Karl Malone vs. Dirk Nowitzki

[ahonui06]

Malone lead 57 win teams for 13 years. Dirk lead 55 win teams. so Malone

Your math is also wrong. Excluding the lockout season for Utah, Malone led his teams to 54.5 wins per season during the 13 season span listed below. DIRK on the other hand led his teams to 56.4 wins per season. Once again proving that DIRK had more regular season success.

DIRK lead his team to 50+ wins for 11 CONSECUTIVE years and a title during that span. Obviously, the answer is DIRK.

1989: 51 wins/2001: 53 wins
1990: 55 wins/2002: 57 wins
1991: 54 wins/2003: 60 wins
1992: 55 wins/2004: 52 wins
1993: 47 wins/2005: 58 wins
1994: 53 wins/2006: 60 wins
1995: 60 wins/2007: 67 wins
1996: 55 wins/2008: 51 wins
1997: 64 wins/2009: 50 wins
1998: 62 wins/2010: 55 wins
1999: 37 wins (Lockout season)/2011: 57 wins
2000: 55 wins
2001: 53 wins
2002: 44 wins

from apg to AST% in the RS and PS Malone is better then Dirk throughout more years in the league
Malone
Dirk is 2apg at 11AST%
Malone at 3apg at 15%

DIRK gets a lot of hockey assists passing out of double teams, but I can understand someone siding with Malone being a better passer. I personally.

However, your stats are completely wrong once again. DIRK averages 3APG in the regular season. 2.6 isn't rounded down to 2.Just like Malone averages 4 APG in the regular season because you don't round down 3.6. Also, DIRK's AST% is 13 in the regular season not 11 and Malone's AST% is 18 in regular season not 15.

In the playoffs, DIRK averages 3 APG with 12 AST%. Malone averages 3 APG with 16 AST%.

well through their first 12 PS Malone is a 26.3 scorerso he is also a better scorer then Dirk

Once again, your stats are wrong. Malone averaged 27.1 through his first 12 postseasons, but only shot 47-12-72. But, he isn't the better scorer than DIRK because Malone's efficiency tanked in the postseason compared to regular season. His FG% dropped from 53% in RS to 47% in PS, his 3% dropped from 27% to 12%, and his FT% remained the same at 72%. Additionally, his TS% dropped from 58% in RS to 53% in the postseason.

On the contrary, DIRK averaged 25.9PPG through his first 12 postseasons and shot 46-38-89. The difference is his postseason scoring numbers improved without taking a hit to his efficiency. DIRK's FG% dropped from 48% to 46%, his 3% remained at 38%, and his FT shooting improved from 88 to 89%. The main difference is efficiency. DIRK shot 58 TS% in the RS and also shot 58% in the PS. Nothing changed.

DIRK is a better scorer. Raw PPG doesn't mean everything.

and Luke everything your looking at with Malone is over a longer RS and PS career then Dirk if you shorten it to how many years Dirk played Malone comes out greater in every aspect

No it doesn't. Just showed you why.

[ahonui06]

3. Passer - disagree, Malone's PS Ast:TOV ratio is 1.12, exactly the same as Dirk's. The key difference is that Malone is assisting more, but turning the ball over more. I'd much rather take the guy who turns the ball over less.

When you are willing to pass the ball more, is easiest to lose the ball.

Malone was a better passer, and you can't argue vs that.

That makes no sense. DIRK is just as willing of a passer as Malone. The difference is Malone had about 1 more assist per game. DIRK gets a good amount of hockey assists when he kicks out of double teams, but obviously those aren't recorded.

Choosing Malone as a better passer is fine, but there is an argument for DIRK.

[ahonui06]

You probably shouldn't bring up lack of help from teammates when comparing DIRK and Malone.

I probably should considering in the playoffs Malone's second option, John Stockton, routinely let him down as a second option on offense. And the other thing you said about Dirk leading his team to a decade of 50 win teams, while impressive, it's irrelevant here. Malone led the Jazz to 11 in 13 years, and it would've been 12 but the lock-out season in '99 hindered that.

You made my point for me. Malone's second option, John Stockton....

Stockton became a starter in 87-88. He averaged 14 & 11 on 52-39-83 during the regular season with a 61 TS%. In the postseason he averaged 14 & 11 on 47-32-81. In other words his production dropped just the same as Malone's did in the postseason. Both of them didn't elevate their games. How can you say Stockton routinely let Malone down when Malone led Stockton down as well?

DIRK's second option during his prime was Jason Terry. I would take Stockton everyday of the week over that guy.

And DIRK leading his team to 11 consecutive 50 win seasons is impressive.Even if you include the lockout season in 1999 as a 50 win percentage season, Malone would've only lead his team to 9 consecutive seasons and that is while playing next to a Top 50 player of all-time.

[LikeABosh]

3. Passer - disagree, Malone's PS Ast:TOV ratio is 1.12, exactly the same as Dirk's. The key difference is that Malone is assisting more, but turning the ball over more. I'd much rather take the guy who turns the ball over less.

This is exactly what you would expect to happen if someone passes more.

I don't even know why we're debating who the better passer is. It's clearly malone. He was incredible passing from the post.

[ahonui06]

3. Passer - disagree, Malone's PS Ast:TOV ratio is 1.12, exactly the same as Dirk's. The key difference is that Malone is assisting more, but turning the ball over more. I'd much rather take the guy who turns the ball over less.

This is exactly what you would expect to happen if someone passes more.

I don't even know why we're debating who the better passer is. It's clearly malone. He was incredible passing from the post.

DIRK is just an underrated passer out of double teams. He's really improved that aspect of his game since entering the NBA. The better passer might very well be Malone, but DIRK isn't terrible at getting teammates the ball either.

[Amare_1_Knicks]

You probably shouldn't bring up lack of help from teammates when comparing DIRK and Malone.

I probably should considering in the playoffs Malone's second option, John Stockton, routinely let him down as a second option on offense. And the other thing you said about Dirk leading his team to a decade of 50 win teams, while impressive, it's irrelevant here. Malone led the Jazz to 11 in 13 years, and it would've been 12 but the lock-out season in '99 hindered that.

You made my point for me. Malone's second option, John Stockton....

Stockton became a starter in 87-88. He averaged 14 & 11 on 52-39-83 during the regular season with a 61 TS%. In the postseason he averaged 14 & 11 on 47-32-81. In other words his production dropped just the same as Malone's did in the postseason. Both of them didn't elevate their games. How can you say Stockton routinely let Malone down when Malone led Stockton down as well?

DIRK's second option during his prime was Jason Terry. I would take Stockton everyday of the week over that guy.

And DIRK leading his team to 11 consecutive 50 win seasons is impressive.Even if you include the lockout season in 1999 as a 50 win percentage season, Malone would've only lead his team to 9 consecutive seasons and that is while playing next to a Top 50 player of all-time.

He put up great numbers but he was reluctant/incapable as a scorer/secondary option on offense and that's undeniable. Malone could get his, there's no question about that, and Stcok definitely didn't make him the player he was either. If Stock was a better scorer then he would've took pressure off of Malone -- more focus was directed towards stopping Malone because teams didn't have to worry about other players burning them if he got doubled/forced into tough shots.

And given the situations, Terry's probably a better fit for both Dirk and Malone in this case. Terry's a capable passer/shooter/scorer, and he's proved that he can be a reliable second option on offense -- more so than John Stockton. You pair Terry w/ Malone, and a decent PG and year in and year out the RS success would more or less be the same, and the Jazz would probably do even better in the playoffs.

Stockton would do better w/ a player like Stoudemire, who's game gets elevated when he has a great PG to play with. 50 greatest player or not, it's all about fit, and as far as the Jazz teams got, they should've and could've gotten farther if there was a more useful secondary player in terms of scoring ability.

[kasino]

your first part the shortened season(I clearly included it) at .740 winning percentage is a 60 win season is a 57 wins for 14 years
if you add this season of Dirk at .545 winning percentage making 44 wins so 50 wins for 01-12
so Malone

Dirk average 2.6, you could round to 3
Malone average 3.6, you could round to 4
I rounded both down so their was NO BIAS, you have it quoted
I see why you rounded you wanted to make the PS 3 to 3..it still favors Malone

he scores 27 to Dirks 25 on 47%
we know Dirk is the better 3pt shooter and FT shooter
but he doesn't produce more then Malone
so Malone

so yes he does become clearly better then Dirk when shorten his seasons to what Dirk did so far

[Texas Chuck]

Malone is definitely the better passer.

However Dirk creates more good shots for teammates than Karl did.

So if ultimately what matters is who makes their teammates better offensively its clearly Dirk.

Arguing that JET is a better running mate than John Stockton is pretty awesome. Im not sure if you believed this when you were writing it but surely when you read it you see its ridiculous and I love JET. Stockton made sure Malone got the ball exactly where he wanted it on time every time. Do you not see what an advantage that is over Dirk who has created almost all of his own looks throughout his career? Dirk gets the ball on the elbow and goes to work.

edit: I just double checked the numbers JET v Stock. JET scores a couple more points a game as a 2nd option than Stock as the 3rd option. JET's TS% is pretty good. Stockton led the league in it 3 seperate times and is at 61% for his career.

Not to mention how many times Dirk is left trying to clean up JET's mess on the defensive end--something Malone rarely had to do for Stock.

[LikeABosh]

The better passer might very well be Malone, but DIRK isn't terrible at getting teammates the ball either.

Of course not. Dirk is a good passer in his own right

[ahonui06]

your first part the shortened season(I clearly included it) at .740 winning percentage is a 60 win season is a 57 wins for 14 years
if you add this season of Dirk at .545 winning percentage making 44 wins so 50 wins for 01-12
so Malone

Once again your stats are incorrect. Even if you included Malone's shortened lockout season the most consecutive season of 50+ wins would be 9. The Jazz only won 47 games in 1993 and that was right in the middle of Malone's prime.

Dallas' win % from 2001 to 2012 was 0.6777.
Utah's win % from 1989 to 2002 was 0.6676.

So DIRK.

Dirk average 2.6, you could round to 3
Malone average 3.6, you could round to 4
I rounded both down so their was NO BIAS, you have it quoted
I see why you rounded you wanted to make the PS 3 to 3..it still favors Malone

There was no agenda. You learn in elementary school that when rounding numbers, 5 and above go up while 4 and below go down.

he scores 27 to Dirks 25 on 47%
we know Dirk is the better 3pt shooter and FT shooter
but he doesn't produce more then Malone
so Malone

DIRK scores 0.4PPG less in the postseason than Malone on about 3 less shots per game in the playoffs. Malone's efficiency tanks in the postseason and DIRK's remains the same. Obvious answer here is that DIRK is a more efficient scorer and a more versatile scorer.

so yes he does become clearly better then Dirk when shorten his seasons to what Dirk did so far

No still he doesn't as I indicated.

[kasino]

how have my stats been incorrect at any time all my math been righ
anyway 01-12(12 years) its .675
while Utah is .679 from 89-01(13 years)
so Malone, why we change from wins?

so not to make Dirks PS match Malone's?
ok

Malone scores 2 points higher then Dirk in PS as you did the math and came up with 27 and stated Dirks 25
So Malone produces more then Dirk

no you haven't you did the exact opposite
you know Dirk scores 25 you came with Malone 27..advantage Malone
you haven't disputed the rebounding or passing but those would clearly go up with the first 12 years of Malone's career would increase those as well

[AnaheimRoyale]

The revionist history on the 11' Mavs is hilarious and lol at the heat not being expected to beat them, they were HEAVY favorites.

The Mavs were Dirk, and aside from Tyson who sucks on offense past their prime role players.

Usually the revionist history happens 3 to 4 years after a title team is crowned, but I noticed this started happening by game 5 of the 2011 finals. It's pathetic

This post shows your hand too plainly. Tyson sucks on offense... that's like me saying "Mutumbo wasn't much of an offensive player" or "Ben Wallace was bad on O"... that tells me nothing about his holistic value as a player though, which was dead high. The guy is an all-nba player and DPOY.

At the start of the season, the Heat were not the favourites. Not in the media, not in Vegas. The Lakers were favourites, and there's a strange disconnect between this and what happened. Because the Lakers got spanked by the Mavs, and then nobody revised their opinion of the Mavs (when they should have). The Heat became favourites only after they made the finals and everyone said "yeh, Mavs will choke somehow", flatly disregarding the Mavs play to that point, and forgetting all the concerns that had been listed about the Heat for the season to that point. As the finals reminded us, those concerns were still there, and the Mavs played great.

The Mavs, aside from having a DPOY/all-nba type player in the middle, had a fantastic support cast that was deep, balanced, well coached and on fire. There were guys coming off the bench for the Mavs who could easily have started for the Heat, even playing out of position. The Mavs deserve credit for a great season, just as my beloved 03 Spurs deserve credit for what they did. But that does not mean we should become unobjective about what those teams might have done in other years. The Mavs might have even won a title in 09 or 10... in 2012 they would have lost to the Thunder probably.

[ahonui06]

how have my stats been incorrect at any time all my math been righ
anyway 01-12(12 years) its .675
while Utah is .679 from 89-01(13 years)
so Malone, why we change from wins?
so not to make Dirks PS match Malone's?
ok

Dallas from 2001-2012 won 656 games out of a possible 968 games. That is .6777. Earlier in the thread you said DIRK only lead his teams to 55 win seasons. In actuality, he lead his teams to 55.57 win season or 56 wins. (82*0.6777=55.5714)

And from 1989-2002 (You need to count 2002 because Utah made the postseason) Utah won 745 out of a possible 1116 games. That is 0.6676. If you don't count 2002, then the number is 0.6779 which still is lower than the 0.679 that you listed.

And the main difference when it comes to winning isn't even the regular season. The main difference is that DIRK won in the postseason. Karl Malone was never able to do that. DIRK won a title and Finals MVP without another all-star and went through 7 All-NBA players on his way to a title.

Malone scores 2 points higher then Dirk in PS as you did the math and came up with 27 and stated Dirks 25
So Malone produces more then Dirk
no you haven't you did the exact opposite
you know Dirk scores 25 you came with Malone 27..advantage Malone

Once again, your math is terrible. Malone averaged 26.6PPG from 1989-2002 in the postseason, which rounds up to 27. Malone shot 52.1% from the field in RS and that dropped to 46.3% in PS. That is terrible. His TS% dropped from 58.7 TS% to 53.0%. Also terrible. Like Scottie Pippen said, "Mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays"

From 2001-2012, DIRK averaged 25.9PPG in the postseason, which round up to 26. DIRK shot 47.8% from the field in RS and that dropped to 46.3% in PS (exact same as Malone). The difference is DIRK's TS% remained the same at 58.4% in the RS and PS>

Malone needed 20.8 shots per game to score 26.6PPG. DIRK only needed 18.4 shots per game to score 25.9 PPG. Malone needed 2.4 more shots per game to only score 0.7 more PPG during their respective spans.

you haven't disputed the rebounding or passing but those would clearly go up with the first 12 years of Malone's career would increase those as well

There's nothing to dispute when it comes to rebounding. I said Malone was a better rebounder than DIRK right off the bat. Malone averaged 10.3RPG in RS and 11.1RPG in PS from 89-02. DIRK averaged 8.7RPG in RS and 10.3RPG in PS from 01-12.

However, DIRK's DRB% is 24.6 in PS compared to Malone's DRB% of 23.8 in PS from 89-02.

Passing-wise, you can make a case for Malone. I can live with that. I think DIRK is a solid passer, but I doesn't bother me when people say Malone is better. I rather have DIRK scoring than passing anyways.

[ahonui06]

The revionist history on the 11' Mavs is hilarious and lol at the heat not being expected to beat them, they were HEAVY favorites.

The Mavs were Dirk, and aside from Tyson who sucks on offense past their prime role players.

Usually the revionist history happens 3 to 4 years after a title team is crowned, but I noticed this started happening by game 5 of the 2011 finals. It's pathetic

This post shows your hand too plainly. Tyson sucks on offense... that's like me saying "Mutumbo wasn't much of an offensive player" or "Ben Wallace was bad on O"... that tells me nothing about his holistic value as a player though, which was dead high. The guy is an all-nba player and DPOY.

At the start of the season, the Heat were not the favourites. Not in the media, not in Vegas. The Lakers were favourites, and there's a strange disconnect between this and what happened. Because the Lakers got spanked by the Mavs, and then nobody revised their opinion of the Mavs (when they should have). The Heat became favourites only after they made the finals and everyone said "yeh, Mavs will choke somehow", flatly disregarding the Mavs play to that point, and forgetting all the concerns that had been listed about the Heat for the season to that point. As the finals reminded us, those concerns were still there, and the Mavs played great.

The Mavs, aside from having a DPOY/all-nba type player in the middle, had a fantastic support cast that was deep, balanced, well coached and on fire. There were guys coming off the bench for the Mavs who could easily have started for the Heat, even playing out of position. The Mavs deserve credit for a great season, just as my beloved 03 Spurs deserve credit for what they did. But that does not mean we should become unobjective about what those teams might have done in other years. The Mavs might have even won a title in 09 or 10... in 2012 they would have lost to the Thunder probably.

The 2011 Mavs and 2003 Spurs were very similar situations. Franchise player leading his to a title despite all odds and beating the defending champion Lakers along the way.

[Texas Chuck]

AR,

to be fair to everyone who picked the Heat to win the 2011 finals. They had the MVP and 3 of the 4 best players in the series. I agree the Mavs were deeper and better coached but of course the Heat were a heavy favorite as they should have been. Stars win titles.

What no one could have foreseen was Lebron's strange passivity as the series went on combined with JET playing 3 great games after having his usual subpar playoff run--esp to start the finals.

Oh and those Lakers werent very good and thats why no one jumped on the Mavs bandwagon. Their roster was very poorly constucted around Kobe/Gasol.

[Woodsanity]

Dirk was a much better Playoffs Performer and a better closer. Malone was a much better defender though. Its tough but ultimately playoffs matter more than anything. Dirk stepped it up in the playoffs. Malone became worse. Malone also could never get it done. He didn't exactly play on stacked teams but he had Stockton and quality players. Hakeem had less help and won two championships in a row. Dirk had less help then Malone and also won one.

[AnaheimRoyale]

The 2011 Mavs and 2003 Spurs were very similar situations. Franchise player leading his to a title despite all odds and beating the defending champion Lakers along the way.

Except 03 Duncan didn't have anywhere near the help Dirk did, and 2011 Kobe didn't have prime Shaq on his team... so yeh, aside from those gaping differences, they were similar situations.

[kasino]

I didn't add up the games I averaged the % and is at .675% for their 12 years
Utah winning average is 98-01 is .679% for their 13 years
Dirk didn't have a all-star but a much deeper team that we can all agree

If you look at my first post about Malone's scoring you will find I put 26.3, you rounded it off to 27
so my math isn't terrible your flopping what you want used
and still Malone produced more then Dirk

[Woodsanity]

^The Mailman was pitiful in the playoffs.

The 2011 Mavs and 2003 Spurs were very similar situations. Franchise player leading his to a title despite all odds and beating the defending champion Lakers along the way.

Except 03 Duncan didn't have anywhere near the help Dirk did, and 2011 Kobe didn't have prime Shaq on his team... so yeh, aside from those gaping differences, they were similar situations.

Lolwut? Neither of them had amazing amounts of help.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2011.html
I fail to see how Duncan had way less help.

[kasino]

on average Malone had a 52 win team making it to the 2 round losing to on average a 56 win team for 16 years giving you 24/10/3 is pitiful?
he lost thats about it