, but at the very best was second banana to Bird. Garnett, although dominate for years statistically, will never be regarded as the leader of the championship Celtics. Dirk was alpha on his club, has had years of 50 win seasons in Dallas and has played in 2 finals with one finals MVP to boot. Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom, that's how you get to Diggler at number 2.

Exactly. This man speaks the truth.

McHale?! How'd he get in there? I LOVED the Celtics in the 80's but come on, you can't be serious. You can argue for Dirk, Malone, Garnett, and Barkley all with good reason, but McHale is on a whole other level below. All he has going for him is rings. Might as well add Robert Horry to the list.