Karl Malone v Kevin Garnett

[No-more-rings]

I mean Karl Malone played with Stockton for nearly 2 decades and couldn’t win any rings and made 2 finals appearances. He would be bounced out early just like KG was with his teammates if he even makes the playoffs. I think KG is inbetween Malone and Duncan but closer to Duncan.

[cupcakesnake]

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.

Not quite sure what you mean here. KG is a better rim protector than Karl Malone, regardless of your personal expectations of them. We're talking just shy of double the block rate. I don't have numbers on their defensive FG% at the rim or in the paint, but I'd be shocked to see any numbers favoring Malone. I think it's perfectly acceptable to poke some holes in KG's defense (he was not strong and was skinny) but remember this topic is about Malone vs. Garnett. Deciding you want to picky about Garnett's rim protection and super generous to Malone isn't super productive, and I feel that's what you did in this paragraph.

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.

I do agree with what you're saying about some subtle bonuses in Shaq's oft-criticized defense. If you're saying Malone has a little bit of this, I don't disagree. But the intimidation part of paint-defense you're talking about is based on those players both being ridiculously strong. You couldn't move those guys in the paint. When things got physical and bodies are getting tossed around the paint (rebounding and physical drives), Malone and Shaq aren't bouncing anywhere, they're statues made of rock. This is super helpful on defense, and it is indeed an edge Garnett did not have (at a reported playing weight of 220lbs-240lbs over his career).

The rest of what you're saying isn't very quantifiable or assessable imo. I have no idea how well someone got into someone's head, or which players could theoretically get into which players head. KG's "fake tough guy" super yappy, psycho style is one of the reasons I wasn't a big fan of him as a younger fan. But I do think it worked against certain players. Not everyone is equipped to have this 7 foot slenderman screaming at you all the time. I think overall it was effective for KG in his career, even if it didn't intimidate lots of players. It's not like his game was dependant on it. Malone was intimidating, again, because he was so physically strong. One tends to assess how likely they are to win/lose a fight when they get confrontational with someone, even just in a sport. I'm just not on board with you drawing these vague era-based conclusions about players ability to be trash-talked. I have no idea and I think it's silly.

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.

As I said in my original post: besides strength, I'm not sure what advantage Malone has offensively over KG. I think there are good reasons to believe, if they swapped careers, we'd be criticizing Malone's post-game and not KG's as much. KG never had a Stockton. Not saying Malone needed Stockton to be successful, just that we'd think of Malone differently if we saw him on a different team lacking in guard creation. Not every #1 option/scorer role is the same. Malone got to operate as a play finisher. KG almost never did because Minnesota needed a play initiator. So you'd see KG galloping around the court, running pick & roll and transition, playing on the wing, going in the post to create something out of nothing. Malone was half of the most stable NBA partnership synergy of all-time. KG played his young-career and prime in jokey chaos. Getting to see 1 guy play in a stable environment and the other play in an offense that never had enough ball handling, shooting etc. paints how we view their offensive games.

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.

No idea what you mean by these arguments. We should only assess big men by their primary scoring function? KG should be assessed by whether or not he's better at ball handling than Sam Cassell? Players should play more rigid roles? Versatility doesn't matter.

Ok let's assume any of that makes sense or has merit. I'll keep things rigid: I'd rather build my team around a defensive anchor big than an offensive anchor big.

I don't think Malone is that much better than Garnett offensively, if at all. I think Garnett is in another planet defensively, and that defense, when we look at all-time bigs, is more conductive to building a championship team than any perceived offensive advantage Malone has.

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.....

This final argument comes across as chaotic goal post moving. Listing other situations without drawing clear analogies between them. Why couldn't rookie KG be a 24-year-old navy veteran? Why couldn't he get drafted as a college junior by a team with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Why couldn't he be Lebron James? Why couldn't he be Kobe, who the Lakers required nothing from during his rookie season? Every player's situation is unique, and you demanding Garnett mimic another situation only highlights the specifics of his. An 18-year-old who joined a team whose 2 best players played the same position as him, and had their careers derailed by injury. The team never improved the roster around KG (besides the one blip year in 2004).

I also think you're underrating KG's scoring at this point. His iso/post scoring wasn't the strongest part of his game, but I feel like if a new fan listened to the way some people talk about KG's scoring, they'd assume he averaged 8ppg in his prime. It's fine to say he wasn't Michael Jordan, or that Tim Duncan/Karl Malone were sturdier scorers. He's not as good a scorer as many all-time great scorers. But Garnett was still a 20+ppg scorer for a decade in Minnesota. He came into the NBA as an 18-year-old, became an all-star in his second year, was our leading scorer every year. Our problem was never Garnett's scoring, it was that Garnett's scoring wasn't enough on its own to beat top seed in the Western Conference. Let's say we had Malone or Kobe drafted as a teen in 1996. We still wouldn't have beat the Spurs/Mavs/Sonics/Rockets/Blazers. Malone/Kobe would have given us more resilient playoff scoring maybe, as we would have lost differently. Offense maybe a bit better, defense much worse. Our KG led offense were actually fine, often somewhere in the top 10 despite the trash rosters.

- We weren't simply lacking a resilient playoff scorer. We lacked ball handlers, passers, perimeter defenders. We were a bad team, not simply an average NBA roster missing the perfect piece.
- If you think KG wasn't an impactful defender until Boston, I don't think you watched his career.
- I'm not sure why you think comparing 18-year-old KG to 24-year-old David Robinson is some sort of interesting point. You're comparing 2 outlier age rookies at opposite end of the spectrum. Robinson entered the NBA at the beginning of his physical prime. KG came in a teenager.

[algope]

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.

I dind´t say malone was better passer, only said KG for my was not a better passer, in fact they are about the same level for me, I wouldn´t go one side or other. Is true that Malone passing abilities where more limited because KG had better handles and was able to do more things whit the ball and space and Malone was limited at his post play but the quality of his assists is high in my book. As you said in most cases are cuts that left the player near basket nearly alone. All the assist count the same on paper but not all have the same value. There are some assits that are a joke o nearly. Don´t you have the impression that some players earn his dimes better? you see a jokic game whit 6 dimes and see a westbrook game whit 9 for example and your impression maybe is not the same. Sabonis was a great passer, Bird too because they could put the ball in some place between enemies whit precission. And doing that I think Malone was better than KG. But is my personal feeling.

[cupcakesnake]

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.

I dind´t say malone was better passer, only said KG for my was not a better passer, in fact they are about the same level for me, I wouldn´t go one side or other. Is true that Malone passing abilities where more limited because KG had better handles and was able to do more things whit the ball and space and Malone was limited at his post play but the quality of his assists is high in my book. As you said in most cases are cuts that left the player near basket nearly alone. All the assist count the same on paper but not all have the same value. There are some assits that are a joke o nearly. Don´t you have the impression that some players earn his dimes better? you see a jokic game whit 6 dimes and see a westbrook game whit 9 for example and your impression maybe is not the same. Sabonis was a great passer, Bird too because they could put the ball in some place between enemies whit precission. And doing that I think Malone was better than KG. But is my personal feeling.

I dind´t say malone was better passer,

I think Malone was better than KG.

well if you hadn't...
I'm not arguing more assists=better passer. If I hadn't seen either player, I might use it as a starting assumption but not as a conclusion. In my last post I described the quality and style of their passing, specifically to avoid either of us having to explain what an assist is and how its tracked.

I strongly disagree with what you're asserting about Malone's passing. While the ability to hit cutters is a really good passing skill, especially for a post-up big that attracts attention, I think some bigs get way too much credit for delivering these kinds of assists. Hitting a guy who is all alone under the basket is pretty easy, and most of the work was done by the rest of the offense (who was the cutter, was there a screener?) Who is responsible for that guy being open. In some cases, it's maybe Malone. Sometimes he's drawing a double team, reading where the help is coming from, and making the right read. But a lot of Malone's passing highlights are him standing with the ball while the rest of the Jazz work the offense off-ball and Malone just waits to make a pre-scripted pass. I'm not impressed by those. Malone made nicer passes as well, quicker reads in traffic to players who were less open and puts them in a good scoring position. Passing highlights are deceiving though. When I watch full games of Malone, I see a bit of an assist hunting turnover machine. He loved to throw the ball to a cutter into the paint, but he did so pretty recklessly sometimes. This resulted in plenty of assists (3.6 for his career or a 17.6 asst%) but also a ton of turnover (3.1 and 12.4%). I do care about assist to turnover ratio for playmakers, and Malone is close to even. You bring up Sabonis and I think of his passing as the same style. Sabonis was flashier and threw more passes, but was an even worse turnover machine (all available Euroleague stats have Sabonis as a negative ast/to). I'm legit shocked when I watch Sabonis play at how much he forced passes and turned the ball over.

Garnett is no passing genius, but like I said his passing was more elastic, more efficient. He didn't play in a good offense or with good offensive players and there were times when Garnett's passing basically was the offensive system. Garnett was a smart cutter, illegal screener, and gave up the ball quick enough to keep some good flow to the offense. He wasn't an assist hunter. He'd work dribble handoffs to free up a shooter (sometimes the only shooter on the floor lol), he'd hit the open man quickly, even if there wasn't an assist gift wrapped for him. I think Garnett's style of fluid, generous passing, is more healthy for offenses than Malone's stand around and wait for the home run, and maybe try to force homes runs that aren't there.

Again, want to re-iterate, I don't think Malone is a bad passer and am not trying to denigrate him in this comparison. Malone was big healthy part of some good offenses, especially when Hornacek joined the Jazz. Malone was a bad passer when he came into the NBA, consistently posting big negative ast/to ratios, but he steadily and clearly improved over his career. I just think KG's passing holds up way better to scrutiny.