Karl Malone was better than Tim Duncan

[NO-KG-AI]

Duncan is a little overrated as a scorer, but was Malone even a statistically better scorer than Duncan in the postseason? He'd have to be a much better scorer in the playoffs to even make the comparison close.

[Gus Fring]

Defense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[D.Brasco]

Duncan is a little overrated as a scorer, but was Malone even a statistically better scorer than Duncan in the postseason? He'd have to be a much better scorer in the playoffs to even make the comparison close.

Malone is one of the most consistent volume scorers in NBA history and he's probably under-rated in that regards. He didn't finish second all-time scoring just by playing a long time.

If we're comparing them as scorers into their 30's the comparison is even more skewed in Malone's favor. Post 33 years of age to retirement Duncan averaged 14.7 ppg on on .502 fg%, Malone over his same years 23.5 ppg on .501%.

In the playoffs over those same years Malone held a similar edge 22 ppg to Duncans 15 ppg, with Duncan's fg% being better though.

[NO-KG-AI]

Duncan is a little overrated as a scorer, but was Malone even a statistically better scorer than Duncan in the postseason? He'd have to be a much better scorer in the playoffs to even make the comparison close.

Malone is one of the most consistent volume scorers in NBA history and he's probably under-rated in that regards. He didn't finish second all-time scoring just by playing a long time.

If we're comparing them as scorers into their 30's the comparison is even more skewed in Malone's favor. Post 33 years of age to retirement Duncan averaged 14.7 ppg on on .502 fg%, Malone over his same years 23.5 ppg on .501%.

In the playoffs over those same years Malone held a similar edge 22 ppg to Duncans 15 ppg, with Duncan's fg% being better though.

Ok. Karl MAone was a better volume scorer after the age of 33.

Still not sure I prefer Malone as a scorer for the duration of their career where they were MVP level.

[Pg81]

Duncan is a little overrated as a scorer, but was Malone even a statistically better scorer than Duncan in the postseason? He'd have to be a much better scorer in the playoffs to even make the comparison close.

Malone is one of the most consistent volume scorers in NBA history and he's probably under-rated in that regards. He didn't finish second all-time scoring just by playing a long time.

If we're comparing them as scorers into their 30's the comparison is even more skewed in Malone's favor. Post 33 years of age to retirement Duncan averaged 14.7 ppg on on .502 fg%, Malone over his same years 23.5 ppg on .501%.

In the playoffs over those same years Malone held a similar edge 22 ppg to Duncans 15 ppg, with Duncan's fg% being better though.

Comparing their career average is not a valid way to establish who was a superior scorer since Tim Duncan played a very different role in the second half of his career. Malone was always the go to scorer of his team while Duncan shifted to main ball distrubutor from the high post and significantly reduced the amount of shots he took in comparison to his earlier years.

[Woodsanity]

Duncan was a far better defender and playoff performer. Duncan is better and its not particularly close.

[Woodsanity]

What statistics you want to use for Duncan's favor?

That Duncan got 2 more blocks per game?

I don't know, every single defensive impact stat in existence, maybe?

Duncan has 106.3 dWS. Malone had 92.4dWS.

So Malone wasn't a slouch on defense. The win-share totals are also slanted towards Duncan because he was 6'11, and his team (lead by a HOF coach) centered on defense.

Altogether, Duncan was a little better on defense, yet Malone was a lot better on offense. Offense means more than defense. Malone > Duncan

DWS is not a good stats to measure defensive impact. Malone is a better RS scorer. I wouldn't even say he is better offensively since his efficiency in the playoffs is laughably bad. Playoffs matter the most.

TD in playoffs: PER 24.3, 54.8%, w/s 48: .194, ws: 37.8 deleted; baiting

Karl: PER: 21.1, TS% 52.6, w/s 48 .140, ws: 23.

TD in the playoffs>>>Malone. 03 Duncan is better than any version of Malone.

[cpower]

yes in RS

[JordansBulls]

yes in RS

Yes that is like DRob and Hakeem in the season.

[richboy]

We should examine some realities about Duncan and big men in general. Bill Russell always said that most of Big Men's value come on the defensive end. I think over and over again it is proven that is the case. Yet we have consistently overrated the scoring big. Tim Duncan was not an incredible offensive big man. He was good. I think you have to measure his post seasons more than regular seasons. Duncan didn't go all out in the regular season on offense.

Over and over again you look at bigs who are great offensively but not so much defensively you see underachievement. Even today the best scoring big man Demarcus Cousins. Never done anything. Karl Anthony Town was 25 and 12 and they weren't close to the playoffs. Kevin Love in Minnesota couldn't get them in the playoffs. Karl Malone zero rings. Charles Barkley with zero rings.

Even Jabbar was never great defensively. Didn't elevate the Lakers to great defense. Not once was they a top 5 defense. They needed Magic to become a overwhelming offense. Shaq decided to play defense his 3 titles years. Really in the regular season 1 year and the playoffs the other 2. They won the title. If he had focused more on defense I think they would have won a lot more.

At the same time great defensive big men there teams over achieve. Gobert his team in the playoffs with 50 wins and they missed a ton of games due to injury. Dwight Howard at his prime had Orlando tops in the league in defense and going deep in the playoffs. Duncan won titles even when I'm not sure they had great talent.

I think you can make a case that the prime value for bigs are on the defensive end. Duncan made it that the PF and C now need to be big time defenders. Karl Malone being better offensively is almost irrelevant. Tim Duncan consistently anchored a great defense. That if Utah had Tim Duncan they would have been much better defensively and maybe won a title. At the same time is San Antonio better with Karl Malone? I just don't see it. Like Bill Russell has always said guards and wings have more impact on offense than big men.

[Brooklyn_34]

Good thread....

Sometimes, the difference between a ultra elite player like Duncan and an elite player like Karl is very thin.

Having watched BOTH of them, here is the difference.

Defense:

Karl was a very good man on man defender. He'd defend his man, box out (like he was supposed to do) and try to get the rebound. One the ball left his man's hands, he was pretty much done with the possession (other than getting the rebound).

Tim on the other hand, wasn't done. If the ball left his man's hands, he'd of course keep him sealed to keep him off the boards, but he'd rotate to try to block/disrupt a shot. In others words, HELP DEFENSE and SHOT BLOCKING. As long as Timmy was in the lineup, guys would think twice about going inside. Not so much with Karl.

Tim also had better timing than Karl and could jump higher than Karl from a flatfooted position. This gave him an advantage on the boards. I can't remember the series (1996 against Seattle or 1997 against Chicago) but it was 4th quarter and a VERY close game. Think this game is on youtube. The opposition missed a shot and Utah absolutely needed the rebound----Karl couldn't get it....he simply couldn't react quick/jump high enough to get to it, even though he had position. I remember thinking, Duncan would have grabbed that board.

Offense:

Karl was a better volume scorer than Tim. He had that Bob Pettit running game.

Tim had more reliable offense, particularly in high stress situations--this I think due to his post game and footwork. He had the ability to score (basket or foul) when necessary. 4th quarter, 2 minutes left--really important game, I would trust Tim's offense a bit more than Karl's.

Karl did have a post game, but it wasn't suited to the LOW POST because he simply could get enough lift to not have his shot disrupted. If he scored down low, it was usually because of a seal. He also had the scoop layup. Duncan could generate a good shot simply because of his footwork.

As some one else said, mentally, they were also on another level. Duncan IMO was more mentally stable than Karl.

Duncan wouldn't always shoot well, but if he didn't shoot well, he'd find a way to fill up the rest of the statsheet.

Karl had too many games were he didn't shoot well and the statsheet was unfilled.

In sum:

Tim Duncan=Karl Malone +shotblocking+help defense/rim protection+post footwork+mental stability