RealGM

Who do you guys have ranked higher?

This is a debate that I have been wondering more and more about. Kevin Garnett is my favorite PF ever but I've always said Malone is the answer and right now I'm still sticking by it. I'm just curious on what you guys think about this comparison and who you guys think should be ranked above the other.

My issue with KG was just the fact that he never played that well in the post-season. Karl wasn't much better but nevertheless Karl showed more brilliance in the playoffs than KG did. KG had a few nice playoff runs but he had much more disappointing ones.

this has never been done before..............i want to take kg for his defense.....but i feel as though it would be easier to build around karl malone if that makes any sense.....

Malone for me. Much better offensively, a go-to guy so to call, which in my opinion is harder to come by than defensive players. I value offense more though. At age 39 (!!!) he was putting up ~20/8/5/1.5; Prime Malone would get you 28/11/4 or so. It's insane production.
Sure KG is a better defender, way better help defender. But Mailman has 3 All-D selections too, so you can't say he is bad at it either.
He had his failures, dropped off in PS a bit.
Peak KG is better, no doubt, but 16-17 quality seasons from Mailman beats ~10 seasons from KG imo.

Karl Malone because he's in another league as a scorer and a better playoff performer.

If you replace KG with Karl Malone on the 08' Celtics they still win the championship

Garnett, quite easily for me. Much more impactful as a player because of his defense.

The Infamous1 wrote:If you replace KG with Karl Malone on the 08' Celtics they still win the championship

That's not necessarily true, because that would change the entire character of the team, and their team defense - which much of their success was built on - would definitely be worse. Malone was a tremendous post defender (better than KG in that respect by a good margin), but KG destroys him in terms of team/help defense, and that's the most important aspect of defense, and it's what really made those Celtics as good as they were defensively.

Jordan23Forever wrote:

The Infamous1 wrote:If you replace KG with Karl Malone on the 08' Celtics they still win the championship

That's not necessarily true, because that would change the entire character of the team, and their team defense - which much of their success was built on - would definitely be worse. Malone was a tremendous post defender (better than KG in that respect by a good margin), but KG destroys him in terms of team/help defense, and that's the most important aspect of defense, and it's what really made those Celtics as good as they were defensively.

I agree that KG is on the short list of GOAT help defenders along with Pippen that I've seen.

But Thibodeau has shown he can coach defense. It wasn't KG that made the Celtics defense it was TT's scheme/coaching. KG's ability made it outstanding. With Malone the Jazz were still great defensively (not as good as the Celtics 2008 but still very good).

With Malone I think their post defense improves while the rotational/pnr defense drops. However on the offensive side Rondo passing to Karl Malone is ridiculous and Karl is a more consistent producer in the post providing more offense besides motioning Ray Allen or isoing Pierce. I think they still win and Malone doesn't get hurt the following season like KG does......

G35 wrote:I agree that KG is on the short list of GOAT help defenders along with Pippen that I've seen.

But Thibodeau has shown he can coach defense. It wasn't KG that made the Celtics defense it was TT's scheme/coaching. KG's ability made it outstanding. With Malone the Jazz were still great defensively (not as good as the Celtics 2008 but still very good).

With Malone I think their post defense improves while the rotational/pnr defense drops. However on the offensive side Rondo passing to Karl Malone is ridiculous and Karl is a more consistent producer in the post providing more offense besides motioning Ray Allen or isoing Pierce. I think they still win and Malone doesn't get hurt the following season like KG does......

Even if we assume that the Celtics' defense was still good but not "outstanding" with Malone instead of KG, which is a pretty big assumption, I still have serious doubts that the 2008 Celtics beat the Cavs with Malone in there.

Folks like to speak in generalities, but we know some specifics about that matchup:

*Prior to game 7, LeBron was locking up Pierce.

*This was the time period when Ray found out his son had diabetes, and he was (understandably) playing the worst ball of his life.

*Thus, through 6 games Pierce and Allen were between them averaging 13 points (47.7% TS), 2.9 assists and 2.5 TOs apiece.

*Rondo wasn't ready yet. He only averaged 32 minutes, 6.6 assists, and 10.2 points on 45% TS that postseason in what was essentially his rookie year. It was another year before he found his game.

*The Cavs D was built around interior post-defenders like Varejao, old Ben Wallace and Ilgauskas. Meanwhile, the Cavs had no offensive post threats for Malone's 1-on-1 defense to be of much benefit.

There were 2 reasons that the Celtics were 3-3 at that point in the series:

1) Their team defense was completely stifling the Cavs
2) Garnett was dominating on both sides of the ball

To whit, of the first 6 games, 3 were blowouts and 3 were close. In the 3 close games:

1) The Cavs averaged 78.3 points on 35.7% FG. LeBron averaged 26.3 points, but with a TS of 47.8% and averaged 7.3 TOs game. The rotational and P & R defense were by far the biggest reasons for his struggles and thus the team's struggles offensively.

2) Garnett averaged 26.3 points on 60.3% TS.

The Celtics won 2 of those 3 close games.

Now, bringing it back to Malone. In general he was a better scorer than Garnett, but I don't think he was topping 26 points on 60% TS by very much in those games, if at all, considering the Cavs' defense was more built to defend a post big man than a stretch big. But on the flip side, even a "good" Celtics' defense wouldn't have been enough to hold down LeBron and the Cavs to that extent. Even more than his offense, it was Garnett's team defensive impact that kept those games close enough for the Celtics to pull out. I see no way that is replicated with Malone in Garnett's place, and I see no way that Malone outscores Garnett by enough to bridge the gap. Which means that the Cetlics aren't winning 2 of the 3 close games, and the Cavs win this series in 5 or 6 games. No championship.

The Celtics win a title in 09 and 10 with Malone.

colts18 wrote:The Celtics win a title in 09 and 10 with Malone.

Although I don't agree with your statement, they win a title in both '09 and '10 with a healthy Garnett too so I don't really understand your point.

colts18 wrote:The Celtics win a title in 09 and 10 with Malone.

Doubtful, for same reasons. Those Celtics were defense first teams, and by his 14th and 15th seasons Malone was losing mobility and playing even more of a post role on defense. He's redundant with Perkins there, and there's no mobile help defender which that Celtics D was built on. Adding offense to a team with (now) 3 other strong offensive players is diminishing returns, and the defensive fall-off would be larger than any perceived offensive gain.

drza wrote:

colts18 wrote:The Celtics win a title in 09 and 10 with Malone.

Doubtful, for same reasons. Those Celtics were defense first teams, and by his 14th and 15th seasons Malone was losing mobility and playing even more of a post role on defense. He's redundant with Perkins there, and there's no mobile help defender which that Celtics D was built on. Adding offense to a team with (now) 3 other strong offensive players is diminishing returns, and the defensive fall-off would be larger than any perceived offensive gain.

I'm pretty sure you didn't watch the 2010 finals. I doubt KG's 15-6 was completely made up by his defense. Watch game 7 again. If the Celtics had any offense, they win that title. He would have been a significant offensive upgrade to that team that needed post offense (LOL@ him being redundant with Perkins). At that age, Malone was in the finals and playing well vs. Dennis Rodman.

Haha @ Celtics winning with Malone.

The fact that Malone could or couldn't win in 08/09/10 with the C's is essentially meaningless in this comparison. Why is it being discussed?

colts18 wrote:

drza wrote:

colts18 wrote:The Celtics win a title in 09 and 10 with Malone.

Doubtful, for same reasons. Those Celtics were defense first teams, and by his 14th and 15th seasons Malone was losing mobility and playing even more of a post role on defense. He's redundant with Perkins there, and there's no mobile help defender which that Celtics D was built on. Adding offense to a team with (now) 3 other strong offensive players is diminishing returns, and the defensive fall-off would be larger than any perceived offensive gain.

I'm pretty sure you didn't watch the 2010 finals. I doubt KG's 15-6 was completely made up by his defense. Watch game 7 again. If the Celtics had any offense, they win that title. He would have been a significant offensive upgrade to that team that needed post offense (LOL@ him being redundant with Perkins). At that age, Malone was in the finals and playing well vs. Dennis Rodman.

Dude, I was at game 7 in LA. Stop it with the "you didn't watch" when you know darn well that if anyone was watching that series it was me. And even in that Game 7, the Celtics still held the Lakers to 83 points on 32.5% FG shooting. Even hobbled and unable to rebound at even 50% of his norm, Garnett was still locking the defense. Which yes, was a key in that team competing for the title.

Anyway, figuring that the Celtics even get to a game 7 or even the Finals requires a whole bunch of assumptions that aren't supported. The biggest obstacle that pundits saw in grouping Pierce, Allen and KG on one team was that there was only one ball, so how could three mega-scorers coexist. We've seen in Miami that this is a valid concern. It wasn't for the Celtics because the best of the 3 players was able to step back his offense in order to make the defense all world...Malone could do that? If not, then how do you maximize Malone, Pierce and Ray all at once? And how do you get the mega boost on both sides of the ball, considering the offense has diminishing returns and the defense doesn't have the talent?

And what of egos and chemistry? Garnett is universally acknowledged (from players to coaches to Celtics media to opponents) with creating the we-before-me/UBUNTU/run-through-a-wall-in-practice/defense first culture of the Celtics that lets so many egos form a stronger whole and holds the team together in tough times. Malone could do that? He never showed himself to be that type of leader.

The big 3 era from top-to-bottom would have been different with years 13 - 17 of Malone instead of Garnett, but there's no convincing way to say it'd be better. The defense and the identity of the team, which have by far been 2 of the biggest components of their success, likely aren't there. Malone might be a better 1-on-1 scorer, but there's a big gap between that and guaranteeing titles with this Celtics team.

Rapcity_11 wrote:The fact that Malone could or couldn't win in 08/09/10 with the C's is essentially meaningless in this comparison. Why is it being discussed?

And then there's this, which is an even better point.

Dunno why it is discussed tbh. No way Jazz win 97 and 98 Finals either with KG. Why should it matter?
Malone is ATG scorer, KG is ATG defender.
Malone has 12 straight All-NBA 1st team inclusions. Think about it for a moment.
As for Celtics 08 defense, I think Thibaudeau had a very big impact. I draw such conclusions from his results with Bulls, as he completely transformed them from an average to a great defensive team instantly.

Here's a nice video of 37yr old Malone schooling KG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2SVsyk7O2M

interesting H2H stats
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =garneke01

Garnett didn't stop Mailman at all, though can't say if he always guarded him 1v1, don't think that was the case in every game.

From 08-10, Garnett was 31-33 and averaged 16-8-3, .575 TS% (well out of his career norm). Malone averaged 27-10-4, .588 TS%. Garnett's defense does not completely make up for Malone's passing, rebounding, scoring, and efficiency advantage. Not to mention Malone played significantly better in his finals appearances than KG did. The Celtics averaged 80.5 PPG in their 4 losses to LA. Malone's offense completely changes that series.

The answer here is KG. He's an overall better defender, worse offensively, but proved he could win a title albeit as a 2nd option.

ahonui06 wrote:The answer here is KG. He's an overall better defender, worse offensively, but proved he could win a title albeit as a 2nd option.

Please stop with this second option crap, I'm pretty sure I've seen you post it before as well and have gotten corrected then as well.

There was no clear cut first option on that team--- Pierce was the go to creator because well, he was a guard/small forward. So it made sense to have him run the guard portion of the pick and roll and have KG as the big man coming off it--- but no numbers or evidence suggests that he was clearly the first option because there wasn't one (first options generally average the most on their team in the playoffs--- hint: that wasn't Pierce). Pierce is my favorite player but it's disingenuous to call Garnett a second option--- and meaningless since Garnett WAS their best player considering his impact on both sides.

And Malone is very redundant, as the other dude pointed out, as a defender in the Celtics scheme. He makes them slower and doesn't really improve on anything since they already had Perkins as a post defender (not to mention that KG was a very good post defender as well on 4s just not as much on 5s because of the strength factor although the height helps him there)