What versions of Karl Malone are better than 16 Draymond?

[therealbig3]

FWIW, we have DRAPM for 02-04 Karl Malone:

02: +0.2
03: -0.2
04: +0.4

The guy was basically a neutral impact defender during the last 3 years of his career. Even in 04, when he was a role player that was specifically asked to focus more on defense.

He's not close to Draymond Green defensively. Now, I know this isn't prime Malone, but even prime Malone was never a defensive anchor and was never really much more than a really strong post defender. His overall defense was never best in the league caliber, like Green's is.

BTW, this isn't to say that Malone wasn't more than an average defender in 02-04. Fine, his RAPM says he was, and it's one data point. I value the eye-test, and I thought Malone was a good defender in those years, and that he was throughout his prime. But qualitatively speaking, he was never an elite defender, because I never thought he impacted the game at that level on the defensive end. And the RAPM simply backs that up.

[therealbig3]

The Warriors just cracked the all time record for wins and netted the 6th best SRS of all time. That objectively states that this is one of the NBA's historically great teams. Furthermore, Draymond has had more than enough evidence to state that he is largely to be credited for that dominance, with some even arguing that his impact edges Curry's. And yet, because he doesn't have the PER of Malone's prime, most of that "impact" must really be the product of the system he's in. Malone is independently great because of his ability to stuff the traditional stat sheet, and Draymond does things that are simply enabled by the program he's in, and that cannot be the other way around because... why?

It's a good question.

This doesn't feel quite right. What if Draymond is what he is because of the specific role he plays and that is specifically reliant on the type of player you can't guarantee finding, and you can't lean on him to anchor your whole team to years of success (even if not a title)?

This is really a more abstract question than Malone vs Draymond: it's high-end complement vs. focal offensive star in terms of value.

For me, I'm having trouble not siding with Green, specifically because I'm one of the people that think VERY highly of Kevin Garnett, and although he was more capable of being the latter than Green, the reason I'm high on him is much more so because of his ability to be the former.

There isn't a single team you could ever construct that Green wouldn't be able to help in a big way.

-You can never have too much defense, and Green is an amazing defender that can guard pretty much anyone, has mobility and strength, and his instincts are on point. You can play him with ANYBODY on defense, and he'll help in a big way.

-He's a competent 3pt shooter, which is always an offensive benefit when your PF/C can do that

-He's a fantastic screen setter...funny how Garnett got the same criticisms of setting illegal screens, because he's the player that Green reminds me of the most

-For his position, he's a great ball handler and passer and can thus make plays at a level that other great big men simply can't.

-He's a great roller and finisher.

There's always a role that you can plug Draymond Green into and expect great results. If you try to do the same with Malone, you're not going to get those same results, because he's a worse shooter, passer, ball handler, overall playmaker, and defender. He can do more than Green if you want someone to create a lot of shots for himself and score a lot of points, but it's not like Malone was ATG at that, and when he wasn't able to score at nearly the same level in the playoffs, his all-around game wasn't good enough to compensate. Green could score single digits and still be the best player on the court (much like Garnett).

I was firmly on the Curry bandwagon until recently, but there were some really good points that some posters made that has me rethinking my view of Green entirely.

[Joao Saraiva]

This shouldn't even be a comparison. Malone was a 1st option, a legit one and lead his team to multiple great campaigns. Put 16 Green on his place and the Jazz might miss the playoffs a ton of times.

Let's not compare what has no comparison. Malone is miles ahead of Green.

[tsherkin]

There isn't a single team you could ever construct that Green wouldn't be able to help in a big way.

Right, but is that the same as the value Malone can bring with his specific skill set as far as being used as a team focus, and which of those two things is better? You say this like it has weight, but this is an undecided argument, right? I fully agree that you could plug Day-Day into just about anywhere and he would be a net plus because he defends, he rebounds, he hustles and he can space with the J at a minimum... but is that BETTER than being able to hold down a team's offense and lead them to serious contention?

It really isn't about denigrating Green here: he's a wonderful player. The real question is, what he brings, is that as or more valuable than what Malone brought?

[PCProductions]

The Warriors just cracked the all time record for wins and netted the 6th best SRS of all time. That objectively states that this is one of the NBA's historically great teams. Furthermore, Draymond has had more than enough evidence to state that he is largely to be credited for that dominance, with some even arguing that his impact edges Curry's. And yet, because he doesn't have the PER of Malone's prime, most of that "impact" must really be the product of the system he's in. Malone is independently great because of his ability to stuff the traditional stat sheet, and Draymond does things that are simply enabled by the program he's in, and that cannot be the other way around because... why?

It's a good question.

This doesn't feel quite right. What if Draymond is what he is because of the specific role he plays and that is specifically reliant on the type of player you can't guarantee finding, and you can't lean on him to anchor your whole team to years of success (even if not a title)?

This is really a more abstract question than Malone vs Draymond: it's high-end complement vs. focal offensive star in terms of value.

How many years of Malone do we have without Stockton? I mean, Malone isn't exactly a great test case here since he played with the same coach and co-star his entire relevant career. The difference is that we have box score stats for Malone and less sophisticated on/off data to make healthy comparisons.

[PCProductions]

This shouldn't even be a comparison. Malone was a 1st option, a legit one and lead his team to multiple great campaigns. Put 16 Green on his place and the Jazz might miss the playoffs a ton of times.

Let's not compare what has no comparison. Malone is miles ahead of Green.

And how does Golden State fare with Malone in Green's place? I'm doubtful about 73 wins, certainly.

[tsherkin]

How many years of Malone do we have without Stockton? I mean, Malone isn't exactly a great test case here since he played with the same coach and co-star his entire relevant career. The difference is that we have box score stats for Malone and less sophisticated on/off data to make healthy comparisons.

Most of them. Stockton wasn't exactly spoon-feeding Malone for the vast majority of his career, and was playing fairly minimal minutes post-97, and Malone didn't appear to have any serious problems because he was a very savvy PnR player with a J and face-up game, plus some post skill and his usual hustle and what-not. Stockton was helpful, but his efficacy wasn't specifically tied to Stockton, that's just narrative.

[Dr Spaceman]

(and GSW declining isn't even a sure thing, by any means).

Seriously?

Forget the chemistry/fit/defense thing for a second, and just think about the math: either Malone takes exactly the same volume of shots as Draymond (in which case his impact is 0) or he takes shots away from a player who's in an entirely different stratosphere in terms of scoring. There is literally no in between, just by virtue of Malone playing his style of ball he would make the offense worse. This isn't debatable.

And then we get to issues like: how does Curry get his looks off-ball without Draymond playmaking for him? Is Malone comfortable catching the ball at the three point line and dribbling all the way to the rim? (Not many bigs are and Malone wasn't a great ball handler). Do his post touches take away from the Warriors ball movement?

And then there's defense, where Malone takes away their biggest strength which is switching. He also just isn't near the defender Dray is so I'm not going to break it down in depth.

[Joao Saraiva]

This shouldn't even be a comparison. Malone was a 1st option, a legit one and lead his team to multiple great campaigns. Put 16 Green on his place and the Jazz might miss the playoffs a ton of times.

Let's not compare what has no comparison. Malone is miles ahead of Green.

And how does Golden State fare with Malone in Green's place? I'm doubtful about 73 wins, certainly.

I actually don't know if they'd win 73 games or not. But with Curry going down with an injury until the end of the playoffs, Golden State would have a much better chance to still win it all with Malone than with Green. That's something much more valuable.

I really can't believe people are comparing Green to Karl Malone.

[PCProductions]

How many years of Malone do we have without Stockton? I mean, Malone isn't exactly a great test case here since he played with the same coach and co-star his entire relevant career. The difference is that we have box score stats for Malone and less sophisticated on/off data to make healthy comparisons.

Most of them. Stockton wasn't exactly spoon-feeding Malone for the vast majority of his career, and was playing fairly minimal minutes post-97, and Malone didn't appear to have any serious problems because he was a very savvy PnR player with a J and face-up game, plus some post skill and his usual hustle and what-not. Stockton was helpful, but his efficacy wasn't specifically tied to Stockton, that's just narrative.

I actually agree that Malone was really the heavy lifter here, I just thought it was interesting that you mentioned how certain we were of Malone's transcendence in comparison to Green's when he really has had a pretty consistent environment throughout his whole career. Green is too young to really be certain of who he is in any situation, but what we have of this year shows an incredible ability to help a team win, and it's not a runaway argument to me that Malone has consistently shown that same year to year impact throughout his whole prime.

[rich316]

For me, I'm having trouble not siding with Green, specifically because I'm one of the people that think VERY highly of Kevin Garnett, and although he was more capable of being the latter than Green, the reason I'm high on him is much more so because of his ability to be the former.

The silver lining of the Curry injury is that we will soon have a decent idea about how good Green really is. I'm personally not in the Green more or less = KG camp. One of the cool things about basketball is that all things considered, the box score is actually a decent way to figure out who the best players are. KG dominated the box score - he put up 23/12/6ish at his T-Wolves peak, numbers that Draymond doesn't sniff, and I seriously doubt he would if he had to carry an offense by himself. When the ball got taken out of his hands on the Celtics post-peak but before his knee troubles, he still put up better raw numbers than peak Green. Aside from RAPM, we don't have any evidence at all that Green can be the best player on a great team. KG WAS the best player on a great team, and the eye-test agreed with that.

There isn't a single team you could ever construct that Green wouldn't be able to help in a big way.

-You can never have too much defense, and Green is an amazing defender that can guard pretty much anyone, has mobility and strength, and his instincts are on point. You can play him with ANYBODY on defense, and he'll help in a big way.

Is he as good as KG, Hakeem, Duncan, Dwight? That doesn't seem close at all. He is surrounded by other elite defenders, that makes an enormous impact. I wouldnt' even call him an "anchor." I think he is a better defender than Malone. I think he's a lot closer to a Battier or Artest than those all-time guys, which is still amazing, but not ATG-level defensive impact.

-He's a competent 3pt shooter, which is always an offensive benefit when your PF/C can do that

-He's a fantastic screen setter...funny how Garnett got the same criticisms of setting illegal screens, because he's the player that Green reminds me of the most

-For his position, he's a great ball handler and passer and can thus make plays at a level that other great big men simply can't.

No arguments on those. His 3 point-shooting and screen-setting certainly is a LOT more valuable given the caliber of guys he's screening for...what happens if he has to be the best scorer? Those screens and wide-open 3 point makes don't seem as valuable. He is a talented passer and ball-handler for a "big man" - he tends to look much better when he gets to play 4 v. 3, just like everybody else who can competently put the ball on the floor. That's a real skill, but again...incredibly reliant on a certain back-to-back MVP who CREATES those 4 v. 3s just by dribbling around a pick.

-He's a great roller and finisher.

I've always thought he's actually a pretty average finisher. He doesn't have great hops and doesn't have a fantastic touch around the rim - if he did, he would be a LOT more efficient, given the quality of opportunities he has. He's great at put-backs because he out-hustles everyone, but him v. a rim-protecting big in space usually doesn't end well for him. He averaged about 61% "at the rim" according to Bball ref, compared to Whiteside w/ 79%, Dwight w/ 76%, and 63% for Millsap. his 3-10 feet percentages are worse than all those guys too. There's no comparison between him and real all-time great PnR finishers like Amare, Kemp, and Malone. He's just not that scary driving to the rim when he doesn't have a wide-open big to dump off to, who is open because of You Know Who's GOAT floor-spacing gravity.

There's always a role that you can plug Draymond Green into and expect great results. If you try to do the same with Malone, you're not going to get those same results, because he's a worse shooter, passer, ball handler, overall playmaker, and defender.

You could pretty much say the same things about Ron Artest.

[Joao Saraiva]

(and GSW declining isn't even a sure thing, by any means).

Seriously?

Forget the chemistry/fit/defense thing for a second, and just think about the math: either Malone takes exactly the same volume of shots as Draymond (in which case his impact is 0) or he takes shots away from a player who's in an entirely different stratosphere in terms of scoring. There is literally no in between, just by virtue of Malone playing his style of ball he would make the offense worse. This isn't debatable.

And then we get to issues like: how does Curry get his looks off-ball without Draymond playmaking for him? Is Malone comfortable catching the ball at the three point line and dribbling all the way to the rim? (Not many bigs are and Malone wasn't a great ball handler). Do his post touches take away from the Warriors ball movement?

And then there's defense, where Malone takes away their biggest strength which is switching. He also just isn't near the defender Dray is so I'm not going to break it down in depth.

Reading this people might think Malone was a ball stopper or something. Utah ran offensive schemes to perfection with a lot of ball movement and PnR action. And Malone was a big part of it. No way he makes his team worse on offense.

About him taking away shots from Curry... well, he might take the shots of Draymond and some of Klay, no reason for him to take them away from Curry.

He's also a better PnR target for Curry than Green. He's a better post player than any GSW player. He's a hard screener and a great rebounder.

And let's not act like Malone is a bad defender. He was actually a big plus for the Jazz for most of his career, with very active hands, solid low post D, defensive rebounding and good PnR defense.

Green has the advantage but the margin is definitely not as big as some people think. I'd say Malone is worth 80% of Green's defense, and 180% of his offense.

[juice4080]

How many years of Malone do we have without Stockton? I mean, Malone isn't exactly a great test case here since he played with the same coach and co-star his entire relevant career. The difference is that we have box score stats for Malone and less sophisticated on/off data to make healthy comparisons.

Most of them. Stockton wasn't exactly spoon-feeding Malone for the vast majority of his career, and was playing fairly minimal minutes post-97, and Malone didn't appear to have any serious problems because he was a very savvy PnR player with a J and face-up game, plus some post skill and his usual hustle and what-not. Stockton was helpful, but his efficacy wasn't specifically tied to Stockton, that's just narrative.

stockton may not have been responsible for malone's production but he might have been to more impactful player for the team...how can we know for sure that malone's impact is not that of a prime al jefferson or kevin love then? empty stats and all

[tsherkin]

I actually agree that Malone was really the heavy lifter here, I just thought it was interesting that you mentioned how certain we were of Malone's transcendence in comparison to Green's when he really has had a pretty consistent environment throughout his whole career. Green is too young to really be certain of who he is in any situation, but what we have of this year shows an incredible ability to help a team win, and it's not a runaway argument to me that Malone has consistently shown that same year to year impact throughout his whole prime.

I'm really not trying to diminish Green here. What I'm actually trying to do is broaden the question past the two specific players. Right now, try setting aside the specific players or Green's potential for doing whatever else for a moment.

Consider: what is better? A proven, elite first-option guy who can carry you without a ton of really strong or dynamic offensive help and anchor your team, or a super high-end complementary star? Green is a fabulous defender, a good rebounder when he's a 3, a good spot-up shooter and he's a pretty good passer (though overrated by volume assist output). All-D, versatile, really useful to team success, I mean the superlatives are all there, but he's not an offensive anchor, and he's not quite the sort of defender one can look at as upper-most tier (in a strictly ATG sense, not in the individual season). Malone was absolutely one of the best regular-season anchors of all-time, and he never had anything like the sidekicks Shaq enjoyed, for example.

stockton may not have been responsible for malone's production but he might have been to more impactful player for the team...how can we know for sure that malone's impact is not that of a prime al jefferson then?

Because of the entire 98 season, because Malone was dramatically superior to the best season we ever saw from Al Jefferson even in his late 30s... for many reasons. Stockton was a star player, and he was really, really damned good and useful... but it bears mention that the Jazz won 62 games with him playing 64 games at 29 mpg of fairly limp play. He was very important, of course: they were 51-13 with him, and of course 11-7 without him, but that Jazz team was also sort of a joke squad in general. 34 yo, 14 ppg Jeff Hornacek was the 3rd-best player and a shriveler in the Finals, and other than that, Adam Keefe, Howard Eisley, Ostertag, SHandon Anderson, Greg Foster... that was their team. So of course, 34 yo Malone could do only so much without Stockton. But even then they only needed a fairly limited amount of production from him and they were still the best offense in the league. He was very good, but he's seriously overrated specifically by the +/- crowd (well, let me be fair: SOME of said crowd). He earned and merited plenty of respect and kudos as a proper star in his own right, but Malone had a pretty huge level of lift on that team. In his absence, lacking his scoring punch, they'd have been screwed. His stamina and durability were HUGE for that team, because Stockton didn't have the same sort of RS staying power as far as minutes-load.

Again, I want to register more than a little respect for Stockton: he was a scrappy player, a precision delivery man, he shot well, he had more than a few strong showings in the playoffs, and he ran that O like well-maintained clockwork. He was key to their overall success, but they needed the volume output from Malone because the Jazz were a pitiful team as far as other scoring threats.

[Dr Spaceman]

(and GSW declining isn't even a sure thing, by any means).

Seriously?

Forget the chemistry/fit/defense thing for a second, and just think about the math: either Malone takes exactly the same volume of shots as Draymond (in which case his impact is 0) or he takes shots away from a player who's in an entirely different stratosphere in terms of scoring. There is literally no in between, just by virtue of Malone playing his style of ball he would make the offense worse. This isn't debatable.

And then we get to issues like: how does Curry get his looks off-ball without Draymond playmaking for him? Is Malone comfortable catching the ball at the three point line and dribbling all the way to the rim? (Not many bigs are and Malone wasn't a great ball handler). Do his post touches take away from the Warriors ball movement?

And then there's defense, where Malone takes away their biggest strength which is switching. He also just isn't near the defender Dray is so I'm not going to break it down in depth.

Reading this people might think Malone was a ball stopper or something. Utah ran offensive schemes to perfection with a lot of ball movement and PnR action. And Malone was a big part of it. No way he makes his team worse on offense.

About him taking away shots from Curry... well, he might take the shots of Draymond and some of Klay, no reason for him to take them away from Curry.

He's also a better PnR target for Curry than Green. He's a better post player than any GSW player. He's a hard screener and a great rebounder.

And let's not act like Malone is a bad defender. He was actually a big plus for the Jazz for most of his career, with very active hands, solid low post D, defensive rebounding and good PnR defense.

Green has the advantage but the margin is definitely not as big as some people think. I'd say Malone is worth 80% of Green's defense, and 180% of his offense.

Look I have a ton of respect for Malone's game. He's a great player.

But you have to understand the Warriors are currently the GOAT offense. As in the best of any team in any season ever. As in they generally have nowhere to go but down. And I think if you replaced their best playmaker with not a great playmaker they'd be worse. This shouldn't be controversial.

Re: Malone PNR superiority, well this I have to address. He most certainly isn't a better PNR target for Curry. Pick and rolls that start from the 3 point line really don't end with the big man shooting. There's just too much ground to cover and help is quicker than that. If you're truly focused on having the big finish the play, the pick needs to happen at the elbow (or at least shallower than 20 feet with a handoff or something). So you're talking about taking the offensive GOAT out of his comfort zone and taking away what makes him GOAT. And if Malone is instead setting screens out by the 3 point line, do we really expect him to be able to dribble all the way to the rim without getting stripped when Curry is trapped? Malone was an excellent player, but that's outside his skill set.

[Dr Spaceman]

Also I just want to emphasize something about Green: nearly every set the Warriors run has him either screening for the player who ultimately pops free for a 3, or being the one at the top of the key hitting the guy curling out of that action, or setting a ball screen in the PNR. He's involved majorly in every damn play, and just because it isn't the traditional route doesn't mean it's not effective.

People also underestimate the amount of Curry's work that happens off ball. If he's not directly involved in a pick and roll at the top of the key, he dumps it off and runs around screens. His TOP is really low for such a high scorer, and this again is enabled by Draymond.

[drza]

Also I just want to emphasize something about Green: nearly every set the Warriors run has him either screening for the player who ultimately pops free for a 3, or being the one at the top of the key hitting the guy curling out of that action, or setting a ball screen in the PNR. He's involved majorly in every damn play, and just because it isn't the traditional route doesn't mean it's not effective.

People also underestimate the amount of Curry's work that happens off ball. If he's not directly involved in a pick and roll at the top of the key, he dumps it off and runs around screens. His TOP is really low for such a high scorer, and this again is enabled by Draymond.

I think this is a very underrated aspect of offense. And I noticed it with Draymond in particular on one of (the?) last games of the season, when Curry was trying to hit a scoring/3-pointers mark. I remember at the half they did a collage of all of Curry's made threes, and if I'm not mistaken ALL of them were either directly off of a Green pass or off of a Green pick. Curry DEFINITELY deserves the props for making all of the ridiculous shots that he makes, but Green is playing a huge part in a lot of them as well.

Just in general, as those who've seen my posts on the Green/Curry dynamic for the past several months know, I'm very interested in this type of conversation. Green really is pressing the envelope of the way that we evaluate good basketball, and I'm curious to see how it continues to play out. You can tell by the terminology that most people see the scorer as the most important ("Number 1", "Main option") with the non-scorer as secondary ("Number 2", "complimentary player"). But at some point, quality of play transcends role. At some point, a jack of all trade or a defensive specialist can be better than a dominant scorer. And Green is the most recent player to push that envelope, which I think is great and has the potential to push our analytic abilities

[HeartBreakKid]

This shouldn't even be a comparison. Malone was a 1st option, a legit one and lead his team to multiple great campaigns. Put 16 Green on his place and the Jazz might miss the playoffs a ton of times.

Let's not compare what has no comparison. Malone is miles ahead of Green.

And how does Golden State fare with Malone in Green's place? I'm doubtful about 73 wins, certainly.

Why would they need too? Winning 73 wins has no utility at all, it's just record breaking.

Karl Malone on GSW would easily be #1 seed, and even if they somehow weren't, they would still be championship contenders. There's no real difference between a 66 win team and a 73 win team in regards to seeding most years.

Besides, just because they would play different doesn't mean it'd be inferior. Malone+Curry pick and roll is pretty much unguardable, I mean teams always go over the pick and roll against Green, and Green ends up with a 3 point shot, but in the case of Malone the choice is much harder as he's going to dunk the ball and get and 1's. Maybe they play slower with Malone and become more half court oriented, but Malone on GSW is going to get over 66 wins man, I mean Malone got 64 wins with less...

[HawaiianJazzFan]

To the person who compared Malone to Al Jefferson, just watch Malone pass in any game ever.

I think a lot of people think of Malone and his last few seasons and think that that is who he was... they forget how absolutely ferocious he was (think Kemp, young Amare, Blake Griffin) when he first came into the league.

I think it means I'm growing that I am abstaining from writing a 40 page essay. I'm salaried, super busy, and almost 30. I just don't have the time anymore. Can you just imagine what Curry and Malone could do together?? I mean Curry (and don't hate me jazz fans because it's true) is an upgraded better version of John Stockton. Malone is one of the best passing big men he isn't a blackhole like Al Jefferson. I mean the Curry/Malone PnR would be devastating. The Warriors are like the Jazz team but better at every position except PF. Curry = better version of Stockton, Klay = much MUCH bigger and better version of Hornacek, Bogut = a much much much better version of Ostertag, the rest of the Jazz bench together in their primes on their best days isn't as good as Iguodala. If you just through Malone out there it would be rough, but if you gave the team time to develop... they would be scary. Malone is indestructible so when Curry or Klay go down, he can legitimately carry the team.

The last thing, I think if it was emphasized more Malone could have developed a 3 point shot, he literally made himself into a good free throw shooter but Sloan wasn't a huge fan of 3's. He's a Jerry Rice/Kobe Bryant type of worker. I mean if you take the seasons when he shot more than 40 3's (it was only 3 seasons) he was a 35% three point shooter. Why is it such a stretch to say he couldn't improve (a la his alumni buddy Paul Millsap) from long distance???

In case you didn't get to see Malone especially in his early years:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VzlQLbXz7I[/youtube]

[Quotatious]

I am not so sure why Spaceman thinks it's a foregone conclusion that GSW offense would get worse with Malone instead of Green. Like Joao Saraiva said, Malone was not even close to a ball-stopper, he was a very good (in the mid/late 90s, actually a borderline elite) passer, excellent off-ball player. He's not a playmaker or a 3-pt shooter like Green, but his edge in terms of scoring is bigger than Green's edge in terms of playmaking, or shooting range.

As good as Stockton was, Curry is MUCH better, and the Jazz had GREAT offenses with prime Malone and Stockton: their best offensive team, +7.7 relORtg, was in '98 (with Stockton missing 18 games, by the way, so it's clear that Malone was responsible for most of that, not Stockton), +6.9 in '97, +6.0 in '95, +5.7 in '96. So, four years in a row, they had absolutely elite offenses. Golden State's +8.1 offense this year, wasn't that much better than the '98 Jazz, at +7.7...

As we saw with Shaq and Kobe or LeBron and Wade in 2011, it's certainly possible to incorporate two 25-30 point scorers on the same team, and be successful, assuming both of them are good playmakers/passers (Curry and Malone absolutely are). Curry and Malone don't seem like they would clash, though, unlike Shaq and Kobe, and they don't have a redundant skill-set, unlike LeBron and Wade. With Curry, as we saw last year, he didn't even need to take 20 shots per game and average 30 ppg, he could still have a huge impact taking just below 17 and averaging just below 24, trading a few points for assists.

Klay is pretty much an ideal third option alongside Curry and Malone. I could see his volume going down, to below 20 ppg, perhaps even closer to Hornacek's territory, but he would still be a formidable offensive weapon just because of his spacing effect and 3-pt threat. It's entirely conceivable that Curry/Malone/Thompson could produce something even better than +8.1 offense, considering that Curry/Green/Thompson (with Green being a much worse offensive player than Malone) produced +8.1 offense, and Malone/Stockton/Hornacek produced +7.7 offense (with '98 Stockton being a much worse offensive player than Curry).

I also disagree with the notion that improving a good team is the ultimate criterion that should separate the best players. To me it's simply about being able to improve any team, in various circumstances, and it's about the margin of improvement. For example - Malone could improve a bad/average team MUCH more than Green, while Green might improve a good/great team slightly more than Malone - that means Malone is a clearly more valuable player in the grand scheme of things.

Challenging so-called "conventional wisdom" is okay, I love to do it myself, but I don't see this particular comparison as really debatable. I'd take about 12 or 13 versions of Malone over current Green, pretty much Malone's entire prime (1988-2000). I would much rather debate '92 Horace Grant vs '16 Draymond.

What's next - Kawhi Leonard vs Michael Jordan or LeBron James comparison? That would be pretty much equivalent to Malone vs Green comparison (Leonard is better than Green, Jordan/James are better than Malone, but the fundamental problem is the same). Not to sound condescending, but some of those comparisons are getting kinda crazy.