Karl Malone was better than Tim Duncan

[Percentsign]

:lol:

Because Duncan got lucky and played on great teams from day 1, which allowed him compile these statistics.

Malone, in contrast, never really got deep into the playoffs the mid-1990s, when he was in the back-end of his prime. He always played well, averaging over 25.0 ppg, when he was there. Give him those great teams that Duncan had, and he too puts up these numbers.

[oaktownwarriors87]

I disagree. KG was capable of guarding guards as well as forwards but Duncan was a much better rim protector which is the most important skill for a big man on the defensive side of the floor. KG may have been able to shoot a little better outside of the paint but I honestly don't need that in my PF and I'd rather have someone with the skill set of Duncan as my PF instead.

Protecting the rim and defending the pick-n-roll? Game over. I'll take Garnett on defense any day.

[OdomFan]

Uh huh and your team will lose.

[Percentsign]

most selective compilation of stats ever.

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

[OdomFan]

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

Uh no, you can score all you want but if you don't step up on defense you're not going to win the game. Great defense is what leads to the offense getting the ball back for great transition baskets.

[mischievous]

People go too far with the "rings are a team achievement and they shouldn't matter much" thing. I mean does the best player and leader have no impact on winning or losing?

Op, if you are so concerned with stats and ignoring defense, why even watch the games? You can simply read box scores.

[Joao Saraiva]

No he isn't.

Malone is actually one of the players who decreased the most his efficiency in the playoffs.

Tim was a much better defender. Rim protection, 1vs1, ground covered... he did it all.

I think it's possible to argue Malone in the top 10, altough I'm not doing it. But not with an advantage over Tim Duncan. The gap is pretty clear.

[Colbinii]

There's nothing that Malone and KG could do that Timmy couldn't just as well if not better, plus he was a better leader.

Being a primary playmaker for offense.
Defending the pick and roll.
Defending perimeter players.
Mid-range shooting.
Playing out of the elbow.

All these things, Kevin Garnett was better at.

[SlowPaced]

Duncan was a little better on defense

Yeah, no. Duncan was way better on defense.

[Vayuputra]

This Percent guy is funny. You show him stats of Duncan's prime years and he says "Duncan got lucky and played on great teams which allowed him to compile great stats". Pray tell me in what way was Avery Johnson better than John Stockton? And David Robinson was a super role player come 2000 and pretty much washed up by 2003. Jerry Sloan was no less of a coach than Gregg Popovich. The fact is Tim Duncan put his team on his back and carried them to 2 rings in 99 and 03 with minimal support. Go by any advanced stats and metrics and it is quite obvious Duncan was the better player during the post-season, more clutch in the bigger games and willed his team offensively and defensively to atleast 2 titles on his own and 4 as the main man. He was the better leader than the immature KG and Malone.

For all their regular season heroics neither the 'Mailman' nor the 'Big Ticket' showed up on Sundays.

[homecourtloss]

How many coaches/GMs would take Malone over Duncan? Would Sloan?

[Percentsign]

How many coaches/GMs would take Malone over Duncan? Would Sloan?

Brb, let me ask

[OdomFan]

Malone was very close to going to the Spurs in 2005. Would have been interesting to see.

[penbeast0]

The idea that offense is more important than defense is BS . . . you play each 50% of the time. There is an argument that a great offensive player impacts the game more than a great defensive player, but I hesitate to give that one credence either. The most impactful player ever was Bill Russell who was a below average offensive player. Some great defensive, weak offensive teams have won titles, from Russell's Celtics to the Bad Boy Pistons; can't remember many weak defensive teams winning titles, worst I can think of is 06 Heat (maybe the Warriors in the 50s, Neil Johnston wasn't a great defensive center but they had Gola and Arizin on the wings who were two way stars).

[Winsome Gerbil]

Let's put it this way: while I accepted the "Duncan = greatest PF" (replacing Malone = greatest PF) paradigm long ago, this opinion does not offend me. Mailman gets badly underrated at times. He was utterly relentless year after year after year.

[Goudelock]

Malone -- 234.6 Win-Shares
Duncan -- 206.4 Win-Shares

Malone -- 9 seasons with 15.0 Win-Shares
Duncan -- 2 seasons with 15.0 Win-Shares

Malone -- 16 seasons with 9.0 Win-Shares
Duncan -- 13 seasons with 9.0 Win-Shares

Can someone explain to me what Win Shares is and how they're a good tool to use in evaluating players? I tried to look it up on google and was hit with a wave of numbers and formulas. Because as it stands now, those numbers above me mean absolutely nothing.

[Pacersike]

Not when you compare their career MOP. Duncan has a 89.8 career MOP and Malone only a 90.8 career MOP.

That is significant. I vote Duncan.

[fortinbras]

LeBron, Jordan and Duncan are the players with the best stats from April to June




Stats Don't Tell the Whole Story

Prime Duncan was ridiculously good at basketball in the fourth quarter. Sadly, he played the second half of his career on one leg. Most people only remember robotic Duncan. Before the injuries, his game was so smooth ...

Only a few players can match prime Duncan's ability to create his own offense when it matters most ... and Malone (a product of John Stockton) is not one of them.


Duncan 1st Playoff Game - 4th quarter

PHO took a seven-point lead with 10:34 left, but rookie Duncan's put the Spurs on his back and won the game.

Duncan was born to dominate an era.

[Joao Saraiva]

:lol:

Because Duncan got lucky and played on great teams from day 1, which allowed him compile these statistics.

Malone, in contrast, never really got deep into the playoffs the mid-1990s, when he was in the back-end of his prime. He always played well, averaging over 25.0 ppg, when he was there. Give him those great teams that Duncan had, and he too puts up these numbers.

Malone never got deep in the mid 90s? So WCF in 92 isn't deep enough?

96 isn't considered mid 90s? We were in the WCF again.

94 doesn't count to? WCF yet again...

[LakerLegend]

No, no he wasn't.

Malone melted down in crunchtime and didn't have near the defensive impact.

Also was far more dependent on having easy looks created for him.

Duncan was on another tier mentally.