Karl Malone vs. Dirk Nowitzki

[The Infamous1]

Nah, that's a quote from the top 100 thread before I got here. I did think of quoting a few other long posts in the top 100 thread, RPOY project, etc, but that one covers off on 2003 the most.

It's from Gilmore Fan, which was you.

It's hilarious when banned posters come back and pretend they're new.

[mysticbb]

Excuse me, "dagger threes". Jesus, the point is he was vastly superior to Kerr, and was good at hitting key shots for them, whether they came in the last 2 minutes (or whatever you are defining clutch to mean) is really irrelevant to his value in the series.

Now we are just shifting the goalpost and call shots with 8 min left in the 4th quarter "dagger threes". :lol:

That Steve Kerr was inferior during the 2003 run is out of the question, but you don't need to make stuff up in order to push your agenda here.

I noted a post which showed quite plainly how they didn't. D.Rob sucked v.s the Lakers for instance, S.Jax couldn't hit the broad side of a barn v.s the Lakers.

Barea and Stevenson sucked against the Blazers, Jason Kidd shot 28% from the field against the Lakers while Chandler was completely outmatched 1on1 against Bynum, Terry sucked against OKC with 37% from the field and Stojakovic was completely useless against the Heat.
As you can see, we can easily "cherry-pick" bad series for the Mavericks support as well.

Dirk had a simply superior team, end of story.

That is indeed true, the Mavericks with Nowitzki on the court played better than the Spurs with Duncan on the court in 2003. And all that while facing the tougher opponents than the 2003 Spurs. The 2011 Mavericks would have beaten the 2003 Spurs, end of story.

So first we need to look at "how they actually played", in order to avoid bias, and now we need only look at "how they played without Dirk". If your above analysis (mere sentences ago) is correct, then how they played without Dirk doesn't matter, because they played great with Dirk, which was almost the whole game in the 2011 playoffs. Indeed, Dirk played so much the rest is almost too small a sample size to be meaningful.

They played about 20% of the time without Nowitzki on the court. And the playing level was actually pretty close to the level they had during the 9 games Nowitzki missed. We have a pretty good impression about how they played without him. That they played better with Nowitzki on the court was due to Nowitzki's presence opening up driving and cutting lanes. Nowitzki made it easier for his teammates, something they obviously needed in order to succeed.

I haven't referred to Dirk being soft even once. You're arguing against a straw man.

You failed at reading comprehension, because I didn't refer to you at all. ;)

[ahonui06]

Dirk played with Nash and Kidd

A pre-Phoenix Nash who wasn't the same player and didn't step up in the playoffs and a 35+ year old Kidd for about 3 years. Not impressed.

had good anchors throughout his entire tenure

LOL. No. He had one good defensive anchor and that was Chandler. The duo of Dampier/Diop was serviceable and that's about it.

had Howard/Carter/Marion/Terry/Butler in different versions of the Mavs

And? Malone played with prime Stockton throughout his entire career. That makes up for these role player swingmen DIRK played with on his team.

Malone gets more points on great percentage
in the RS and PS he gives your team more
he you want to say less shots for less points equal more shots for more points in the PS I'm cool with that

I'm glad you finally admitted that you rather have the less efficient player who couldn't win a title with a Top 50 NBA player on his team. 0.4 more points per game on about 2.5 more shots. That is terrible. I'll take DIRK everyday of the week since he is just a better offensive player.

[kasino]

Nash, who an article was just been written about how he was better then Magic even as a Mav
Kidd who is as good at its get and a key contributor to the Mavs title

Damp/Diop as a combo were pretty much as good as any center combo in the league
then Haywood/Damp then Chandler/Haywood

Dirk had players overlapping while Malone had Stockton, thus more support

yea that player is better then Dirk, sucks for Dirk

[Texas Chuck]

Nash, who an article was just been written about how he was better then Magic even as a Mav

dont believe everything you read, mate.

[kasino]

not about reading it but its either Nash the GOAT PG or Nash no help at all
if you take the middle road its Nash a pretty good PG even Mavs Nash and I might be low balling it

[SDChargers#1]

I have got to go with Malone. I know Dirk won a championship (and with a weak supporting cast (for a championship team)), but Malone's longevity and dominance is unbelievable.

Malone is just as good of an offensive player as Dirk. He is a better defender than Dirk. He is a better rebounder than Dirk. He was a better passer than Dirk. He did it for much longer than Dirk (Dirk is still playing, but he would have to go another 5 very good seasons to match Malone).

Dirk's whole argument is essentially that he gets better in the playoffs and Malone does not, and of course his title and Finals MVP. While that is certainly a huge factor. I don't know if it is enough to overcome all of Malone's advantages.

[TheKingOfVa360]

The Mailman.
Overall, he was the better player.

[ahonui06]

I have got to go with Malone. I know Dirk won a championship (and with a weak supporting cast (for a championship team)), but Malone's longevity and dominance is unbelievable.

Malone is just as good of an offensive player as Dirk. He is a better defender than Dirk. He is a better rebounder than Dirk. He was a better passer than Dirk. He did it for much longer than Dirk (Dirk is still playing, but he would have to go another 5 very good seasons to match Malone).

Dirk's whole argument is essentially that he gets better in the playoffs and Malone does not, and of course his title and Finals MVP. While that is certainly a huge factor. I don't know if it is enough to overcome all of Malone's advantages.

DIRK will continue to play at a high level for 5 seasons and he will have a title and Finals MVP. Won't be much of a competition. Pretty sure the only reason people don't want to choose DIRK is because he is European and white.

[4TheWin]

Karl Malone

[Rapcity_11]

Pretty sure the only reason people don't want to choose DIRK is because he is European and white.

Yes, that must be it.

Or maybe they think he was better at basketball?

[ahonui06]

Pretty sure the only reason people don't want to choose DIRK is because he is European and white.

Yes, that must be it.

Or maybe they think he was better at basketball?

If that was the case they would pick DIRK. He's a better basketball player and does more for his team obviously.

[QuantMisleads]

I have got to go with Malone. I know Dirk won a championship (and with a weak supporting cast (for a championship team)), but Malone's longevity and dominance is unbelievable.

Malone is just as good of an offensive player as Dirk. He is a better defender than Dirk. He is a better rebounder than Dirk. He was a better passer than Dirk. He did it for much longer than Dirk (Dirk is still playing, but he would have to go another 5 very good seasons to match Malone).

Dirk's whole argument is essentially that he gets better in the playoffs and Malone does not, and of course his title and Finals MVP. While that is certainly a huge factor. I don't know if it is enough to overcome all of Malone's advantages.

DIRK will continue to play at a high level for 5 seasons and he will have a title and Finals MVP. Won't be much of a competition. Pretty sure the only reason people don't want to choose DIRK is because he is European and white.

If dirk continues at a level close to what he had in 2011, I would definitely put him over Malone.

But my arguments in favor of Malone still put him over Dirk at the moment, but again I'll give to you the following: at his offensive peak Dirk was better than Malone, and the way he played helped his team more, but at the same time he had the teammates to do the job.

[ahonui06]

I have got to go with Malone. I know Dirk won a championship (and with a weak supporting cast (for a championship team)), but Malone's longevity and dominance is unbelievable.

Malone is just as good of an offensive player as Dirk. He is a better defender than Dirk. He is a better rebounder than Dirk. He was a better passer than Dirk. He did it for much longer than Dirk (Dirk is still playing, but he would have to go another 5 very good seasons to match Malone).

Dirk's whole argument is essentially that he gets better in the playoffs and Malone does not, and of course his title and Finals MVP. While that is certainly a huge factor. I don't know if it is enough to overcome all of Malone's advantages.

DIRK will continue to play at a high level for 5 seasons and he will have a title and Finals MVP. Won't be much of a competition. Pretty sure the only reason people don't want to choose DIRK is because he is European and white.

If dirk continues at a level close to what he had in 2011, I would definitely put him over Malone.

But my arguments in favor of Malone still put him over Dirk at the moment, but again I'll give to you the following: at his offensive peak Dirk was better than Malone, and the way he played helped his team more, but at the same time he had the teammates to do the job.

But what about the title and Finals MVP?

[AnaheimRoyale]

Barea and Stevenson sucked against the Blazers, Jason Kidd shot 28% from the field against the Lakers while Chandler was completely outmatched 1on1 against Bynum, Terry sucked against OKC with 37% from the field and Stojakovic was completely useless against the Heat.
As you can see, we can easily "cherry-pick" bad series for the Mavericks support as well.

Of course we can, but given the Lakers were the toughest opponent for the Spurs that playoffs, how those guys played seems awfully relevant, if you're going to give us this whole "it's how they played those games, not the whole season". Looking at the Lakers series we can see D.Rob sucked pretty badly, S.Jax did not play very well (0-10 from outside in games they won), etc. On the other hand across the playoffs, and against the toughest opponents in 2011, the Mavs supporting players played better than the Spurs, both relative to what was expected of them, and just in general.

That is indeed true, the Mavericks with Nowitzki on the court played better than the Spurs with Duncan on the court in 2003. And all that while facing the tougher opponents than the 2003 Spurs. The 2011 Mavericks would have beaten the 2003 Spurs, end of story.

Maybe so. As I said, the Spurs opponents in the playoffs in 2003 were in general not as tough as the Mavs saw in 2011, and the competition in 2003 wasn't as tough as alot of years... if we moved those Spurs to 2008 for instance, I don't doubt they lose... on the other hand, they also beat a team who I would expect the 2011 Mavs to lose to in the 2003 Lakers. So while in general I am more impressed with what the 2011 Mavs did, I wouldn't say it's decisive they'd win. Duncan was pretty awesome in 03, even with a much worse support cast than Dirk I think he'd have a chance.

They played about 20% of the time without Nowitzki on the court. And the playing level was actually pretty close to the level they had during the 9 games Nowitzki missed. We have a pretty good impression about how they played without him. That they played better with Nowitzki on the court was due to Nowitzki's presence opening up driving and cutting lanes. Nowitzki made it easier for his teammates, something they obviously needed in order to succeed.

Dirk played 40 minutes per game in the playoffs, his team played 81.87% of the time without him. Factor in garbage time, margin of error, look at the sample size, and your figure is basically meaningless. But of course, Dirk helped the team win... duh. Was anyone disputing this? Thanks for another straw man point Mystic. Really helped us move forward on the issues.

You failed at reading comprehension, because I didn't refer to you at all.

Dude, here is your quote:

And when someone is arguing that Nowitzki was considered "soft", they should probably start watching him play. Back in 2001 there was the series against the Spurs. Nowitzki got his teeth knocked out in the 4th quarter of game 4, comes back and makes the next tough shots and his free throws to lead the Mavericks to a win. And in game 5 we can see how strong the supporting cast was, when Finley and Howard missed all their easy attempts and Nash did nothing to help. Nowitzki posted 42/18 against those Spurs, taking tough shots and getting to the basket to keep his team at least a bit in striking distance. The Spurs support made one 3pt after another, but I guess Anaheim would still argue that Nowitzki had the better players around him.

If you weren't referring to me, it's not even slightly obvious from reading this paragraph. If anything, the polite thing to do would be for you to apologise for putting my name in your anti-soft ramblings, but instead I get an absurd remark suggesting I've misread the paragraph whose topic sentence refers to said subject matter, and mentions me specifically at the end.

You are of course wrong on your other point, that the Spurs "made one 3 pointer after another", as I noted, and even if that were correct- how many 3's did they make without Duncan on the court (indeed, how well did they play, something you seemed to think was important for Dirk)? The reason the Spurs got so many open 3's was because Duncan was sucking the defense around him in the post, creating overlaps and spacing. The Mavs players weren't getting 3's for that reason. Not that Dirk doesn't help in that regard, but what he is doing to create space isn't comparable to what 2003 Duncan was doing.

[QuantMisleads]

But what about the title and Finals MVP?

better team argument that I mentioned earlier, and Finals MVP is great but it's not as if Malone wasn't the best player when they faced the Bulls either. Remember the Jazz had a game basically stolen from them when Eisley made a three way before the 24 sec buzzer rang and they waved it off, but didn't do the same for Ron Harper's shot that WAS after the 24 sec buzzer (a 5 point swing in what was a 1 point win for the Bulls I believe). Remember that the Heat/Mavs had close games (was, after 5 games, the closest series points-wise in history I think until game 6 rolled along) until that deciding game 6.

So not to diminish what Dirk did, and to note also that he is more efficient in the halfcourt (but remembering that malone was excellent on fast breaks).

[JordansBulls]

But what about the title and Finals MVP?

better team argument that I mentioned earlier, and Finals MVP is great but it's not as if Malone wasn't the best player when they faced the Bulls either. Remember the Jazz had a game basically stolen from them when Eisley made a three way before the 24 sec buzzer rang and they waved it off, but didn't do the same for Ron Harper's shot that WAS after the 24 sec buzzer (a 5 point swing in what was a 1 point win for the Bulls I believe). Remember that the Heat/Mavs had close games (was, after 5 games, the closest series points-wise in history I think until game 6 rolled along) until that deciding game 6.

So not to diminish what Dirk did, and to note also that he is more efficient in the halfcourt (but remembering that malone was excellent on fast breaks).

Dallas was not better than those Jazz teams.

[QuantMisleads]

The team dynamic with Dirk was more effective, it made the rest of his team better. I don't credit this as much to Dirk as a player as to how the team melded together. Even if the Jazz were better (and I would agree more or less) they still had weaknesses that got exposed, but it took a very good Bulls team to do it of course. So the argument is against the teams they faced, not in an all time comparison.

[Lightning25]

Dallas was not better than those Jazz teams.

Maybe, maybe not, but one thing for sure is that Dallas's competition was much worse than the Jazz's competition so it evens out.

The truth is that the Jazz really never had much outside of Malone and Stockton but once they did have some players outside of those two they ran into Michael Jordan.

If that was the case they would pick DIRK. He's a better basketball player and does more for his team obviously.

Malone is the more versatile and well-rounded player so I'm not sure how you could say Dirk does more for his team.

You can say Dirk is better but it would be because of his strengths such as his playoff performances, scoring, etc. is a much bigger and better advantage than Malone's rounded play.

[AnaheimRoyale]

The truth is that the Jazz really never had much outside of Malone and Stockton but once they did have some players outside of those two they ran into Michael Jordan

That's almost the exact opposite of the truth. The 1989 Jazz say hi. Indeed, most of the pre-97 Jazz say hi.