RealGM

Had a debate with someone on Warrior's board.

He said he would take Draymond over Karl Malone when starting a team in today's nba. Or at the very least, there could be scenarios where draymond is preferable to malone.

Now, I can see why maybe a team with an elite roster already but needs to shore up defensively may take draymond over malone, but as a top 3 option? I cannot accept that argument.

What teams would be better with draymond than karl malone of the same age? Is there an argument for taking draymond over karl malone?

Yeah no, I’m taking Malone any day of the week despite my personal feelings about him.

K.Malone easily.

Karl Malone is closer to Curry than Draymond.

If that “choosing to build around” for Green comes with Curry and Klay, I could see taking him. If you have to pick one in a vacuum it seems silly to take Draymond first.

While I take Malone vastly in a career sense and decently over Green in a peak’s sense, I would say Draymond is more scalable. I would choose him comfortably as my team’s 3rd or below option - and perhaps my second aggregate value option on a team that is offensively slanted.

Career clearly favors Malone

Peak for Peak, Dray is much better in pretty much everything that isn't scoring.

-> much better passer,
-> much better defender,
-> much better ball-handler
-> top-tier iq which allows him to function as a floor-general on both ends

Scoring's a big deal, but historical and contemporary impact and team-success would suggest it's not nearly as big of a factor as people think it is. Of the GOAT or near-goat scorers, it's only the ones who also function as defensive anchors who actually have GOAT-tier lift even though preople presume the one who doesn't has a similar or better peak.

In pretty much every decade since the 60's(which were dominanted by a defense-only guy individually and collectively in a way no one else has ever dominated), a two-way big has looked about as or outright more valuable than everyone.

Malone is not even close to a top-tier offensive player, while Draymond is one of the best defenders ever in addition to various attributes that make him valuable on the other-end. As it so happen, Dryamond also looks like one of the most situationally valuable players of data-ball and scales up in the playoffs while Malone clearly scaled-down.

I think peak draymond vs peak malone is a perfectly reasonable debate in a vacuum. Granted PER would disagree.

No-more-rings wrote:If that “choosing to build around” for Green comes with Curry and Klay, I could see taking him. If you have to pick one in a vacuum it seems silly to take Draymond first.

what exactly are you looking at when you assume green needs to come with curry and klay to be better than karl malone. Absence of evidence =/ evidence of absence

Matt15 wrote:Karl Malone is closer to Curry than Draymond.

Peak for peak, I agree to disagree.

The essence for me:

If I have a team that needs a new volume scorer, I pick Malone.

If I don’t, I pick Green.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Malone is not even close to a top-tier offensive player

Care to expound on this?

From 1987-88 to 1996-97, a full decade, Malone scored more points than any other player, while clearly being one of the better shooters among high scorers.

Peak for Peak, Dray is much better in pretty much everything that isn't scoring. -> much better defender,

And this is patently false.

Green is a great defensive player, but Malone was a very good defensive player during his career. Green was named all-defensive 1st team 4 times, Malone 3 times.

Malone was a far better player on offense compared to Green than Green was on defense compared to Malone.

Eh...probably Draymond Green given the vast amount of perimeter talent in today's league and how 9/10 players can shoot at an excellent clip.

I think over the next 3-5 years, we are going to see a large amount of young players who come into the league with incredible shooting ability who are demonic off-ball players and dynamic shooters [Think about the off-shoot of Jordan came the Carter, McGrady, Kobe and Iverson generation of uber-skilled on-ball wings who were dynamic 3-level scorers] while this next generation is going to be chalked full of off-ball and movement maestros.

In almost all instances, someone picking Draymond Green over Karl Malone would be way overthinking things. Karl Malone is just a substantially superior basketball player.

The only scenario you might conceivably prefer Draymond over Karl Malone is if your team is absolutely overflowing with absolutely elite scoring options already, such that anyone you add won’t get a lot of shots anyways and/or would just be cannibalizing shots from other players that are just as good or better than Karl Malone. So, for instance, if you gave me the 2017 Warriors, I could maybe get myself to a conclusion that I’d rather add Draymond to the team than Karl Malone. After all, Draymond is a better defender, and if you add Karl Malone to that team, Malone wouldn’t get a ton of shots anyways, and a good deal of his shooting volume would just come in lieu of Curry and Durant, who are even better scorers than Malone. But, in general, no.

lessthanjake wrote:In almost all instances, someone picking Draymond Green over Karl Malone would be way overthinking things. Karl Malone is just a substantially superior basketball player.

The only scenario you might conceivably prefer Draymond over Karl Malone is if your team is absolutely overflowing with absolutely elite scoring options already, such that anyone you add won’t get a lot of shots anyways and/or would just be cannibalizing shots from other players that are just as good or better than Karl Malone. So, for instance, if you gave me the 2017 Warriors, I could maybe get myself to a conclusion that I’d rather add Draymond to the team than Karl Malone. After all, Draymond is a better defender, and if you add Karl Malone to that team, Malone wouldn’t get a ton of shots anyways, and a good deal of his shooting volume would just come in lieu of Curry and Durant, who are even better scorers than Malone. But, in general, no.

I wouldn't really think twice about adding Draymond instead of Malone to the 2000's Mavericks [Nash and post-Nash iterations], RUN TMC Warriors, CP3 Clippers or Gervin Spurs.

Well I guess if the question is framed in a way that focusses on fit within a hypothetical team you could lean towards Draymond.

But that's an overly refined measure which would put him above many superior players.

So sure if run a food truck, limited space, and I've already got two chefs cooking my meals, I'd look at hiring someone to serve them... but I know who is inherently more valuable and the foundational necessity to giving me a chance to run that successful food business.

JimmyFromNz wrote:Well I guess if the question is framed in a way that focusses on fit within a hypothetical team you could lean towards Draymond.

But that's an overly refined measure which would put him above many superior players.

So sure if run a food truck, limited space, and I've already got two chefs cooking my meals, I'd look at hiring someone to serve them... but I know who is inherently more valuable and the foundational necessity to giving me a chance to run that successful food business.

And the food industry is ever changing. Do you want a chef who knows how to do 1 thing good--and that thing never led to a Michelin Star but it was popular in the neighborhood for 20 years--or do you want the sous chef who helped lead multiple restaurants to Michelin Stars?

kcktiny wrote:

Malone is not even close to a top-tier offensive player

Care to expound on this?

From 1987-88 to 1996-97, a full decade, Malone scored more points than any other player, while clearly being one of the better shooters among high scorers.

[/quote]
Shooting is an aspect of scoring. Having to double-count attributes for Malone isn't a great sign. Nor is neglecting to mention that Jordan missed two years during the frame you chose. Or neglecting that Malone's scoring fell off in the postseason.

Peak for Peak, Dray is much better in pretty much everything that isn't scoring. -> much better defender,

And this is patently false.

Green is a great defensive player, but Malone was a very good defensive player during his career. Green was named all-defensive 1st team 4 times, Malone 3 times.

If Malone is "very good" at defense, Draymond is "great" on offense. Again, like I said, I'm comparing peak, not career.

Malone was a far better player on offense compared to Green than Green was on defense compared to Malone.

I see no justification offered here.

Colbinii wrote:

JimmyFromNz wrote:Well I guess if the question is framed in a way that focusses on fit within a hypothetical team you could lean towards Draymond.

But that's an overly refined measure which would put him above many superior players.

So sure if run a food truck, limited space, and I've already got two chefs cooking my meals, I'd look at hiring someone to serve them... but I know who is inherently more valuable and the foundational necessity to giving me a chance to run that successful food business.

And the food industry is ever changing. Do you want a chef who knows how to do 1 thing good--and that thing never led to a Michelin Star but it was popular in the neighborhood for 20 years--or do you want the sous chef who helped lead multiple restaurants to Michelin Stars?

'Ringz' arguments are a near equivalent to modern Michelin star ratings, so its appropriate you used that example.

Karl Malone love him or hate him, deserves a little more credit than being dismissed as one dimensional.

The answer is an obvious one. If we took a time machine and transported Malone to this era, let him adapt his game, and assume the best, Malone would be in prison.

So Draymond.

ronnymac2 wrote:The answer is an obvious one. If we took a time machine and transported Malone to this era, let him adapt his game, and assume the best, Malone would be in prison.

So Draymond.

JimmyFromNz wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

JimmyFromNz wrote:Well I guess if the question is framed in a way that focusses on fit within a hypothetical team you could lean towards Draymond.

But that's an overly refined measure which would put him above many superior players.

So sure if run a food truck, limited space, and I've already got two chefs cooking my meals, I'd look at hiring someone to serve them... but I know who is inherently more valuable and the foundational necessity to giving me a chance to run that successful food business.

And the food industry is ever changing. Do you want a chef who knows how to do 1 thing good--and that thing never led to a Michelin Star but it was popular in the neighborhood for 20 years--or do you want the sous chef who helped lead multiple restaurants to Michelin Stars?

'Ringz' arguments are a near equivalent to modern Michelin star ratings, so its appropriate you used that example.

Karl Malone love him or hate him, deserves a little more credit than being dismissed as one dimensional.

This isn't really a rings argument though. Draymond is second to LeBron in 21st century Post-Season RAPM. He is an all-time great defender. He has an understanding of the game of basketball that goes far beyond his physical strength and touch [something I can't say the same for Malone] while allows him to theoretically scale exceptionally well with talent [and we see him great in 2-big line-ups next to Bogut/Cousins/Looney].

I get it, 27/11 over an 11-year period is gaudy, but I don't like to simplify basketball into Better Scorer = Better Player.