If you were less interested in making an incredulous response
Let me get this straight - you are calling someone's response incredulous, when that was a response to your incredulous post?
Incredulous - "unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true" (
www.m-w.com).
NBA coaches voted Malone the top defensive C in the league in 1982-83, but here you are some 4 decades later saying:
he also wasn't a defensive anchor
So tell us - how or why did the NBA coaches that game planned against Malone on a nightly basis some 40 years ago get it wrong? And who should have been named the top defensive C and why?
And when called on the carpet for such an incredulous statement, you can only reply with:
And?
Which certainly implies that you don't know.
On top of this you go on and say:
there are MANY questions about his overall impact over the years
Which in essence says nothing. How about what questions? Was his impact better? Worse? And why?
You have a habit of making statements that you can't seem to back up.
Like this:
and he was considerably lower-impact on offense
You say this based on what? Malone was the far better scorer, far better offensive rebounder, drew far more fouls, played far more minutes. What makes you say he was lower impact on offense?
Because back then he was considered one of the greatest offensive players in the league.