RealGM Top 100 List #12

[FJS]

And Still I don't get all the KG love:

Malone since 1989 to 1999 was 1st all nba team.
Eleven seasons in a row.
Barkley was in and out. He paired with Charles, Pippen, Hill, Mullin and Duncan in those years. But never both of them beat him.
Bird, Chambers, Kemp, Wilkins, Worthy were 2nd of 3rd in that ternure.

Garnett is only 1st 4 times since in 2000 get his first 1st all nba.
He has been beated by primarly Tim Duncan, but T-Mac (whe he counted as a F which changed by 02-03 to G), Webber, Dirk, Lebron, Brand, Carmelo, Marion, Bosh before he got his last 1st allnba team in 2008.
Then, he with 32 years stopped to make any allnba team, and players like Pierce, Gasol, Durant, Randolph or Aldrigde have beat him.

[cpower]

Vote: West
Nomination: Wade

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: West

Nomination: Stockton


The last vote came down to Dr. J & Jerry West, so this is an easy choice. West's combo of skillset, 2-way ability, era dominance, and playoff impact put him at #12 for me.

I'm also nominating Stockton. He's the most prlofic facilitator in history,perhaps the best off the ball PG ever, and was a PG whose defense actually made a difference. Stockton's ability to disrupt passing lanes, harass ball handlers, and strip bigs of the ball was all-time great. The more I think about it. He's ahead of Ewing & Wade for me.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINC8Ma1pic[/youtube]

[ElGee]

Vote: Karl Malone
Nominate: Dwyane Wade

[Gongxi]

Malone
Wade

[Baller 24]

If Stockton is coming into play right now than you're focusing too much on the career aspect of the criteria and discounting the other facets of it. At peak form, he was never in a single season considered a top 5 player in the league. His defense often gets overrated to the point where he's considered amongst the best defenders, when routinely he'd get abused by opposing point-guards in the playoffs ( ex. Terry Potter WCF '92 26PPG/8.3APG/4RPG/55 FG%/46.8 3PT%). If we're comparing them by being the better basketball player at their peak, he's clearly behind the likes of Isiah, Wade, Hondo, Ewing, Barry, Nash, Kidd, Payton, & Fraizer.

I'll put it more like this, if you want to have a player that consistently gives you excellent production for a contending team for multiple years, you pick Stockton. If you're looking for the higher peak and better overall player that can carry a team on his shoulder and literally dominate as the sole clear best player on the team you can go with any of the players I just mentioned.

Peak usually always trumps everything, if you know a certain player can breakout and have a few superstar seasons to where they're capable of carrying the load on their shoulder and taking their team farther, it'd be ridiculous not to pick them. A majority of the teams would obviously go with the higher peak-- ex. Fraizer (Knicks tore through West/Wilt/Baylor, Oscar/KAJ, & Hondo/Cowens). It's like this would you rather have a player that gives you 8, 7, 8, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7 OR 7, 8, 7, 10, 10, 7, 7? Just the way I look at Stockton, I'm sure I'll get burned for this, but bring on the arguments.

[JordansBulls]

Hey Guys, when you say Malone you need specify. Because both Karl and Moses Malone could be chosen here in any order.

[Gongxi]

Good point. I've voted Karl for the last two threads, it's Karl this time, too.

[drza]

Kevin Garnett vs Karl Malone

Here are my thoughts on them as candidates for this spot.

Longevity. This is the one area that is universally used to make Malone's case. And yes, he does have incredible longevity. Malone played 19 seasons in which he was almost never hurt until the very end, is second on the NBA minutes played list only to Kareem, and was an impact player throughout. He is second on the all-time scoring list and 6th on the all-time rebounding list for a reason, as he was doing it at an extremely high level for an extremely long time. That deserves respect.

On the other hand, I think Garnett's longevity has been pretty understated. He just completed his 16th NBA season, and is currently 13th on the all-time NBA minutes played list. If the league doesn't lock out, he will be top-10 in minutes played by the time the season ends. He's a 14-time All Star, and the only reason it's not 15-time is because there was no All Star game in '99 due to the lockout. He sees Malone's total points and rebounds marks, and responds as the only player in recorded NBA history to wrack up more than 23,000 points, 12,000 rebounds, 4800 assists, 1800 blocks and 1600 steals. According to Englemann's RAPM study Garnett is in the top-5 for most impactful player over the last four seasons (Garnett's 13th thru 16th season), and in season 16 was 3rd overall in impact and #1 overall in defensive effect. I mean seriously, Malone is a longevity beast but Garnett is no slouch in that area either.

Quality of play. I've gone over this in several posts in these threads, but just to review in one place: Garnett measured out as arguably the best player of the 2000 - 2010 decade across the various advanced box score stats (PER, win shares, WARP, wins produced) and clearly the best player of that decade according to the multi-year APM studies. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1125974&start=30

Garnett also had a huge postseason impact, very arguably the biggest of this generation. His combination of all-history defense, offensive production (both as a scorer and as a facilitator) and rebounding gave him a postseason impact that could be quantified and shown to be well, well beyond what you could glean just by examining the box scores. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1126186&start=15

Based on this, I would say that Garnett had a clear argument as potentially the best player of his generation even over some others that have already been voted onto this list. But how does he directly compare to Malone? Here is something that I wrote in an older thread:

"Malone clearly scored more at a better efficiency than Garnett. I don't think anyone is disputing that Malone was a better scorer in his career. There are some, including me, that would question the degree to which Malone was better and suggest that there were some factors that mitigate the differences that the numbers suggest. Nevertheless, I don't have any problem saying Malone was the better scorer.

I do believe that Garnett was better on the whole, though, than Malone. I believe that his defensive impact is dramatically greater than Malone's. That Malone was a very good defensive player, but that Garnett is an All-Time defensive player and that there is a clear and large difference between the two at that end of the court.

I also believe that Garnett was used more as an offensive initiator than Malone was, while Malone was used more as a finisher. Neither one is necessarily inherently greater, but it uses a different skill set. And when I factor in that Garnett was often asked to (and able to) initiate the offense, facillitate for his teammates, and also finish effectively I think that his offensive impact on the whole is often very underrated. Perhaps Malone's offense on the whole is still better, because he finished at a volume/efficiency combo rarely matched in history while also passing decently himself. But I don't think the offensive gap is as wide as the defensive gap."

Longevity vs Peak Some believe that Malone was both a better player than KG and had better longevity as well. This section isn't for you. But there are many that feel that Garnett had the better peak, but that Malone had more longevity. So, how do you weigh one vs the other? ElGee has broken it into a type of equation in which Malone's extra top-flight years (however many you believe they are) should be worth more in championship-building opportunities than whatever gap you might believe there was between KG's and Malone's peaks. But I don't agree with his equations, for a couple of reasons.

1) All championship-opportunities are not created equal.
2) Winning a championship is hard, and requires top talent in addition to other uncontrollable factors

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it. Now yes, I'd take Malone's 14 years over Bill Walton's 2 or 3, despite Walton having a better peak, because then the longevity difference is ridiculous. But if a player is giving me a better peak and excellent longevity, as Garnett does, I prefer that.

Overall: Malone is an excellent player. In my opinion, one of the three best power forwards of all-time. I would expect to be voting him in within the next couple of votes, myself. But on the whole I just don't think he was quite as good as Garnett, and his (now) slight longevity advantage isn't enough to bridge the gap.

[colts18]

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it.

Disingenious argument because not all top-level seasons are created equally. 11 times Karl Malone was voted as a top 2 forward in the league (most of the time as the best), twice as top 4, and once as top 6. KG was a top 2 forward 4 times, 3 times in the top 4, and twice in the top 6. Malone was voted as a top 10 player in MVP voting 14 times compared to KG's 7 (twice as much):
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

[FJS]

Kevin Garnett vs Karl Malone

Here are my thoughts on them as candidates for this spot.

Longevity. This is the one area that is universally used to make Malone's case. And yes, he does have incredible longevity. Malone played 19 seasons in which he was almost never hurt until the very end, is second on the NBA minutes played list only to Kareem, and was an impact player throughout. He is second on the all-time scoring list and 6th on the all-time rebounding list for a reason, as he was doing it at an extremely high level for an extremely long time. That deserves respect.

On the other hand, I think Garnett's longevity has been pretty understated. He just completed his 16th NBA season, and is currently 13th on the all-time NBA minutes played list. If the league doesn't lock out, he will be top-10 in minutes played by the time the season ends. He's a 14-time All Star, and the only reason it's not 15-time is because there was no All Star game in '99 due to the lockout. He sees Malone's total points and rebounds marks, and responds as the only player in recorded NBA history to wrack up more than 23,000 points, 12,000 rebounds, 4800 assists, 1800 blocks and 1600 steals. According to Englemann's RAPM study Garnett is in the top-5 for most impactful player over the last four seasons (Garnett's 13th thru 16th season), and in season 16 was 3rd overall in impact and #1 overall in defensive effect. I mean seriously, Malone is a longevity beast but Garnett is no slouch in that area either.

No, it's not the same. Malone had 17 seasons of more than 20 ppg. This should be prime for the most of nba stars. He made 14 all nba teams, and still put awesome numbers in 3 years when he missed to make it.
Garnett has played a lot, 16 years, but in his first 3 years and the last 3 years he was not at a high level, and then, 3 of his prime years weren't useful as he missed playoffs.

Quality of play. I've gone over this in several posts in these threads, but just to review in one place: Garnett measured out as arguably the best player of the 2000 - 2010 decade across the various advanced box score stats (PER, win shares, WARP, wins produced) and clearly the best player of that decade according to the multi-year APM studies. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1125974&start=30

Garnett also had a huge postseason impact, very arguably the biggest of this generation. His combination of all-history defense, offensive production (both as a scorer and as a facilitator) and rebounding gave him a postseason impact that could be quantified and shown to be well, well beyond what you could glean just by examining the box scores. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1126186&start=15

Garnett had two clearly great seasons in 2004 and 2008. Then he produced a lot, but his teams weren't nothing special. He played with pretty good pg when he was the first options like Marbury, Brandon, Billups or Cassell and with some pretty good role players like Porter, Sealy, Joe Smith, Sprewell, Sczerbiak to name a few.
He struggled to get 50 W seasons. In playoffs... biggest impact? His wolves teams were eliminated several times without force an elimination game.
Only in 2008 I watched that great impact.

Based on this, I would say that Garnett had a clear argument as potentially the best player of his generation even over some others that have already been voted onto this list. But how does he directly compare to Malone? Here is something that I wrote in an older thread:

How the best player of his generation have the less 1st all nba nomination (4x) being surprased by Duncan (who already is on the list above him) and beaten some years by Dirk, Lebron (who aren't voted still ahead of him) and some years by Webber, T-Mac, Marion, Anthony, Brand and Bosh being in his prime????

"Malone clearly scored more at a better efficiency than Garnett. I don't think anyone is disputing that Malone was a better scorer in his career. There are some, including me, that would question the degree to which Malone was better and suggest that there were some factors that mitigate the differences that the numbers suggest. Nevertheless, I don't have any problem saying Malone was the better scorer.

I do believe that Garnett was better on the whole, though, than Malone. I believe that his defensive impact is dramatically greater than Malone's. That Malone was a very good defensive player, but that Garnett is an All-Time defensive player and that there is a clear and large difference between the two at that end of the court.

Garnett could be as great as you want in deffense, but he only really shinned when he met Rivers and tibodeau in C with a deffensive coaches oriented. Players like PP or Ray allen showed 10X better in deffense with those coaches than before.
Garnett and his Twolves never weren't a great defensive teams. Don't tell me that Garnett had that incredible impact, because if he really could impact a team as you say, wolves wouldn't been so mediocre.
Malone played in a better deffensive team as the Jazz, and he was a great part of him.
Then, better not to talk about offense, because Malone has scored more than KG peak (24.2) 12 years

I also believe that Garnett was used more as an offensive initiator than Malone was, while Malone was used more as a finisher. Neither one is necessarily inherently greater, but it uses a different skill set. And when I factor in that Garnett was often asked to (and able to) initiate the offense, facillitate for his teammates, and also finish effectively I think that his offensive impact on the whole is often very underrated. Perhaps Malone's offense on the whole is still better, because he finished at a volume/efficiency combo rarely matched in history while also passing decently himself. But I don't think the offensive gap is as wide as the defensive gap."

The defensive gap it's not a great factor when you, as the main guy, have your team being pretty worse in deffense.
Malone was able with years to be a better passer. KG playing with better teamates is regressing...
From 93 to 2004 he was between 4 and 5 apg.

Longevity vs Peak Some believe that Malone was both a better player than KG and had better longevity as well. This section isn't for you. But there are many that feel that Garnett had the better peak, but that Malone had more longevity. So, how do you weigh one vs the other? ElGee has broken it into a type of equation in which Malone's extra top-flight years (however many you believe they are) should be worth more in championship-building opportunities than whatever gap you might believe there was between KG's and Malone's peaks. But I don't agree with his equations, for a couple of reasons.

1) All championship-opportunities are not created equal.
2) Winning a championship is hard, and requires top talent in addition to other uncontrollable factors

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it. Now yes, I'd take Malone's 14 years over Bill Walton's 2 or 3, despite Walton having a better peak, because then the longevity difference is ridiculous. But if a player is giving me a better peak and excellent longevity, as Garnett does, I prefer that.

Malone had 17 top level seasons. Then, you have to choose and between those season you have 14 who are better.
Garnett prime began in 99, and finished in 08. He was a contributor in 10 C's, but Malone was too in 2004 Lakers.
Then, in those 9 years, he won one ring (with a prime Ray allen and PP too) he missed playoff 3 years in a row, went to WCF (when a 41 years old Malone did a great defensive job on him) and had first round exits without forcing a elimination game.
Stats peak of Garnett are awesome, but those stats don't translate into he was able to take a team a make it a contender.
Jazz were a contender the whole 90's.

Overall: Malone is an excellent player. In my opinion, one of the three best power forwards of all-time. I would expect to be voting him in within the next couple of votes, myself. But on the whole I just don't think he was quite as good as Garnett, and his (now) slight longevity advantage isn't enough to bridge the gap.

I'm sure Malone it's better than KG and I'm not sure if KG it's the 3rd (behind duncan and Malone) PF.

[drza]

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it.

Disingenious argument because not all top-level seasons are created equally. 11 times Karl Malone was voted as a top 2 forward in the league (most of the time as the best), twice as top 4, and once as top 6. KG was a top 2 forward 4 times, 3 times in the top 4, and twice in the top 6. Malone was voted as a top 10 player in MVP voting 14 times compared to KG's 7 (twice as much):
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Quick question...did the forwards that Malone winning these 1st teams over include Garnett? Were they battling for the same MVPs? Or are these accolades, which are meant to show that each were among the best in their leagues for their generation (which we already know)? And at that point, shouldn't the comparison move to what they actually do on the court, as these are the things that we're actually judging them on? Or is that, too, "disingenious"?

[colts18]

Here is my Malone vs. KG case.

Here are there numbers through age 34:
Malone: 26.2 PPG, 10.7 Reb, .583 TS%, 3.3 Ast, 24.1 PER, .207 WS/48
Garnett: 19.5 PPG, 10.7 Reb, .549 TS%, 4.1 Ast, 23.5 PER, .191 WS/48

Playoffs:
Malone: 26.9 PPG, 11.4 Reb, 2.9 Ast, .532 TS%, 22.3 PER, .154 WS/48
Garnett: 19.6 PPG, 11.1 Reb, 3.8 Ast, .519 TS%, 21.7 PER, .151 WS/48

Malone had a few solid years after this including an MVP season. KG is already declining rapidly.

All-NBA:
Malone: 14 All-NBA (11 first team)
Garnett: 9 All-NBA (4 first team)

MVP:
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Head to Head:
Malone: 24.5 PPG, 8.8 Reb, 4.1 AST, 51.7 FG%
Garnett: 19.3 PPG, 10.0 Reb, 3.6 AST, 46.8 FG%

NBA Finals:
Malone- 24.4 PPG, 10.4 Reb, 3.7 AST, 47.3 FG%, .517 TS%
Garnett- 16.6 PPG, 9.0 Reb, 3.0 AST, 46.6 FG%, .509 TS%

You can't use the age excuse because Malone went to the Finals in his age 33 and 34 season while KG went in his 31 and 33. Malone did this while being guarded by one of the best defenders in history. Pau Gasol is no Dennis Rodman. Malone drew 2.2x more FT than KG in 1 less game.

One of the reasons I have Malone ahead is because of the significant offensive advantage. Big part is FT. Malone drew about 2x more FT than KG does. Not only does he rack up FT, but he forces his opponent into the penalty early helping his teammates out. All the KG supporter fail to mention his embarrassing track record at drawing FT.

[FJS]

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it.

Disingenious argument because not all top-level seasons are created equally. 11 times Karl Malone was voted as a top 2 forward in the league (most of the time as the best), twice as top 4, and once as top 6. KG was a top 2 forward 4 times, 3 times in the top 4, and twice in the top 6. Malone was voted as a top 10 player in MVP voting 14 times compared to KG's 7 (twice as much):
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Quick question...did the forwards that Malone winning these 1st teams over include Garnett? Were they battling for the same MVPs? Or are these accolades, which are meant to show that each were among the best in their leagues for their generation (which we already know)? And at that point, shouldn't the comparison move to what they actually do on the court, as these are the things that we're actually judging them on? Or is that, too, "disingenious"?

Yes, Malone beat KG in 99. KG beat Malone in 00, being Malone in the 2nd all nba team.... but he was 37 by then, so I don't think it's a great failure by Karl, when KG is not in any kind of allnba 1st,2nd or 3rd since he was 32.

[colts18]

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it.

Disingenious argument because not all top-level seasons are created equally. 11 times Karl Malone was voted as a top 2 forward in the league (most of the time as the best), twice as top 4, and once as top 6. KG was a top 2 forward 4 times, 3 times in the top 4, and twice in the top 6. Malone was voted as a top 10 player in MVP voting 14 times compared to KG's 7 (twice as much):
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Quick question...did the forwards that Malone winning these 1st teams over include Garnett? Were they battling for the same MVPs? Or are these accolades, which are meant to show that each were among the best in their leagues for their generation (which we already know)? And at that point, shouldn't the comparison move to what they actually do on the court, as these are the things that we're actually judging them on? Or is that, too, "disingenious"?

We can look at their teams on court impact. From Malone's 1st All-NBA team to his last one (88-01) his teams won an average of 55.1 games (prorating lockout). KG's teams won 46.3 games from his first all-nba team to his last one.

[Baller 24]

Vote: Karl Malone

[lorak]

I watched 1981 G2 between LAL and Rockets, so I want to comment on few things:

In game 2, which I have seen, KAJ kind of put away the game early, had 27/17 on 10/22 shooting though Moses came on late with 33/15 himself on 15/19 shooting. Lakers were up double digits and as high as 20, and IIRC Moses's stats came kind of after the fact but him and the Rockets did cut the lead enough to make it a game at the end.

I'm not sure if you suggested it but in no way Moses stat padded in that game. Yes, at one point during 3rd q Lakers lead was big, but Rockets quickly cut it before that quarter end. And in the 4th q it was very close game, since about 5 minutes left Lakers led only by 3 points and 2 minutes later, when Magic sit down because of 6 fouls there still was only 3 points difference.

And Moses played very good on both ends of the floor. I actually counted how many times he was guarded by KAJ and others and how many times KAJ was guarded by Moses and others.

KAJ vs Paultz: 6/11 FG
KAJ vs Moses: 2/9 FG
KAJ vs Willoughby: 2/2 FG

Moses vs KAJ: 9/12 FG
Moses vs Chones: 4/7 FG
Moses vs Landsberger: 1/1 FG
Moses vs no one: 1/1 FG (fastbreak basket)

Overall Moses was unstoppable on offense, he was very, very quick and on most possessions Lakers double teamed him (with good effect – he had 5 turnovers, and other Rockets players were unable to hit outside shots – even Barry was talking about it during the game). Houston started double teamed Kareem in 4th quarter, before that he played 1on1 against Moses or Paultz. On defense Malone was at least solid, nothing special, but he didn’t allow KAJ to take his favorite spot, contested his sky hooks and that’s why KAJ missed so many shots against Moses.

BTW, if anyone wonder KAJ attempted 13 sky hooks and made 7 of them, most from about 3 meters away from the basket.

I also counted on/off for some players, unfortunately Moses played whole game so his number is only “on -5”. But others:
KAJ +9 on, -4 off
Magic +1 on, +4 off (he fouled out and had some really bad plays, but overall had 15 pts, 18 rbs, 8 ast, 7/14 FG)
Paultz +2 on, -7 off


PS
Great centers from the past would be better now with three point line – much better spacing so double teaming them wouldn’t be so easy like for example in this game, when no one had three point range.

[ElGee]

Longevity vs Peak Some believe that Malone was both a better player than KG and had better longevity as well. This section isn't for you. But there are many that feel that Garnett had the better peak, but that Malone had more longevity. So, how do you weigh one vs the other? ElGee has broken it into a type of equation in which Malone's extra top-flight years (however many you believe they are) should be worth more in championship-building opportunities than whatever gap you might believe there was between KG's and Malone's peaks. But I don't agree with his equations, for a couple of reasons.

1) All championship-opportunities are not created equal.
2) Winning a championship is hard, and requires top talent in addition to other uncontrollable factors

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it. Now yes, I'd take Malone's 14 years over Bill Walton's 2 or 3, despite Walton having a better peak, because then the longevity difference is ridiculous. But if a player is giving me a better peak and excellent longevity, as Garnett does, I prefer that.

I wanted to ask you about this. Championship opportunities are independent of player quality -- I presented a scenario to explain a point. You can run the gauntlet of scenarios and on average Malone is more valuable, that's why I choose. him. So I wasn't sure why exactly those enumerated points cause you to "disagree."

[Fencer reregistered]

11 times Karl Malone was voted as a top 2 forward in the league (most of the time as the best), twice as top 4, and once as top 6. KG was a top 2 forward 4 times, 3 times in the top 4, and twice in the top 6. Malone was voted as a top 10 player in MVP voting 14 times compared to KG's 7 (twice as much):
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Correctomundo. If you believe the voters at the time always get it right and do not, for example, overrate pure scoring, then Malone should be voted over Garnett. As for me:

Vote: Garnett

[colts18]

11 times Karl Malone was voted as a top 2 forward in the league (most of the time as the best), twice as top 4, and once as top 6. KG was a top 2 forward 4 times, 3 times in the top 4, and twice in the top 6. Malone was voted as a top 10 player in MVP voting 14 times compared to KG's 7 (twice as much):
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Correctomundo. If you believe the voters at the time always get it right and do not, for example, overrate pure scoring, then Malone should be voted over Garnett. As for me:

Vote: Garnett

Tell me what years did Malone get overrated by the voters and which years did Garnett get underrated by voters? Malone shouldn't have won an MVP in 1997, but he should have won it in 1998. The RPOY project which includes playoffs had Malone 10th all-time while Garnett 17th and I'd argue that underrates him because of years like 2000-2004 where he had a lot of value but wasn't good enough to be a top 5 player.