K Malone and Garnett playoffs - why is KG rated so highly for career

[migya]

Karl Malone was great in the playoffs for his career and on here he has been criticised for his playoff career, yet Garnett was not a star overall for his playoff career and yet is heralded so much here. Why is that? There is no valid raining.

[Dutchball97]

While it is normal for most players to experience a small dip in their numbers in the play-offs I'm unsure how you can look at Malone's play-off resume and annoint that as great.

In the regular season Karl Malone has over his career a 23.9 PER, 57.7 TS%, .205 WS/48 and 5.1 BPM, which dropped to 21.1 PER, 52.6 TS%, .140 WS/48 and 4.1 BPM. Even that paints a better picture than reality as Malone had disappointing post-seasons in both his MVP years and couldn't string 2 good post-seasons together once in his career.

KG has a smaller offensive drop than Malone in the play-offs and doesn't seem to fall of at all defensively. Besides that KG's numbers also are hurt by the Timberwolves not making the play-offs for 3 years straight from 05-07. KG was 28-30 in this stretch with his amazing 04 and 08 runs sandwhiching that period. A few early seasons and late career seasons further pull down those numbers and just looking at his prime there might not even be any drop from his already impressive regular season numbers.

Statements like Karl Malone was great in the play-offs and KG wasn't a star player in the post-season should really come with some argumentation especially since you're acknowledging how most people on here don't share your opinion on this topic. Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on you to make a case? Because just bluntly stating controversial opinions without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone.

[70sFan]

Karl Malone was great in the playoffs for his career and on here he has been criticised for his playoff career, yet Garnett was not a star overall for his playoff career and yet is heralded so much here. Why is that? There is no valid raining.

Based on what? Higher ppg?

Why do you start threads with hot takes and you treat them as facts? It's not the best way to start a serious conversation.

[migya]

While it is normal for most players to experience a small dip in their numbers in the play-offs I'm unsure how you can look at Malone's play-off resume and annoint that as great.

In the regular season Karl Malone has over his career a 23.9 PER, 57.7 TS%, .205 WS/48 and 5.1 BPM, which dropped to 21.1 PER, 52.6 TS%, .140 WS/48 and 4.1 BPM. Even that paints a better picture than reality as Malone had disappointing post-seasons in both his MVP years and couldn't string 2 good post-seasons together once in his career.

KG has a smaller offensive drop than Malone in the play-offs and doesn't seem to fall of at all defensively. Besides that KG's numbers also are hurt by the Timberwolves not making the play-offs for 3 years straight from 05-07. KG was 28-30 in this stretch with his amazing 04 and 08 runs sandwhiching that period. A few early seasons and late career seasons further pull down those numbers and just looking at his prime there might not even be any drop from his already impressive regular season numbers.

Statements like Karl Malone was great in the play-offs and KG wasn't a star player in the post-season should really come with some argumentation especially since you're acknowledging how most people on here don't share your opinion on this topic. Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on you to make a case? Because just bluntly stating controversial opinions without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone.

Quite sure you have access to BR like the rest of us.......

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

Very similar, Malone higher PER and sustaining that over many more games. What is seen is that Malone is s very good defender, albeit not as good as Garnett but is a competent, very good offensive leader, whereas Garnett faltered at that and was much better suited as a second or third option, as shown in his early seasons in Boston, where he had alot of good players on his team. With such talent Malone would've won more championships.

[PaulieWal]

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

If this is the way you are going to post, this thread is going to get locked along with a warning to you. You already have the other KG/Moses thread and this thread doesn't seem to be posted in good faith.

[migya]

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

If this is the way you are going to post, this thread is going to get locked along with a warning to you. You already have the other KG/Moses thread and this thread doesn't seem to be posted in good faith.

The topic of this thread is in the same light as many others and meant for conversation.

I responded in similar manner to how I felt I was responded to in the post quoted. I didn't mean to offend anyone so apologies to the poster if I did.

[PaulieWal]

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

If this is the way you are going to post, this thread is going to get locked along with a warning to you. You already have the other KG/Moses thread and this thread doesn't seem to be posted in good faith.

The topic of this thread is in the same light as many others and meant for conversation.

I responded in similar manner to how I was responded to in the post quoted.

I didn't really see anything offside in the post you responded to vs. your response to him calling him a Garnett lover.

Also, as a veteran of this board you should already know responding to a bait/insult with a bait/insult gets you a warning too. No exceptions or excuses. In any case, you are the only one baiting here.

[migya]

If this is the way you are going to post, this thread is going to get locked along with a warning to you. You already have the other KG/Moses thread and this thread doesn't seem to be posted in good faith.

The topic of this thread is in the same light as many others and meant for conversation.

I responded in similar manner to how I was responded to in the post quoted.

I didn't really see anything offside in the post you responded to vs. your response to him calling him a Garnett lover.

Also, as a veteran of this board you should already know responding to a bait/insult with a bait/insult gets you a warning too. No exceptions or excuses. In any case, you are the only one baiting here.

I didn't mean to bait or offend. I didn't see the response by the other poster as fair, on the subject and to me.

[AEnigma]

Where is the unfairness? You were asked whether you were seriously looking at anything other than points per game, and it does not appear as if you are. Garnett was a better passer, much better defender, better rebounder, and demonstrably more impactful player, on a Minnesota team with nowhere near the same supporting talent as what Malone had on the Jazz. But Malone scored more, and that apparently tells you everything you need to know.

[70sFan]

While it is normal for most players to experience a small dip in their numbers in the play-offs I'm unsure how you can look at Malone's play-off resume and annoint that as great.

In the regular season Karl Malone has over his career a 23.9 PER, 57.7 TS%, .205 WS/48 and 5.1 BPM, which dropped to 21.1 PER, 52.6 TS%, .140 WS/48 and 4.1 BPM. Even that paints a better picture than reality as Malone had disappointing post-seasons in both his MVP years and couldn't string 2 good post-seasons together once in his career.

KG has a smaller offensive drop than Malone in the play-offs and doesn't seem to fall of at all defensively. Besides that KG's numbers also are hurt by the Timberwolves not making the play-offs for 3 years straight from 05-07. KG was 28-30 in this stretch with his amazing 04 and 08 runs sandwhiching that period. A few early seasons and late career seasons further pull down those numbers and just looking at his prime there might not even be any drop from his already impressive regular season numbers.

Statements like Karl Malone was great in the play-offs and KG wasn't a star player in the post-season should really come with some argumentation especially since you're acknowledging how most people on here don't share your opinion on this topic. Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on you to make a case? Because just bluntly stating controversial opinions without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone.

Quite sure you have access to BR like the rest of us.......

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

Very similar, Malone higher PER and sustaining that over many more games. What is seen is that Malone is s very good defender, albeit not as good as Garnett but is a competent, very good offensive leader, whereas Garnett faltered at that and was much better suited as a second or third option, as shown in his early seasons in Boston, where he had alot of good players on his team. With such talent Malone would've won more championships.

What you just showed proves that Garnett and Malone have basically identical offensive numbers in the playoffs... while KG being significantly better defensively. You basically made a good case for why people have KG higher than Malone.

[No-more-rings]

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

How are you accounting for defense in all of this? Do you believe that defense is already baked into these numbers?

[migya]

While it is normal for most players to experience a small dip in their numbers in the play-offs I'm unsure how you can look at Malone's play-off resume and annoint that as great.

In the regular season Karl Malone has over his career a 23.9 PER, 57.7 TS%, .205 WS/48 and 5.1 BPM, which dropped to 21.1 PER, 52.6 TS%, .140 WS/48 and 4.1 BPM. Even that paints a better picture than reality as Malone had disappointing post-seasons in both his MVP years and couldn't string 2 good post-seasons together once in his career.

KG has a smaller offensive drop than Malone in the play-offs and doesn't seem to fall of at all defensively. Besides that KG's numbers also are hurt by the Timberwolves not making the play-offs for 3 years straight from 05-07. KG was 28-30 in this stretch with his amazing 04 and 08 runs sandwhiching that period. A few early seasons and late career seasons further pull down those numbers and just looking at his prime there might not even be any drop from his already impressive regular season numbers.

Statements like Karl Malone was great in the play-offs and KG wasn't a star player in the post-season should really come with some argumentation especially since you're acknowledging how most people on here don't share your opinion on this topic. Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on you to make a case? Because just bluntly stating controversial opinions without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone.

Quite sure you have access to BR like the rest of us.......

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

Very similar, Malone higher PER and sustaining that over many more games. What is seen is that Malone is s very good defender, albeit not as good as Garnett but is a competent, very good offensive leader, whereas Garnett faltered at that and was much better suited as a second or third option, as shown in his early seasons in Boston, where he had alot of good players on his team. With such talent Malone would've won more championships.

What you just showed proves that Garnett and Malone have basically identical offensive numbers in the playoffs... while KG being significantly better defensively. You basically made a good case for why people have KG higher than Malone.

And how is that what was shown exactly?

[migya]

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

How are you accounting for defense in all of this? Do you believe that defense is already baked into these numbers?

Yes it is, in ws/48 and somewhat in bpm, both measures of worth to a team.

[Dutchball97]

While it is normal for most players to experience a small dip in their numbers in the play-offs I'm unsure how you can look at Malone's play-off resume and annoint that as great.

In the regular season Karl Malone has over his career a 23.9 PER, 57.7 TS%, .205 WS/48 and 5.1 BPM, which dropped to 21.1 PER, 52.6 TS%, .140 WS/48 and 4.1 BPM. Even that paints a better picture than reality as Malone had disappointing post-seasons in both his MVP years and couldn't string 2 good post-seasons together once in his career.

KG has a smaller offensive drop than Malone in the play-offs and doesn't seem to fall of at all defensively. Besides that KG's numbers also are hurt by the Timberwolves not making the play-offs for 3 years straight from 05-07. KG was 28-30 in this stretch with his amazing 04 and 08 runs sandwhiching that period. A few early seasons and late career seasons further pull down those numbers and just looking at his prime there might not even be any drop from his already impressive regular season numbers.

Statements like Karl Malone was great in the play-offs and KG wasn't a star player in the post-season should really come with some argumentation especially since you're acknowledging how most people on here don't share your opinion on this topic. Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on you to make a case? Because just bluntly stating controversial opinions without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone.

Quite sure you have access to BR like the rest of us.......

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

Very similar, Malone higher PER and sustaining that over many more games. What is seen is that Malone is s very good defender, albeit not as good as Garnett but is a competent, very good offensive leader, whereas Garnett faltered at that and was much better suited as a second or third option, as shown in his early seasons in Boston, where he had alot of good players on his team. With such talent Malone would've won more championships.

I'm a KG hater on this board if anything lol. I don't think he has a reasonable top 10 case and is generally overrated due to a focus on what he could've realistically done instead of what he actually did and in all-time debates I'm nearly always on the side arguing against KG. You're so far removed from everyone else here you managed to make a hater look like a KG lover, fan and defender, imagine that.

You're casually forgetting boxscore numbers are 90%, if not more, about offense. Sure you make a comment on this but "Karl Malone was a very good defender and leader, while KG crumbled on that end" is rooted in just about nothing and is massively underselling the defensive advantage KG has over Malone. Nobody is even trying to argue KG was a better scorer than Malone because he clearly wasn't but you're falling into the trap of hyperfocussing on offense and only giving a throwaway comment that paints one of the best defenders ever and a slightly above average defender as nearly interchangeable.

Funnily enough I talk about the point you're making about Malone's 92 and 98 seasons that it is easy to make him look better than he was by focussing on one of the couple of play-off runs where he played up to par to his regular season performance and ignoring all the years where he underperformed.

You say I'm not treating you fairly but all I said was at least back up your claims when telling us we're all wrong and you're the only one who is right. What in the world did you expect as replies? A bunch of other people blindly agreeing with you that Malone is underrated and KG is overrated?

[70sFan]

Quite sure you have access to BR like the rest of us.......

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

Very similar, Malone higher PER and sustaining that over many more games. What is seen is that Malone is s very good defender, albeit not as good as Garnett but is a competent, very good offensive leader, whereas Garnett faltered at that and was much better suited as a second or third option, as shown in his early seasons in Boston, where he had alot of good players on his team. With such talent Malone would've won more championships.

What you just showed proves that Garnett and Malone have basically identical offensive numbers in the playoffs... while KG being significantly better defensively. You basically made a good case for why people have KG higher than Malone.

And how is that what was shown exactly?

By your own quote here:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

PER, TS% and BPM are all offensive boxscore numbers. They show that Malone and Garnett are the same level on offense in the playoffs. Now, you should keep in mind that Malone was a good defender at his best, while Garnett was one of the best defenders ever for his whole prime.

[Dutchball97]

What you just showed proves that Garnett and Malone have basically identical offensive numbers in the playoffs... while KG being significantly better defensively. You basically made a good case for why people have KG higher than Malone.

And how is that what was shown exactly?

By your own quote here:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

PER, TS% and BPM are all offensive boxscore numbers. They show that Malone and Garnett are the same level on offense in the playoffs. Now, you should keep in mind that Malone was a good defender at his best, while Garnett was one of the best defenders ever for his whole prime.

Tbf while PER and TS% are fully offensive boxscore numbers and while BPM's defensive component is extremely flawed it still takes different offense-defense splits into account. OBPM is better when solely looking at a offensive comparison and we see KG gets a lot more credit for his defense than Malone did. Their BPM career averages in the play-offs are 5.1 vs 4.1 in favor of KG but just OBPM it's 3.6 vs 2.8 in favor of Malone, which sounds about right to me.

The point still stands KG has a significantly bigger advantage on defense (something even BPM and to a lesser extent WS already show without even going into more advanced stats) than Malone has on offense though.

[HeartBreakKid]

Because Garnett is one of the best defenders of all time. Malone does not have that to fall back on.

[70sFan]

And how is that what was shown exactly?

By your own quote here:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

PER, TS% and BPM are all offensive boxscore numbers. They show that Malone and Garnett are the same level on offense in the playoffs. Now, you should keep in mind that Malone was a good defender at his best, while Garnett was one of the best defenders ever for his whole prime.

Tbf while PER and TS% are fully offensive boxscore numbers and while BPM's defensive component is extremely flawed it still takes different offense-defense splits into account. OBPM is better when solely looking at a offensive comparison and we see KG gets a lot more credit for his defense than Malone did. Their BPM career averages in the play-offs are 5.1 vs 4.1 in favor of KG but just OBPM it's 3.6 vs 2.8 in favor of Malone, which sounds about right to me.

The point still stands KG has a significantly bigger advantage on defense (something even BPM and to a lesser extent WS already show without even going into more advanced stats) than Malone has on offense though.

Yeah, I should mention that BPM measures something else other than just offense, but it doesn't really measure defensive impact. I agree that it's better to look at OBPM in general, while ignoring BPM is the best choice.

[No-more-rings]

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

How are you accounting for defense in all of this? Do you believe that defense is already baked into these numbers?

Yes it is, in ws/48 and somewhat in bpm, both measures of worth to a team.

I generally consider Ws/48 to be mostly trash. Not entirely useless but i’m not sure how much it tells me as far as individual impact.

BPM is…useful to an extent, but if we’re talking defense there’s definitely a lot of things it can’t capture about defense like setting screens, deterring shots, breaking up plays etc. Those things aren’t calculated in BPM. Really the only thing it captures on defense is blocks and steals.

[migya]

While it is normal for most players to experience a small dip in their numbers in the play-offs I'm unsure how you can look at Malone's play-off resume and annoint that as great.

In the regular season Karl Malone has over his career a 23.9 PER, 57.7 TS%, .205 WS/48 and 5.1 BPM, which dropped to 21.1 PER, 52.6 TS%, .140 WS/48 and 4.1 BPM. Even that paints a better picture than reality as Malone had disappointing post-seasons in both his MVP years and couldn't string 2 good post-seasons together once in his career.

KG has a smaller offensive drop than Malone in the play-offs and doesn't seem to fall of at all defensively. Besides that KG's numbers also are hurt by the Timberwolves not making the play-offs for 3 years straight from 05-07. KG was 28-30 in this stretch with his amazing 04 and 08 runs sandwhiching that period. A few early seasons and late career seasons further pull down those numbers and just looking at his prime there might not even be any drop from his already impressive regular season numbers.

Statements like Karl Malone was great in the play-offs and KG wasn't a star player in the post-season should really come with some argumentation especially since you're acknowledging how most people on here don't share your opinion on this topic. Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on you to make a case? Because just bluntly stating controversial opinions without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone.

Quite sure you have access to BR like the rest of us.......

You make ludicrous statements, not sure if your one of the Garnett lovers, can't think of any other reason. To respond to your statements:

In the regular season Garnett has over his career, """in which he played very close to the same amount of games as Malone", 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, which dropped to 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm. Malone had far better regular session numbers than Garnett and both have nearly identical playoff numbers. So Malone dropped more, as he was at a greater height, but he also played many more playoff games and at a much older age, which dropped his numbers alot.

Malone's 98 mvp playoffs were great and better than Garnett's 04 mvp playoffs;
Malone 98 - 24.2PER, 53.4ts%, .189ws/48, 7.1bpm
Garnett 04- 25.0PER, 51.3ts%, .163ws/48, 6.5bpm

Malone's best playoffs was far better than Garnett's best:
Malone 92 - 25.0PER, 61.8ts%, .220ws/48, 6.5bpm
Garnett 08 - 23.0PER, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48, 6.6bpm


To compare their primes, accounting for Garnett's younger age to start his career and Malone's older age at the end of his career, looking at age 24 to 36:

Malone - 1988-2000, 149gms, 22.8PER, 534.ts%, .161ws/48, 5.1bpm
Garnett - 2001-2013, 115gms, 21.6PER, 53.0ts%, .163ws/48, 5.3bpm

Very similar, Malone higher PER and sustaining that over many more games. What is seen is that Malone is s very good defender, albeit not as good as Garnett but is a competent, very good offensive leader, whereas Garnett faltered at that and was much better suited as a second or third option, as shown in his early seasons in Boston, where he had alot of good players on his team. With such talent Malone would've won more championships.

I'm a KG hater on this board if anything lol. I don't think he has a reasonable top 10 case and is generally overrated due to a focus on what he could've realistically done instead of what he actually did and in all-time debates I'm nearly always on the side arguing against KG. You're so far removed from everyone else here you managed to make a hater look like a KG lover, fan and defender, imagine that.

You're casually forgetting boxscore numbers are 90%, if not more, about offense. Sure you make a comment on this but "Karl Malone was a very good defender and leader, while KG crumbled on that end" is rooted in just about nothing and is massively underselling the defensive advantage KG has over Malone. Nobody is even trying to argue KG was a better scorer than Malone because he clearly wasn't but you're falling into the trap of hyperfocussing on offense and only giving a throwaway comment that paints one of the best defenders ever and a slightly above average defender as nearly interchangeable.

Funnily enough I talk about the point you're making about Malone's 92 and 98 seasons that it is easy to make him look better than he was by focussing on one of the couple of play-off runs where he played up to par to his regular season performance and ignoring all the years where he underperformed.

You say I'm not treating you fairly but all I said was at least back up your claims when telling us we're all wrong and you're the only one who is right. What in the world did you expect as replies? A bunch of other people blindly agreeing with you that Malone is underrated and KG is overrated?

You made statements supporting Garnett and they weren't entirely true, what I replied with was. I stated both player's numbers which showed the comparison.

I showed both player's best playoff performances and other year comparisons. That's covering the whole comparison.