Karl Malone v Kevin Garnett

[migya]

Below is a video of Utah v Minnesota in 2003, Malone's second last season and one season before Garnett's mvp season.

Watch on YouTube

Malone played as well as Garnett. An example of how great Malone was and a comparison of him near his worst against Garnett near his best.

Gives some interesting insight of a comparison between the two alltime great PFs.

How can other PFs, except Duncan possibly be considered better than Malone?

[Texas Chuck]

So one highlight video of one game gives us interesting insight? Could you please share that with us then? Because while Mailman clearly has a great resume, this video does nothing to say he's the GOAT PF.

[Stalwart]

Kevin Garnett has never been as valuable of a player as Karl Malone. This board/generation as turned Garnett into a hipster pick for the analytic fans. But the truth of the matter is that Kevin Garnett has never been a consistently successful #1 option the way Karl Malone was which puts them in different brackets imo.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

[G35]

KG vs Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon is a mismatch.

They can preach all the analytics they want but I will take those bigs over KG any day......

[algope]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

KG is not a better passer than Malone.

[cupcakesnake]

Kevin Garnett has never been as valuable of a player as Karl Malone. This board/generation as turned Garnett into a hipster pick for the analytic fans. But the truth of the matter is that Kevin Garnett has never been a consistently successful #1 option the way Karl Malone was which puts them in different brackets imo.

(putting in my usual disclaimer that despite my Minnesota tag, I'm not a huge KG fan. I defend him often because I find he's a player that gets a lot of unfair criticism.)

Garnett supporters aren't really arguing KG over Malone "as a successful #1 option", they're arguing that KG's all-time defense and versatility brings more overall value than Malone's "#1 option" scoring.

I think the defensive gap between KG and Malone is much wider than the offensive one, and I'd describe myself as a fan of Karl Malone's defense.

I also think that their offensive games aren't that incredibly different. Malone has superior strength and KG has superior length, mobility, and athleticism. They were both at their best as versatile offensive contributors with excellent touch from midrange and plus passing. Swap KG and Malone. Have KG play as a shooting/scoring fulcrum and pick & roll finisher next to an all-time great pick & roll initiatior, and have Malone play out his early career and prime on a really bad offensive team without a real point guard most years. I bet we'd be picking apart Malone's post game just like we do KG's. KG got 1 year with a real pick & roll point guard (healthy Sam Cassell). In that year he won MVP and went to the Western Conference Finals (might have gone to the finals had Cassell stayed healthy, their pick & roll synergy was the be all end all of that Wolves team).

Malone does a handful of things better than Garnett, most of them revolving around his tremendous strength. But I don't think his game stacks up particularly favorably against KG's. I think of them as similar archetypes, but value KG's defensive genius more than any of Malone's best attributes. I think KD has the edge as a passer, ball handler, shooter, rim protector. Malone brings sturdier scoring.

[cupcakesnake]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

KG is not a better passer than Malone.

Would love to see some reasoning behind this statement.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

KG is not a better passer than Malone.

In my opinion he is...just simply a quicker processor. I'm not sure if I can really do much to prove that I think he is a better passer, but in terms of pure court vision and delivery to getting the ball to a teammate, I think KG is better.

[algope]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

KG is not a better passer than Malone.

Would love to see some reasoning behind this statement.

Just see the video above.

[algope]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

KG is not a better passer than Malone.

Would love to see some reasoning behind this statement.

I suppose you think the contrary because don´t ask the reasoning to the people that say the contrary, only to me.

[Texas Chuck]

Garnett supporters aren't really arguing KG over Malone "as a successful #1 option", they're arguing that KG's all-time defense and versatility brings more overall value than Malone's "#1 option" scoring.

This.

Now that doesn't mean Garnett supporters are correct(though in full disclosure I consider KG the superior player), but we need to at least understand the actual arguments.

[Im Your Father]

If I’m building a championship team, I’m not that interested in having either of them as my go-to scorer.

I would much rather have KG as the anchor of my defense and #2 option on offense though.

I’m not inclined to favor Malone over Garnett based on his advantages playing a role I don’t even really want him for anyway.

[G35]

Kevin Garnett has never been as valuable of a player as Karl Malone. This board/generation as turned Garnett into a hipster pick for the analytic fans. But the truth of the matter is that Kevin Garnett has never been a consistently successful #1 option the way Karl Malone was which puts them in different brackets imo.

(putting in my usual disclaimer that despite my Minnesota tag, I'm not a huge KG fan. I defend him often because I find he's a player that gets a lot of unfair criticism.)

Garnett supporters aren't really arguing KG over Malone "as a successful #1 option", they're arguing that KG's all-time defense and versatility brings more overall value than Malone's "#1 option" scoring.

I think the defensive gap between KG and Malone is much wider than the offensive one, and I'd describe myself as a fan of Karl Malone's defense.

I also think that their offensive games aren't that incredibly different. Malone has superior strength and KG has superior length, mobility, and athleticism. They were both at their best as versatile offensive contributors with excellent touch from midrange and plus passing. Swap KG and Malone. Have KG play as a shooting/scoring fulcrum and pick & roll finisher next to an all-time great pick & roll initiatior, and have Malone play out his early career and prime on a really bad offensive team without a real point guard most years. I bet we'd be picking apart Malone's post game just like we do KG's. KG got 1 year with a real pick & roll point guard (healthy Sam Cassell). In that year he won MVP and went to the Western Conference Finals (might have gone to the finals had Cassell stayed healthy, their pick & roll synergy was the be all end all of that Wolves team).

Malone does a handful of things better than Garnett, most of them revolving around his tremendous strength. But I don't think his game stacks up particularly favorably against KG's. I think of them as similar archetypes, but value KG's defensive genius more than any of Malone's best attributes. I think KD has the edge as a passer, ball handler, shooter, rim protector. Malone brings sturdier scoring.

I don't think that KG is a better rim protector, he's long...but for someone so long he doesn't deter shots around the rim as well as he should have. Malone was not a great rim protector either but he was forceful around the rim and that is a deterrent.

I think an element people overlook and I use when I evaluate players is intimidation on the court. It does not always have to be physical intimidation, it can be psychological, but that is often overlooked because you cannot quantify it.

Shaq was not a great defender...but he was a great intimidator. I watched many perimeter players decide to not go back into the lane after Shaq laid a hard foul on them going to the rim. Now maybe that results in a pair of FT's but the psychological impact of that player not wanting that contact anymore for the rest of the game is immeasurable.

Garnett is known for and speaks often about his trash talking and trying to intimidate players on the court. Imo, this is why Garnett would be more successful now than he was in his own era because I believe players are more distracted by talk than they were in the past. Especially the elite players. Garnett would not be able to get into the heads of Malone or Barkley and I would have enjoyed seeing Garnett go up against the original Bad Boy Pistons trying to gain a psychological advantage.

Anyway I got off track, if KG and Malone are both put in a #1 option/scorer role (as they were in real life) Malone clearly has the advantage as everyone has admitted. Malone's offense is far more consistent in the RS and PS and can carry a team. Whereas KG's offense is not poor but in comparison to other great bigs, it leaves much to be desired.

So imo, it seems like it is more of a deflection argument when saying KG does a plethora of other things on the court that Malone can't do. Why do people want their bigs being great passers or ball handlers? Yes, that is nice to have but it should not be a decider. KG had his most success in Minnesota when the ball was in Cassell's hands, so what does that say about KG being able to handle the ball? Let your playmakers be playmakers and your scorers be scorers...we are trying to make this position-less basketball the utopia when, imo roles are the ideal way to build a team. I don't need Karl Malone trying to handle the ball and be a playmaker if Stockton is off the floor.

If you are able to draft an ATG player then you more than likely needing him to score the ball....everything else is secondary.

Take Magic Johnson...if he went to the Utah Jazz instead of the Lakers he would have been asked to score a lot more than he did initially with the Lakers. This is just like Lebron and Cleveland...he was drafted to save the franchise...so he needed to score. Even though they had decent scoring in Boozer and Illgauskas. The reverse of that is what happened when the Lakers drafted Kobe, did they need him to score? No, they didn't...so then his ancillary skills come into play: playmaking, defense, coming off the bench.

Do people really think Kobe could not have come into the league and not put up 20PPG right off the bat? Those Lakers teams didn't need that, they had plenty of scoring with Shaq, NVE, Eddie Jones etc. But when KG came to the Wolves, they had Gugliotta and Isiah Rider...these were both young, top 10 prospects in their drafts. But they could not establish themselves as consistent 20+PPG scorers. The Wolves needed consistent, efficient scoring.

KG did not provide that. It took him a long time to become an efficient 20PPG scorer...but he could do all those other things i.e. handle the ball, pass, provide good defense etc.

That is what separates KG from DRob. Even if DRob was not a great scorer (which he was straight from his rookie season) his rim protection and global level defense made the Spurs a top team immediately. That is something Garnett never provided for the Wolves. Ever. It was not until he went to Boston that KG's defensive ability really came into its own.

KG's skillset is a sublime but it does not work in every situation.....

[cupcakesnake]

KG is not a better passer than Malone.

Would love to see some reasoning behind this statement.

I suppose you think the contrary because don´t ask the reasoning to the people that say the contrary, only to me.

Yeah I think both numbers and common perception have Garnett as a better passer. Dropping way more dimes at his peak (average 6apg one year), turns the ball over at a significantly lower rate and has a superior asst/to ratio. Garnett could pass off the dribble whereas Malone was more strictly a stationary passer from the high and low post. A ton of Malone's playmaking was finding a cutter running down the middle of the lane while Malone is posted up on the left block. Malone could also find shooters from the same spot. I feel like Malone would have the ball and wait for these homerun passes, hitting cutters in obvious way. KG as a passer was so much more elastic, he passed it quicker and in a wide variety of situations (part of that is having more of an off-the-dribble game).

Don't get me wrong, Malone was a good passer, I'm not trying to take him down a peg. I'm just wondering what specifically makes Malone better than KG in this area to you.

[SHAQ32]

Someone actually said they didn't want Karl Malone as their #1 scoring option but did want KG as their #2.

[migya]

So one highlight video of one game gives us interesting insight? Could you please share that with us then? Because while Mailman clearly has a great resume, this video does nothing to say he's the GOAT PF.

I didn't say he was the greatest of alltime PF. Malone at 39 years of age was playing at the level of the player at his position that is rated on here as close to a top ten player ever, in his peak! That speaks much itself, just that.

[migya]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

Nowitzki had a few good runs in the PS but he wasn't as consistent and successful as Malone. Malone was a top 3-5 scorer for over ten years, Nowitzki wasn't. The three point shot doesn't make up for Nowitzki's far less post game. Malone put so much pressure on the defense, drew high number of fouls and opened up this for his team that he is in the elite of the elite bigs. That's just offense.

You put Garnett in place of Malone and those Utah teams never compete for championships in that loaded era and are one of the lowest scoring teams every season. Malone dragged one of the most untalented teams to the playoffs, with a good level of success, year after year.

[feyki]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

Nowitzki had a few good runs in the PS but he wasn't as consistent and successful as Malone. Malone was a top 3-5 scorer for over ten years, Nowitzki wasn't. The three point shot doesn't make up for Nowitzki's far less post game. Malone put so much pressure on the defense, drew high number of fouls and opened up this for his team that he is in the elite of the elite bigs. That's just offense.

You put Garnett in place of Malone and those Utah teams never compete for championships in that loaded era and are one of the lowest scoring teams every season. Malone dragged one of the most untalented teams to the playoffs, with a good level of success, year after year.

Had been consistent for what? Being an inefficient offensive player? Malone had only 6 of 19 playoffs with over average offensive rating in his entire career. Dirk's 14/15, just once in the 14 playoffs. Dirk is a 117 offensive rating player in the playoffs, Malone is with 106 offensive rating.

Malone played with %77 assisted rate in the 97/99 seasons and with %79 in the 97/99 playoffs. Basically, Stockton made almost all of his baskets. Between the 05/11, Dirk had %55 assisted rate in the seasons and %50 in the playoffs. Rather than Malone, Dirk created half of his own shots after Nash and %60 in the playoffs, %65 in the seasons with Nash.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Dirk scored better in the PS and the plus-minus data we have of them both suggests Dirk peaked higher. If you want to lean towards Malone's longevity, sure, but there is reason to believe Dirk had a better prime.

KG is also more impactful than Malone with the plus-minus data we have...neither is necessarily great #1 options, but KG provides massively more defensive value and is also a better passer than Malone.

Nowitzki had a few good runs in the PS but he wasn't as consistent and successful as Malone. Malone was a top 3-5 scorer for over ten years, Nowitzki wasn't. The three point shot doesn't make up for Nowitzki's far less post game. Malone put so much pressure on the defense, drew high number of fouls and opened up this for his team that he is in the elite of the elite bigs. That's just offense.

You put Garnett in place of Malone and those Utah teams never compete for championships in that loaded era and are one of the lowest scoring teams every season. Malone dragged one of the most untalented teams to the playoffs, with a good level of success, year after year.

I certainly think Dirk scored better at his peak, and lead better offenses in part due to his gravity as a shooter.