Karl Malone on Dan Patrick Show "Charles is the 3d Best PF, Duncan is a Center...

[Round Mound]

...Im The Best PF Ever"

http://msn.foxsports.com/topics/m/video/57663322/dan-patrick-show-karl-malone.htm

[Whoah10115]

It's not opening and I'm not trying to listen either. Is he saying Duncan is a center but is still #2? Who does he have at #2?


It's not ridiculous if you consider full career. I'm not even sure how to rank them anymore. Duncan is a C but he didn't play C so you gotta call him a PF.

[Round Mound]

It's not opening and I'm not trying to listen either. Is he saying Duncan is a center but is still #2? Who does he have at #2?


It's not ridiculous if you consider full career. I'm not even sure how to rank them anymore. Duncan is a C but he didn't play C so you gotta call him a PF.

I Think Duncan has Been Playing More Center than PF in his Career. He is More a of a CF like Hakeem was. I Think he is the 2nd Best CF after The Dream.

He Said Barkley was 3rd If You Consider Duncan a PF, but He Doesnt Consider Duncan a PF. He Says He is the Best.
.

[Legends66NBA7]

Start a team with Scottie Pippen from the rest of the 92 Dream Team and you the best PF, while Charles is a "distant" 3rd, and Duncan isn't better than you either regardless of his actual position... You're a funny guy, Karl, I'll give you that.

Didn't say who's the #2 PF is, so... I'll guess it's Rodman since he praised the man hard in that interview.

[Whoah10115]

I Think Duncan has Been Playing More Center than PF in his Career. He is More a of a CF like Hakeem was. I Think he is the 2nd Best CF after The Dream.

He Said Barkley was 3rd If You Consider Duncan a PF, but He Doesnt Consider Duncan a PF. He Says He is the Best.
.



Duncan plays like a center and he's been the starting center since 2008.


As far as Hakeem, I cannot agree. How was Olajuwon a PF? He was 6'10 and skinny. If he had a PF's game he would have played PF. He had guard moves, but he played strictly like a center.

[ThaRegul8r]

Malone has a vested interest in eliminating Duncan from historical comparison with him. So I'm not sure why this matters.

[Round Mound]

Start a team with Scottie Pippen from the rest of the 92 Dream Team and you the best PF, while Charles is a "distant" 3rd, and Duncan isn't better than you either regardless of his actual position... You're a funny guy, Karl, I'll give you that.

Didn't say who's the #2 PF is, so... I'll guess it's Rodman since he praised the man hard in that interview.

Malone is a Bit Overrated...He Definetly Played More Seasons at a Good Level than Barkley but He NEVER REACHED THE LEVEL OF PRIME BARKLY, EVER!

His Longevity and Stat Padding Looks Nice on Paper an To The Eye (More Numbers Give the Impression of Better) but One You Analyze PER, EFF, Ws Per 48 Minutes, WS etc He Is Below Barkley in Both Their Primes.

Also, Charles calls himself the 2nd Best PF Ever in the Previous Chat With Dan Patrick I Think You Can Also See It If You Click On It

[Whoah10115]

Malone is a Bit Overrated...He Definetly Played More Seasons at a Good Level than Barkley but He NEVER REACHED THE LEVEL OF PRIME BARKLY, EVER!

His Longevity and Stat Padding Looks Nice on Paper an To The Eye (More Numbers Give the Impression of Better) but One You Analyze PER, EFF, Ws Per 48 Minutes, WS etc He Is Below Barkley in Both Their Primes.

Also, Charles calls himself the 2nd Best PF Ever in the Previous Chat With Dan Patrick I Think You Can Also See It If You Click On It



I don't think Malone was a stat padder, but he did play in a system where a truly great player would rack up numbers. He was a finisher so absolutely ideal there.


I've heard Barkley make that claim. Barkley was easily the best who's played. I don't know how I should rank the top PF's on an all-time list tho. I have no problem with any of them being #1. Same even for KG, but I think his case is less obvious.

[Myth]

In the modern era, most centers are the equivalent to power forwards of Malone's years. So yes, Duncan is a center now. But I had no problem seeing him as a PF for the first decade of his career.

[Round Mound]

Malone Wasn`t a Stat Padder but When You See More Numbers More Times Padded Together Most Kids Out There Think He Would Be Better than Duncan or Barkley but When Analysis and Broken Down Stat Are Done Then He is Definetly Below Them. No Hate on Malone, I Loved Watching that Duo Work But as a Player Prime Barkley Was Way More Dominant and Duncan Prooved Himself in the Play-Offs like Barkley Did. Malone Shrunk in the Play-Offs...When It Most Mattered.

[Skywalker]

KG > malone

[Round Mound]

KG > malone

He Was a Better All Around Player but I Don`t Know If His Impact Was Greater.

[joeyjoejoe]

Barkley vs malone in prime is debatable but malone has done more in his career, either way duncan will always be considered superior to both whether be prime or accomplishments

[Clippersfan86]

According to 82 games Duncan has primarily been a center for 7 years now. I don't quite agree with him but there is truth to the idea that people constantly call Duncan a PF when in fact he's spent nearly half of his career playing center. It's just more favorable when people call him a PF. I understand he was a listed PF back when the Spurs won titles but he was usually the one guarding the opposing teams center and had the opposing center guarding him.

[Myth]

I don't quite agree with him but there is truth to the idea that people constantly call Duncan a PF when in fact he's spent nearly half of his career playing center.

The thing is, Duncan's best years were at PF and he was already considered the GOAT PF before he switched to being primarily a center.

[Darius]

This just in:

Rolling Stones consider The Beatles more of a jazz band.

[TheTruth#34]

This just in:

Rolling Stones consider The Beatles more of a jazz band.


:lol

[Rasheed1]

Charles was a better Pf than Malone.. Malone needed Stockton a lil too much..

Charles was simply a beast.. Ripping down boards and going coast to coast..

[SCdac]

Malone is one bitter mofo. Even Jerry Sloan has said Duncan is one of the best PF's ever. Charles Barkley said it in the interview in the OP.

Either way, Karl Malone a couple years ago said he doesn't even care about rankings... dude just seems like a hater who misses being in the limelight.


So, Mailman, are you the best ever?

"I don't know," Malone answered when asked the question during a recent KSL-TV interview.

Malone admitted that he never even thought about those types of things during his playing days.

"Being the best power forward or the best player," he said, "I will tell you without a doubt I never thought I was."

When it came to being ready to play, however, Malone definitely believes he held that advantage.

"Not one time," he said, "did I step on the floor physically and think that somebody was in better conditioning than I was."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700055300/Utah-Jazz-Is-Karl-Malone-or-Tim-Duncan-the-best-all-time-power-forward.html?pg=all

Tim Duncan's prime was playing Power Forward and he's never won a title playing full time center (in 2007 Oberto/Elson battled all season for starting center), yet he's capable of shifting to the 5. He'll be categorized as a PF/C just like Pau Gasol, Jermaine Oneal, Chis Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Al Horford, Antonio McDyess, Otis Thorpe, Kevin McHale and so many other PF's who could play the 5. This season actually, Duncan has played more PF, as Tiago Splitter is taking the reigns at center (he's definitely a natural center, much more than Duncan).

Here's Duncan hitting a game winning shot over the Jazz in 2003... WHILE Malone is guarding him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWqwvE5KVW8

[Round Mound]

Barkley vs malone in prime is debatable but malone has done more in his career, either way duncan will always be considered superior to both whether be prime or accomplishments

Prime Barkley Was Better from 1985 to 1995. Ages 22-32 . From that Stretch Barkley Outplayed Malone, Had a Higher PER, WS, OWS, Plus/Minus, WS Per 48 Minutes and Was Seen By Most as the Best PF.

As Barkley Lost his Leaping Ability, Mobilty and His Back Injuries (same as Bird) and then Knee Injuries Appeared Malone Took Over as the Best PF around 1995-96. Charles last Year with the Suns. Charles Barkley With the Rockets was Just a Role Player and He Himself said He Could No Longer Play and Was Set To Retire in 1995 but Ainge Convinced him not Too.

Duncan is More of a CF than a PF same with Hakeem but with Better Handles and Less of an Offensive Threat.

Prime Barkley is Clearly the Best PF Ever

If You Like Longevity Over Dominance then Take Malone.

[wakencdukest]

Karl Malone's crazy. I'd put Duncan at 1, Barkley at 2, and Malone 3 at best. he might even be tied with Garnett for third.

[Whoah10115]

In the modern era, most centers are the equivalent to power forwards of Malone's years. So yes, Duncan is a center now. But I had no problem seeing him as a PF for the first decade of his career.



Duncan is a center in any era. He was only a PF because David Robinson was still on the team.

[Round Mound]

Malone is one bitter mofo. Even Jerry Sloan has said Duncan is one of the best PF's ever. Charles Barkley said it in the interview in the OP.

Either way, Karl Malone a couple years ago said he doesn't even care about rankings... dude just seems like a hater who misses being in the limelight.



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700055300/Utah-Jazz-Is-Karl-Malone-or-Tim-Duncan-the-best-all-time-power-forward.html?pg=all

Tim Duncan's prime was playing Power Forward and he's never won a title playing full time center (in 2007 Oberto/Elson battled all season for starting center), yet he's capable of shifting to the 5. He'll be categorized as a PF/C just like Pau Gasol, Jermaine Oneal, Chis Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Al Horford, Antonio McDyess, Otis Thorpe, Kevin McHale and so many other PF's who could play the 5. This season actually, Duncan has played more PF, as Tiago Splitter is taking the reigns at center (he's definitely a natural center, much more than Duncan).

Here's Duncan hitting a game winning shot over the Jazz in 2003... WHILE Malone is guarding him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWqwvE5KVW8

Malone Was Like 40 Years Old When That Happened. :facepalm

Had Duncan Faced Malone and Sir Charles in Their 20s and Early-Mid 90s He Would Have Suffered On the Defensive Side More Than Them.

[bdreason]

Duncan > Barkley > Garnett > Malone

[Linspired]

Duncan > Barkley > Garnett > Malone

switch kg and malone

malone over KG anytime anyday

[ProfessorMurder]

Why are you all so surprised about this?

A competitive, cocky, all-time great, that thinks he's great... Stop the presses!

[DatAsh]

Karl seems like a nice guy.

[Whoah10115]

Duncan has played more PF, as Tiago Splitter is taking the reigns at center (he's definitely a natural center, much more than Duncan).

Here's Duncan hitting a game winning shot over the Jazz in 2003... WHILE Malone is guarding him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWqwvE5KVW8



I've watched the games too, and that's not true. Duncan is the starting C. When Splitter is on the floor, they split more. But Splitter hasn't been starting all year. Not only that, but Duncan is still mostly at C when Splitter is on the floor.


Splitter is not a more natural C than Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan is a center who played alongside David Robinson. Therefore, he ended up the PF. I saw him in college too. He was a C, projected to be a C, and if Robinson hadn't gotten hurt Duncan would have played center on any team that could have drafted him...including San Antonio, had Robinson decided to retire.

[Round Mound]

I've watched the games too, and that's not true. Duncan is the starting C. When Splitter is on the floor, they split more. But Splitter hasn't been starting all year. Not only that, but Duncan is still mostly at C when Splitter is on the floor.


Splitter is not a more natural C than Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan is a center who played alongside David Robinson. Therefore, he ended up the PF. I saw him in college too. He was a C, projected to be a C, and if Robinson hadn't gotten hurt Duncan would have played center on any team that could have drafted him...including San Antonio, had Robinson decided to retire.

[B]True but Duncan Fans Wan`t To Force the Powerfoward Issue So He Can Rank N

[bdreason]

Spurs have started other guys at Center besides Robinson over the years. They were just scrubby, big-body guys like Nesterovic, Muhammed, Willis, Oberto, and Elson... so nobody remembers them. :oldlol:




I'd say Duncan has played Center since maybe 2007-2008. That was more out of necessity though, as the league changed, and it became all about spreading the floor and getting the rim (and the FT line). I mean, can you imagine an early 2000's Popovich team playing like they do now? Shooting all these 3's? Pop would probably have had a heart attack.




And I have no problem with Malone over KG. I just feel like KG has both the higher peak and better accolades.

[ThaRegul8r]

Karl Malone's crazy. I'd put Duncan at 1, Barkley at 2, and Malone 3 at best. he might even be tied with Garnett for third.

Again, people were calling Malone the GOAT power foward before Duncan. Malone would have a vested interest in disqualifying Duncan in order to proclaim himself the GOAT power forward. Why in the world is this a surprise? It's utterly baffling to me that no one else can understand this. It's purely self-interest.

[Anaximandro1]

Duncan can play either the PF or C position extremely well


GM Survey 2002 (http://web.archive.org/web/20021204093109/http://www.nba.com/preview2002/General_Manager_Survey.html)

Who is the NBA's best power forward?

Tim Duncan - 80.8%
*Kevin Garnett - 11.5%
*Dirk Nowitzki - 7.7%


GM Survey 2007 (http://www.nba.com/preview2007/gmsurvey_players.html)

Who is the best power forward in the NBA?


1. Tim Duncan, San Antonio 48.1%
2. Kevin Garnett, Boston 25.9%
3. Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas 18.5%

Who is the best center in the NBA?

1. Tim Duncan, San Antonio 48.1%
2. Yao Ming, Houston Rockets 33.3%
3. Dwight Howard, Orlando 7.4%
Shaquille O'Neal, Miami 7.4%
5. Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix 3.7%


However,Duncan in his prime was first and foremost a PF.He had good handles,solid first step and mid-range game for a big man.Tim could score in a variety of ways.He was a very versatile player.

Tim Duncan 2001 Playoffs: 40pts, Gm 2 vs. LA Lakers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apxGLs_42nc)

[Round Mound]

Again, people were calling Malone the GOAT power foward before Duncan. Malone would have a vested interest in disqualifying Duncan in order to proclaim himself the GOAT power forward. Why in the world is this a surprise? It's utterly baffling to me that no one else can understand this. It's purely self-interest.

And People Where Calling Barkley the 2nd Best Player in the Game after Michael in 1992 but Few Remember This. But So?

In My Way Off Seeing It:

Duncan is the 2nd Best CF after Hakeem.
Barkley is the Best Peek and Prime Powerfoward Ever
Malone is after Kareem...The Player That Had The Best Longevity and The Best PF if You Take Into Count Longevity

[Whoah10115]

Spurs have started other guys at Center besides Robinson over the years. They were just scrubby, big-body guys like Nesterovic, Muhammed, Willis, Oberto, and Elson... so nobody remembers them. :oldlol:




I'd say Duncan has played Center since maybe 2007-2008. That was more out of necessity though, as the league changed, and it became all about spreading the floor and getting the rim (and the FT line). I mean, can you imagine an early 2000's Popovich team playing like they do now? Shooting all these 3's? Pop would probably have had a heart attack.




And I have no problem with Malone over KG. I just feel like KG has both the higher peak and better accolades.



I remember all those guys. They sucked. Duncan said publicly that he wanted to stay at PF.

I'm guessing that the Clippers would have matched, but the Spurs could have pursued Elton Brand. He was a RFA the Summer after Robinson retired. They could also have pursued Karl Malone, even for one season. He was interested in them. But Duncan would have had to move to C and he didn't want to.


Duncan played PF and of that there should be no doubt. In 07/08 Oberto wa still the starting C. But Duncan moved there the next year. McDyess was never playing C.

[fpliii]

If we're sticking to positional designations, on the GOAT list:

Duncan>KG>Pettit>Barkley>Malone>McHale

but separating 4's and 5's is more of an art than a science. Bigs are bigs IMO.

[Whoah10115]

If we're sticking to positional designations, on the GOAT list:

Duncan>KG>Pettit>Barkley>Malone>McHale

but separating 4's and 5's is more of an art than a science. Bigs are bigs IMO.


Petit? OOOOH. I don't know about all that. You have Dirk #7, I'd assume? That's a bit low.

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]True but Duncan Fans Wan`t To Force the Powerfoward Issue So He Can Rank N

[Round Mound]

If we're sticking to positional designations, on the GOAT list:

Duncan>KG>Pettit>Barkley>Malone>McHale

but separating 4's and 5's is more of an art than a science. Bigs are bigs IMO.

KG over Barkley, McHale and Malone?

Funny....:roll:

[Rasheed1]

Garnett is way ahead of McHale.

I dont know about that.. McHale was nasty dude.. He had like 15 moves on the block.. He practically invented the up and under move..

I would probably give McHale the edge between him and KG..

KG is a hall of famer.... But I would take prime Mchale simply due to his ability to go to work down on the block..

[ThaRegul8r]

And People Where Calling Barkley the 2nd Best Player in the Game after Michael in 1992 but Few Remember This. But So?

I'm not one of the "many who don't remember," as I was watching basketball during that time, and I've also posted articles on this very board on how Barkley was regarded during that time. So you can save your spiel with me because I lived and watched it, and thus don't need people telling me what I already know.

[Whoah10115]

I dont know about that.. McHale was nasty dude.. He had like 15 moves on the block.. He practically invented the up and under move..

I would probably give McHale the edge between him and KG..

KG is a hall of famer.... But I would take prime Mchale simply due to his ability to go to work down on the block..



I couldn't agree. McHale is an all-time defender, but KG has him there. Just as he does in rebounding, passing, playmaking, making others better.


McHale has been called the best post player ever. And he's up there. He's also got that crazy FG% and he has more titles and appearances. But KG did more.

[ThaRegul8r]

If we're sticking to positional designations, on the GOAT list:

Duncan>KG>Pettit>Barkley>Malone>McHale

Pettit gets forgotten in these discussions.

[Crystallas]

Best Regular season PF of his era. I'll grant him that much. Playoffs, I'll take Barkley. Finals, I'll take Duncan.

Pre-Season, I'll take Stromile Swift. Off-season, you take Pau Gasol. :troll:

[Whoah10115]

Best Regular season PF of his era. I'll grant him that much. Playoffs, I'll take Barkley. Finals, I'll take Duncan.

Pre-Season, I'll take Stromile Swift. Off-season, you take Pau Gasol. :troll:



I have a hard time with him. I often rank Dirk #5 but I'm not sure. That may be because I've seen him so much and he was in an era with the true elite. While he was playing, Webber was genuinely a monster (and better than he was) and one of the best I've seen. But he lasted and only got better over the years, eventually winning that title.

Petit played 11 years, right? He was an all-star every year and, if I remember correctly, he was 1st Team All-NBA his first 10 years, and 2nd Team his last year. Two MVP's and a title. He's got huge numbers too.


He and Dirk would fight for #5, tho I might lean towards Pettit, this minute...but McHale would be at #7.

[Rose]

Best Regular season PF of his era. I'll grant him that much. Playoffs, I'll take Barkley. Finals, I'll take Duncan.

Pre-Season, I'll take Stromile Swift. Off-season, you take Pau Gasol. :troll:
I don't know, I still might take Barkley in the regular season up until his body broke down on him.

[fpliii]

Petit? OOOOH. I don't know about all that. You have Dirk #7, I'd assume? That's a bit low.

Dirk is a positionless guy to me based on his skillset. If I had to call him a PF, he'd be top 20 all-time and probably right behind KG (who is also relatively positionless in skillset, but his dominant traits resemble traditional bigs more than Dirk's).

I do believe this. Duncan should be ranked at PF tho. The problem is not that but that a lot of people argue that he isn't a natural C. I don't understand that. I hear talk of his ball-handling, how athletic and quick and agile he was. Robinson had more of all those physical qualities and could handle the ball just as well!

If anything, from watching the Twin Tower Spurs (given I didn't get to see more than a handful of games of them a year outside of the playoffs, since I'm from the NYC area and online streams weren't big yet) Duncan was more of a traditional center (yes he could hit the bank shot, but he was a back-to-the-basket guy largely from my recollection...the Admiral faced up a lot).

Garnett is way ahead of McHale.

Agreed.


KG over Barkley, McHale and Malone?

Funny....:roll:

I have KG right after the West/Robertson/Moses/LeBron/Dr. J tier on my GOAT list. His impact on defense/rebounding was nuts.


Pettit gets forgotten in these discussions.

The standard era-based factors that dominate this site aside, it's really hard pegging guys from the 50s especially to one of PG, SG, SF, PF, C. Though there's always been some fudging of positions, Pettit actually made an All-NBA team at center (I believe it was during the championship season). From what I've read while dumping box scores/articles, there were three variants on positional designations back then:

1. (prevalent) g/g/c/f/f
2. (relatively common from the NBL through the mid-60s) lg/rg/c/lf/rf (left and right guards/forwards)
3. (rare) offensive guard, defensive guard, offensive forward, defensive forward, center

so as I've said, it's more of an art than a science IMO. If I had to say so though, from the books/articles/tape/stats I've taken in, Pettit would likely be considered a PF in today's game (based on skillset/playstyle).

[Crystallas]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpujqy_karl-malone-on-aliens_fun#.UQNsI_KmSO4

[rmt]

Don't see why Duncan should be penalized because he is versatile enough to play both positions. In his prime he was a PF. As he's gotten older and slower and the league has gotten smaller and quicker, he's played more center.

I disagree with the poster who says when Splitter is on the floor, TD plays center. Offensively, Splitter plays near the basket as he has no jump shot. Duncan is the one jump shooting when Splitter or Blair is on the floor with him. When Diaw or Bonner is with him, he plays center. On defense, he plays center now because he's too slow to guard the PFs.

He's played with all kinds of big men - DRob, Malik, Rasho, Horry, Oberto, Elson, McDyess, Blair, Bonner, Diaw and Splitter. Some could only play near the basket - some could shoot from distance. That's the beauty of having a player like TD - can play with ALL different kinds of players.

[knicksman]

dirk is still the 2nd best pf anyway

[Whoah10115]

Don't see why Duncan should be penalized because he is versatile enough to play both positions. In his prime he was a PF. As he's gotten older and slower and the league has gotten smaller and quicker, he's played more center.

I disagree with the poster who says when Splitter is on the floor, TD plays center. Offensively, Splitter plays near the basket as he has no jump shot. Duncan is the one jump shooting when Splitter or Blair is on the floor with him. When Diaw or Bonner is with him, he plays center. On defense, he plays center now because he's too slow to guard the PFs.

He's played with all kinds of big men - DRob, Malik, Rasho, Horry, Oberto, Elson, McDyess, Blair, Bonner, Diaw and Splitter. Some could only play near the basket - some could shoot from distance. That's the beauty of having a player like TD - can play with ALL different kinds of players.



A center should be judged, first and foremost, on what he does defensively. Defensively, Duncan is the center.

Also, just because Splitter is closer to the basket doesn't mean he's playing center. He cuts a lot. When Duncan gets in the high post or near the FT line, you can see the way he's positioned is as the center.



Tim Duncan



I was going to quote the other post but you posted your reply in my quote so I can't.


I agree, on Duncan and Robinson. Defensively, they were playing with two centers...but that's in essence. They took at Twin Towers approach but Duncan was the PF on defense. I think you qualify a center thru his defense before anything else. Robinson, for all his versatility and face-up game, was the absolute prototype as a defensive center. Added to that, he was quicker and more athletic than just about any PF in the league, much less C. Offensively, he faced up and Duncan played in the post. Defensively, he was the guy at C.

[Whoah10115]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpujqy_karl-malone-on-aliens_fun#.UQNsI_KmSO4



That was a pretty perfect Karl Malone.

[FindingTim]

I think Malone is one of the most overrated players ever.
He is kind of like the Rafael Palmeiro of basketball, when you look at his stats he looks like a legend, but when you watch him play he never oozes greatness, and doesn't inspire "awe" in the way the true greats do.

admittedly I am biased because I think he is kind of a jackass, but I think decades down the line, fans will look at his numbers and think of him as a legendary player that he never truly was. And I think the Barkley comparisons are disrespectful to Chuck. Imagine you are picking teams in a schoolyard pickup game... wouldn't you choose Charles long before Malone? I sure would.

But I think Bill Simmons sums it up far better than I can:
When [Malone and Barkley] were playing for quality teams in their primes ('93 and '94), they met in the regular season seven times: the Suns won five, with Barkley averaging 23.4 points, 11.4 rebounds and 4.3 assists and Malone averaging 21.8 points, 8 rebounds and 3.4 assists. Edge to Barkley. And then there's this one: Heading into the '92 Olympics, many thought the Dream Team would be Malone's breakthrough. Jack McCallum even wrote, "Many observers think that [Malone and Pippen] will benefit the most from the worldwide exposure, since both are extremely photogenic athletes who, as Malone puts it, 'haven't exactly been plastered all over everything.'" So what happened? Barkley emerged as the Dream Team's second-best player, number one power forward and breakout star. This has to count for something, right? Chuck blended in with teammates better than Malone did, led the team in scoring and became its dominant personality. It's just a fact. By the end of the Olympics, SI was describing him as "the talk of the Olympic games", with McCallum gushing, "His astonishing range of abilities- outrebounding much taller players, running the floor like a guard and getting off his shot with either hand whle bouncing off bodies around the basket-- seem more pronounced when performed within the Dream Team galaxy."

But then Simmons ranks Malone one spot ahead of Barkley because of his longevity and commitment to conditioning. And I fear future generations will rate Malone higher too, because of those damn counting stats.

but if the question is merely "who was a better player" and not "who had the better career", the answer is Charles Barkley, and it isn't that close.

[fpliii]

I was going to quote the other post but you posted your reply in my quote so I can't.

Sorry, I was too lazy to break it up into quotes.


I agree, on Duncan and Robinson. Defensively, they were playing with two centers...but that's in essence. They took at Twin Towers approach but Duncan was the PF on defense. I think you qualify a center thru his defense before anything else. Robinson, for all his versatility and face-up game, was the absolute prototype as a defensive center. Added to that, he was quicker and more athletic than just about any PF in the league, much less C. Offensively, he faced up and Duncan played in the post. Defensively, he was the guy at C.

I agree with all of this (again, based on limited viewing of them in the regular season; I think I've seen every playoff game they played together). Regarding the bolded, I'm wondering who everyone has as the defensive anchor in each of their seasons together:

1997-98:
1998-99:
1999-00:
2000-01:
2001-02:
2002-03:

By the end I think most will have Duncan as the guy (though Robinson was able to body guys up even into 03), though I think people are split on the 98-99 season.

[SCdac]

I disagree with the poster who says when Splitter is on the floor, TD plays center. Offensively, Splitter plays near the basket as he has no jump shot. Duncan is the one jump shooting when Splitter or Blair is on the floor with him. When Diaw or Bonner is with him, he plays center. On defense, he plays center now because he's too slow to guard the PFs.

yeah, you're right to disagree.

Duncan plays with alot of range, always has, but is using it as much as ever. That's more characteristic of PF's than pure centers. Splitter has started the last 20 or so games at center.

You look at the offense of guys like: Howard, Bynum, Chandler, D. Jordan, Splitter, etc, and it's almost entirely scoring in the paint.

Duncan

[Clippersfan86]

[QUOTE=SCdac]yeah, you're right to disagree.

Duncan plays with alot of range, always has, but is using it as much as ever. That's more characteristic of PF's than pure centers. Splitter has started the last 20 or so games at center.

You look at the offense of guys like: Howard, Bynum, Chandler, D. Jordan, Splitter, etc, and it's almost entirely scoring in the paint.

Duncan

[ILLsmak]

Duncan plays like a center and he's been the starting center since 2008.


As far as Hakeem, I cannot agree. How was Olajuwon a PF? He was 6'10 and skinny. If he had a PF's game he would have played PF. He had guard moves, but he played strictly like a center.

I dunno. If a guy could play alongside a C then he's a PF, to me. The only guys that are true Cs couldn't play with another C. Hakeem is definitely capable of being a PF.

If I was building a goat all-time team I'd have Hakeem at PF and there's no PF you could find that would be able to stick him or score on him.

-Smak

[Pointguard]

If you eliminate TD from the discussion then the gamut would have to go down to KG. He the only other one who won it all as the best player. He's among the best defenders/team defenders ever in the sport. He played TD head to head to a dead heat in their best seven years and had almost the exact same general numbers over that period of time as well. Had the most rebounding titles. I think he was the only one to win DPOY award. Was the best all around player in the game in his prime. He was the most consistent passer.

[Legends66NBA7]

If you eliminate TD from the discussion then the gamut would have to go down to KG. He the only other one who won it all as the best player.

Bob Pettit and the Hawks in 58.

Was Elvin Hayes considered better than Wes Unseld with the Bullets and their lone title ?

[fefe]

Where does KG rank?
He has put together some nice seasons, and he has a ring too.
Shouldn't he also be ranked above Malone and Barkley?

[lakers_forever]

OMG! One of the greatest players of all time think he was the best PF ever. That's so crazy. :lol

Come on. Before Duncan, Malone was considered the greatest PF ever. People forget that. Dude was a beast and gets underrated here.

Listening to the interview (great one BTW) and the "nba open court" , you can tell Malone and Barkley are really great friends. Also the Pippen thing is nothing absurd, many players see him as the ultimate teammate and defender.

[Xiao Yao You]

Duncan is a center in any era. He was only a PF because David Robinson was still on the team.

And David played like a sf on offense. Duncan has always been a center in my mind. He's skilled enough to be considered a PF but he fits the description of a center much better regardless of what they've called him most of his career.

[AngelEyes]

Bob Pettit and the Hawks in 58.

Was Elvin Hayes considered better than Wes Unseld with the Bullets and their lone title ?

Yes

[Teanett]

Duncan is a center in any era. He was only a PF because David Robinson was still on the team.

+1

i never got why people call duncan a pf.
was hakeem a because he played with sampson?

[Pointguard]

Bob Pettit and the Hawks in 58.

Was Elvin Hayes considered better than Wes Unseld with the Bullets and their lone title ?

No it was Wes Unseld's team and he was the heart and soul of that team much like KG was to Boston. Hayes was considered a distraction, much like putting Roy Tarpley on KG's team. Stat wise he would be up on KG but no way would you consider him the better player. There's a difference.

Petit wasn't in the conversation. The conversation is around Barkley, Malone and KG. I didn't see the show but if Barkley is third who might be second behind Malone.. according to Malone. My argument is that KG and Duncan were very similar in output. Duncan had an unique ability to win like few others ever had. A great intangible.

[Balla_Status]

Dirk > Malone

[Burgz V2]

his best and most productive seasons were at PF. Just because he played more seasons at the 5 spot? That is one of the weakest arguments you can make. He made the position switch because of the combined evolution of the PF spot (stretch 4s, quick face up 4s, rarely any back to the basket PFs now) and because of his age. He dominated the 4 spot but we are gonna forget all of that because he played more seasons at the 5? I think the mailman's gone crazy y'all

[DCL]

malone got so many easy ass buckets from the pick and roll. a lot of his success should be credited to stockton.

[SCdac]

This was recently discussed on PSD. Splitter starts at Center and is in the low post more than Duncan BUT.... Duncan is normally the one guarding opposing centers and being guarded by opposing centers, therefor he's actually playing center, despite what position they are listed as right now.

Duncan has guarded, and been guarded by, way too many power forwards in the here an now and in the past for this to hold any weight.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/DuncanandGarnett13_zpsc751580f.jpeg

Just last month, Duncan and KG, two of the best PF's ever, were guarding each other. TD was guarding Griffin some the other day too, and has for the past couple years.

Duncan and KG have guarded each other through out their careers, although they mostly don't guard each other for strategy reasons.

And if you say "Garnett was playing Center that game", which he was next to Bass, it really exposes the cracks in this school of thought. The fact is, the league is a PG and Swingman's game nowadays, and some of the best centers of today are PF's (Duncan, Garnett, Horford, Jefferson, etc). Which is why they are called PF/C.

Gregg Pop, when the Suns and Mavs were looking strong in the late 2000's, became infatuated with stretch-4's and envisioned Matt Bonner being the next Robert Horry or Dirk (2008-2010)

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan usually matched up with 4s when he played with Robinson and Rasho, but for quite a few years now, probably '07 on, he's primarily matched up with centers. There are exceptions, just as there are exceptions in the Robinson years since it wasn't uncommon for Duncan to match up with a center, he just didn't the majority of time.

As far as where he's played primarily. Well, his first few years, it was definitely more PF. Though as Robinson's minutes started to decrease, particularly by 2003, Duncan was virtually splitting time playing with both Robinson and Malik Rose. Rose would actually guard the centers at times, including Shaq, but it's pretty clear who was more of a center between Duncan and Rose. This was fairly similar to some of the Rasho years as well, when Duncan played quite a bit with Rasho as well as Horry at other times.

Duncan's game to me has always resembled a versatile, skilled center. He has the size, post game and defense of a center, but he's also been a good jump shooter out to 18-20 feet for years, and it's seemed that he's actually relied on his outside shot more since he moved to center. He was also a very good face up big man when he was young who could take other big men off the dribble and get to the basket. That's probably the part of his game that's fallen off the most. As well as guarding 4s. In his prime, he was more than capable of guarding either position, and exploiting either position at the other end. He was bigger than 4s and quicker than most 5s. He's still great to watch. I love watching his passing from the high post and the Spurs halfcourt offense executed flawlessly. Parker and Duncan have become a phenomenal screen/roll duo over the years.

I'd take him over Barkley and Malone as a player. I don't really think of him as a power forward, but if you ask me to choose between the 3 to start a franchise, I definitely have to go with Duncan.

But I'd also definitely take Barkley over Malone. No question in my mind who the better player was.


yeah, you're right to disagree.

Duncan plays with alot of range, always has, but is using it as much as ever. That's more characteristic of PF's than pure centers. Splitter has started the last 20 or so games at center.

You look at the offense of guys like: Howard, Bynum, Chandler, D. Jordan, Splitter, etc, and it's almost entirely scoring in the paint.

Duncan – especially in his prime – utilizes the midrange, high-post, off the dribble, face-up, jump shooting, game what we see from so many PF's.

Duncan's 2013 shooting

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/Duncanshotchart13_zps70087fa8.jpg

Tiago's 2013 shooting

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/TiagoSplittershotchart_zpsd7d91211.jpg

You could make that same point about other big men duos, though. Look at Hakeem and Thorpe. Hakeem took a good amount of jumpers as his career went on, while Thorpe was primarily a guy who would finish or post up. Thorpe really didn't take many jumpers. Hell, Robinson was less of a low post player than Duncan.

[eliteballer]

It should also be noted Duncan was a center in college and projected to be one in the NBA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho8OT89WI6w

[Magic 32]

You don't get to be the greatest at your position when you do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPBLeb8h9Ts&t=5m19s

[SCdac]

It should also be noted Duncan was a center in college and projected to be one in the NBA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho8OT89WI6w

Yeah, Charles Barkley played center in college too... same with Antonio McDyess.... and LaMarcus Aldridge... so many other big men.

Really, doesn't deny the fact that Duncan played PF from 1998-2008. A full 10 years into his career and into his 30's.

http://www.playmakeronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tim-Duncan-Dirk-Nowitzki.jpg

[Mrofir]

He Was a Better All Around Player but I Don`t Know If His Impact Was Greater.

wRiting tHis wAy mAkes aS mUch sEnse aS yOur cApitalization sCheme

[Horatio33]

According to 82 games Duncan has primarily been a center for 7 years now. I don't quite agree with him but there is truth to the idea that people constantly call Duncan a PF when in fact he's spent nearly half of his career playing center. It's just more favorable when people call him a PF. I understand he was a listed PF back when the Spurs won titles but he was usually the one guarding the opposing teams center and had the opposing center guarding him.

Blake will never be better than Duncan, no matter where Duncan plays.

[eliteballer]

Bump..

[R.I.P.]

Malone: Duncan was a C, Barkley was a SG, Dirk was a SF and KG was a a PG. I

[rmt]

You don't get to be the greatest at your position when you do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPBLeb8h9Ts&t=5m19s

The Mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays.

[NumberSix]

Duncan is a center. The only reason people think of him as a PF is because the Spurs already have David Robinson.

[SCdac]

^ possibly the most regurgitated statement

do these guys ring a bell?

- Rasho Nesterovic
- Nazr Mohammed
- Fabricio Oberto
- Francisco Elson
- Tiago Splitter
- Kurt Thomas
- Jackie Butler
- Theo Ratliff
- Ian Mahinmi

Immediately after after Robinson retired, Spurs courted Alonzo Mourning (C) and Rasho Nesterovic (C).

Two seasons after Robinson retired, Spurs traded Malik Rose (PF) for Nazr Mohammed (C) who became the starting center.

After that season, Spurs sat on Scola's rights (eventually traded for a center, Jackie Butler) and signed Oberto, Argentina's starting center, to a 3-year deal. They also signed Francisco Elson (C) from Denver.


Oberto is a warrior in the paint with polished moves around the post. He's a good scorer, rebounder and defender who has the toughness and aggressiveness to be an excellent role player in the league. He's also a great passer in the post and frequently draws comparisons to Divac on that skill. Don't be surprised if he is the Spurs starting center on opening night.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2107750

[Anaximandro1]

I just found this

2000-01 Shooting Splits


(FG Made At the Rim / Tot FG Made)

Camby (C) -76.3%
Shaq (C) - 60.1%
Mutombo (C) - 59.3%
Robinson (C) - 57.7%
Divac (C) - 55.9%


Malone (PF) -45.5%
Webber (PF) - 39.1%
Duncan (PF) -38.1%
Garnett (PF) -33.0%
Dirk (PF) - 31.4%


(FG Made 3 to 9 ft / Tot FG Made)

Shaq (C) - 33.3%
Mutombo (C) - 31.8%
Duncan (PF) - 29.7%
Divac (C) - 26.0%
Garnett (PF) -22.7%
Webber (PF) -21.0%
Camby (C) -13.4%
Robinson (C) -13.1%
Malone (PF) - 8.3%
Dirk (PF) - 6.2%


(FG Made 10 to 15 ft / Tot FG Made)

Duncan (PF) - 21.0%
Robinson (C) - 20.8%
Garnett (PF) - 18.6%
Dirk (PF) - 17.7%
Malone (PF) - 16.8%
Webber (PF) -10.0%


Camby (C) -9.6%
Mutombo (C) -8.9%
Shaq (C) - 6.5%
Divac (C) - 5.4%


(FG Made 16 ft to 3 pt / Tot FG Made)

Webber (PF) -29.7%
Malone (PF) - 28.9%
Garnett (PF) - 23.1%
Dirk (PF) - 19.8%
Divac (C) - 11.5%
Duncan (PF) - 10.2%


Robinson (C) - 8.4%
Camby (C) -3.2%
Shaq (C) - 0.2%
Mutombo (C) -0.0%



(FG Made 3-pt / Tot FG Made)

Dirk (PF) - 24.8%
Garnett (PF) - 2.6%
Divac (C) - 1.3%
Duncan (PF) - 1.0%
Malone (PF) - 0.4%
Camby (C) -0.3%
Webber (PF) -0.2%
Robinson (C) - 0.0%
Shaq (C) - 0.0%
Mutombo (C) -0.0%

[Money 23]

He's right though, Duncan always has and always will be a Center, not a PF.

[scm5]

By today's standards, Duncan is a C.

Most of the best PF's in the game have converted to playing C's. Pau, KG, and Bosh. Heck, even the Clippers use LO as a C sometimes.

If Duncan were playing in Malone/Barkley's era, he would be considered a PF.

I also think that Barkley was the better PF. He never had a Stockton feeding him, and if he did, he might have been even more effective.

[JohnnySic]

Malone is right. He is the best 4 ever, Barkley #2, and Duncan is a center.

[Whoah10115]

By today's standards, Duncan is a C.

Most of the best PF's in the game have converted to playing C's. Pau, KG, and Bosh. Heck, even the Clippers use LO as a C sometimes.

If Duncan were playing in Malone/Barkley's era, he would be considered a PF.

I also think that Barkley was the better PF. He never had a Stockton feeding him, and if he did, he might have been even more effective.



No, why do people keep repeating this? No, he's not. He played PF because of Robinson, not for any other reason. In no era would Duncan ever be a PF.



That's it.

[rmt]

No, why do people keep repeating this? No, he's not. He played PF because of Robinson, not for any other reason. In no era would Duncan ever be a PF.



That's it.

Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't make it true. The NBA and Spurs have him listed officially as a PF. And that's what he'll go down as - the GOAT PF.

[Legends66NBA7]

Malone is right. He is the best 4 ever, Barkley #2, and Duncan is a center.

No, he's certainly is not right about being the GOAT PF, even if I was to go with Duncan being a center.

And he said Barkley was a "distant" 3rd.

[TMT]

Duncan has way too much of an outside game to be considered purely a center.

#1 PF of all-time :applause:

[Round Mound]

Barkley is Clearly The Best PF Ever.

And Yes, People Where Calling Him the 2nd Best Player in the Game in 1992

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiNvY93EmWc

Minute: 2:44

"For The Majority, the 2nd Best Player in the Game after Michael Jordan" (In Italian)

Minute: 3:19

"He is Not Over 1.95 mt" (In Italian) that is 6`4 3/4 ft"


And Coach Chuck Daily said He Was The 2nd Best Player after Jordan that same Year.

[Money 23]

Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other. Plus, neither has a ring. I vote best PF:

Kevin Garnett. He has peak play at the caliber of Chuck, he has the longevity of Malone, and he has a RING !!!

KG is more of a legit PF than Tim Duncan. Duncan always was a center. Even when he played with D-Rob, he played like a center.

[Round Mound]

Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other. Plus, neither has a ring. I vote best PF:

Kevin Garnett. He has peak play at the caliber of Chuck, he has the longevity of Malone, and he has a RING !!!

KG is more of a legit PF than Tim Duncan. Duncan always was a center. Even when he played with D-Rob, he played like a center.

Do You Think Kevin Garnett would be the 2nd Best Player after Michael Jordan in 1992 like Barkley was? I Don`t Think So. :no:

Garnett is Not Reliable Offensively in the Play-Offs as a Go To Go Guy.

He is a Great All Around Player but Is Certainly Not a Go To Go Guy.

[eliteballer]

Duncan has way too much of an outside game to be considered purely a center.

#1 PF of all-time :applause:

Uhhh..he has less outside game than Hakeem DRob and Ewing

[ThaRegul8r]

Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other.

Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a team is getting players that complement each other.

[Round Mound]

Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a team is getting players that complement each other.

:applause:

[fpliii]

Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a team is getting players that complement each other.

Do you have a team in mind for your project that features Barkley and a dominant defensive big?

[Sharmer]

Charles > Malone and Duncan offensively, his game had so much more variety.

[Round Mound]

Charles > Malone and Duncan offensively, his game had so much more variety.

As a Passer, Creator Offense and Rebounder Also Better:

Barkley Had 1 on 1 Skills closer to a SF
Barkley Could Drive and Spin Off the Dribble like a SF/SG
Barkley Had The Best Handles Ever for a PF
Barkley Had The Better Post Game, Only McHale Rivals his.
Barkley Could Go Coast to Coast on his Own, Dish Off or Finish His Own Break With a Dunk
Barkley Was a Better Clutch Shooter
etc

Barkley as a Total Player > Duncan & Malone

[rmt]

As a Passer, Creator Offense and Rebounder Also Better:

Barkley Had 1 on 1 Skills closer to a SF
Barkley Could Drive and Spin Off the Dribble like a SF/SG
Barkley Had The Best Handles Ever for a PF
Barkley Had The Better Post Game, Only McHale Rivals his.
Barkley Could Go Coast to Coast on his Own, Dish Off or Finish His Own Break With a Dunk
Barkley Was a Better Clutch Shooter
etc

Barkley as a Total Player > Duncan & Malone

Disagree. Half of the game is defense, and Barkley doesn't hold a candle to Duncan on the defensive end. Difference/impact on defense > their difference on offense.

[ThaRegul8r]

Do you have a team in mind for your project that features Barkley and a dominant defensive big?

Actually, the very first team I envisioned for this particular project was around Russell and Barkley before the finished team I have now, with Barkley being an upgrade over Tom Heinsohn, trading a power forward who was nicknamed "Tommy Gun" and "Ack-Ack" for the most efficient power forward in NBA history. Heinsohn was a defensive liability, and "Auerbach always accused him of not being in shape" (Terry Pluto, Tall Tales, p. 289). Russell said of Heinsohn in 1966, "He had more physical ability than any forward who ever played the game, but in my opinion he never came close to playing to his potential" (Go Up For Glory, p. 81).

In December of 1963, it was said that Heinsohn was "the game's greatest offensive rebounder" (Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 4, 1963), and Barkley has the fifth-most offensive rebounds since the NBA began recording the statistic with 4,260, with only Moses Malone (6,731), Robert Parish (4,598), Buck Williams (4,526), and Dennis Rodman (4,329) grabbing more. And of those four, only Malone (5.1) and Rodman (4.8) averaged more offensive rebounds a game than Barkley (4.0). So they'd dominate the backboards, with Russell being the GOAT defensive rebounder and Barkley being one of the GOAT offensive rebounders. "He has been called the greatest last-second offensive rebounder in NBA history because of his nose for the ball. If you need someone to get one crucial offensive rebound, Barkley is your man" (Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 7, 1993). I liked the idea of Russell getting Barkley out in the open court (or Barkley could grab the defensive rebound himself and go coast-to-coast), and I envisioned them being able to run in transition like the Showtime Lakers, but also post up in the halfcourt like the Lakers did with Kareem.

I finished Russell's J is Nashty in Miller Time first because I couldn't decide what SF I wanted to pair with Barkley (two of them had potential chemistry problems, one of whom there actually was a chemistry problem), and there were a couple of directions I could go. I wanted the lead scorer with Russell to be a forward, and since I wanted it to be a transition team, that made Barkley and Erving my top choices. As I started thinking about the latter, once I decided the roles I was looking for, the team pretty much picked itself. I haven't thought of another center yet, as I still have to decide what centers are going to the other teams that won't be built around the Top 5 GOAT centers (Magic has Walton and Duncan has Robinson as he did in actuality at the beginning of his career, but I still have to decide on centers for Jordan, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron) in order to know who will be available, since I can't create teams in a vacuum and have to create each team relative to the others (e.g., whomever I pick for a certain team will be off the board and thus not available for any other team). I want the teams to be balanced, each team being capable of competing with the others.

[Whoah10115]

Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't make it true. The NBA and Spurs have him listed officially as a PF. And that's what he'll go down as - the GOAT PF.



This hurts the brain so much. Who is arguing that he should be considered a PF?


As far as natural position, he's a center. In any era, that's the fact. It's been discussed at length. Had Robinson retired before Duncan's rookie year, then Duncan would have been the starting center. Had the Celtics gotten him, he'd have been the starting center. Had any other team in the draft gotten the #1 pick, he'd play center. He played alongside one of the best ever and so he played PF.


I say it, because it is true. And it's only recent years that people argue it.


Someone said he's too skilled or whatever. What does it matter if he's skilled? Robinson had at least equal handles and was a much much better athlete, who played offense like a SF. So why don't we call him a PF or PF/C?

[Whoah10115]

Uhhh..he has less outside game than Hakeem DRob and Ewing


Absolutely.

And more than his teammate.

[Money 23]

Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a team is getting players that complement each other.
Isn't that essentially what I said, though? You just went more in depth.

[Round Mound]

Disagree. Half of the game is defense, and Barkley doesn't hold a candle to Duncan on the defensive end. Difference/impact on defense > their difference on offense.

Barkley wasn`t that Bad of a Defender he Was Above Average and Was The Best Floor Defender for a PF Ever Having the Highest SPG Avg for the PF Spot of All Time!

You Can Call Barkley a Lazy Defender but Bad? No Way In His Phily Days he Was Averaging Like 2 SPG and 1.4 BPG Thats Very Good for a Man His Height.

What u Call This?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqYWjCCGRs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Was a Better Scorer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Rebounder than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Passer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was More Skilled than Duncan By Miles, Had the Superior:

-Post Game
-Mid Range Game & Fadeways Game
-More Difficult to Stop 1 on 1 Off the Dribble and Driving to The Basket
-And Go Coast To Coast Rivaled by No Other PF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Difference in Offensively Inside Is VERY HIGH!!!

Duncan and Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region

Season:

Barkley: 21.6 PPG on 58.13% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 12.9 Two-Point FGAs PG

Duncan: 20.2 PPG on 50.97% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 15.3 Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs:

Barkley: 22.5 PPG on 55.13% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 14.5 Two-Point FGAs PG.

Duncan: 22.2 PPG on 50.47% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 16.6 Two-Point FGAs PG

* No They Are Not Close Offensively, Scoring Wise, Rebounding Wise, Passing Wise and Talent Wise... :no:

Barkley Shoots and Scores More... With An 8% FG Difference to Duncan. Thats like a Player Shooting 42% FG vs a Player Shooting 50%. In the Play-Offs The Difference is Lesser but Still The Difference is 5% FG a Player Shooting 45% FG vs a Player Shooting 50% FG.

They are Not Close Offensively :banghead:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[fpliii]

Actually, the very first team I envisioned for this particular project was around Russell and Barkley before the finished team I have now, with Barkley being an upgrade over Tom Heinsohn, trading a power forward who was nicknamed "Tommy Gun" and "Ack-Ack" for the most efficient power forward in NBA history. Heinsohn was a defensive liability, and "Auerbach always accused him of not being in shape" (Terry Pluto, Tall Tales, p. 289). Russell said of Heinsohn in 1966, "He had more physical ability than any forward who ever played the game, but in my opinion he never came close to playing to his potential" (Go Up For Glory, p. 81).

Yes, I recall that quote from Russell; I was rather surprised, but some other accounts do back up the conditioning claims.


In December of 1963, it was said that Heinsohn was "the game's greatest offensive rebounder" (Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 4, 1963), and Barkley has the fifth-most offensive rebounds since the NBA began recording the statistic with 4,260, with only Moses Malone (6,731), Robert Parish (4,598), Buck Williams (4,526), and Dennis Rodman (4,329) grabbing more. And of those four, only Malone (5.1) and Rodman (4.8) averaged more offensive rebounds a game than Barkley (4.0). So they'd dominate the backboards, with Russell being the GOAT defensive rebounder and Barkley being one of the GOAT offensive rebounders. "He has been called the greatest last-second offensive rebounder in NBA history because of his nose for the ball. If you need someone to get one crucial offensive rebound, Barkley is your man" (Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 7, 1993). I liked the idea of Russell getting Barkley out in the open court (or Barkley could grab the defensive rebound himself and go coast-to-coast), and I envisioned them being able to run in transition like the Showtime Lakers, but also post up in the halfcourt like the Lakers did with Kareem.

I prefer the Russ-J partnership, but Russell would complement Barkley amazingly well. There wouldn't be an issue of the lane getting clogged if Barkley wanted to work inside (since Russ didn't demand too many touches), and as you noted they'd be excellent in the open court.


I finished Russell's J is Nashty in Miller Time first because I couldn't decide what SF I wanted to pair with Barkley (two of them had potential chemistry problems, one of whom there actually was a chemistry problem), and there were a couple of directions I could go. I wanted the lead scorer with Russell to be a forward, and since I wanted it to be a transition team, that made Barkley and Erving my top choices. As I started thinking about the latter, once I decided the roles I was looking for, the team pretty much picked itself. I haven't thought of another center yet, as I still have to decide what centers are going to the other teams that won't be built around the Top 5 GOAT centers (Magic has Walton and Duncan has Robinson as he did in actuality at the beginning of his career, but I still have to decide on centers for Jordan, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron) in order to know who will be available, since I can't create teams in a vacuum and have to create each team relative to the others (e.g., whomever I pick for a certain team will be off the board and thus not available for any other team). I want the teams to be balanced, each team being capable of competing with the others.

How much thought have you given to pairing Barkley with Moses? The one issue with that is that would make it difficult to add a consensus top 10 player without making the team too stacked. Ewing might be a great call (I have a couple of his early 90s Knicks squads among the 10 GOAT defensive team seasons). Walton's already taken, so he's out of the question. Same with Lakers Wilt (that would also waste him, since you only want to use each top 10 guy once, and I'd imagine you want one of his Sixers campaigns; like Walton and Russ, Lakers Wilt probably works with almost anybody). Hakeem is another possibility (perhaps you'd be interested in Pippen as well, since the three of them played together in that lockout season).

[ThaRegul8r]

Isn't that essentially what I said, though? You just went more in depth.

You didn't say anything about Barkley as a postseason performer vis-a-vis Malone, and I don't recall you saying you'd take one over the other if you were building a team.

[Money 23]

You didn't say anything about Barkley as a postseason performer vis-a-vis Malone, and I don't recall you saying you'd take one over the other if you were building a team.
Because I wasn't injecting who I like better. I'm talking about comparing their RESUME and entire career.

I quite clearly said Barkley had the superior peak. It's very much obvious he was the superior post season player. I didn't feel it need be mentioned.

I personally rather have Barkley, but when talking about their all-time ranking, Malone's longevity counts for something. What Chuck had in natural ability, Malone counteracted with hard work and remaining relevant for WAY longer.

[ThaRegul8r]

I prefer the Russ-J partnership, but Russell would complement Barkley amazingly well. There wouldn't be an issue of the lane getting clogged if Barkley wanted to work inside (since Russ didn't demand too many touches), and as you noted they'd be excellent in the open court.

Yeah, I like the way the team turned out and how they fit together. Before building that team I've always seen Erving paired with Magic on all-time team scenarios. If I didn't make the team I did, then Barkley would be my next choice. I still like that pairing though, and I may just finish the team as a backup team to see what it would look like. If there are multiple players pairings I like, I might just finish them out even though only one would be in the all-time league.


How much thought have you given to pairing Barkley with Moses? The one issue with that is that would make it difficult to add a consensus top 10 player without making the team too stacked.

Moses I hadn't considered, as he wasn't the defensive anchor I had in mind. He had the one year in '83 he was First Team All-Defense, but he wasn't the player I had in mind. He and peak Barkley would dominate the offensive glass though. And yeah, adding a Top 10 player to Barkley and Moses would make it too stacked for my purposes.

Moses is going to head his own team, though. I envision a 12-team league with two divisions, with team led by:
1) Russell (complete)
2) Magic (complete)
3) Duncan (starting lineup complete)
4) Kareem (3/5 of starting lineup complete)
5) Jordan
6) Wilt
7) Hakeem
8) Shaq
9) Bird
10) Kobe
11) LeBron
12) Moses

I wanted LeBron with his own team because I didn't want him paired with any of the above 10 players because it'd make the team too stacked, so then I needed one more player to make each division even.


Ewing might be a great call (I have a couple of his early 90s Knicks squads among the 10 GOAT defensive team seasons). Walton's already taken, so he's out of the question. Same with Lakers Wilt (that would also waste him, since you only want to use each top 10 guy once, and I'd imagine you want one of his Sixers campaigns; like Walton and Russ, Lakers Wilt probably works with almost anybody). Hakeem is another possibility (perhaps you'd be interested in Pippen as well, since the three of them played together in that lockout season).

Ewing's a good choice and might be available. He'd popped in my mind, but as I said, I have to decide what centers are going to the teams that aren't already built around centers that I have yet to complete.

I thought about Wilt, as if you're building a transition team (and I'd want to take advantage of Barkley's ability in transition), if Russell and Walton are already taken, then you'd want Lakers Wilt, as he anchored the '72 Lakers. But Wilt's going to be the centerpiece of the team, so I'd want '67 Wilt. Choosing him in his Lakers years would be wasting him since I want the team to be built around him, and he's going to be facing peak Russell, '00 Shaq, '77 Kareem, '77 Walton, and peak Hakeem at his position alone, without even getting into teams led by peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird, etc. That would be handcapping him since he wasn't at his peak with the Lakers while everyone else will be.

Hakeem's a possibility, though despite the fact that they actually played together, Hakeem's team is going to run through him in the post, so I don't need Barkley, who would also work in the post as well when he's not on the break. Since I have everyone ever to choose from, there's no reason to choose players that have redundancies.

[ThaRegul8r]

Because I wasn't injecting who I like better. I'm talking about comparing their RESUME and entire career.

I quite clearly said Barkley had the superior peak. It's very much obvious he was the superior post season player. I didn't feel it need be mentioned.

I personally rather have Barkley, but when talking about their all-time ranking, Malone's longevity counts for something. What Chuck had in natural ability, Malone counteracted with hard work and remaining relevant for WAY longer.

You said I essentially said the same thing you said, I pointed out how my post deferred from yours. I'm not sure why you should be taking issue with what I said when I'm not arguing with you.

[fpliii]

Moses I hadn't considered, as he wasn't the defensive anchor I had in mind. He had the one year in '83 he was First Team All-Defense, but he wasn't the player I had in mind. He and peak Barkley would dominate the offensive glass though. And yeah, adding a Top 10 player to Barkley and Moses would make it too stacked for my purposes.

Apologies, I didn't insert him for defensive reasons, just because of chemistry/fit since they'd played together.


Moses is going to head his own team, though. I envision a 12-team league with two divisions, with team led by:
1) Russell (complete)
2) Magic (complete)
3) Duncan (starting lineup complete)
4) Kareem (3/5 of starting lineup complete)
5) Jordan
6) Wilt
7) Hakeem
8) Shaq
9) Bird
10) Kobe
11) LeBron
12) Moses

I wanted LeBron with his own team because I didn't want him paired with any of the above 10 players because it'd make the team too stacked, so then I needed one more player to make each division even.

So does that mean West/Robertson/Garnett (perhaps I'm overrating KG by including him with the other two) are available to be paired with anyone (I'd imagine so since Erving is on Russell's team, since you used his best ABA season, which puts him in company with the others)? Or would it have to be one of the comparatively weaker (this sounds crazy given the stature of the guys you selected) among the 12?


Ewing's a good choice and might be available. He'd popped in my mind, but as I said, I have to decide what centers are going to the teams that aren't already built around centers that I have yet to complete.

OT (mildly): What are the GOAT 10-15 defenders in your opinion, separated into tiers (sorry for the lack of a clear number of players, I'm interested in the placement before you get to non-anchors; I'd imagine Pippen is the only non-big, depending on where you have Rodman)? Do you think there are enough for none of the 12 teams to be at a significant disadvantage in that regard?


I thought about Wilt, as if you're building a transition team (and I'd want to take advantage of Barkley's ability in transition), if Russell and Walton are already taken, then you'd want Lakers Wilt, as he anchored the '72 Lakers. But Wilt's going to be the centerpiece of the team, so I'd want '67 Wilt. Choosing him in his Lakers years would be wasting him since I want the team to be built around him, and he's going to be facing peak Russell, '00 Shaq, '77 Kareem, '77 Walton, and peak Hakeem at his position alone, without even getting into teams led by peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird, etc. That would be handcapping him since he wasn't at his peak with the Lakers while everyone else will be.

This is how I felt as well. BTW, regarding the 68 Sixers team, how much do you assess blame on:

1. Wilt (including the allegations of being overly passive as to win the assist title)
2. Injuries
3. Improvement of the Celtics that season

for the repeat not occurring?


Hakeem's a possibility, though despite the fact that they actually played together, Hakeem's team is going to run through him in the post, so I don't need Barkley, who would also work in the post as well when he's not on the break. Since I have everyone ever to choose from, there's no reason to choose players that have redundancies.

That's what I'd figured...with the scope of players available, there's no reason to have to settle for less-than-ideal fits.

[joshwake]

Malone is a Bit Overrated...He Definetly Played More Seasons at a Good Level than Barkley but He NEVER REACHED THE LEVEL OF PRIME BARKLY, EVER!

His Longevity and Stat Padding Looks Nice on Paper an To The Eye (More Numbers Give the Impression of Better) but One You Analyze PER, EFF, Ws Per 48 Minutes, WS etc He Is Below Barkley in Both Their Primes.

Also, Charles calls himself the 2nd Best PF Ever in the Previous Chat With Dan Patrick I Think You Can Also See It If You Click On It
You just don't value longevity. How is playing at a very high level longer than almost anyone else ever in the NBA "stat padding"? It just depends on what you value most when you rank players. There is certainly an argument that can be made for Malone over Barkley or Barkley over Malone.

[Round Mound]

You just don't value longevity. How is playing at a very high level longer than almost anyone else ever in the NBA "stat padding"? It just depends on what you value most when you rank players. There is certainly an argument that can be made for Malone over Barkley or Barkley over Malone.

Longevity Is NOT A Skill.

[rmt]

Barkley wasn`t that Bad of a Defender he Was Above Average and Was The Best Floor Defender for a PF Ever Having the Highest SPG Avg for the PF Spot of All Time!

You Can Call Barkley a Lazy Defender but Bad? No Way In His Phily Days he Was Averaging Like 2 SPG and 1.4 BPG Thats Very Good for a Man His Height.

What u Call This?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqYWjCCGRs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Was a Better Scorer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Rebounder than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Passer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was More Skilled than Duncan By Miles, Had the Superior:

-Post Game
-Mid Range Game & Fadeways Game
-More Difficult to Stop 1 on 1 Off the Dribble and Driving to The Basket
-And Go Coast To Coast Rivaled by No Other PF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Difference in Offensively Inside Is VERY HIGH!!!

Duncan and Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region

Season:

Barkley: 21.6 PPG on 58.13% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 12.9 Two-Point FGAs PG

Duncan: 20.2 PPG on 50.97% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 15.3 Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs:

Barkley: 22.5 PPG on 55.13% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 14.5 Two-Point FGAs PG.

Duncan: 22.2 PPG on 50.47% Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking 16.6 Two-Point FGAs PG

* No They Are Not Close Offensively, Scoring Wise, Rebounding Wise, Passing Wise and Talent Wise... :no:

Barkley Shoots and Scores More... With An 8% FG Difference to Duncan. Thats like a Player Shooting 42% FG vs a Player Shooting 50%. In the Play-Offs The Difference is Lesser but Still The Difference is 5% FG a Player Shooting 45% FG vs a Player Shooting 50% FG.

They are Not Close Offensively :banghead:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but Barkley HIMSELF agrees with me that Duncan is the best PF ever.

[ThaRegul8r]

So does that mean West/Robertson/Garnett (perhaps I'm overrating KG by including him with the other two) are available to be paired with anyone (I'd imagine so since Erving is on Russell's team, since you used his best ABA season, which puts him in company with the others)? Or would it have to be one of the comparatively weaker (this sounds crazy given the stature of the guys you selected) among the 12?

Yes, West/Robertson/Garnett are available. I just haven't decided yet where they would go, being careful not to make one team too stacked, as the point of this exercise is to construct all-time teams differently than people usually do. Normally people do something like Wilt/Duncan/LeBron/Jordan/Magic, and then they'll have something like Kareem/Malone/Bird/Kobe/Oscar off the bench, which is completely ridiculous, as players of that caliber would never be happy with being limited to bench players for an actual season, there aren't enough shots or minutes to go around, and the only way a team like that could be assembled is if one GM somehow gets to pick an entire roster while all the other GMs just sit around and twiddle their thumbs waiting for his leftovers. It could never under any conceivable circumstance happen.

I try to choose players with complementary strengths. For instance, Auerbach said in '63 after falling behind 2-1 to the Cincinnati Royals, "The problem with my team is that we have a super defensive man in Russell and a super play maker in Bob Cousy, but we don't have a super star shooter. The super shooters are Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain .... We've never had a super shooter and people don't realize that." Hence the choice of Erving, who also demonstrated he could fit in with a team, and "may have been less interested in personal stats than just about any other player of comparable greatness." I don't stack strengths, which is why I didn't put peak J with Magic as I usually see. If Magic's the GOAT offensive player, then adding '76 Erving would stack it too much. Magic needs defense behind him, which was why I gave him Walton, Cowens, and Bobby Jones. So I have to decide where they would go where they would be the most complementary without making the team unbalanced as well as fitting chemistry-wise.


OT (mildly): What are the GOAT 10-15 defenders in your opinion, separated into tiers (sorry for the lack of a clear number of players, I'm interested in the placement before you get to non-anchors; I'd imagine Pippen is the only non-big, depending on where you have Rodman)? Do you think there are enough for none of the 12 teams to be at a significant disadvantage in that regard?

Hmm... I'd have to think about it, as I don't give answers off the cuff without considering them first. I'm not one for making lists, my interests are keeping a historical database and projects such as the current one I'm working on. But that was my concern, that there are enough players to go around so that all the teams are balanced. Also that there are enough bench players to go around for every team, as if I'm going with an 8-man rotation for each team, that means I need 36 bench players total, and I didn't want to have career starters come off the bench.


This is how I felt as well. BTW, regarding the 68 Sixers team, how much do you assess blame on:

1. Wilt (including the allegations of being overly passive as to win the assist title)
2. Injuries
3. Improvement of the Celtics that season

for the repeat not occurring?

A couple of years ago, I went on a moratorium from all Wilt/Russell-related discussion on this board due to how emotional and heated some people got over it, and their inability to have a calm, rational discussion whenever that subject rose. I'm tired of it and I'm not discussing any of the two in relation to the other anymore. I'll discuss the two separately, but I'm not discussing any situation in which they were in direct competition with each other.


That's what I'd figured...with the scope of players available, there's no reason to have to settle for less-than-ideal fits.

Yeah, other than constructing more realistic dream teams relative to the talent available, the other point was that with certain players you hear about how they didn't have any help, their teammatea sucked, and there have been instances of bad fit (e.g., '77 Sixers). So the idea was to put all these players who be put on equal footing by giving them ideal teams with complementary players who give them exactly what they need respective to whatever they bring on the court. Since they all bring different things, their complementary players will be different and thus their teams will be different, but suited to them.

[fpliii]

Yes, West/Robertson/Garnett are available. I just haven't decided yet where they would go, being careful not to make one team too stacked, as the point of this exercise is to construct all-time teams differently than people usually do. Normally people do something like Wilt/Duncan/LeBron/Jordan/Magic, and then they'll have something like Kareem/Malone/Bird/Kobe/Oscar off the bench, which is completely ridiculous, as players of that caliber would never be happy with being limited to bench players for an actual season, there aren't enough shots or minutes to go around, and the only way a team like that could be assembled is if one GM somehow gets to pick an entire roster while all the other GMs just sit around and twiddle their thumbs waiting for his leftovers. It could never under any conceivable circumstance happen.

Understandable. As I've mentioned, one of my background projects is an attempt to categorize all role players on championship teams (and a follow-up would entail looking at all non-championship teams that at least made the ECF/WCF or equivalent.


I try to choose players with complementary strengths. For instance, Auerbach said in '63 after falling behind 2-1 to the Cincinnati Royals, "The problem with my team is that we have a super defensive man in Russell and a super play maker in Bob Cousy, but we don't have a super star shooter. The super shooters are Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain .... We've never had a super shooter and people don't realize that." Hence the choice of Erving, who also demonstrated he could fit in with a team, and "may have been less interested in personal stats than just about any other player of comparable greatness." I don't stack strengths, which is why I didn't put peak J with Magic as I usually see. If Magic's the GOAT offensive player, then adding '76 Erving would stack it too much. Magic needs defense behind him, which was why I gave him Walton, Cowens, and Bobby Jones. So I have to decide where they would go where they would be the most complementary without making the team unbalanced as well as fitting chemistry-wise.

Good stuff.


Hmm... I'd have to think about it, as I don't give answers off the cuff without considering them first. I'm not one for making lists, my interests are keeping a historical database and projects such as the current one I'm working on. But that was my concern, that there are enough players to go around so that all the teams are balanced. Also that there are enough bench players to go around for every team, as if I'm going with an 8-man rotation for each team, that means I need 36 bench players total, and I didn't want to have career starters come off the bench.

My apologies...I'm not a huge proponent of rankings of players as well (that's why I also mentioned tiers, as they're a marginally better alternative to straight rankings), I just wanted to try to ensure that there would be suitable quality without huge mismatches (since Thurmond/Russell and Duncan/Robinson are paired, there might be a significant dropoff at some point; not every squad will have a supreme defensive flavor though I imagine, so some might be intentionally unbalanced, depending on to what degree you want to specialize the remaining teams).


A couple of years ago, I went on a moratorium from all Wilt/Russell-related discussion on this board due to how emotional and heated some people got over it, and their inability to have a calm, rational discussion whenever that subject rose. I'm tired of it and I'm not discussing any of the two in relation to the other anymore. I'll discuss the two separately, but I'm not discussing any situation in which they were in direct competition with each other.

Sorry, I won't put you on the spot then. Realistically, it's probably a combination of the three factors (since Cunningham was a big loss), but I can see why the 68 EDF would be off-limits.


Yeah, other than constructing more realistic dream teams relative to the talent available, the other point was that with certain players you hear about how they didn't have any help, their teammatea sucked, and there have been instances of bad fit (e.g., '77 Sixers). So the idea was to put all these players who be put on equal footing by giving them ideal teams with complementary players who give them exactly what they need respective to whatever they bring on the court. Since they all bring different things, their complementary players will be different and thus their teams will be different, but suited to them.

I see, that was my understanding. Not to pry, but was the motivation behind that Kobe thread (i.e. ideal superstar with whom to surround him) to fish for suggestions for the team based around him?

[Round Mound]

Sorry, but Barkley HIMSELF agrees with me that Duncan is the best PF ever.

He Also Said He Could Create His Shot Way Better On Offense than Duncan During That Same Interview on Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick Asked If There Was a Last Shot To Take Who Would Be More Reliable, Is It You or Duncan? Chuck Said "Me...I Can Create Offense Better than Duncan".

You Still Don`t Admit That Charles Was Better Offensively When There is Proof Right Infront Of Your Eyes.

Duncan Was Better Defensively, Barkley Better Offensively.

Now That Leavs Rebounding, Passing, Team D, Clutchness etc.

And In Most Of Those Other Skills...Barkley > Duncan.

[rmt]

He Also Said He Could Create His Shot Way Better On Offense than Duncan During That Same Interview on Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick Asked If There Was a Last Shot To Take Who Would Be More Reliable, Is It You or Duncan? Chuck Said "Me...I Can Create Offense Better than Duncan".

You Still Don`t Admit That Charles Was Better Offensively When There is Proof Right Infront Of Your Eyes.

Duncan Was Better Defensively, Barkley Better Offensively.

Now That Leavs Rebounding, Passing, Team D, Clutchness etc.

And In Most Of Those Other Skills...Barkley > Duncan.

What don't you understand about Barkley's NUMEROUS statements that Duncan is the best PF ever? Does this statement not encompass the overall player and not the breaking down of "skills" as you keep doing? Are skills the entirety of a player? What about his intangibles - his leadership, the mental aspect of the game, the competitiveness, etc? You see basketball as just "skills" when it encompasses the entirety of the player and the total package.

[Round Mound]

What don't you understand about Barkley's NUMEROUS statements that Duncan is the best PF ever? Does this statement not encompass the overall player and not the breaking down of "skills" as you keep doing? Are skills the entirety of a player? What about his intangibles - his leadership, the mental aspect of the game, the competitiveness, etc? You see basketball as just "skills" when it encompasses the entirety of the player and the total package.

:facepalm

Malone Thinks He Was Better than Barkley and Duncan...Does That Make His Oppinion the Truth? :confusedshrug: Charles Said He Was Better than Malone Too? So? Opinions :sleeping

See the Difference is a I Break it Down Skill Wise and Use Statistical Evidence and That Bothers You Because It Does Not Favor Your Favorite Duncan. Period! If They Favored Duncan, Then You`d Probably Give Me a :applause: But They Don`t :rolleyes:

Duncan Was a Better Rim Protector and Shot Blocker. A Better Post Defender. I Admit To it.

While Barkley Was Better AT EVERYTHING ELSE Skill Wise. Admit To It Too!

If You Go About Intangibles: Please.... Players Where More Afraid Barkley than Duncan. Barkley was an Intimidator at Court Prior to Games Themselves. I Mean the Barkley Prior to 1995-96 ofcourse. Clutchness? Barkley Had More Buzzerbeaters and Last Second Shots than Duncan. Barkley Usually Played With the 24 Second Clock In his Games and Still Made his Shots Most Times Jus Too Goof Off and Wait Till the last 2nd.

Duncan was Lucky to Play with a Great Coach, D-Rob: The Best Rim Protector of the 90s (Defensive Rating Will Agree Too), Ginobili a Top 4 SG and Parker a Top 5 PG. In an Era Where there where NO Jordan-Pippen-Grant-Rodman-Kukoc Phil Jackson Bulls, Bird-McHale-Parish-DJ Celtics, Kareem-Magic-Worthy-Cooper Lakers or the Badboys of Laimbeer-Isiah-Dumars-Aguire-Rodman-Mahorn-Salley-Dantley.


Thats Why He Has Rings. Put him the 80s and 90s on a Bad Team like Chuck and He Would Have Had Zero Rings.

[ThaRegul8r]

My apologies...I'm not a huge proponent of rankings of players as well (that's why I also mentioned tiers, as they're a marginally better alternative to straight rankings), I just wanted to try to ensure that there would be suitable quality without huge mismatches (since Thurmond/Russell and Duncan/Robinson are paired, there might be a significant dropoff at some point; not every squad will have a supreme defensive flavor though I imagine, so some might be intentionally unbalanced, depending on to what degree you want to specialize the remaining teams).

No, they're not all going to be defensive-oriented to the same degree, as it'll depend on the best player. Russell's the GOAT defender, and Duncan anchored the greatest defensive dynasty since Russell's Celtics, so defense is going to be part of the identity of those teams. Teams can be on an equal tier without having the same specific strengths. Though you're right in that a concern is making sure that everyone has enough defense. So far, Duncan's team has the best defensive team 1-5 in the league, is equipped to defend Shaq, and has three perimeter defenders they can throw at opposing wings backed by the Twin Towers. I don't see anyone else having a team like that as none of the other players aside from Russell led a defensive team like the Spurs, but I do have to make sure none of the other teams will be at a significant disadvantage. Which is what makes it challenging, and thus more interesting than the standard "What's Your Dream Team?" scenarios.


I see, that was my understanding. Not to pry, but was the motivation behind that Kobe thread (i.e. ideal superstar with whom to surround him) to fish for suggestions for the team based around him?

Yes, I was trying to see what people who watch every single one of Kobe's games would say. I haven't watched as many of Kobe's games as Kobe fans have/do, and I figured that since they talk about him enough, they should have an idea, especially since they've been complaining about his teammates during this disappointment of a season when this was supposed to be one of the greatest teams of all time. But those threads don't go over well on this board, hence the people who spammed the thread.

[fpliii]

No, they're not all going to be defensive-oriented to the same degree, as it'll depend on the best player. Russell's the GOAT defender, and Duncan anchored the greatest defensive dynasty since Russell's Celtics, so defense is going to be part of the identity of those teams. Teams can be on an equal tier without having the same specific strengths. Though you're right in that a concern is making sure that everyone has enough defense. So far, Duncan's team has the best defensive team 1-5 in the league, is equipped to defend Shaq, and has three perimeter defenders they can throw at opposing wings backed by the Twin Towers. I don't see anyone else having a team like that as none of the other players aside from Russell led a defensive team like the Spurs, but I do have to make sure none of the other teams will be at a significant disadvantage. Which is what makes it challenging, and thus more interesting than the standard "What's Your Dream Team?" scenarios.

This is key...I think we determined that Thurmond could do a serviceable job on him (even past his prime). There are actually a few concerns with Shaq, as equipping him with certain types of players could make his team very dangerous in a playoff setting and undermine the balance (this could be the case with Sixers Wilt as well, depending on which season of his you select and what type of team you surround him with).


Yes, I was trying to see what people who watch every single one of Kobe's games would say. I haven't watched as many of Kobe's games as Kobe fans have/do, and I figured that since they talk about him enough, they should have an idea, especially since they've been complaining about his teammates during this disappointment of a season when this was supposed to be one of the greatest teams of all time. But those threads don't go over well on this board, hence the people who spammed the thread.

I'll have to take a look at the thread and see if I can parse out some reasonable suggestions.

[barkleynash]

Considering that Dirk led a team to the title with no other allstar help (Jason terry as the sidekick) and schooled the stacked Miami Heat squad Id say he has the 2nd best claim to the throne after Timmy D. Karl, chuck and kg all had better careers but winning is the ultimate trump card in my opinion. The last player to do that wht Dirk pulled off was hakeem with the 94 rockets. I don't let kg leapfrog Karl or chuck as he wasn't the leading man with his title.

Duncan
Nowitzki
Malone
Barkley
Garnet

[rmt]

Considering that Dirk led a team to the title with no other allstar help (Jason terry as the sidekick) and schooled the stacked Miami Heat squad Id say he has the 2nd best claim to the throne after Timmy D. Karl, chuck and kg all had better careers but winning is the ultimate trump card in my opinion. The last player to do that wht Dirk pulled off was hakeem with the 94 rockets. I don't let kg leapfrog Karl or chuck as he wasn't the leading man with his title.

Duncan
Nowitzki
Malone
Barkley
Garnet

Are you forgetting 03 Duncan? Or do you think that Dirk's 11 run > Duncan's 03 run?

[Purch]

Longevity Is NOT A Skill.
No one said it was?

[wally_world]

Earl Clark = #1

[ThaRegul8r]

This is key...I think we determined that Thurmond could do a serviceable job on him (even past his prime). There are actually a few concerns with Shaq, as equipping him with certain types of players could make his team very dangerous in a playoff setting and undermine the balance (this could be the case with Sixers Wilt as well, depending on which season of his you select and what type of team you surround him with).

Yes... Russell's the GOAT defender, so adding prime Thurmond would stack the team too much defensively. I just wanted a bigger body who could defend Shaq went he came to town, freeing Russell and enabling him to help. '75-76 Thurmond was perfect though, as he wasn't in his prime anymore, which wouldn't stack the team too much (and that only affected his offensive game, which he isn't here for in the first place. They have enough offense), he actually came off the bench in the given season, which was key as I only wanted actual bench players on the bench, and he still had it defensively, shutting down prime Kareem who was MVP of the league to 3-14 shooting in the fourth quarter of a game in which he was brought in to defend him:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=V5NSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cl8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5084,5868324

and he was highly effective against Dave Cowens--who was third in the MVP voting--and the postseason against the Celtics who were an uptempo team when he was pressed into starting duty and had to play 40 minutes a game. He was the perfect backup for what I was looking for. (He'd be the functional defensive equivalent of '86 Walton.)

There are some matchups I think about when forming a team, "How would they do against Shaq," and how would they do against high-scoring wings? Russell's team can defend Shaq with Thurmond (and the point isn't to shut him down, just limit/contain him enough to enable the team to win. As was the case with Wilt, whatever individual numbers he puts up don't matter so long as the team gets the "W"), they can defend Jordan, Kobe, etc., with Cooper backed by Russell, Nance and Thurmond off the bench, and they can defend Bird, who has always said Cooper was his toughest defender. Duncan's team can defend Shaq with the Twin Towers as the Spurs actually did, and they can defend Jordan, with Dumars being credited as his toughest defender, etc. I don't want any team to have too much of an advantage over everyone else, as the point is to put everyone on equal footing.


I'll have to take a look at the thread and see if I can parse out some reasonable suggestions.

Kobe might be difficult, as finding the right mix of players won't be as easy as it was for the more team-oriented players in Russell, Magic, and Duncan, and in real life there were clashes with teammates and complaints about touches, which compounds the problem of forming a complementary team that will enable him to shoot as much as he wants without his teammates becoming dissatisfied from not being involved enough in the offense, while still being competitive against the other teams. Which was why I was trying to get some opinions from people who watch him all the time. As there is only so much time in the day, I can't watch everyone to the same extent, so I have no problem with consulting other people who've watched a particular player more than I have.

[joshwake]

Longevity Is NOT A Skill.
Yet it is taken into account when ranking players, don't act like you don't either. I shouldn't have to even try to pull examples that show this.

[bizil]

In terms of GOAT, I have no problem with Timmy, Mailman, Barkley, KG, and Dirk as the top five GOAT PF's. Can't forget McHale, Hayes, and Petit as well. Timmy had the size and skillset of the legendary centers. But he gained his fame and notoriety as a PF, even though he played a ton of C. To me it's no different than a swingman, combo guard, or SF-PF. Most guys have a secondary position they may play often. The problem with Timmy is when these commentators list a Blair or Bonner as Center and Timmy as PF. And that has happened a lot to Duncan once Robinson retired. So the problem is Timmy being lined up with guys who are natural PF's and STILL being called a PF. It's not the fact that Timmy is a 7 footer who happens to blessed with epic ability and can play PF, C, and in his younger days even some SF.

[bizil]

When looking at the legendary PF's, Barkley is the BIGGEST STAR of them all and made the PF spot make up ground on the other spot in that regard. When u factor everything, I think Barkley is the MOST IMPACTFUL PF ever in terms of redefining the position, ticket sales, exposure worldwide, ratings, etc. So even though Timmy is the GOAT PF, I think Barkley is to PF's what MJ was to SG, Magic PG,and Bird SF. Barkley made it cool to be a PF, when before it was known mainly as an enforcer position. Or it had skilled scorers and rebounders like Hayes, Lucas, and Pettit fly under the radar while the other stars got more attention. Barkley put PF's on the front page and was as visible as anybody. Once Bird and Magic retired, Barkley was the second biggest star in the L and a transcendant kind of star at that.

[Big#50]

In terms of GOAT, I have no problem with Timmy, Mailman, Barkley, KG, and Dirk as the top five GOAT PF's. Can't forget McHale, Hayes, and Petit as well. Timmy had the size and skillset of the legendary centers. But he gained his fame and notoriety as a PF, even though he played a ton of C. To me it's no different than a swingman, combo guard, or SF-PF. Most guys have a secondary position they may play often. The problem with Timmy is when these commentators list a Blair or Bonner as Center and Timmy as PF. And that has happened a lot to Duncan once Robinson retired. So the problem is Timmy being lined up with guys who are natural PF's and STILL being called a PF. It's not the fact that Timmy is a 7 footer who happens to blessed with epic ability and can play PF, C, and in his younger days even some SF.
Tim is 6'10.

[SCdac]

Tim is 6'10.

Ben Wallace is 6'9 and Dwight Howard is 6'11 at the most.

Chuck Hayes is a 6'6 center and DeJuan Blair's natural position is center also.

Height certainly doesn't determine position

[Big#50]

Ben Wallace is 6'9 and Dwight Howard is 6'11 at the most.

Chuck Hayes is a 6'6 center and DeJuan Blair's natural position is center also.

Height certainly doesn't determine position
I've watched Tim play since the first time he played ACC ball. I know he is a center. To me he has always been a center. Best big since JABBAR. I only said he was 6'10 because people call him a 7 footer. Stupid Spurs fans have to be the most annoying trolls.

[Round Mound]

Yet it is taken into account when ranking players, don't act like you don't either. I shouldn't have to even try to pull examples that show this.

Kobe Will End Up With More Points, Rebounds, Assists etc than Jordan Was He Better? :no:

If Longevity Makes a Player Better than Use It But It Doesn`t Malone Stayed at Better Level than Barkley True But Was Never a More Dominant Player than Barkley in Both Their Primes. Ever! More Numbers Look Nice On Paper To the Eye Thats All!

Dominance > Longevity

Jordan > Kobe

Barkley > Malone

[Whoah10115]

What don't you understand about Barkley's NUMEROUS statements that Duncan is the best PF ever? Does this statement not encompass the overall player and not the breaking down of "skills" as you keep doing? Are skills the entirety of a player? What about his intangibles - his leadership, the mental aspect of the game, the competitiveness, etc? You see basketball as just "skills" when it encompasses the entirety of the player and the total package.



Barkley has said, numerous times, that he was a better player but that Duncan has earned the title of the best PF ever. Duncan has the accomplishments, but he was also the most important player on those teams, so he earned it. But Barkley has always said that he was the better player, at his best.

[barkleynash]

Are you forgetting 03 Duncan? Or do you think that Dirk's 11 run > Duncan's 03 run?

Damn I thought either Manu or Parker woulda been selected. Allstar guards for the west that year were Kobe, Steve Francis, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, and Stephon Marbury

To answer your question though, I do consider Dirk's run more impressive as he had a much stiffer challenge in the finals with Lebron's Heat compared to the Ason Kidd led Nets.

[rmt]

Damn I thought either Manu or Parker woulda been selected. Allstar guards for the west that year were Kobe, Steve Francis, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, and Stephon Marbury

To answer your question though, I do consider Dirk's run more impressive as he had a much stiffer challenge in the finals with Lebron's Heat compared to the Ason Kidd led Nets.

Dirk's run was indeed impressive but mostly on the offensive end of the court. Duncan was impressive on BOTH ends of the court. Chandler was the one manning the paint (for which he was "rewarded" the next year with DPOY). As far as the competition is concerned, Lebron (who had won nothing as yet) and the newly-formed Heat vs Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson and the 3-time defending champions?

The experience difference in their team mates is also important. 2nd year Parker, 2nd year SJax, rookie Manu, 38 yr old DRob vs Terry, Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Barea. IMO, Duncan had to do a lot more heavy lifting than Dirk.

03 playoff Duncan/ 11 playoff Dirk
24.7 pts / 27.7 pts
15.4 rebs / 8.1 rebs
5.3 assts / 2.5 assts
3.3 blks / 0.6 blks
52.9 FG% / 48.5 FG%

Duncan led the Spurs in points, rebounds, assists and blocks. Dirk led the Mavs in points and FT%.

[Round Mound]

Why is Dirk Name Even Mentined With Charles, Karl and Tim? :confusedshrug:

[brain drain]

Why is Dirk Name Even Mentined With Charles, Karl and Tim? :confusedshrug:

LOL.

1st off, Malone just wasn't a great player in the playoffs.
He stuffed the statsheet at first glance, but when you take a closer look, it looks much worse. The guy has a career playoff TS% of 52.6%. He only topped 58% TS in 2 playoff runs in his whole career. Dirk has a career playoff TS% of 58.1%.

Now, when you consider that Malone played the vast majority of his career being fed passes by John Stockton, and played a good part of his career at a time when league wide fg% was a good bit higher than during Dirk's career, the difference gets even more glaring.

Malone might've looked mighty good with his big muscles and raw stat sheet numbers, but the fact is, as a scoring threat he's simply nowhere near Dirk.

You should rather ask why Malone should be in the discussion.

[Round Mound]

LOL.

1st off, Malone just wasn't a great player in the playoffs.
He stuffed the statsheet at first glance, but when you take a closer look, it looks much worse. The guy has a career playoff TS% of 52.6%. He only topped 58% TS in 2 playoff runs in his whole career. Dirk has a career playoff TS% of 58.1%.

Now, when you consider that Malone played the vast majority of his career being fed passes by John Stockton, and played a good part of his career at a time when league wide fg% was a good bit higher than during Dirk's career, the difference gets even more glaring.

Malone might've looked mighty good with his big muscles and raw stat sheet numbers, but the fact is, as a scoring threat he's simply nowhere near Dirk.

You should rather ask why Malone should be in the discussion.

Scoring Wise They are Very Similar....With Dirk Being a Better Pure Shooter.

Dirk Wasn`t the Post Player (late in his career he was very good) Malone Was. Dirk Wasn`t The Rebounder, Passer or Defender Malone Was.

Malone Was a Better Total Player.

[brain drain]

Dirk's run was indeed impressive but mostly on the offensive end of the court. Duncan was impressive on BOTH ends of the court. Chandler was the one manning the paint (for which he was "rewarded" the next year with DPOY). As far as the competition is concerned, Lebron (who had won nothing as yet) and the newly-formed Heat vs Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson and the 3-time defending champions?

The experience difference in their team mates is also important. 2nd year Parker, 2nd year SJax, rookie Manu, 38 yr old DRob vs Terry, Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Barea. IMO, Duncan had to do a lot more heavy lifting than Dirk.

03 playoff Duncan/ 11 playoff Dirk
24.7 pts / 27.7 pts
15.4 rebs / 8.1 rebs
5.3 assts / 2.5 assts
3.3 blks / 0.6 blks
52.9 FG% / 48.5 FG%

Duncan led the Spurs in points, rebounds, assists and blocks. Dirk led the Mavs in points and FT%.

Yeah, but you conveniently left out some facts:

03 playoff Duncan/ 11 playoff Dirk
AGE 26 / 32
57.7 TS% / 60.9 TS% (What use is posting raw fg% when one player takes 0.3 3pa and the other 2.4 3pa)

And last but not least
Opposing teams Spurs 2003:
1st round Suns with Marbury & Rookie Amare as best players
2nd round Lakers (defending champs)
3rd round mavs without Dirk after 1.5 games
Finals Leastern Nets

vs

Opposing Teams for Mavs 2011
1st round Portland
2nd round Lakers (defending champs)
3rd round OKC
Finals Big-Three Miami


So we've got
- 2 playoff runs with a rather big difference as far as the quality of opposing teams is concerned (how many allstar caliber forwards did Duncan face during the 2003 run? How many "superteams"?),
- 2 players at completely different ages (go and check Duncan's playoff stats at 32 years)
- and two completely different ways how these players helped their teams win (Duncan did everything, Dirk dominated the 4th quarters in historical fashion).

So, what conclusion are you trying to draw from this great comparison?

[brain drain]

Scoring Wise They are Very Similar....With Dirk Being a Better Pure Shooter.


That's ridiculous. When you've got two scorers who score at a similar rate, but one converts at a 6% higher clip, that's not "very similar" at all.

And Malone came into a league that hat a league wide average fg% of about 49%, whereas Dirk came into the league when the avg fg% was 44%. Plus Malone had Stockton. Similar scorers, my a$$.

[SCdac]

So we've got
- 2 playoff runs with a rather big difference as far as the quality of opposing teams is concerned (how many allstar caliber forwards did Duncan face during the 2003 run? How many "superteams"?),
- 2 players at completely different ages (go and check Duncan's playoff stats at 32 years)
- and two completely different ways how these players helped their teams win (Duncan did everything, Dirk dominated the 4th quarters in historical fashion).

So, what conclusion are you trying to draw from this great comparison?

How many All-star caliber big men did Dirk face? lol ... LaMarcus Aldridge? Serge Ibaka? Chris Bosh? :oldlol:

It's funny how the best defenders on the Mavs get no credit (Chandler, Marion, Kidd, and Stevenson)... You know, the guys who defended the best players Mavs went up against.

Duncan did in fact do everything (two way player). And it's really only paralleled by Hakeem when considering supporting cast.

Dirk won his championship when the best bigs of his era were all retiring or on their last legs... Duncan, Garnett, Shaq... think it's any coincidence?

[brain drain]

Dirk won his championship when the best bigs of his era were all retiring or on their last legs... Duncan, Garnett, Shaq... think it's any coincidence?

Are you trying to imply that Dirk and the Mavs only won the title because of the extremely weak competition they faced? That's a good one...

[Round Mound]

That's ridiculous. When you've got two scorers who score at a similar rate, but one converts at a 6% higher clip, that's not "very similar" at all.

And Malone came into a league that hat a league wide average fg% of about 49%, whereas Dirk came into the league when the avg fg% was 44%. Plus Malone had Stockton. Similar scorers, my a$$.

They Shot at Higher FG% in the 80s because the League was Stacked and Every Team Had Great Role Players, Shooters, Creators, Passeres and 2 All Stars Per Team

Also....Karl In Young Days Was a Master Finisher, Runner of Breaks and Pounded His Way With Strength For Points. As the Years Whent By He Was Less Mobile and Slower So He Developed a Very Good Post Game and Mid Range Shot and Was Less Physical.

Both Dirk and Malone Shot around the same Level at Play 46 or 47%. Both Where Not Efficiency Scorers. TS%? I Already Mentioned Dirk Was a Better Shooter: FT Shooter and 3-Point Shooter Are In It.

Was Dirk a Better Defender than Malone?

Was Dirk a Better Rebounder than Malone?

Was Dirk a Better Passer than Malone?

I Think Not.

[SCdac]

Are you trying to imply that Dirk and the Mavs only won the title because of the extremely weak competition they faced? That's a good one...

I'm implying that he won his championship when his biggest competitors at his position (big men in general) were all getting old and trailing off. Do you think it's coincidence?

Did Dirk guard Lebron? Did he guard Kobe? Did he guard Durant? ... Lets give some credit where it's due. The guys who allowed Dirk to be a one-dimensional force of a scorer.

Duncan was like Dirk + Chandler combined... best offensive and defensive player on the floor.

The competition argument is fair, but Duncan went up against the best center of all time in 2003 and the best dynasty of the last decade... While Dirk beat what, crappy Pau Gasol (who shat the bed even before the second round) and Chris Bosh? lol ... It's Marion who deserves the lion's share of credit for getting in Lebron's head.

[Legends66NBA7]

How many All-star caliber big men did Dirk face? lol ... LaMarcus Aldridge? Serge Ibaka? Chris Bosh? :oldlol:

All of those players are all-star caliber. Even Pau Gasol, who up until the playoffs was having a solid year.


Dirk won his championship when the best bigs of his era were all retiring or on their last legs... Duncan, Garnett, Shaq... think it's any coincidence?

Still beat the defending back to back Lakers, the up and coming Thunder, and the Big 3 on the Heat, the one player everyone was hyping to be the greatest player of all-time before the Finals in LeBron James.

And it's no coincidence what so ever. The Mavericks weren't supposed to win a title that year.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'm implying that he won his championship when his biggest competitors at his position (big men in general) were all getting old and trailing off. Do you think it's coincidence?

They weren't even supposed to be in the finals that year.

[Legends66NBA7]

Why is Dirk Name Even Mentined With Charles, Karl and Tim?

You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't.

Same goes with Elvin Hayes and Bob Pettit.

[brain drain]

How many All-star caliber big men did Dirk face? lol ... LaMarcus Aldridge? Serge Ibaka? Chris Bosh? :oldlol:

Plus Gasol & Bynum. It was certainly a stronger competition than what Duncan faced in 2003, which was essentially Shaq, 1.5 games of Dirk, Rookie Amare and a bunch of scrubs.



It's funny how the best defenders on the Mavs get no credit (Chandler, Marion, Kidd, and Stevenson)... You know, the guys who defended the best players Mavs went up against.
... and players like David Robinson and Bruce Bowen totally didn't do anything in the 2003 playoffs either....


Duncan did in fact do everything (two way player). And it's really only paralleled by Hakeem when considering supporting cast.
Yeah, but he also did it agains historically weak competition by western conference standards. Had to go through one great team at full strength (Lakers) and that was basically it.

[rmt]

Yeah, but you conveniently left out some facts:

03 playoff Duncan/ 11 playoff Dirk
AGE 26 / 32
57.7 TS% / 60.9 TS% (What use is posting raw fg% when one player takes 0.3 3pa and the other 2.4 3pa)

And last but not least
Opposing teams Spurs 2003:
1st round Suns with Marbury & Rookie Amare as best players
2nd round Lakers (defending champs)
3rd round mavs without Dirk after 1.5 games
Finals Leastern Nets

vs

Opposing Teams for Mavs 2011
1st round Portland
2nd round Lakers (defending champs)
3rd round OKC
Finals Big-Three Miami


So we've got
- 2 playoff runs with a rather big difference as far as the quality of opposing teams is concerned (how many allstar caliber forwards did Duncan face during the 2003 run? How many "superteams"?),
- 2 players at completely different ages (go and check Duncan's playoff stats at 32 years)
- and two completely different ways how these players helped their teams win (Duncan did everything, Dirk dominated the 4th quarters in historical fashion).

So, what conclusion are you trying to draw from this great comparison?

You may go on about competition although IMO a 3-time defending champion with 2 top 10 players and GOAT coach is better competition than a never-won Lebron James and Spoelstra and I can go on about quality/age/experience of team mates. Your own words above (bolded and underlined by me) are the answer. This comparison is about each respective playoff runs and I think it's clear that Duncan did more for the 03 Spurs than Dirk did for the 11 Mavs.

[SCdac]

All of those players are all-star caliber. Even Pau Gasol, who up until the playoffs was having a solid year.


Still beat the defending back to back Lakers, the up and coming Thunder, and the Big 3 on the Heat, the one player everyone was hyping to be the greatest player of all-time before the Finals in LeBron James.

And it's no coincidence what so ever. The Mavericks weren't supposed to win a title that year.

you think if prime Shaq or Duncan are in the league the 2011 Mavs get through their team? .... doubtful

[Legends66NBA7]

you think if prime Shaq or Duncan are in the league the 2011 Mavs get through their team? .... doubtful

Nowitzki never ran into prime Shaq to get to the Finals. He got through Duncan, although he was playing hurt in the 06 series, but then you look back the 03 series, what if Nowtizki doesn't miss the rest of that series ?

Either way, their road in 2011 certainly wasn't easy.

[brain drain]

They Shot at Higher FG% in the 80s because the League was Stacked and Every Team Had Great Role Players, Shooters, Creators, Passeres and 2 All Stars Per Team

Also....Karl In Young Days Was a Master Finisher, Runner of Breaks and Pounded His Way With Strength For Points. As the Years Whent By He Was Less Mobile and Slower So He Developed a Very Good Post Game and Mid Range Shot and Was Less Physical.

Malone just wasn't efficient in the playoffs at all. His avg. season TS% is about 5% higher than his playoff TS%. That should tell you all you need to know about the guy.


Both Dirk and Malone Shot around the same Level at Play 46 or 47%. Both Where Not Efficiency Scorers. TS%? I Already Mentioned Dirk Was a Better Shooter: FT Shooter and 3-Point Shooter Are In It.
No, it means Dirk is a better SCORER. He converts a higher percentage of the opportunities he gets. Period.


Was Dirk a Better Defender than Malone?

Was Dirk a Better Rebounder than Malone?

Was Dirk a Better Passer than Malone?

I Think Not.

Malone has a career playoff rebounding avg of 10.7, Dirk has a career rebounding avg of 10.3, if you factor in the higher pace in the 80s, that's a wash.

Malone has a career playoff avg of 3.2 apg, Dirk 2.6.

And that's your case?

[brain drain]

You may go on about competition although IMO a 3-time defending champion with 2 top 10 players and GOAT coach is better competition than a never-won Lebron James and Spoelstra and I can go on about quality/age/experience of team mates.
What?
So 3peat Shaq+Kobe Lakers + Nelson Mavs without best player for most of series + a bunch of medicre teams > 2peat Kobe/Pau/Bynum - Lakers plus Durant / Westbrook / Harden / Ibaka OKC plus LBJ / Wade / Bosh - Heat LOL!


Your own words above (bolded and underlined by me) are the answer. This comparison is about each respective playoff runs and I think it's clear that Duncan did more for the 03 Spurs than Dirk did for the 11 Mavs.
Duncan did more different things. However he didn't dominate 4th quarter scoring against 3 super teams in a row.

[Whoah10115]

You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't.

Same goes with Elvin Hayes and Bob Pettit.



I'd strongly disagree on Elvin Hayes.




Other than that, this thread has gone to the point where most posters (not talking about you) aren't listening to anyone disagreeing. Time to bail.

[SCdac]

lol "3 super teams in a row" ... That's some extreme exaggeration of those teams.

the Thunder were 55-27 ... lead by a team of 22 year olds who'd never even gotten that far
the Lakers were 57--25... same record as the Mavs. Got swept while Pau continued to suck.
the Heat were 58-24.... a team pieced together on the fly (4-5 players from that team retired afterward). Lebron got punked by the D of Marion and Stevenson. kind of flukish but earned by the Mavs.

[Legends66NBA7]

lol "3 super teams in a row" ... That's some extreme exaggeration of those teams.

the Thunder were 55-27 ... lead by a team of 22 year olds who'd never even gotten that far
the Lakers were 57--25... same record as the Mavs. Got swept while Pau continued to suck.
the Heat were 58-24.... a team pieced together on the fly (4-5 players from that team retired afterward). Lebron got punked by the D of Marion and Stevenson. kind of flukish but earned by the Mavs.

They weren't the favourites in 2 of those 3 matchups.

And no, the Heat weren't a "on the fly" team, they had a full training camp to work together. This wasn't the 08 Celtics or Lakers. A lot of the players that did retire were irrelevant as far main rotation players go.

But yes, it is a bit of an exaggeration.


I'd strongly disagree on Elvin Hayes.




Other than that, this thread has gone to the point where most posters (not talking about you) aren't listening to anyone disagreeing. Time to bail.

The only difference between Hayes and someone like Karl Malone, is John Stockton. Their such similar players, outside of the fact Hayes was more of jump shooter and Malone ran the floor better than any other PF, but it's a fact when you look at their careers. I don't see how Hayes doesn't score just as many points and play even longer with a John Stockton feeding him for easier baskets for 15+ years as starters together.

[brain drain]

lol "3 super teams in a row" ... That's some extreme exaggeration of those teams.
Well, the Lakers and the Heat were definitely considered a super team that year. And the Thunder were definitely considered a super team a year later...



the Thunder were 55-27 ... lead by a team of 22 year olds who'd never even gotten that far
LOL, so Durant, Westbrook & Harden were just another bunch of 22 year olds...
Well if you compare that to the 2003 Mavs, who'd never even gotten that far as well, but who also lost their best player during the series...


the Lakers were 57--25... same record as the Mavs. Got swept while Pau continued to suck.
... and the 2002-2003 Lakers were 50-32, so...



the Heat were 58-24.... a team pieced together on the fly (4-5 players from that team retired afterward).
So the 2011 Heat weren't a super team either? Compare that to the 2003 Nets and ask yourself which team you'd rather face...

[Round Mound]

Malone just wasn't efficient in the playoffs at all. His avg. season TS% is about 5% higher than his playoff TS%. That should tell you all you need to know about the guy.

No, it means Dirk is a better SCORER. He converts a higher percentage of the opportunities he gets. Period.

At Court They are Around The Same Level. I Agree Malone Declined in the Play-Offs But At Court He Still As Good Scorer to Dirk. Dirk is a Better Shooter and 1 on 1 Player I`ll Give You That but Scorer? Around the Same Level. Lets Also Remember Malone Made a Living of Going to the FTline in his Prime He Was Much Harder To Stop and Created More Fouls than Dirk, Especially in His Prime ages 22-32.

Malone has a career playoff rebounding avg of 10.7, Dirk has a career rebounding avg of 10.3, if you factor in the higher pace in the 80s, that's a wash.

Higher Pace? Don`t Give Me That Crap Again. Malone Was a Way Better Rebounder than Dirk...Especially in his Prime Days Where he Had Better Reaction to Get the Ball, Was Leaner and Was a Workhorse. Malone Was the Better Rebounder Ages 22-32 than Dirk Ever Was. You are Comparing Career Stat Wise and His Rebounding Numbers Declined Ages 33-40. Lets See Dirk Still Average 10 RPG After Age 33 or 34...They Will Definetly Decline

Malone has a career playoff avg of 3.2 apg, Dirk 2.6.

And that's your case?

He Was a Better Passer and Was Doubled More than Dirk Ever Was in the Paint. He Was More Difficult to Stop Driving to the Basket With Power, Rumbling to the Rim With Power and Running the Break to Finish With Power

You Must Be a Mavs Fan or a German B-Ball Fan To Think Dir Was Better.

Dirk Was Pretty Much 1 Dimensional his Whole Career. A Great Scorer. Thats It.

[Whoah10115]

The only difference between Hayes and someone like Karl Malone, is John Stockton. Their such similar players, outside of the fact Hayes was more of jump shooter and Malone ran the floor better than any other PF, but it's a fact when you look at their careers. I don't see how Hayes doesn't score just as many points and play even longer with a John Stockton feeding him for easier baskets for 15+ years as starters together.


As a scorer, they're similar. The difference is not only Stockton but Malone's ability to fit into systems. Hayes was a guy who thought of himself, first. He got his numbers. Shaq did a lot of that, but Shaq was a million times better and a great passer and, surprisingly, not a ballhog.


After I posted that, I looked up his stats. I was surprised at his shots to points ratio...and in his rookie season he put up over 25 shots a game.


Hayes was a good defender but an overrated one. He wasn't any kind of passer, much less a willing one. Malone did plenty of the little things. He set great picks, played as a decoy, spaced the floor not just for his jumpshot, but for his team, with his jumpshot. Also, as you said, he ran the floor better than...any player period. Stuff like that is invaluable. His intangibles were thru the roof, whereas Hayes was mostly negative.


Obviously, he was lucky to play with Unseld. Not only did they complement each other perfectly, but Unseld is Mr. Intangibles. I wouldn't rank Hayes as high as Webber, either in talent or in output. Tho he did get a title.

[SCdac]

So the 2011 Heat weren't a super team either? Compare that to the 2003 Nets and ask yourself which team you'd rather face...

The Heat are the only team deserving of that "Super team" tag, and even then, they proved you can't just win it on the fly throwing super stars and broken-down vets together. The Lakers at that point leading up to the playoffs (lost 5 straight) looked out of it - hardly a super team. The Thunder were inexperienced, young, and built successfully through a draft. That would be like calling the 2005 Spurs a super team. It would be an exaggeration.

[brain drain]

Lets Also Remember Malone Made a Living of Going to the FTline in his Prime He Was Much Harder To Stop and Created More Fouls than Dirk, Especially in His Prime ages 22-32.

Dirk has career playoff FGA of 8.8, Malone 8.9. Even if you gave Malone an avg of 11 for his first 10 seasons (which he probably hasn't, some of his worse FTA seasons came in his 20s), it still would only make him a .2 pt better scorer from the line than Dirk - Malone converted at 73.6%, Dirk at 89.3%


Malone has a career playoff rebounding avg of 10.7, Dirk has a career rebounding avg of 10.3, if you factor in the higher pace in the 80s, that's a wash.


Higher Pace? Don`t Give Me That Crap Again. Malone Was a Way Better Rebounder than Dirk...Especially in his Prime Days Where he Had Better Reaction to Get the Ball, Was Leaner and Was a Workhorse. Malone Was the Better Rebounder Ages 22-32 than Dirk Ever Was. You are Comparing Career Stat Wise and His Rebounding Numbers Declined Ages 33-40. Lets See Dirk Still Average 10 RPG After Age 33 or 34...They Will Definetly Decline

That's ridiculous. Dirk has a playoff TRB% of 14.3%, Malone 15.6.
Now, if you look at defensive rebounding, Malone's at 23.3, Dirk's 24.6.
Sure, If you limit Malone to x seasons, his numbers are better. Same is true for Dirk, whose playoff rebounding rate dropped in the 2010 and hasn't recovered since. So, Malone certainly had a much better longevity as a rebounder. But if you want to measure their rebounding ability, you need to compare defensive rebounding (because Dirk plays farther from the basket on offense) and playoffs (because that's when it counts). And apart from one single freak season by Malone (35 DRB%, in a 5 game run), the DRB% are astonishingly similar, Dirk even has more seasons in the >25 DRB% range than Malone has.

Malone has a career playoff avg of 3.2 apg, Dirk 2.6.

And that's your case?

He Was a Better Passer and Was Doubled More than Dirk Ever Was. He Was More Difficult to Stop Driving to the Basket With Power, Rumbling to the Rim With Power and Running the Break to Finish With Power
Well, if that was the case, the numbers would reflect it. They don't. Malone only had .6 apg more and he had significantly worse efficiency. And the fact that Malone's scoring efficiency dropped by a whopping 5% on average tells me that he was rather easy to game plan against. Compare that to Dirk who doesn't have this drop between reg season and post season.


You Must Be a Mavs Fan or a German B-Ball Fan To Think Dir Was Better.

Dirk Was Pretty Much 1 Dimensional his Whole Career. A Great Scorer. Thats It.
You must be a victim of your own stereotypes. Over his career, Dirk has typically provided 3 important things for his teams: 1) very efficient volume scoring, 2) pulling a big defender out of the paint, clearing paths for slashers to the basket and 3) pretty damn good rebunding, especially in the playoffs.


If Dirk was just another efficient scorer and nothing else, and if he was just as bad a defender as some say, his results would be similar to Kevin Martin's. They aren't.

[brain drain]

The Heat are the only team deserving of that "Super team" tag, and even then, they proved you can't just win it on the fly throwing super stars and broken-down vets together. The Lakers at that point leading up to the playoffs (lost 5 straight) looked out of it - hardly a super team. It would be an exaggeration.

Had Dallas not come along and beaten them, they'd have proven that you can just win it on the fly throwing super stars and broken-down vets together.

Same thing with the Lakers. Before the series against Dallas, practically everyone was betting on the Lakers, lots of people even predicted a sweep. Turning around after the series and claiming that they had sucked anyway is a litte rich. Following that logic, you can't win against a good opponent because your winning proves the opponed wasn't good.

[rmt]

What?
So 3peat Shaq+Kobe Lakers + Nelson Mavs without best player for most of series + a bunch of medicre teams > 2peat Kobe/Pau/Bynum - Lakers plus Durant / Westbrook / Harden / Ibaka OKC plus LBJ / Wade / Bosh - Heat LOL!

Duncan did more different things. However he didn't dominate 4th quarter scoring against 3 super teams in a row.

You call 11 OKC, 11 LAL and 11 MIA 3 super teams? Maybe only MIA qualifies - and still with a coach and superstar who had never won. 11 OKC was not a superstar team - Westbrooke in particular has grown tremendously over the past 2 years and look at how much improvement Ibaka has made just over the past summer. They are a superstar team NOW but not 2 years ago. LAL - I seem to recall a lot of Peja killing them from 3 pt land and Barea penetrating to the basket (and in the 4th quarter) at will.

What's so important about the 4th quarter? Don't the points, rebounds, assists and blocks in the first 3 quarters also count?

Think about switching Dirk onto the 03 Spurs and putting Duncan on the 11 Mavs. What do you think would happen? A lot of wide open 3s for Terry, Kidd and Peja and a defensive beast besides Chandler. Meanwhile, 38 year old DRob only played 23 mins in 03 playoffs - who's gonna protect the paint the rest of the time - Dirk? Yeah, I totally see Dirk guarding Prime Shaq (sarcasm).

You've also discounted each player's team mates - young, inexperienced 1st and 2nd year players (2nd, 3rd, 4th options) vs a bunch of hardened, experienced veterans.

[Round Mound]

Dirk has career playoff FGA of 8.8, Malone 8.9. Even if you gave Malone an avg of 11 for his first 10 seasons (which he probably hasn't, some of his worse FTA seasons came in his 20s), it still would only make him a .2 pt better scorer from the line than Dirk - Malone converted at 73.6%, Dirk at 89.3%


Malone has a career playoff rebounding avg of 10.7, Dirk has a career rebounding avg of 10.3, if you factor in the higher pace in the 80s, that's a wash.



That's ridiculous. Dirk has a playoff TRB% of 14.3%, Malone 15.6.
Now, if you look at defensive rebounding, Malone's at 23.3, Dirk's 24.6.
Sure, If you limit Malone to x seasons, his numbers are better. Same is true for Dirk, whose playoff rebounding rate dropped in the 2010 and hasn't recovered since. So, Malone certainly had a much better longevity as a rebounder. But if you want to measure their rebounding ability, you need to compare defensive rebounding (because Dirk plays farther from the basket on offense) and playoffs (because that's when it counts). And apart from one single freak season by Malone (35 DRB%, in a 5 game run), the DRB% are astonishingly similar, Dirk even has more seasons in the >25 DRB% range than Malone has.

Well, if that was the case, the numbers would reflect it. They don't. Malone only had .6 apg more and he had significantly worse efficiency. And the fact that Malone's scoring efficiency dropped by a whopping 5% on average tells me that he was rather easy to game plan against. Compare that to Dirk who doesn't have this drop between reg season and post season.


You must be a victim of your own stereotypes. Over his career, Dirk has typically provided 3 important things for his teams: 1) very efficient volume scoring, 2) pulling a big defender out of the paint, clearing paths for slashers to the basket and 3) pretty damn good rebunding, especially in the playoffs.


If Dirk was just another efficient scorer and nothing else, and if he was just as bad a defender as some say, his results would be similar to Kevin Martin's. They aren't.

Do The Stats from Ages 22-33 and Then Compare. You are Using a Comparission Including Malone Ages 33-40. When He Was Passed His Prime.

You Keep Mentioning Pace. Charles Barkley had a 33 Rebound Game in 1997 The Same Pace as Today. Strangely He Did Not Have a 33 Rebound Game in the 80s Although He Did Lead the League in Rebounding in 1987. The Pace Factor You Use Is Nonsense.

You are Definetly German or a Mavs Fan.

The Only Things Dirk Does Better than Malone is FT Shooting, 3-Point Shooting 1 on 1 Off the Dribble. I Admit To That. Other Than That:

Malone Was Better Post Player
Malone Was a Better Rim Attacker
Malone Was a Better Open Court Finisher
Malone Whent`to the Line More in his Hay Day
Malone Was a Better Rebounder
Malone Was a Better Passer
Malone Was a Better Defender
Malone Was a More Intimidating Presence
Malone Was Stronger, Faster, Quicker, More Potent and Scarier.

[SCdac]

Had Dallas not come along and beaten them, they'd have proven that you can just win it on the fly throwing super stars and broken-down vets together.

Same thing with the Lakers. Before the series against Dallas, practically everyone was betting on the Lakers, lots of people even predicted a sweep. Turning around after the series and claiming that they had sucked anyway is a litte rich. Following that logic, you can't win against a good opponent because your winning proves the opponed wasn't good.

Following your logic, whoever is favored to win is in actuality the "best team", not the winner. That's absurd. It leads one to believe games are won on paper.

"Had Dallas not beaten the Heat, the Heat would have won"? That statement proves nothing. The bottom line is the Mavs did not beat "3 super teams" in a row. That hyperbolic description of the Mavs' competition is a joke and the crutch used to prop Dirk up.

Tim Duncan and Hakeem clearly had a more multi-dimensional, integral, and impacting presence on their respective teams. Mavs were disassembled and promptly knocked out of the first round after their championship, just like what happened before they had Tyson Chandler.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

I'm implying that he won his championship when his biggest competitors at his position (big men in general) were all getting old and trailing off. Do you think it's coincidence?

So I take it you are a firm believer that the reason why Shaq won his titles is because their were no big men to contend with? No Ewing/DRob/Hakeem/Jabbar/Wilt/Russell.... that he won because the center was dead?

[SCdac]

So I take it you are a firm believer that the reason why Shaq won his titles is because their were no big men to contend with? No Ewing/DRob/Hakeem/Jabbar/Wilt/Russell.... that he won because the center was dead?

Well, the comparison of arguably the most dominant player ever to a big man who had to work to shake the soft label isn't entirely legit. Shaq played in a big man's league, a more physical league and lost to Hakeem, etc, while Dirk is a perimeter type big man who won in a Durant-FT fest kind of era.

None the less. Yes, I do think Hakeem Olajuwon/Robinsons/etc career's (when they were in their relative primes) did have an impact on Shaq and every other player in the league. In other words, I do think timing is a factor in the NBA both on a macro and micro level

[Legends66NBA7]

Hayes was a good defender but an overrated one. He wasn't any kind of passer, much less a willing one. Malone did plenty of the little things. He set great picks, played as a decoy, spaced the floor not just for his jumpshot, but for his team, with his jumpshot. Also, as you said, he ran the floor better than...any player period. Stuff like that is invaluable. His intangibles were thru the roof, whereas Hayes was mostly negative.

All good points there, but you can also say the same thing about Malone's defense being overrated, as well.

The main thing of them being very similar is also how they are very overrated as players.

[Legends66NBA7]

Have to wonder how many championships prime Barkley or Malone could have won in this era though.

Really tired saying, but I'll the same they won in their own era: Zero.

Barkley would have a better chance than Malone because he was the better player, but his game would be hindered from the rules changes. He wouldn't be able to back down like he used too from the post or the top of the key. He would still dominate, but not as much as a post player IMO. He would have a better chance than Malone would at a title, but I think his lazy work ethic and "lack of drive to get a title" would be his downfall.

Malone had 19 years to get a championship and failed every year in the playoffs. Sure, he had good showing sometimes, but his obvious drop off in the playoffs and the rule changes that effected the big man position, makes me confident in saying he wouldn't be as effective trying to being more of a jump shooting big man than a post player.