K Malone and Garnett playoffs - why is KG rated so highly for career

[G35]

You seem to move the goalposts with each post.

When?

Carmelo as the best player on the Nuggets took them to the WCF's in 2009, show me Dikembe's equivalent team success when he was the best player on the team.

You mean 2009 when Melo played on absurdly stacked team and beat two +1.5 SRS teams before losing in WCF? I'd gladly take 1994 over that, when Mutombo with much worse team defeated elite Seattle team and barely lost to strong Jazz team. Comparing 2009 roster to 1994 roster is actually intelectual dishonesty.

Then I am so glad that someone finally mentioned it about the starting point, which is the basis for why Malone is better than KG. Garnett's career PPG average is below 18PPG at 17.8, that is starting at a low point. Karl's career PPG in the RS is 25.0, which is a higher average than Garnett's career high in 2004. Garnett and Malone are in two different stratosphere's as scorers. Karl still avg'd 24.7PPG over his career. That is more than acceptable as a #1 option.

So you just proved again that all you care about is scoring...

I really can't understand the intellectual disconnect when we are comparing an 18PPG scorer vs a 25PPG scorer. How is this even a reality. That is really all I have to say on it, people arguing for KG are moving the goalposts, oversaturating on the context, and being intellectually dishonest when you get to the facts.

Nobody in this thread said that Garnett is as good scorer as Malone. People simply state that the gap is not big enough to overcome Garnett's non-scoring advantages.

KG is one or two tiers below Malone as a scorer, he HAS to do everything else at an elite level to even be in the conversation. KG's lack of scoring, poor efficiency, poor free throw rate all contributed to why Minnesota lost in the 1st round seven straight times and KG missed the playoffs three straight years in his prime.

Well, good for him that he basically did everything else at an elite level.

KG is an average scorer at best......

Average relative to who? The league?

The reason why we look at things differently, is because I put more weight on results, while you (and most KG apologists) put more weight on possibility.

Iffa, woulda, coulda, shoulda is the hallmark of KG's career. That is great for forum debates, but in reality, no one cares about what could have happened or what should have happened. Competition is about what does happen.

Possibility vs probability. KG should have had more success team wise, KG should have had more support, KG would do better in the modern game. That's a dream world, that is a fantasy. You cannot plug in "possibility" when rating players. There are a lot players that should get the benefit of the doubt that KG gets but they don't. Because that would be moving the goal posts.

Standards are there for a reason. Changing or lowering standards dilutes the entire product. It is why these top 75 lists, or the Hall of Fame is not looked upon with the same reverence as other elite groups. The lowering of standards because people want their favorite player to get consideration.

KG is average at best relative to Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Charles Barkley, Dirk at being a #1 player on a franchise.

Now the following isn't for you 70's fan, you wouldn't appreciate it, but it is informational (green indicates the leader, red is the lowest).

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Duncan - 251
Barkley - 123
Dirk - 145
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Duncan - 24.3
Barkley - 24.2
Dirk - 23.8
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - .577
Duncan - .548
Barkley - .612
Dirk - .577
Garnett - .546

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Duncan - 110
Barkley - 118
Dirk - 117
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Duncan - 99
Barkley - 107
Dirk - 107
Garnett - 99


There is no statistical argument that shows KG should not be last. He doesn't have narrative, nor the repeated team success to say he should be rated higher than any of these guys. At peak I would take all four of these guys over KG in the playoffs.

KG's 2004 playoff run:
PPG - 24.3
REB - 14.6
AST - 5.1
BLK - 2.3
STL - 1.3
PER - 25.0
TS% - .513
ORTG - 100
DRTG - 95


You say all I care about is scoring...I say you don't care about it enough.....

[70sFan]

You seem to move the goalposts with each post.

When?

Carmelo as the best player on the Nuggets took them to the WCF's in 2009, show me Dikembe's equivalent team success when he was the best player on the team.

You mean 2009 when Melo played on absurdly stacked team and beat two +1.5 SRS teams before losing in WCF? I'd gladly take 1994 over that, when Mutombo with much worse team defeated elite Seattle team and barely lost to strong Jazz team. Comparing 2009 roster to 1994 roster is actually intelectual dishonesty.

Then I am so glad that someone finally mentioned it about the starting point, which is the basis for why Malone is better than KG. Garnett's career PPG average is below 18PPG at 17.8, that is starting at a low point. Karl's career PPG in the RS is 25.0, which is a higher average than Garnett's career high in 2004. Garnett and Malone are in two different stratosphere's as scorers. Karl still avg'd 24.7PPG over his career. That is more than acceptable as a #1 option.

So you just proved again that all you care about is scoring...

I really can't understand the intellectual disconnect when we are comparing an 18PPG scorer vs a 25PPG scorer. How is this even a reality. That is really all I have to say on it, people arguing for KG are moving the goalposts, oversaturating on the context, and being intellectually dishonest when you get to the facts.

Nobody in this thread said that Garnett is as good scorer as Malone. People simply state that the gap is not big enough to overcome Garnett's non-scoring advantages.

KG is one or two tiers below Malone as a scorer, he HAS to do everything else at an elite level to even be in the conversation. KG's lack of scoring, poor efficiency, poor free throw rate all contributed to why Minnesota lost in the 1st round seven straight times and KG missed the playoffs three straight years in his prime.

Well, good for him that he basically did everything else at an elite level.

KG is an average scorer at best......

Average relative to who? The league?

The reason why we look at things differently, is because I put more weight on results, while you (and most KG apologists) put more weight on possibility.

Iffa, woulda, coulda, shoulda is the hallmark of KG's career. That is great for forum debates, but in reality, no one cares about what could have happened or what should have happened. Competition is about what does happen.

Possibility vs probability. KG should have had more success team wise, KG should have had more support, KG would do better in the modern game. That's a dream world, that is a fantasy. You cannot plug in "possibility" when rating players. There are a lot players that should get the benefit of the doubt that KG gets but they don't. Because that would be moving the goal posts.

Standards are there for a reason. Changing or lowering standards dilutes the entire product. It is why these top 75 lists, or the Hall of Fame is not looked upon with the same reverence as other elite groups. The lowering of standards because people want their favorite player to get consideration.

KG is average at best relative to Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Charles Barkley, Dirk at being a #1 player on a franchise.

Now the following isn't for you 70's fan, you wouldn't appreciate it, but it is informational (green indicates the leader, red is the lowest).

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Duncan - 251
Barkley - 123
Dirk - 145
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Duncan - 24.3
Barkley - 24.2
Dirk - 23.8
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - .577
Duncan - .548
Barkley - .612
Dirk - .577
Garnett - .546

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Duncan - 110
Barkley - 118
Dirk - 117
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Duncan - 99
Barkley - 107
Dirk - 107
Garnett - 99


There is no statistical argument that shows KG should not be last. He doesn't have narrative, nor the repeated team success to say he should be rated higher than any of these guys. At peak I would take all four of these guys over KG in the playoffs.

KG's 2004 playoff run:
PPG - 24.3
REB - 14.6
AST - 5.1
BLK - 2.3
STL - 1.3
PER - 25.0
TS% - .513
ORTG - 100
DRTG - 95


You say all I care about is scoring...I say you don't care about it enough.....

I just became "KG apologist", what a strange times!

Your numbers are wrong, Malone averaged 52.6 TS% in the playoffs vs 52.5 TS% for KG.

So Malone has the edge in basically nothing, other than games played, while KG has clear edge in DRTG. I won't even discuss about the relevancy of these numbers, you just proved that Malone has no advantage over KG, yet you look at these numbers and say that it's KG who has to be the last. I repeat it for you:

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - 52.6
Garnett - 52.5

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Garnett - 99

More games played, identical PER, no edge in TS%, almost identical ORTG and clearly worse DRTG. At this point, I am starting to doubt if you can understand what you're posting here...

[FJS]

I can assure you if Karl Malone did not make the NBA finals there would be no debate.

I was coincidentally talking with someone the other day about how ridiculous famous Karl Malone became in 97 and 98 because his team was opposite the Bulls. Before that he was not nearly as highly thought of. After he lost to Jordan he became the guy that "only wasn't champion because of Jordon" - which is obviously a much higher praise than being called a loser or a choker.

The difference is only 2 games for Malone winning a title? The difference was only 1 game for KG winning his second.

Using a winning argument doesn't score well here. KG did prove he could win and there is plenty of evidence that he could have won even more.

You can tear apart Karl Malone with unfair criticisms about him losing also. Before he faced the Bulls Karl Malone was criticized for getting upset. The Wolves got destroyed in the first round a lot but were usually expected to.

Again, there is more to the game than just scoring. It isn't difficult to see the argument for why Garnett might be better than Malone. Malone's biggest strength (his scoring) was limited in the post season. Garnett was better than
Karl at nearly every other aspect of the game including things Karl was good at.


You did not say his time in Boston did not count explicitly but you are intentionally omitting it and you are intentionally talking only about 97 and 98 for Karl Malone. Karl Malone played before and after 97/98, so why are we only focusing on that but never mentioning anything that happened in Boston with Garnett?

That's not fair, and the reason would seem like it's because post 2007 the "loser" narrative doesn't have any weight with KG.

I was talking about 98 because this was the year his help was not strong. In 92,94, 96 and 97 years he went to WCF Stockton was performing as an allstar.
I omitted 2004, because he was not the franchise player.

I truly think that a few versions of Karl Malone would win 2008 ring with celtics, because it's not like KG was the only defensive player in those celtics, or Malone was a bad defender by himself, but I don't think that any kind of KG version would do better with any version of Jazz. And I think that Malone would pass more than one time in 12 years the 1st round in Minny.

Karl Malone was more than scoring. He was a good passer when he aged, a great defender (He did in 04 a good job being a 40 years old in playoffs vs Duncan and Garnett) and set a culture in Utah with Stockton and Sloan.

A lot of players who looked good or even great playing with them showed how really bad were when they went out of Utah and in a couple of years were out of the league.

And Malone strength was not limited in postseason (scoring). It was less efficient (as I pointed when you are the only truly menace to score, is easy to focus in one guy) With Jazz he was a 25.4 scorer in RS and a 26.3 ppg in Playoffs. And his worse years where with 37,38 and 39 years. Without them it would improve.

KG improved a little bit scoring in PO, but his efficiency was down too. Still his defense, his truly weapon, which was more important than Malone offense, was not traduced in series won or even to be in playoffs.

[G35]

When?


You mean 2009 when Melo played on absurdly stacked team and beat two +1.5 SRS teams before losing in WCF? I'd gladly take 1994 over that, when Mutombo with much worse team defeated elite Seattle team and barely lost to strong Jazz team. Comparing 2009 roster to 1994 roster is actually intelectual dishonesty.


So you just proved again that all you care about is scoring...


Nobody in this thread said that Garnett is as good scorer as Malone. People simply state that the gap is not big enough to overcome Garnett's non-scoring advantages.


Well, good for him that he basically did everything else at an elite level.


Average relative to who? The league?

The reason why we look at things differently, is because I put more weight on results, while you (and most KG apologists) put more weight on possibility.

Iffa, woulda, coulda, shoulda is the hallmark of KG's career. That is great for forum debates, but in reality, no one cares about what could have happened or what should have happened. Competition is about what does happen.

Possibility vs probability. KG should have had more success team wise, KG should have had more support, KG would do better in the modern game. That's a dream world, that is a fantasy. You cannot plug in "possibility" when rating players. There are a lot players that should get the benefit of the doubt that KG gets but they don't. Because that would be moving the goal posts.

Standards are there for a reason. Changing or lowering standards dilutes the entire product. It is why these top 75 lists, or the Hall of Fame is not looked upon with the same reverence as other elite groups. The lowering of standards because people want their favorite player to get consideration.

KG is average at best relative to Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Charles Barkley, Dirk at being a #1 player on a franchise.

Now the following isn't for you 70's fan, you wouldn't appreciate it, but it is informational (green indicates the leader, red is the lowest).

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Duncan - 251
Barkley - 123
Dirk - 145
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Duncan - 24.3
Barkley - 24.2
Dirk - 23.8
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - .577
Duncan - .548
Barkley - .612
Dirk - .577
Garnett - .546

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Duncan - 110
Barkley - 118
Dirk - 117
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Duncan - 99
Barkley - 107
Dirk - 107
Garnett - 99


There is no statistical argument that shows KG should not be last. He doesn't have narrative, nor the repeated team success to say he should be rated higher than any of these guys. At peak I would take all four of these guys over KG in the playoffs.

KG's 2004 playoff run:
PPG - 24.3
REB - 14.6
AST - 5.1
BLK - 2.3
STL - 1.3
PER - 25.0
TS% - .513
ORTG - 100
DRTG - 95


You say all I care about is scoring...I say you don't care about it enough.....

I just became "KG apologist", what a strange times!

Your numbers are wrong, Malone averaged 52.6 TS% in the playoffs vs 52.5 TS% for KG.

So Malone has the edge in basically nothing, other than games played, while KG has clear edge in DRTG. I won't even discuss about the relevancy of these numbers, you just proved that Malone has no advantage over KG, yet you look at these numbers and say that it's KG who has to be the last. I repeat it for you:

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - 52.6
Garnett - 52.5

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Garnett - 99

More games played, identical PER, no edge in TS%, almost identical ORTG and clearly worse DRTG. At this point, I am starting to doubt if you can understand what you're posting here...

I have already doubted the your intellectual honesty, you have a strong need to be right and will shift the argument in whatever direction that will facilitate that need.

Games played is significant. Why? Because that means greater sample size. It also indicates winning more games. It also indicates playing at higher levels of the playoffs.

You may or may not be a KG apologist. Or you may just like to be argumentative. Some people like to argue to hear themselves talk.....

[70sFan]

The reason why we look at things differently, is because I put more weight on results, while you (and most KG apologists) put more weight on possibility.

Iffa, woulda, coulda, shoulda is the hallmark of KG's career. That is great for forum debates, but in reality, no one cares about what could have happened or what should have happened. Competition is about what does happen.

Possibility vs probability. KG should have had more success team wise, KG should have had more support, KG would do better in the modern game. That's a dream world, that is a fantasy. You cannot plug in "possibility" when rating players. There are a lot players that should get the benefit of the doubt that KG gets but they don't. Because that would be moving the goal posts.

Standards are there for a reason. Changing or lowering standards dilutes the entire product. It is why these top 75 lists, or the Hall of Fame is not looked upon with the same reverence as other elite groups. The lowering of standards because people want their favorite player to get consideration.

KG is average at best relative to Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Charles Barkley, Dirk at being a #1 player on a franchise.

Now the following isn't for you 70's fan, you wouldn't appreciate it, but it is informational (green indicates the leader, red is the lowest).

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Duncan - 251
Barkley - 123
Dirk - 145
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Duncan - 24.3
Barkley - 24.2
Dirk - 23.8
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - .577
Duncan - .548
Barkley - .612
Dirk - .577
Garnett - .546

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Duncan - 110
Barkley - 118
Dirk - 117
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Duncan - 99
Barkley - 107
Dirk - 107
Garnett - 99


There is no statistical argument that shows KG should not be last. He doesn't have narrative, nor the repeated team success to say he should be rated higher than any of these guys. At peak I would take all four of these guys over KG in the playoffs.

KG's 2004 playoff run:
PPG - 24.3
REB - 14.6
AST - 5.1
BLK - 2.3
STL - 1.3
PER - 25.0
TS% - .513
ORTG - 100
DRTG - 95


You say all I care about is scoring...I say you don't care about it enough.....

I just became "KG apologist", what a strange times!

Your numbers are wrong, Malone averaged 52.6 TS% in the playoffs vs 52.5 TS% for KG.

So Malone has the edge in basically nothing, other than games played, while KG has clear edge in DRTG. I won't even discuss about the relevancy of these numbers, you just proved that Malone has no advantage over KG, yet you look at these numbers and say that it's KG who has to be the last. I repeat it for you:

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - 52.6
Garnett - 52.5

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Garnett - 99

More games played, identical PER, no edge in TS%, almost identical ORTG and clearly worse DRTG. At this point, I am starting to doubt if you can understand what you're posting here...

I have already doubted the your intellectual honesty, you have a strong need to be right and will shift the argument in whatever direction that will facilitate that need.

Games played is significant. Why? Because that means greater sample size. It also indicates winning more games. It also indicates playing at higher levels of the playoffs.

You may or may not be a KG apologist. Or you may just like to be argumentative. Some people like to argue to hear themselves talk.....

I just struggle to understand your point, that's all. You posted a bunch of stats that shows no advantage for Malone and added "it's obvious Garnett should be last". It's not intelectual dishonesty, I just don't understand what you tried to achieve by posting these numbers.

[G35]

I just became "KG apologist", what a strange times!

Your numbers are wrong, Malone averaged 52.6 TS% in the playoffs vs 52.5 TS% for KG.

So Malone has the edge in basically nothing, other than games played, while KG has clear edge in DRTG. I won't even discuss about the relevancy of these numbers, you just proved that Malone has no advantage over KG, yet you look at these numbers and say that it's KG who has to be the last. I repeat it for you:

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - 52.6
Garnett - 52.5

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Garnett - 99

More games played, identical PER, no edge in TS%, almost identical ORTG and clearly worse DRTG. At this point, I am starting to doubt if you can understand what you're posting here...

I have already doubted the your intellectual honesty, you have a strong need to be right and will shift the argument in whatever direction that will facilitate that need.

Games played is significant. Why? Because that means greater sample size. It also indicates winning more games. It also indicates playing at higher levels of the playoffs.

You may or may not be a KG apologist. Or you may just like to be argumentative. Some people like to argue to hear themselves talk.....

I just struggle to understand your point, that's all. You posted a bunch of stats that shows no advantage for Malone and added "it's obvious Garnett should be last". It's not intelectual dishonesty, I just don't understand what you tried to achieve by posting these numbers.

Garnett played in 143 playoff games and do you know that 96 of those games came with Boston.

- In 12 years, with one franchise, during his prime, KG played in 47 playoff games.

- Garnett was eliminated in the first round seven straight years

- A common retort to this is that "KG always had to go up against better teams and didn't have homecourt advantage"

Karl Malone with the Jazz
-- 87-88 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Blazers
-- 90-91 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 93-94 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Spurs
-- 95-96 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Spurs

Charles Barkley when he was with the Sixers
- 90-91 season the Sixers upset the higher seeded Bucks

Dirk with the Mavericks
-- 00-01 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Jazz
-- 08-09 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Spurs
-- 10-11 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Lakers
-- 10-11 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Heat

Duncan with the Spurs
-- 97-98 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 04-05 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 06-07 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 07-08 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Hornets
-- 09-10 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Mavericks

This is informational....

[70sFan]

I have already doubted the your intellectual honesty, you have a strong need to be right and will shift the argument in whatever direction that will facilitate that need.

Games played is significant. Why? Because that means greater sample size. It also indicates winning more games. It also indicates playing at higher levels of the playoffs.

You may or may not be a KG apologist. Or you may just like to be argumentative. Some people like to argue to hear themselves talk.....

I just struggle to understand your point, that's all. You posted a bunch of stats that shows no advantage for Malone and added "it's obvious Garnett should be last". It's not intelectual dishonesty, I just don't understand what you tried to achieve by posting these numbers.

Garnett played in 143 playoff games and do you know that 96 of those games came with Boston.

- In 12 years, with one franchise, during his prime, KG played in 47 playoff games.

- Garnett was eliminated in the first round seven straight years

- A common retort to this is that "KG always had to go up against better teams and didn't have homecourt advantage"

Karl Malone with the Jazz
-- 87-88 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Blazers
-- 90-91 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 93-94 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Spurs
-- 95-96 season the Jazz upset the higher seeded Spurs

Charles Barkley when he was with the Sixers
- 90-91 season the Sixers upset the higher seeded Bucks

Dirk with the Mavericks
-- 00-01 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Jazz
-- 08-09 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Spurs
-- 10-11 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Lakers
-- 10-11 season the Mavericks upset the higher seeded Heat

Duncan with the Spurs
-- 97-98 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 04-05 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 06-07 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Suns
-- 07-08 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Hornets
-- 09-10 season the Spurs upset the higher seeded Mavericks

This is informational....

This is not related to what I said in the previous post...

[dygaction]

When?


You mean 2009 when Melo played on absurdly stacked team and beat two +1.5 SRS teams before losing in WCF? I'd gladly take 1994 over that, when Mutombo with much worse team defeated elite Seattle team and barely lost to strong Jazz team. Comparing 2009 roster to 1994 roster is actually intelectual dishonesty.


So you just proved again that all you care about is scoring...


Nobody in this thread said that Garnett is as good scorer as Malone. People simply state that the gap is not big enough to overcome Garnett's non-scoring advantages.


Well, good for him that he basically did everything else at an elite level.


Average relative to who? The league?

The reason why we look at things differently, is because I put more weight on results, while you (and most KG apologists) put more weight on possibility.

Iffa, woulda, coulda, shoulda is the hallmark of KG's career. That is great for forum debates, but in reality, no one cares about what could have happened or what should have happened. Competition is about what does happen.

Possibility vs probability. KG should have had more success team wise, KG should have had more support, KG would do better in the modern game. That's a dream world, that is a fantasy. You cannot plug in "possibility" when rating players. There are a lot players that should get the benefit of the doubt that KG gets but they don't. Because that would be moving the goal posts.

Standards are there for a reason. Changing or lowering standards dilutes the entire product. It is why these top 75 lists, or the Hall of Fame is not looked upon with the same reverence as other elite groups. The lowering of standards because people want their favorite player to get consideration.

KG is average at best relative to Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Charles Barkley, Dirk at being a #1 player on a franchise.

Now the following isn't for you 70's fan, you wouldn't appreciate it, but it is informational (green indicates the leader, red is the lowest).

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Duncan - 251
Barkley - 123
Dirk - 145
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Duncan - 24.3
Barkley - 24.2
Dirk - 23.8
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - .577
Duncan - .548
Barkley - .612
Dirk - .577
Garnett - .546

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Duncan - 110
Barkley - 118
Dirk - 117
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Duncan - 99
Barkley - 107
Dirk - 107
Garnett - 99


There is no statistical argument that shows KG should not be last. He doesn't have narrative, nor the repeated team success to say he should be rated higher than any of these guys. At peak I would take all four of these guys over KG in the playoffs.

KG's 2004 playoff run:
PPG - 24.3
REB - 14.6
AST - 5.1
BLK - 2.3
STL - 1.3
PER - 25.0
TS% - .513
ORTG - 100
DRTG - 95


You say all I care about is scoring...I say you don't care about it enough.....

I just became "KG apologist", what a strange times!

Your numbers are wrong, Malone averaged 52.6 TS% in the playoffs vs 52.5 TS% for KG.

So Malone has the edge in basically nothing, other than games played, while KG has clear edge in DRTG. I won't even discuss about the relevancy of these numbers, you just proved that Malone has no advantage over KG, yet you look at these numbers and say that it's KG who has to be the last. I repeat it for you:

Playoff games played:
Malone - 193
Garnett - 143

Playoff PER
Malone - 21.1
Garnett - 21.1

Playoff TS%
Malone - 52.6
Garnett - 52.5

Playoff ORTG
Malone - 106
Garnett - 105

Playoff DRTG
Malone - 103
Garnett - 99

More games played, identical PER, no edge in TS%, almost identical ORTG and clearly worse DRTG. At this point, I am starting to doubt if you can understand what you're posting here...

More games (50!) played mean won more (19 vs. 13 playoffs series wins) and mattered much longer (19 vs. 14 years). Thought you value longevity.
Same TS% but Malone had much higher ppg (24.7 vs. 18.2), volume matters (4761pts total vs. 2601pts total), so they are not comparable offensively.