RealGM

Who would you rather have as your main guy, in today's NBA?

Coaches are not choosing to not play Karl Malon types. College is not producing Karl Malone types.

Closet thing that we have to Karl Malone might be Gianis but Malone used more power and Gianis more speed and finess and traveling.

Idk man have you seen that scottie barnes guy

Karl Malone would be more comparable to Josh Giddey in today's era, rather than Tatum

rk2023 wrote:Karl Malone would be more comparable to Josh Giddey in today's era, rather than Tatum

Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

penbeast0 wrote:Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

rk2023 wrote:Karl Malone would be more comparable to Josh Giddey in today's era, rather than Tatum

Oh no.

Colbinii wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

I probably would not call Embiid a better passer than old Malone. Maybe better playmaker, but that feels like a partial function of era.

AEnigma wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

I probably would not call Embiid a better passer than old Malone. Maybe better playmaker, but that feels like a partial function of era.

Came here to say the same thing. I don't agree that Embiid is a better passer than Malone, in fact for sheer passing abilities I don't think it's even that close.

It seems that Embiid is a better scorer in the RS, but I still struggle to evaluate him in the playoffs considering that in a small sample he doesn't look that great.

Embiid is certainly bigger, but I just can't see saying the best Malone comp to a wing, even one who plays modern 4. Malone was a post presence, and there are few with a Malone style impact and I have guys like Anthony Davis and Rudy Gobert as being significantly less like Karl Malone.

AEnigma wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

I probably would not call Embiid a better passer than old Malone. Maybe better playmaker, but that feels like a partial function of era.

Oh, well if we are comparing Old Malone to Embiid, then Embiid is significantly more athletic and a much better defender.

70sFan wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

I probably would not call Embiid a better passer than old Malone. Maybe better playmaker, but that feels like a partial function of era.

Came here to say the same thing. I don't agree that Embiid is a better passer than Malone, in fact for sheer passing abilities I don't think it's even that close.

It seems that Embiid is a better scorer in the RS, but I still struggle to evaluate him in the playoffs considering that in a small sample he doesn't look that great.

Injuries are one hell of a thing.

Giannis may be the closest comp but it's still not 1 to 1. Julius Randle might be closer, but Karl's better.

Either way, I'd probably still pick Tatum, although Karl is better at what he does than Tatum.

Karl is a good defender though - he was the glue that held the Lakers defense in '05 together until he got hurt and Lakers lost to the Pistons.

AEnigma wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

I probably would not call Embiid a better passer than old Malone. Maybe better playmaker, but that feels like a partial function of era.

Malone did less things than Embiid but what Malone did he did better. Malone’s game was based on short power drives. Gianis uses power drives more than Embiid so I consider Gianis more like Malone than Embiid is.

But Malone had a great player in Stockton starting his power drives. How much would Malone’s game suffer if he was playing with the point guards that Embiid and Giannis played with?

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Except Embiid is significantly more skilled. He is a better passer, better shooter, better off the dribble and significantly larger as a physical attribute.

I probably would not call Embiid a better passer than old Malone. Maybe better playmaker, but that feels like a partial function of era.

Malone did less things than Embiid but what Malone did he did better. Malone’s game was based on short power drives. Gianis uses power drives more than Embiid so I consider Gianis more like Malone than Embiid is.

But Malone had a great player in Stockton starting his power drives. How much would Malone’s game suffer if he was playing with the point guards that Embiid and Giannis played with?

We saw that in 1998 and he was basically just as productive.

penbeast0 wrote:Karl Malone would be most comparable to Embiid today. A great post scorer with range (not as good a range as Embiid except related to era) with good man defense who rebounds and has a history of unsuccessful playoff runs. Embiid is a better rim protector, Malone more of a physical intimidator. Malone would rank higher, of course, because he never misses games while Embiid is a bit fragile.

Mmm.

I suppose "most comparable" makes some kind of sense if we're thinking aesthetically. I don't think Malone would look much the same statistically. But he was indeed a solid man defender. He'd have some trouble when he got dragged out to the perimeter, but that's also true of many bigs. The durability remark is fair; Malone was an absolute unit, he barely missed any games in his entire career, and that's valuable.

He had some range, but he wasn't anything like Embiid as a shooter. Embiid is a much, much better mid-range and FT shooter than Malone, and I don't think Karl would be as good from 3 either. He certainly wouldn't be as good an overall defender. Passing's a tough one to separate; Malone worked well in what was a relatively advanced passing role for a big in his own time, developing over his career, especially as he improved his range. So he might actually flourish a little more than he did in his own time in that regard, or he might just be fairly similar. Embiid isn't Jokic, so it's a little moot anyhow.

Malone was a nasty transition player and he certainly adapted well to the PnR. Post skills, face-up action, range... he could score all over, and that was helpful until he ran into higher-end/playoff defenses.

I'd personally lean Embiid because he has superior shooting and better help D, but it's an interesting discussion, particularly with the health difference.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Idk man have you seen that scottie barnes guy

Why is Barnes in this discussion at all? He looks like neither player in terms of style/results.

tsherkin wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Idk man have you seen that scottie barnes guy

Why is Barnes in this discussion at all? He looks like neither player in terms of style/results.

In another discussion someone claimed Barnes is better than Tatum

durantbird wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Idk man have you seen that scottie barnes guy

Why is Barnes in this discussion at all? He looks like neither player in terms of style/results.

In another discussion someone claimed Barnes is better than Tatum

Statistically--which he is.