Should Karl Malone and Tim Duncan Be 1A and 1B?

[FJS]

As a Jazz fan 5 years ago I had Karl Malone ranked just behind Tim.

Now I have him behind Barkley and Dirk. Once you really dive into his playoff performances, it's really hard not to critize him for noticeable dips every year.

This surprise me a lot. I understand you choose Dirk as he won the ring 4 years ago, but what did Barkley in those last 5 years to change your mind?

[magicmerl]

As a Jazz fan 5 years ago I had Karl Malone ranked just behind Tim.

Now I have him behind Barkley and Dirk. Once you really dive into his playoff performances, it's really hard not to critize him for noticeable dips every year.

This surprise me a lot. I understand you choose Dirk as he won the ring 4 years ago, but what did Barkley in those last 5 years to change your mind?

In the top100 ranking the thread where Dirk gets voted in before Malone probably has some good discussion on it. I suggest you read it.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1339986&p=40892402#p40892402

[Purch]

As a Jazz fan 5 years ago I had Karl Malone ranked just behind Tim.

Now I have him behind Barkley and Dirk. Once you really dive into his playoff performances, it's really hard not to critize him for noticeable dips every year.

This surprise me a lot. I understand you choose Dirk as he won the ring 4 years ago, but what did Barkley in those last 5 years to change your mind?

What really altered my opinion of Barkley, was reading articles about him and really delving into film of him. The trend that started developing, was that Barkley at his prime/peak was the more dominant players. Barkley was double teamed more than Malone, Scored more efficiently, and just seemed unstopable at his peak. From talking to posters who watched both of them, it seems unanimous that Barkley was clearly the better player at their respective peaks. Barkley was significantly more efficent despite not playing next to Stockton. There's very few people who could achieve his 25 PPG season on 60% FG shooting from the filed

So it left me wondering why Malone was considered the better power foward despite how they were being talked about during their playing days. Two things came up during my inquiry/search, first was that Barkley is looked at in a similar fashion as Steve Nash on the defensive end, and secondly is that Malone's longevity trumps Barkley's.

This is why I'm not completly set on ranking Barkley over Malone. Peak vs Peak I'm pretty sure that Barkley's dominance on the offensive end makes up for any gap that they had defensively. However, I'm not completly sure if significantly better longevity should change my ranking.

The biggest reason my rankings are where they are at the moment.. Is because I'm very convinced that Dirk/Barkley were the best playoff performers out of the 4

[FJS]

Reading those comments, I simply have to think than rings matter a lot in those boards.
Karl Malone was a better player than Dirk, Garnett or Barkley. I understand that you can love 11 Dirk, 04 Garnett or 1993 Barkley a lot, but when you're talking about carreers, you have to take the mailman.

First of all, Malone was 2 time MVP vs 1 time Dirk, Kevin or Chuck.



Dirk missed early in his carreer and in 2013. Garnett missed 3 years in a row being the man. Barkley missed 2 times in his prime.

Malone was a 26.3 ppg in playoffs with 46.6 FG%. 10.9 rebounds, and a 3.1 rpg with the Jazz. He was worse in the in the playoffs than in RS in FG%. But still scored more. 172 games with Jazz in PO, 192 in total.
Dirk is a 25.4 ppg in po with 46.1 FG% 10.2 rebounds, and 2.5 apg. He scored more than in RS (worse % too) but still scored less than Karl. 140 games with Mavs in PO
KG has played in 143 games. In his better years in Wolves was a 22.3 ppg (he declined a lot in Celtics and much more in Nets) and a 45.8 FG%. His deffense was great, but still his team was defeated time after time. By the way, in his MVP year, Malone (41 year old Malone) defended him pretty well and cut their change to advande to finals.
Barkley played PO in 123. He was a 23 ppg player, and he was the most effective with 51.3 FG%, great rebounder 12.9 and great passer. Still his deffense was under suspicion.

Malone, as a team leader player 5 wcf and 2 finals (6 WCF and 3 finals if you count Lakers days)
Dirk has played 3 WCF and 2 finals
KG has played 1 WCF, 3 ECF and 2 finals
Barkley played 1 ECF (rookie year, with Dr J, Moses) 2 WCF and 1 finals.

If you ask me if Malone win one ring vs Bulls nobody would question who was better of the bunch.

Malone never missed the PO and lost in the 1st round 9 times in 19 years
Dirk has missed PO 4 times and lost in the first round 7 times in 18 years
Kg has missed PO 5 times and lost in the 1st round 8 times in 20 years
Barkley missed PO 3 times and lost in the 1st round 5 imes in 16 years

So basically Malone's teams were PO teams every year, they went more years to the CF... but he did not had the luck to win. Simply as that.

Then you can talk about durability, scoring ability prime years and so... but well, only ring matters, I guess.

[bballexpert]

During his peak Duncan played pf so he is a power forward does it really matter because he could play both fine should boost him up. During Duncan peak from 1999-2003 his ps stats Malone can not even touch not to mention his finals performances are miles ahead of karl rs is nice and all but ps is were your legacy is made Duncan was a top pf after 2003.

[FJS]

As a Jazz fan 5 years ago I had Karl Malone ranked just behind Tim.

Now I have him behind Barkley and Dirk. Once you really dive into his playoff performances, it's really hard not to critize him for noticeable dips every year.

This surprise me a lot. I understand you choose Dirk as he won the ring 4 years ago, but what did Barkley in those last 5 years to change your mind?

In the top100 ranking the thread where Dirk gets voted in before Malone probably has some good discussion on it. I suggest you read it.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1339986&p=40892402#p40892402

Thank you, but I did because I participated on it.

[tsherkin]

I was discussing this with my brother recently. It is widely accepted that Tim is the GOAT power forward but is it close between these two than most people think? Mailman has the individual success and longevity and was very consistent. He also was a much better defender than people give him credit for in my opinion. I think what makes the gap large for most is the team success obviously but Karl lost to some great teams in the playoffs including MJs Bulls and Magic's Lakers. So as far as power forwards should the gap between these two be very small?

So we open with the baseline that Malone was one of the best regular-season players in league history. We continue by understanding that he still did mean things to weaker and average defensive teams in the playoffs. We realize that he struggled against good defenses because his on-ball shot generation skills weren't that hot and mostly consisted of his fadeaway and a simple hook. His major value was very clearly offense; he was also a good post defender and a pretty decent rebounder, but his major value was clearly in scoring, and he didn't carry it fully into the postseason. Duncan's major value was defense, and it DID carry into the postseason.

We can run the numbers here. Why 88-98? Well, I eliminate his rookie season for obvious reasons, and start with his first real "Mailman-ish" season, because he "only" posted 21.7 ppg in 87, and hadn't figured out how to not-suck at the line yet, either. 88 was basically his real "I'm here, and I'm awesome" starting point. After 98, he was old, slowing down and way less effective, so we're looking at his prime.

88-98 RS: 38.4 mpg, 27.6 ppg, 53.1% FG, 36.6 PTS100, 116 ORTG, 59.1% TS, .519 FTR, 8.6% ORB, 11.8% TOV, 30.4% USG, +4.4 OBPM, +6.2 BPM

Brilliant stuff, right? Not a ton out there looking a lot better than that. Point of reference? B-Ref comes up with only 70 player-seasons of 30%+ usage, 70 games played and an OBPM of +4.4 or better. Malone has 5 of them. Other players with significant multiples include:

Nique (3), Wade (4), Shaq (3, mostly GP-related), McGrady (5), Jordan (10), Lebron (8), AI (3), and Kobe (7).

Gives you a pretty good idea that his RS performance was bloody marvelous. Obviously, OBPM is only one number/point of consideration, but it squares with the eye test and the box score numbers and everything. He was a beast, and it shows through across basically every angle of examination. That's a reliable observation, then.

88-98 PS: 42.0 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46.8% FG, 35.2 PTS100, 109 ORTG, 53.4% TS, .483 FTr, 8.3% ORB, 10.0% TOV, 31.6% USG, +1.9 OBPM, +4.5 BPM

So you can see several things right away from this, all of which square with the narrative of his decline in the postseason.

His scoring efficiency fell off of a cliff, and his overall impact was considerably worse. His FG% tanked out HARD. Most of his indicators were otherwise similar. Usage was similar, draw rate was still elite, turnovers and offensive rebounding very similar. But he just couldn't make shots, and this is across a decade of play and 128 games, not just a single series or whatever. That's a HUGE trend. That's a 5.7% drop in TS, which is way larger than the usual RS/PS drop-off, as is that 7-point drop in ORTG.

It still ends up being positive-value offense, but not what you want from a guy using nearly a third of your possessions while he's on the court. It's not elite. It takes him 4 more minutes to score the same volume per-game, and of course even if we account for pace and minutes, he's still back around 1.5 points per 100 possessions and tanking out his productivity per-possession by every measure.

That's Malone in the playoffs. Much worse than his elite, reputation-building RS. Still not a scrub, but doesn't really stand with his peers, even as you factor in era (pace), minutes, improved competition in the PS and all of that fun stuff.

Anyway, so that's our baseline. That's what we know of Malone, from the narrative AND from the numbers, which happily align without any real dissonance. He had some good playoff runs in there (92 comes to mind, for example), but on the whole, he just wasn't a dominant postseason performer against good defenses. That matters.

So now let's look at some of his non-Duncan peers. Let's look at some guys with similar approaches to the game, e.g. not Duncan/Garnett, whose value extend from defense first. Let's look at Barkley and Dirk the same way. We'll pause and remember that ALL of these guys are MVP winners, yes? Barkley got his boys to the Finals in 93 and lost to Jordan much as did Malone, only against younger, faster and more dominant MJ. Dirk got his boys to the Finals... and titled. But we'll get there, because this is obviously more complicated. The point is, there is a fairly common and level playing field here in terms of accolades and team achievements.

Barkley

Spoiler:

Was planning to go 87 (first All-Star season) to 93 (MVP and Finals appearance) for Barkley, but I will extend to 97 to match a similar period to Malone, and since 97 was his last AS season before injuries ruined him.

87-97 RS: 38 mpg, 24.3 ppg, 54.5% FG (59.1% 2FG), 32.0 PTS100, 121 ORTG, 61.9% TS, .560 FTr, 12.3% ORB, 14.1% TOV, 25.8% USG, +6.5 OBPM, +8.2 BPM

97-97 PS: 41.1 mpg, 24.5 ppg, 50.3% FG (54.3% 2FG), 31.0 PTS100, 120 ORTG, 57.9% TS, .516 FTr, 12.1% ORB, 11.1% TOV, 25.9% USG, +4.1 OBPM, +7.2 BPM

So here we see a fairly different story. We see a little dip in per-possession scoring volume, and of course he declines in efficiency like most players as well. The gap isn't nearly as bad, though. The real difference is that he remains a steam-roll of horribleness for the opposition defense even in the playoffs, continuing to proceed excellent offensive efficiency and per-possession productivity, while even lowering his turnover rate. You'll also note that Barkley's playoff OBPM is roughly the same as Malone's OBPM in the regular season, and dramatically superior to his PS OBPM. You'll notice that his playoff BPM is also quite a bit better. Long story made short, his statistical production dramatically outproduces Malone in the postseason.

There is some argument here to be made for the fact that despite his attitude problems and lack of defensive committment, that he was a better overall player than Karl Malone, and despite the difference in longevity. We're looking at an equivalent stretch of time here, a decade. Yes, 91 stands out as a health-fail for Barkley, but given how much better he was come the postseason, it isn't a ton to overlook. There's an argument here, mainly because Malone is wildly UNimpressive compared to his upper-echelon peers come the postseason. The reality of Malone's playoff performance isn't BAD, per se, it's actually a lot like a normal Carmelo Anthony regular season pre-Knicks, but it isn't close to good enough as far as standing with guys like Barkley and other top-10 ATG candidates.

For me, given that Malone isn't really a game-changing defender, the offensive gap makes a much bigger difference. Malone doesn't have an RS advantage offensively, and he's blown away come the PS. Barkley has a HUUUUUGE overall offensive advantage in the playoffs, and I think the combination of those two truths outweighs what defensive advantage Malone has, personally.

I generally count Barkley more valuable, and thus ranked higher, than Malone. I could see an argument based on personality issues and some of these other qualitative factors, but I side with Barkley's offensive value personally. His mixture of ultra-dominant FG% beneath the arc coupled with elite offensive rebounding, solid passing and wicked draw rate? Brutal.

Dirk

Spoiler:

So for Dirk, we'll look from 01-11. Great durability through that stretch, too.

01-11 RS: 37.4 mpg, 24.3 ppg, 47.9% FG (50.0% 2FG), 34.0 PTS100, 118 ORTG, 58.6% TS, .393 FTr, 3.8% ORB, 8.6% TOV, 27.7% USG, +4.0 OBPM, +4.5 BPM

01-11 PS: 41.3 mpg, 25.9 ppg, 46.3% FG (47.9% 2FG), 33.3 PTS100, 119 ORTG, 58.4% TS, .478 FTr, 4.3% ORB, 9.4% TOV, 27.2% USG, +2.5 OBPM, +4.8 BPM

Statistically, this gets confusing based on +/- some. Dirk's scoring maintains well enough in the playoffs. And of course, he has some epic playoff runs in there. 09-11, he was absolutely brutal to deal with in the playoffs. He was never a good offensive rebounder (he's not Kevin Love, even his ORB declined as he moved more outside), and Dirk is not a good defender. He's not Barkley, either, but he hasn't ever gotten to the point where even his post defense and defensive rebounding combine to be roughly what we saw from Malone. This is part of why his overall BPM (which itself has only so much utility in a direct comparison) is so much lower than either Barkley's or Malone's. He was a better playoff scorer of course, and in his hey-day he was also a fine defensive rebounder, so it's a little more complicated than just "oh, his BPM is lower and his OBPM isn't that impressive outside of a couple of seasons, so this is easily Malone," no.

I want to value Dirk here because he's a much better take-over scorer, but there are other considerations with Malone, like his playmaking involvement as the screener in high-volume PnR action for the Jazz, and his superior offensive rebounding. Offense isn't just scoring, and of course total value is a separate concept from even that. Statistically, Malone actually beats out Dirk in both the RS and the PS based on BPM, even if Dirk is the superior PS scorer. And superior isolation scorer in general, actually. THe real question is, what is the value of that truth? The difference between 2011 and 1998 was mostly the value of the supporting cast, not in terms of the actual star forward performances.

For example, their Finals performances of relevance:

1998: 40.5 mpg, 25.0 ppg, 50.4% FG, 55.3% TS, 13.4% ORB, 14.5% TOV, 33.3% USG, 106 ORTG

CHI DRTG was 99.8 in the RS and UTA ORTG was 96.1 in the Finals... CHI ORTG was 105.5. Stockton, at 103, was the only non-Malone guy on the Jazz with an ORTG over 96. ROUGH environment, and he played reasonable offense. League average was 105. So we're talking non-epic performance, still, but given usage, team support and all that, not actually a bad performance. He capped the series with 39/9/5 in 44 minutes, then 31/11/7 in 43 minutes, shooting 17/27 and 11/19 respectively. 4 and 5 offensive boards. He found a way to be awesome, but the rest of the Jazz sucked REALLY hard. Even then, the Jazz had an opportunity in Game 6, losing only by a single point after failing on the final possession. Utah's 3Q stinker was a problem, unable to take advantage of Chicago's own deficiencies. Malone definitely adjusted to Chicago a lot more effectively in 98 compared to 97. It was a lot like Dirk's performance in 2011 compared to 2006, though obviously not directly comparable because different teams.

2011: 40.4 mpg, 26.0 ppg, 41.6% FG 44/45 FT, 36.8% on 3.2 3P/g, 53.7% TS (57.5% over the first 5 games), 111 ORTG against 32.6% TS.

Dirks' G6 was, like many of his games that run, a little lop-sided. 37.7% TS on the game. 9/27 from the floor, 21 points, 1/7 from 3. But he actually led the game in scoring in both the 3rd and 4th quarters, scoring 18 points in the second half. 3/7 for 8 points in the 3rd, 5/7 for 10 in the 4th. As he'd done several times that postseason, he blew in the first half and got ultra-hot in the second half (8/14 in this case). Like Malone, there are a couple of individual series where his performance was better than the average stats do indicate. 2011 vs. Miami was definitely one for Dirk, because he kept coming up in the second half, and of course most of us remember that shake'n'bake on Bosh in game 2 for the lefty, game-winning layup.

Still, as I said, supporting casts were the difference in 98 between 2011.

That said, you can turn around and say that Dirk's ability to control the tempo of a game and impose his will as an iso scorer when his teammates weren't there was a major separation between the two come the playoffs. Naturally, given the general lack of separation in terms of team success, even when his teams weren't quite as top-heavy as the Hornacek/Stockton era of the Jazz, I'm inclined to side with Dirk by a small margin here. Is way close, though. There's some truth to the idea that if you got a second star better than Stockton or better than supporting cast productivity than the 2011 Mavs and Malone could still be legitimate contenders with an honest shot at winning. Again, Malone came through in 98, but Utah sucked so badly that black holes got jealous. Stockton was injured and was never a takeover scorer, they had no other consequential iso scorers and they were working with basically Eisley, Shandon Anderson and Bryon Russell. Hornacek blew as well.

Sooooo... this one's tougher to think through. I think they end up being very, very similar in value. I find this one different than with Barkley. I value Dirk's iso scoring in conjunction with the rest of his offensive game more than the more aesthetically-pleasing numbers which Malone's style of play produced, but there is a noteworthy pro-Malone argument here from a statistical standpoint through BPM. I'm inclined to side with Dirk because of the iso scoring, but it's a slender margin. Anorexic, really.

Duncan

So. Barkley and Dirk out of the way, time to get to the core of this and involve Duncan.

We'll go 99-00 through 09-10.

99-10 RS: 36.0 mpg, 21.1 ppg, 50.5% FG, 31.4 PTS100, 110 ORTG, 55.2% TS, .450 FTr, 10.1% ORB, 12.0% TOV, 28.3% USG (mad slow-pace era), +2.1 OBPM, +6.1 BPM

Hangs with the rest pretty well overall, but because his offense isn't in the same class as any of the guys above him, his overall statistical impact doesn't look quite as awesome. He wasn't a dominant offensive player for the most part, though he was quite good. He was a great defender. BPM underrates him across this span of time because it's very long, but he had 3 straight seasons at +7 and another one besides that. Was pretty consistently +3.5 to +4.5 in DBPM, too, which is pretty good stuff when you consider he led the league in DRTG 3x and was at or under DRTG 97 in all but in 2009 2010.

99-10 PS: 39.1 mpg, 23.1 ppg, 50.0% FG, 32.0 PTS100, 110 ORTG, 54.8% TS, .495 FTr, 10.6% ORB, 12.4% TOV, 29.1% USG, +2.5 OBPM, +6.9 BPM

So now we're cooking with gas a bit. Even with rudimentary BPM analysis, he separates from Dirk. In terms of actual performance, he lags well behind Barkley, but he was also way healthier and way more valuable over time due to longevity. Further, Duncan's defensive abilities did set the tone for a decade of San Antonio defensive dominance, which was actually the focus of the Spurs' game plan, as opposed to offensive dominance. That only changed once he got old, and then he adapted flawlessly to become a strong component of a wicked offensive team. But that's not important here, which is more prime analysis.

Now, it's been a while since we looked at Malone's numbers, so here they are again:

88-98 RS: 38.4 mpg, 27.6 ppg, 53.1% FG, 36.6 PTS100, 116 ORTG, 59.1% TS, .519 FTR, 8.6% ORB, 11.8% TOV, 30.4% USG, +4.4 OBPM, +6.2 BPM

88-98 PS: 42.0 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46.8% FG, 35.2 PTS100, 109 ORTG, 53.4% TS, .483 FTr, 8.3% ORB, 10.0% TOV, 31.6% USG, +1.9 OBPM, +4.5 BPM


Now we're reminded that Duncan's net BPM effect is comparable to Malone's RS effect due to the separation on defense, yes? Only, now you factor in the PS, where he actually improves in that regard and Malone regresses, so that gap gets bigger. Malone's greatest attribute withers, while Duncan's maintains and his offense remains nearly identical. This becomes easier for me to choose.

I go Duncan over Malone every time because his offense is good enough and his defense blows him away, as does his net postseason performance.


And this is even aside from the "greatness" argument. Duncan matches both of Malone's MVPs. He obliterates him in terms of overall accolades. He doesn't have the same PPG longevity, but he has comparable longevity in terms of utility to his team. Late Malone has 3 or 4 seasons where his PPG overstates his actual impact, particularly once you factor in the playoffs, because he was basically a volume jump shooter without an outlier-level jumper, with diminished rebounding and his usual decline in the PS.

[magicmerl]

This surprise me a lot. I understand you choose Dirk as he won the ring 4 years ago, but what did Barkley in those last 5 years to change your mind?

In the top100 ranking the thread where Dirk gets voted in before Malone probably has some good discussion on it. I suggest you read it.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1339986&p=40892402#p40892402

Thank you, but I did because I participated on it.

Thanks for your reply, particularly since what I posted didn't directly address your post. I also am surprised at someone who would change their minds about the relative rankings of two players who are both retired. I guess Purch has put an increased value on TS% or ORtg (which are Barkley's areas of advantage). To my mind they are not nearly enough to offset Barkley's defensive deficiences.

[FJS]

As a Jazz fan 5 years ago I had Karl Malone ranked just behind Tim.

Now I have him behind Barkley and Dirk. Once you really dive into his playoff performances, it's really hard not to critize him for noticeable dips every year.

This surprise me a lot. I understand you choose Dirk as he won the ring 4 years ago, but what did Barkley in those last 5 years to change your mind?

What really altered my opinion of Barkley, was reading articles about him and really delving into film of him. The trend that started developing, was that Barkley at his prime/peak was the more dominant players. Barkley was double teamed more than Malone, Scored more efficiently, and just seemed unstopable at his peak. From talking to posters who watched both of them, it seems unanimous that Barkley was clearly the better player at their respective peaks. Barkley was significantly more efficent despite not playing next to Stockton. There's very few people who could achieve his 25 PPG season on 60% FG shooting from the filed

So it left me wondering why Malone was considered the better power foward despite how they were being talked about during their playing days. Two things came up during my inquiry/search, first was that Barkley is looked at in a similar fashion as Steve Nash on the defensive end, and secondly is that Malone's longevity trumps Barkley's.

This is why I'm not completly set on ranking Barkley over Malone. Peak vs Peak I'm pretty sure that Barkley's dominance on the offensive end makes up for any gap that they had defensively. However, I'm not completly sure if significantly better longevity should change my ranking.

The biggest reason my rankings are where they are at the moment.. Is because I'm very convinced that Dirk/Barkley were the best playoff performers out of the 4

I respect that, but when you are talking about who are the best player in any position it's not about what they did in a short number of years.
I mean, Dirk's run was legendary in 11, Barkley in 93... but for Example Karl Malone's run in 88 or 92 were as good... but without ring, of course.

[FJS]

In the top100 ranking the thread where Dirk gets voted in before Malone probably has some good discussion on it. I suggest you read it.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1339986&p=40892402#p40892402

Thank you, but I did because I participated on it.

Thanks for your reply, particularly since what I posted didn't directly address your post. I also am surprised at someone who would change their minds about the relative rankings of two players who are both retired. I guess Purch has put an increased value on TS% or ORtg (which are Barkley's areas of advantage). To my mind they are not nearly enough to offset Barkley's defensive deficiences.

Probably... Everyone have their own method to rank players. For Example I dislike TS% since players like Shaq are 38th in NBA carreer due to he was not good in FT line. Still... He was one of the most dominant players (if not the most) to have played in NBA. Players like Maxwell, Rambis or K. Smith are top 10 in Playoffs... so.. I don't like at all... or as every stat, don't tell the whole story.

[chrismikayla]

I was discussing this with my brother recently. It is widely accepted that Tim is the GOAT power forward but is it close between these two than most people think? Mailman has the individual success and longevity and was very consistent. He also was a much better defender than people give him credit for in my opinion. I think what makes the gap large for most is the team success obviously but Karl lost to some great teams in the playoffs including MJs Bulls and Magic's Lakers. So as far as power forwards should the gap between these two be very small?

So we open with the baseline that Malone was one of the best regular-season players in league history. We continue by understanding that he still did mean things to weaker and average defensive teams in the playoffs. We realize that he struggled against good defenses because his on-ball shot generation skills weren't that hot and mostly consisted of his fadeaway and a simple hook. His major value was very clearly offense; he was also a good post defender and a pretty decent rebounder, but his major value was clearly in scoring, and he didn't carry it fully into the postseason. Duncan's major value was defense, and it DID carry into the postseason.

We can run the numbers here. Why 88-98? Well, I eliminate his rookie season for obvious reasons, and start with his first real "Mailman-ish" season, because he "only" posted 21.7 ppg in 87, and hadn't figured out how to not-suck at the line yet, either. 88 was basically his real "I'm here, and I'm awesome" starting point. After 98, he was old, slowing down and way less effective, so we're looking at his prime.

88-98 RS: 38.4 mpg, 27.6 ppg, 53.1% FG, 36.6 PTS100, 116 ORTG, 59.1% TS, .519 FTR, 8.6% ORB, 11.8% TOV, 30.4% USG, +4.4 OBPM, +6.2 BPM

Brilliant stuff, right? Not a ton out there looking a lot better than that. Point of reference? B-Ref comes up with only 70 player-seasons of 30%+ usage, 70 games played and an OBPM of +4.4 or better. Malone has 5 of them. Other players with significant multiples include:

Nique (3), Wade (4), Shaq (3, mostly GP-related), McGrady (5), Jordan (10), Lebron (8), AI (3), and Kobe (7).

Gives you a pretty good idea that his RS performance was bloody marvelous. Obviously, OBPM is only one number/point of consideration, but it squares with the eye test and the box score numbers and everything. He was a beast, and it shows through across basically every angle of examination. That's a reliable observation, then.

88-98 PS: 42.0 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46.8% FG, 35.2 PTS100, 109 ORTG, 53.4% TS, .483 FTr, 8.3% ORB, 10.0% TOV, 31.6% USG, +1.9 OBPM, +4.5 BPM

So you can see several things right away from this, all of which square with the narrative of his decline in the postseason.

His scoring efficiency fell off of a cliff, and his overall impact was considerably worse. His FG% tanked out HARD. Most of his indicators were otherwise similar. Usage was similar, draw rate was still elite, turnovers and offensive rebounding very similar. But he just couldn't make shots, and this is across a decade of play and 128 games, not just a single series or whatever. That's a HUGE trend. That's a 5.7% drop in TS, which is way larger than the usual RS/PS drop-off, as is that 7-point drop in ORTG.

It still ends up being positive-value offense, but not what you want from a guy using nearly a third of your possessions while he's on the court. It's not elite. It takes him 4 more minutes to score the same volume per-game, and of course even if we account for pace and minutes, he's still back around 1.5 points per 100 possessions and tanking out his productivity per-possession by every measure.

That's Malone in the playoffs. Much worse than his elite, reputation-building RS. Still not a scrub, but doesn't really stand with his peers, even as you factor in era (pace), minutes, improved competition in the PS and all of that fun stuff.

Anyway, so that's our baseline. That's what we know of Malone, from the narrative AND from the numbers, which happily align without any real dissonance. He had some good playoff runs in there (92 comes to mind, for example), but on the whole, he just wasn't a dominant postseason performer against good defenses. That matters.

So now let's look at some of his non-Duncan peers. Let's look at some guys with similar approaches to the game, e.g. not Duncan/Garnett, whose value extend from defense first. Let's look at Barkley and Dirk the same way. We'll pause and remember that ALL of these guys are MVP winners, yes? Barkley got his boys to the Finals in 93 and lost to Jordan much as did Malone, only against younger, faster and more dominant MJ. Dirk got his boys to the Finals... and titled. But we'll get there, because this is obviously more complicated. The point is, there is a fairly common and level playing field here in terms of accolades and team achievements.

Barkley

Spoiler:

Was planning to go 87 (first All-Star season) to 93 (MVP and Finals appearance) for Barkley, but I will extend to 97 to match a similar period to Malone, and since 97 was his last AS season before injuries ruined him.

87-97 RS: 38 mpg, 24.3 ppg, 54.5% FG (59.1% 2FG), 32.0 PTS100, 121 ORTG, 61.9% TS, .560 FTr, 12.3% ORB, 14.1% TOV, 25.8% USG, +6.5 OBPM, +8.2 BPM

97-97 PS: 41.1 mpg, 24.5 ppg, 50.3% FG (54.3% 2FG), 31.0 PTS100, 120 ORTG, 57.9% TS, .516 FTr, 12.1% ORB, 11.1% TOV, 25.9% USG, +4.1 OBPM, +7.2 BPM

So here we see a fairly different story. We see a little dip in per-possession scoring volume, and of course he declines in efficiency like most players as well. The gap isn't nearly as bad, though. The real difference is that he remains a steam-roll of horribleness for the opposition defense even in the playoffs, continuing to proceed excellent offensive efficiency and per-possession productivity, while even lowering his turnover rate. You'll also note that Barkley's playoff OBPM is roughly the same as Malone's OBPM in the regular season, and dramatically superior to his PS OBPM. You'll notice that his playoff BPM is also quite a bit better. Long story made short, his statistical production dramatically outproduces Malone in the postseason.

There is some argument here to be made for the fact that despite his attitude problems and lack of defensive committment, that he was a better overall player than Karl Malone, and despite the difference in longevity. We're looking at an equivalent stretch of time here, a decade. Yes, 91 stands out as a health-fail for Barkley, but given how much better he was come the postseason, it isn't a ton to overlook. There's an argument here, mainly because Malone is wildly UNimpressive compared to his upper-echelon peers come the postseason. The reality of Malone's playoff performance isn't BAD, per se, it's actually a lot like a normal Carmelo Anthony regular season pre-Knicks, but it isn't close to good enough as far as standing with guys like Barkley and other top-10 ATG candidates.

For me, given that Malone isn't really a game-changing defender, the offensive gap makes a much bigger difference. Malone doesn't have an RS advantage offensively, and he's blown away come the PS. Barkley has a HUUUUUGE overall offensive advantage in the playoffs, and I think the combination of those two truths outweighs what defensive advantage Malone has, personally.

I generally count Barkley more valuable, and thus ranked higher, than Malone. I could see an argument based on personality issues and some of these other qualitative factors, but I side with Barkley's offensive value personally. His mixture of ultra-dominant FG% beneath the arc coupled with elite offensive rebounding, solid passing and wicked draw rate? Brutal.

Dirk

Spoiler:

So for Dirk, we'll look from 01-11. Great durability through that stretch, too.

01-11 RS: 37.4 mpg, 24.3 ppg, 47.9% FG (50.0% 2FG), 34.0 PTS100, 118 ORTG, 58.6% TS, .393 FTr, 3.8% ORB, 8.6% TOV, 27.7% USG, +4.0 OBPM, +4.5 BPM

01-11 PS: 41.3 mpg, 25.9 ppg, 46.3% FG (47.9% 2FG), 33.3 PTS100, 119 ORTG, 58.4% TS, .478 FTr, 4.3% ORB, 9.4% TOV, 27.2% USG, +2.5 OBPM, +4.8 BPM

Statistically, this gets confusing based on +/- some. Dirk's scoring maintains well enough in the playoffs. And of course, he has some epic playoff runs in there. 09-11, he was absolutely brutal to deal with in the playoffs. He was never a good offensive rebounder (he's not Kevin Love, even his ORB declined as he moved more outside), and Dirk is not a good defender. He's not Barkley, either, but he hasn't ever gotten to the point where even his post defense and defensive rebounding combine to be roughly what we saw from Malone. This is part of why his overall BPM (which itself has only so much utility in a direct comparison) is so much lower than either Barkley's or Malone's. He was a better playoff scorer of course, and in his hey-day he was also a fine defensive rebounder, so it's a little more complicated than just "oh, his BPM is lower and his OBPM isn't that impressive outside of a couple of seasons, so this is easily Malone," no.

I want to value Dirk here because he's a much better take-over scorer, but there are other considerations with Malone, like his playmaking involvement as the screener in high-volume PnR action for the Jazz, and his superior offensive rebounding. Offense isn't just scoring, and of course total value is a separate concept from even that. Statistically, Malone actually beats out Dirk in both the RS and the PS based on BPM, even if Dirk is the superior PS scorer. And superior isolation scorer in general, actually. THe real question is, what is the value of that truth? The difference between 2011 and 1998 was mostly the value of the supporting cast, not in terms of the actual star forward performances.

For example, their Finals performances of relevance:

1998: 40.5 mpg, 25.0 ppg, 50.4% FG, 55.3% TS, 13.4% ORB, 14.5% TOV, 33.3% USG, 106 ORTG

CHI DRTG was 99.8 in the RS and UTA ORTG was 96.1 in the Finals... CHI ORTG was 105.5. Stockton, at 103, was the only non-Malone guy on the Jazz with an ORTG over 96. ROUGH environment, and he played reasonable offense. League average was 105. So we're talking non-epic performance, still, but given usage, team support and all that, not actually a bad performance. He capped the series with 39/9/5 in 44 minutes, then 31/11/7 in 43 minutes, shooting 17/27 and 11/19 respectively. 4 and 5 offensive boards. He found a way to be awesome, but the rest of the Jazz sucked REALLY hard. Even then, the Jazz had an opportunity in Game 6, losing only by a single point after failing on the final possession. Utah's 3Q stinker was a problem, unable to take advantage of Chicago's own deficiencies. Malone definitely adjusted to Chicago a lot more effectively in 98 compared to 97. It was a lot like Dirk's performance in 2011 compared to 2006, though obviously not directly comparable because different teams.

2011: 40.4 mpg, 26.0 ppg, 41.6% FG 44/45 FT, 36.8% on 3.2 3P/g, 53.7% TS (57.5% over the first 5 games), 111 ORTG against 32.6% TS.

Dirks' G6 was, like many of his games that run, a little lop-sided. 37.7% TS on the game. 9/27 from the floor, 21 points, 1/7 from 3. But he actually led the game in scoring in both the 3rd and 4th quarters, scoring 18 points in the second half. 3/7 for 8 points in the 3rd, 5/7 for 10 in the 4th. As he'd done several times that postseason, he blew in the first half and got ultra-hot in the second half (8/14 in this case). Like Malone, there are a couple of individual series where his performance was better than the average stats do indicate. 2011 vs. Miami was definitely one for Dirk, because he kept coming up in the second half, and of course most of us remember that shake'n'bake on Bosh in game 2 for the lefty, game-winning layup.

Still, as I said, supporting casts were the difference in 98 between 2011.

That said, you can turn around and say that Dirk's ability to control the tempo of a game and impose his will as an iso scorer when his teammates weren't there was a major separation between the two come the playoffs. Naturally, given the general lack of separation in terms of team success, even when his teams weren't quite as top-heavy as the Hornacek/Stockton era of the Jazz, I'm inclined to side with Dirk by a small margin here. Is way close, though. There's some truth to the idea that if you got a second star better than Stockton or better than supporting cast productivity than the 2011 Mavs and Malone could still be legitimate contenders with an honest shot at winning. Again, Malone came through in 98, but Utah sucked so badly that black holes got jealous. Stockton was injured and was never a takeover scorer, they had no other consequential iso scorers and they were working with basically Eisley, Shandon Anderson and Bryon Russell. Hornacek blew as well.

Sooooo... this one's tougher to think through. I think they end up being very, very similar in value. I find this one different than with Barkley. I value Dirk's iso scoring in conjunction with the rest of his offensive game more than the more aesthetically-pleasing numbers which Malone's style of play produced, but there is a noteworthy pro-Malone argument here from a statistical standpoint through BPM. I'm inclined to side with Dirk because of the iso scoring, but it's a slender margin. Anorexic, really.

Duncan

So. Barkley and Dirk out of the way, time to get to the core of this and involve Duncan.

We'll go 99-00 through 09-10.

99-10 RS: 36.0 mpg, 21.1 ppg, 50.5% FG, 31.4 PTS100, 110 ORTG, 55.2% TS, .450 FTr, 10.1% ORB, 12.0% TOV, 28.3% USG (mad slow-pace era), +2.1 OBPM, +6.1 BPM

Hangs with the rest pretty well overall, but because his offense isn't in the same class as any of the guys above him, his overall statistical impact doesn't look quite as awesome. He wasn't a dominant offensive player for the most part, though he was quite good. He was a great defender. BPM underrates him across this span of time because it's very long, but he had 3 straight seasons at +7 and another one besides that. Was pretty consistently +3.5 to +4.5 in DBPM, too, which is pretty good stuff when you consider he led the league in DRTG 3x and was at or under DRTG 97 in all but in 2009 2010.

99-10 PS: 39.1 mpg, 23.1 ppg, 50.0% FG, 32.0 PTS100, 110 ORTG, 54.8% TS, .495 FTr, 10.6% ORB, 12.4% TOV, 29.1% USG, +2.5 OBPM, +6.9 BPM

So now we're cooking with gas a bit. Even with rudimentary BPM analysis, he separates from Dirk. In terms of actual performance, he lags well behind Barkley, but he was also way healthier and way more valuable over time due to longevity. Further, Duncan's defensive abilities did set the tone for a decade of San Antonio defensive dominance, which was actually the focus of the Spurs' game plan, as opposed to offensive dominance. That only changed once he got old, and then he adapted flawlessly to become a strong component of a wicked offensive team. But that's not important here, which is more prime analysis.

Now, it's been a while since we looked at Malone's numbers, so here they are again:

88-98 RS: 38.4 mpg, 27.6 ppg, 53.1% FG, 36.6 PTS100, 116 ORTG, 59.1% TS, .519 FTR, 8.6% ORB, 11.8% TOV, 30.4% USG, +4.4 OBPM, +6.2 BPM

88-98 PS: 42.0 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46.8% FG, 35.2 PTS100, 109 ORTG, 53.4% TS, .483 FTr, 8.3% ORB, 10.0% TOV, 31.6% USG, +1.9 OBPM, +4.5 BPM


Now we're reminded that Duncan's net BPM effect is comparable to Malone's RS effect due to the separation on defense, yes? Only, now you factor in the PS, where he actually improves in that regard and Malone regresses, so that gap gets bigger. Malone's greatest attribute withers, while Duncan's maintains and his offense remains nearly identical. This becomes easier for me to choose.

I go Duncan over Malone every time because his offense is good enough and his defense blows him away, as does his net postseason performance.


And this is even aside from the "greatness" argument. Duncan matches both of Malone's MVPs. He obliterates him in terms of overall accolades. He doesn't have the same PPG longevity, but he has comparable longevity in terms of utility to his team. Late Malone has 3 or 4 seasons where his PPG overstates his actual impact, particularly once you factor in the playoffs, because he was basically a volume jump shooter without an outlier-level jumper, with diminished rebounding and his usual decline in the PS.

Thanks tsherkin that's great analysis as always.

[tsherkin]

Thank you, but I did because I participated on it.

Thanks for your reply, particularly since what I posted didn't directly address your post. I also am surprised at someone who would change their minds about the relative rankings of two players who are both retired. I guess Purch has put an increased value on TS% or ORtg (which are Barkley's areas of advantage). To my mind they are not nearly enough to offset Barkley's defensive deficiences.

Probably... Everyone have their own method to rank players. For Example I dislike TS% since players like Shaq are 38th in NBA carreer due to he was not good in FT line. Still... He was one of the most dominant players (if not the most) to have played in NBA. Players like Maxwell, Rambis or K. Smith are top 10 in Playoffs... so.. I don't like at all... or as every stat, don't tell the whole story.

Control for minutes and usage and, even ignoring that he was already top 40 all time, you'll see a different result.

[chrismikayla]

Tim
Barkley
Malone
Dirk
Garnett

Why do you have Charles rates higher?

[BallerTed]

Malone's dropoff in the playoffs is too great to ignore. I have it at

1. Duncan
2. Barkley
3. KG
4. Dirk
5. Malone

[magicmerl]

Probably... Everyone have their own method to rank players. For Example I dislike TS% since players like Shaq are 38th in NBA carreer due to he was not good in FT line. Still... He was one of the most dominant players (if not the most) to have played in NBA. Players like Maxwell, Rambis or K. Smith are top 10 in Playoffs... so.. I don't like at all... or as every stat, don't tell the whole story.

Except that FT% matters at the end of the game. If Shaq can't get off the bench in the final minutes of a close game, how is that being 'the most dominant ever'?

TS% to me acts as a proxy for Pts/Poss at the individual level. Which I absolutely think is the 'correct' offensive efficiency metric.

[wassuphomeboy]

Although Duncan is a better player, I don't feel the gap is as big as people think. If they switched Mailman and Timmy's careers(ie Tim has to go through the West in the 90s as well as Jordan in the finals) I daresay the gap in accolades would not be as wide as it is presently. Remember a prime Duncan was held below his season averages by a hobbled 40 year old Malone in 2004.

[Joao Saraiva]

Malone's PS high in PER was 25.8. Duncan was 5 times above that, and twice over 30. PER suggest a large gap.

Malone's best WS/48 in the PS was 22. Duncan was 5 times above that value, peaking at 27.9.

Malone collapsed big time in the playoffs sometimes, Duncan was much more consistent.
Duncan also had an impact on D that Karl Malone never had.

I'm quite confident saying Duncan is above Karl Malone, and it's not a 1A and 1B situation. Karl Malone was awesome, but Tim has a legit argument for a top 5 player ever.

To sum it up:
1. Defense
2. Playoff performances
3. Peak

are the reasons why I think Karl Malone has no case over Duncan.

[ThaRegul8r]

Although Duncan is a better player, I don't feel the gap is as big as people think. If they switched Mailman and Timmy's careers(ie Tim has to go through the West in the 90s as well as Jordan in the finals) I daresay the gap in accolades would not be as wide as it is presently. Remember a prime Duncan was held below his season averages by a hobbled 40 year old Malone in 2004.

From what I've seen, people seem to focus on how they think a team would improve a player's résumé rather than how a player would help that team with whatever it is he brings to the table. If you switch Malone with Duncan (or any one player with another), the question should be how that player with whatever it is he brings to the table would help his new team (which is now minus everything its existing star brought to the table) and how that would affect the team either positively or negatively (how does what the new addition brings to the table offset what they lose without the star they already had?). We already know how Duncan helped the Spurs and how that affected their success. Since Malone brings different things to the table, how do you propose that would help the team win?

[bballexpert]

Although Duncan is a better player, I don't feel the gap is as big as people think. If they switched Mailman and Timmy's careers(ie Tim has to go through the West in the 90s as well as Jordan in the finals) I daresay the gap in accolades would not be as wide as it is presently. Remember a prime Duncan was held below his season averages by a hobbled 40 year old Malone in 2004.

Find this stupid because Duncan was the main reason for his team success and Malone played with one of the best pgs of all time not like he did not have help.Malone was a choker and Duncan was not in finales against the Bulls i would back Duncan way more. Duncan played against Kobe, Shaq on the same team, against kg and then there was Dirk and Nash thats few top10,top15 and top30 players. Scoring was easier to do then in the 2000's slow ass pace one of the best defenses there has ever been.

[Winglish]

I was discussing this with my brother recently. It is widely accepted that Tim is the GOAT power forward but is it close between these two than most people think? Mailman has the individual success and longevity and was very consistent. He also was a much better defender than people give him credit for in my opinion. I think what makes the gap large for most is the team success obviously but Karl lost to some great teams in the playoffs including MJs Bulls and Magic's Lakers. So as far as power forwards should the gap between these two be very small?

So we open with the baseline that Malone was one of the best regular-season players in league history. We continue by understanding that he still did mean things to weaker and average defensive teams in the playoffs. We realize that he struggled against good defenses because his on-ball shot generation skills weren't that hot and mostly consisted of his fadeaway and a simple hook. His major value was very clearly offense; he was also a good post defender and a pretty decent rebounder, but his major value was clearly in scoring, and he didn't carry it fully into the postseason. Duncan's major value was defense, and it DID carry into the postseason.

We can run the numbers here. Why 88-98? Well, I eliminate his rookie season for obvious reasons, and start with his first real "Mailman-ish" season, because he "only" posted 21.7 ppg in 87, and hadn't figured out how to not-suck at the line yet, either. 88 was basically his real "I'm here, and I'm awesome" starting point. After 98, he was old, slowing down and way less effective, so we're looking at his prime.

88-98 RS: 38.4 mpg, 27.6 ppg, 53.1% FG, 36.6 PTS100, 116 ORTG, 59.1% TS, .519 FTR, 8.6% ORB, 11.8% TOV, 30.4% USG, +4.4 OBPM, +6.2 BPM

Brilliant stuff, right? Not a ton out there looking a lot better than that. Point of reference? B-Ref comes up with only 70 player-seasons of 30%+ usage, 70 games played and an OBPM of +4.4 or better. Malone has 5 of them. Other players with significant multiples include:

Nique (3), Wade (4), Shaq (3, mostly GP-related), McGrady (5), Jordan (10), Lebron (8), AI (3), and Kobe (7).

Gives you a pretty good idea that his RS performance was bloody marvelous. Obviously, OBPM is only one number/point of consideration, but it squares with the eye test and the box score numbers and everything. He was a beast, and it shows through across basically every angle of examination. That's a reliable observation, then.

88-98 PS: 42.0 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46.8% FG, 35.2 PTS100, 109 ORTG, 53.4% TS, .483 FTr, 8.3% ORB, 10.0% TOV, 31.6% USG, +1.9 OBPM, +4.5 BPM

So you can see several things right away from this, all of which square with the narrative of his decline in the postseason.

His scoring efficiency fell off of a cliff, and his overall impact was considerably worse. His FG% tanked out HARD. Most of his indicators were otherwise similar. Usage was similar, draw rate was still elite, turnovers and offensive rebounding very similar. But he just couldn't make shots, and this is across a decade of play and 128 games, not just a single series or whatever. That's a HUGE trend. That's a 5.7% drop in TS, which is way larger than the usual RS/PS drop-off, as is that 7-point drop in ORTG.

It still ends up being positive-value offense, but not what you want from a guy using nearly a third of your possessions while he's on the court. It's not elite. It takes him 4 more minutes to score the same volume per-game, and of course even if we account for pace and minutes, he's still back around 1.5 points per 100 possessions and tanking out his productivity per-possession by every measure.

That's Malone in the playoffs. Much worse than his elite, reputation-building RS. Still not a scrub, but doesn't really stand with his peers, even as you factor in era (pace), minutes, improved competition in the PS and all of that fun stuff.

Anyway, so that's our baseline. That's what we know of Malone, from the narrative AND from the numbers, which happily align without any real dissonance. He had some good playoff runs in there (92 comes to mind, for example), but on the whole, he just wasn't a dominant postseason performer against good defenses. That matters.

So now let's look at some of his non-Duncan peers. Let's look at some guys with similar approaches to the game, e.g. not Duncan/Garnett, whose value extend from defense first. Let's look at Barkley and Dirk the same way. We'll pause and remember that ALL of these guys are MVP winners, yes? Barkley got his boys to the Finals in 93 and lost to Jordan much as did Malone, only against younger, faster and more dominant MJ. Dirk got his boys to the Finals... and titled. But we'll get there, because this is obviously more complicated. The point is, there is a fairly common and level playing field here in terms of accolades and team achievements.

Barkley

Spoiler:

Was planning to go 87 (first All-Star season) to 93 (MVP and Finals appearance) for Barkley, but I will extend to 97 to match a similar period to Malone, and since 97 was his last AS season before injuries ruined him.

87-97 RS: 38 mpg, 24.3 ppg, 54.5% FG (59.1% 2FG), 32.0 PTS100, 121 ORTG, 61.9% TS, .560 FTr, 12.3% ORB, 14.1% TOV, 25.8% USG, +6.5 OBPM, +8.2 BPM

97-97 PS: 41.1 mpg, 24.5 ppg, 50.3% FG (54.3% 2FG), 31.0 PTS100, 120 ORTG, 57.9% TS, .516 FTr, 12.1% ORB, 11.1% TOV, 25.9% USG, +4.1 OBPM, +7.2 BPM

So here we see a fairly different story. We see a little dip in per-possession scoring volume, and of course he declines in efficiency like most players as well. The gap isn't nearly as bad, though. The real difference is that he remains a steam-roll of horribleness for the opposition defense even in the playoffs, continuing to proceed excellent offensive efficiency and per-possession productivity, while even lowering his turnover rate. You'll also note that Barkley's playoff OBPM is roughly the same as Malone's OBPM in the regular season, and dramatically superior to his PS OBPM. You'll notice that his playoff BPM is also quite a bit better. Long story made short, his statistical production dramatically outproduces Malone in the postseason.

There is some argument here to be made for the fact that despite his attitude problems and lack of defensive committment, that he was a better overall player than Karl Malone, and despite the difference in longevity. We're looking at an equivalent stretch of time here, a decade. Yes, 91 stands out as a health-fail for Barkley, but given how much better he was come the postseason, it isn't a ton to overlook. There's an argument here, mainly because Malone is wildly UNimpressive compared to his upper-echelon peers come the postseason. The reality of Malone's playoff performance isn't BAD, per se, it's actually a lot like a normal Carmelo Anthony regular season pre-Knicks, but it isn't close to good enough as far as standing with guys like Barkley and other top-10 ATG candidates.

For me, given that Malone isn't really a game-changing defender, the offensive gap makes a much bigger difference. Malone doesn't have an RS advantage offensively, and he's blown away come the PS. Barkley has a HUUUUUGE overall offensive advantage in the playoffs, and I think the combination of those two truths outweighs what defensive advantage Malone has, personally.

I generally count Barkley more valuable, and thus ranked higher, than Malone. I could see an argument based on personality issues and some of these other qualitative factors, but I side with Barkley's offensive value personally. His mixture of ultra-dominant FG% beneath the arc coupled with elite offensive rebounding, solid passing and wicked draw rate? Brutal.

Dirk

Spoiler:

So for Dirk, we'll look from 01-11. Great durability through that stretch, too.

01-11 RS: 37.4 mpg, 24.3 ppg, 47.9% FG (50.0% 2FG), 34.0 PTS100, 118 ORTG, 58.6% TS, .393 FTr, 3.8% ORB, 8.6% TOV, 27.7% USG, +4.0 OBPM, +4.5 BPM

01-11 PS: 41.3 mpg, 25.9 ppg, 46.3% FG (47.9% 2FG), 33.3 PTS100, 119 ORTG, 58.4% TS, .478 FTr, 4.3% ORB, 9.4% TOV, 27.2% USG, +2.5 OBPM, +4.8 BPM

Statistically, this gets confusing based on +/- some. Dirk's scoring maintains well enough in the playoffs. And of course, he has some epic playoff runs in there. 09-11, he was absolutely brutal to deal with in the playoffs. He was never a good offensive rebounder (he's not Kevin Love, even his ORB declined as he moved more outside), and Dirk is not a good defender. He's not Barkley, either, but he hasn't ever gotten to the point where even his post defense and defensive rebounding combine to be roughly what we saw from Malone. This is part of why his overall BPM (which itself has only so much utility in a direct comparison) is so much lower than either Barkley's or Malone's. He was a better playoff scorer of course, and in his hey-day he was also a fine defensive rebounder, so it's a little more complicated than just "oh, his BPM is lower and his OBPM isn't that impressive outside of a couple of seasons, so this is easily Malone," no.

I want to value Dirk here because he's a much better take-over scorer, but there are other considerations with Malone, like his playmaking involvement as the screener in high-volume PnR action for the Jazz, and his superior offensive rebounding. Offense isn't just scoring, and of course total value is a separate concept from even that. Statistically, Malone actually beats out Dirk in both the RS and the PS based on BPM, even if Dirk is the superior PS scorer. And superior isolation scorer in general, actually. THe real question is, what is the value of that truth? The difference between 2011 and 1998 was mostly the value of the supporting cast, not in terms of the actual star forward performances.

For example, their Finals performances of relevance:

1998: 40.5 mpg, 25.0 ppg, 50.4% FG, 55.3% TS, 13.4% ORB, 14.5% TOV, 33.3% USG, 106 ORTG

CHI DRTG was 99.8 in the RS and UTA ORTG was 96.1 in the Finals... CHI ORTG was 105.5. Stockton, at 103, was the only non-Malone guy on the Jazz with an ORTG over 96. ROUGH environment, and he played reasonable offense. League average was 105. So we're talking non-epic performance, still, but given usage, team support and all that, not actually a bad performance. He capped the series with 39/9/5 in 44 minutes, then 31/11/7 in 43 minutes, shooting 17/27 and 11/19 respectively. 4 and 5 offensive boards. He found a way to be awesome, but the rest of the Jazz sucked REALLY hard. Even then, the Jazz had an opportunity in Game 6, losing only by a single point after failing on the final possession. Utah's 3Q stinker was a problem, unable to take advantage of Chicago's own deficiencies. Malone definitely adjusted to Chicago a lot more effectively in 98 compared to 97. It was a lot like Dirk's performance in 2011 compared to 2006, though obviously not directly comparable because different teams.

2011: 40.4 mpg, 26.0 ppg, 41.6% FG 44/45 FT, 36.8% on 3.2 3P/g, 53.7% TS (57.5% over the first 5 games), 111 ORTG against 32.6% TS.

Dirks' G6 was, like many of his games that run, a little lop-sided. 37.7% TS on the game. 9/27 from the floor, 21 points, 1/7 from 3. But he actually led the game in scoring in both the 3rd and 4th quarters, scoring 18 points in the second half. 3/7 for 8 points in the 3rd, 5/7 for 10 in the 4th. As he'd done several times that postseason, he blew in the first half and got ultra-hot in the second half (8/14 in this case). Like Malone, there are a couple of individual series where his performance was better than the average stats do indicate. 2011 vs. Miami was definitely one for Dirk, because he kept coming up in the second half, and of course most of us remember that shake'n'bake on Bosh in game 2 for the lefty, game-winning layup.

Still, as I said, supporting casts were the difference in 98 between 2011.

That said, you can turn around and say that Dirk's ability to control the tempo of a game and impose his will as an iso scorer when his teammates weren't there was a major separation between the two come the playoffs. Naturally, given the general lack of separation in terms of team success, even when his teams weren't quite as top-heavy as the Hornacek/Stockton era of the Jazz, I'm inclined to side with Dirk by a small margin here. Is way close, though. There's some truth to the idea that if you got a second star better than Stockton or better than supporting cast productivity than the 2011 Mavs and Malone could still be legitimate contenders with an honest shot at winning. Again, Malone came through in 98, but Utah sucked so badly that black holes got jealous. Stockton was injured and was never a takeover scorer, they had no other consequential iso scorers and they were working with basically Eisley, Shandon Anderson and Bryon Russell. Hornacek blew as well.

Sooooo... this one's tougher to think through. I think they end up being very, very similar in value. I find this one different than with Barkley. I value Dirk's iso scoring in conjunction with the rest of his offensive game more than the more aesthetically-pleasing numbers which Malone's style of play produced, but there is a noteworthy pro-Malone argument here from a statistical standpoint through BPM. I'm inclined to side with Dirk because of the iso scoring, but it's a slender margin. Anorexic, really.

Duncan

So. Barkley and Dirk out of the way, time to get to the core of this and involve Duncan.

We'll go 99-00 through 09-10.

99-10 RS: 36.0 mpg, 21.1 ppg, 50.5% FG, 31.4 PTS100, 110 ORTG, 55.2% TS, .450 FTr, 10.1% ORB, 12.0% TOV, 28.3% USG (mad slow-pace era), +2.1 OBPM, +6.1 BPM

Hangs with the rest pretty well overall, but because his offense isn't in the same class as any of the guys above him, his overall statistical impact doesn't look quite as awesome. He wasn't a dominant offensive player for the most part, though he was quite good. He was a great defender. BPM underrates him across this span of time because it's very long, but he had 3 straight seasons at +7 and another one besides that. Was pretty consistently +3.5 to +4.5 in DBPM, too, which is pretty good stuff when you consider he led the league in DRTG 3x and was at or under DRTG 97 in all but in 2009 2010.

99-10 PS: 39.1 mpg, 23.1 ppg, 50.0% FG, 32.0 PTS100, 110 ORTG, 54.8% TS, .495 FTr, 10.6% ORB, 12.4% TOV, 29.1% USG, +2.5 OBPM, +6.9 BPM

So now we're cooking with gas a bit. Even with rudimentary BPM analysis, he separates from Dirk. In terms of actual performance, he lags well behind Barkley, but he was also way healthier and way more valuable over time due to longevity. Further, Duncan's defensive abilities did set the tone for a decade of San Antonio defensive dominance, which was actually the focus of the Spurs' game plan, as opposed to offensive dominance. That only changed once he got old, and then he adapted flawlessly to become a strong component of a wicked offensive team. But that's not important here, which is more prime analysis.

Now, it's been a while since we looked at Malone's numbers, so here they are again:

88-98 RS: 38.4 mpg, 27.6 ppg, 53.1% FG, 36.6 PTS100, 116 ORTG, 59.1% TS, .519 FTR, 8.6% ORB, 11.8% TOV, 30.4% USG, +4.4 OBPM, +6.2 BPM

88-98 PS: 42.0 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46.8% FG, 35.2 PTS100, 109 ORTG, 53.4% TS, .483 FTr, 8.3% ORB, 10.0% TOV, 31.6% USG, +1.9 OBPM, +4.5 BPM


Now we're reminded that Duncan's net BPM effect is comparable to Malone's RS effect due to the separation on defense, yes? Only, now you factor in the PS, where he actually improves in that regard and Malone regresses, so that gap gets bigger. Malone's greatest attribute withers, while Duncan's maintains and his offense remains nearly identical. This becomes easier for me to choose.

I go Duncan over Malone every time because his offense is good enough and his defense blows him away, as does his net postseason performance.


And this is even aside from the "greatness" argument. Duncan matches both of Malone's MVPs. He obliterates him in terms of overall accolades. He doesn't have the same PPG longevity, but he has comparable longevity in terms of utility to his team. Late Malone has 3 or 4 seasons where his PPG overstates his actual impact, particularly once you factor in the playoffs, because he was basically a volume jump shooter without an outlier-level jumper, with diminished rebounding and his usual decline in the PS.

A whole lotta spinning for Dirk there. I think you subconsciously put on the blinders and avoided numbers. Pretty objective with the rest.