RealGM

What versions of Karl Malone would you take over 2016 Draymond green?

I'd say probably every year from 1988-2001. Sure maybe 3-4 of those seasons are debatable, but i think it's safe to say Karl had at least a decade's worth better than current Draymond. Malone was good for a ridiculously long time.

All of them

1987 to 2002

In 1987 he averaged 22 and 10 and 2002 he averaged 22 and . So any year in between those 2 he was definitely better.

RonySeikalyFTW wrote:All of them

This.
With the exception of rookie and Lakers Malone, probably.

This Draymond **** is getting ridiculous

Okay I'll bite.

There's no way any post-lockout version of Malone is better than Draymond currently. Prime Malone was better than current Green, but to act like it's not even worth discussion is pretty crazy. He's two time runner-up DPOY for a reason.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Okay I'll bite.

There's no way any post-lockout version of Malone is better than Draymond currently. Prime Malone was better than current Green, but to act like it's not even worth discussion is pretty crazy. He's two time runner-up DPOY for a reason.

Yeah, but Malone is a top-tier, MVP caliber player in his prime.

Dr Spaceman wrote:Okay I'll bite.

There's no way any post-lockout version of Malone is better than Draymond currently. Prime Malone was better than current Green, but to act like it's not even worth discussion is pretty crazy. He's two time runner-up DPOY for a reason.

2000 Malone rounded off was a 26/10/4 player on 58+ ts% 27+ PER. It's not crazy to take that over Draymond.

mischievous wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:Okay I'll bite.

There's no way any post-lockout version of Malone is better than Draymond currently. Prime Malone was better than current Green, but to act like it's not even worth discussion is pretty crazy. He's two time runner-up DPOY for a reason.

2000 Malone rounded off was a 26/10/4 player on 58+ ts% 27+ PER. It's not crazy to take that over Draymond.

True. I wouldn't take him, but I can see the argument for it. Malone dropped off pretty sharply after that.

2000 Malone wasn't far behind peak Malone, and he also performed well in the playoffs.

I'd take every version of Malone from 1988 to 2000, over Green. After 2000, Karl's defense and efficiency slipped, and he almost always struggled in the playoffs.

Well, if I already had two 20+ point scorers and I needed a third star to synergize my team, I would take Green. If I had, let's say, DeMarcus Cousins and prime Paul Pierce, I'd rather have Green than Malone as my third star, but if I needed a #1 or 2 offensive option, I'd take Malone without a second of hesitation. He was just a much better player "in a vacuum".

Wow, just wow. Malone is a top 15 player all time, and we're comparing Green to him? Malone was All-Defense team several years too,so lets not act like he wasn't great defensively in his prime. Green probably wont be on an All-NBA team this year, with James, Leonard, Durant, and Davis be ahead of him for sure, and a number of players make a good case over him for 3rd team, like Aldridge and George.

12 or 13 different versions of the Mailman. Guys, come on...

i won't say malone is an empty stats player but his stats grossly overstate his impact while green is the complete opposite...i guess if id need an alpha to start a team id take malone before green but i wouldn't feel too good about my chances of winning it all...green does all the little things that makes a team championship material...mark my word at the end of his career he's gonna end up with a lot of rings

This is somewhat of an insult to Malone, frankly. Draymond had a great season and is an All NBA caliber player this year, but really, come on.

juice4080 wrote:i won't say malone is an empty stats player but his stats grossly overstate his impact while green is the complete opposite...i guess if id need an alpha to start a team id take malone before green but i wouldn't feel too good about my chances of winning it all...green does all the little things that makes a team championship material...mark my word at the end of his career he's gonna end up with a lot of rings

He's getting rings because he's in an insanely deep team, most of Malone's teams were not too deep. Also in Malone' 3 Finals trips, one he got injured and the other two it was vs the Bulls, though they did great vs the Bulls, just didn't win 4 games obviously. Malone was great in the 1997 Finals. I

On offense, there's no comparison between the two and I'm not su sure that Draymond has him beat by that much on defense.

If Draymond is really as good as the +/- numbers suggest, then I'd be inclined to say that Draymond is better than anything we ever saw out of Malone. His defense is amazing, and the only thing Malone does better offensively is score 1 on 1. Draymond is a far better shooter, ball handler, and passer, and thus, he provides a lot more to a team than Malone does.

With regards to defense, I really don't think it's close btw. Green is challenging guys like Garnett and Duncan defensively...if not quite at their level, he comes about as close as a 6'8" converted SF can. Malone was never a legit defensive anchor that ever approached that level of defense.

Malone doubles Green's scoring output, I get that. But hey, I'm starting to realize that simply scoring a lot, even on far better efficiency (like we saw out of Curry) doesn't necessarily mean that you're having more of an impact, as pretty much every objective piece of data tells us about Green vs Curry. And if Green has a case over Curry, he certainly has a case over peak Malone.

Now, that's if you buy that Green is comparable to or better than Curry. IDK if I'm actually there yet, but it's an intriguing thought. As of right now, I would probably lean towards the "safe" pick and take Malone, but nobody has ever done what Green is doing now, so it's hard to unequivocally say that he's not as good as anyone else, when we don't really know how valuable Green's contributions are, other than "he does A LOT".

therealbig3 wrote:If Draymond is really as good as the +/- numbers suggest, then I'd be inclined to say that Draymond is better than anything we ever saw out of Malone.

+/- is just one thing to look at, and it only means so much on paper.

therealbig3 wrote:and the only thing Malone does better offensively is score 1 on 1.

That's a pretty big deal in basketball. And it's not like Malone was chopped liver in other aspects he was very good at everything else really.

therealbig3 wrote: Green is challenging guys like Garnett and Duncan defensively...if not quite at their level,

Not at all.

therealbig3 wrote:If Draymond is really as good as the +/- numbers suggest, then I'd be inclined to say that Draymond is better than anything we ever saw out of Malone. His defense is amazing, and the only thing Malone does better offensively is score 1 on 1. Draymond is a far better shooter, ball handler, and passer, and thus, he provides a lot more to a team than Malone does.

With regards to defense, I really don't think it's close btw. Green is challenging guys like Garnett and Duncan defensively...if not quite at their level, he comes about as close as a 6'8" converted SF can. Malone was never a legit defensive anchor that ever approached that level of defense.

Malone doubles Green's scoring output, I get that. But hey, I'm starting to realize that simply scoring a lot, even on far better efficiency (like we saw out of Curry) doesn't necessarily mean that you're having more of an impact, as pretty much every objective piece of data tells us about Green vs Curry. And if Green has a case over Curry, he certainly has a case over peak Malone.

Now, that's if you buy that Green is comparable to or better than Curry. IDK if I'm actually there yet, but it's an intriguing thought. As of right now, I would probably lean towards the "safe" pick and take Malone, but nobody has ever done what Green is doing now, so it's hard to unequivocally say that he's not as good as anyone else, when we don't really know how valuable Green's contributions are, other than "he does A LOT".