Who's the best scoring POWER FORWARD? Anthony, Notwski or Malone?

[TAZORAC]

Who is the best scoring Power Forward in NBA history, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk, or Karl Malone? Maybe somebody else?

[1987_Lakers]

Melo played mostly SF in his prime, I would probably go with Barkley or Giannis.

[SouBeachTalents]

Melo played mostly SF in his prime, I would probably go with Barkley or Giannis.
OP's just a shitty troll, he's been doing this "Notwski" shtick for years now :lol

[Airupthere]

Melo played mostly SF in his prime, I would probably go with Barkley or Giannis.

Im guessing he means AD

[ELITEpower23]

Dirk. Obviously...

[dankok8]

Melo isn't a even a PF. There is a lot of contenders here.

Dirk
Malone
Barkley
Pettit
McAdoo
Davis

I'd probably go with Dirk who was giving ~28 ppg on great efficiency and displayed great consistency in the postseason.

[TAZORAC]

OP's just a shitty troll, he's been doing this "Notwski" shtick for years now :lol

I'm not from Germany, I don't know exactly how his name is spelled, I have a general idea.

[TAZORAC]

Melo played mostly SF in his prime, I would probably go with Barkley or Giannis.

I forget that Giannis is a PF, I'd probably go with him.

[HoopsNY]

Melo isn't a even a PF. There is a lot of contenders here.

Dirk
Malone
Barkley
Pettit
McAdoo
Davis

I'd probably go with Dirk who was giving ~28 ppg on great efficiency and displayed great consistency in the postseason.

Tough to give up Barkley and Malone, though I see why you would say that.

Malone in 1990 scored 31 PPG on 56%. He even shot 37% from three that year.

[ArbitraryWater]

I'm not from Germany, I don't know exactly how his name is spelled, I have a general idea.

Being this dumb isn‘t believable, so all I have to say is, your shtick is running out. Literally all you do with this acc is misspell names.

[SouBeachTalents]

Being this dumb isn‘t believable, so all I have to say is, your shtick is running out. Literally all you do with this acc is misspell names.
Or make threads claiming "Vince Carter > Bird" or some bullshit :lol

[dankok8]

Tough to give up Barkley and Malone, though I see why you would say that.

Malone in 1990 scored 31 PPG on 56%. He even shot 37% from three that year.

Well I have Malone as a better overall player than Dirk and higher on the all-time list but just scoring I'd go with Dirk. Most people don't realize that Malone would have had 5 scoring titles (1989-1992, 1997) if MJ wasn't in the league.

Barkley I would say was clearly the best overall offensive player due to insane offensive rebounding and better ballhandling and passing. As far as scoring it's very close between him and Dirk.

Ten Best Years - Playoff Scoring

2002-2011 Dirk: 26.1 ppg on 58.5 %TS (+5.2 rTS)
1988-1997 Malone: 27.6 ppg on 53.4 %TS (-0.2 rTS)
1986-1995 Barkley: 25.9 ppg on 59.0 %TS (+5.4 rTS)

My final rankings for scoring would be Dirk > Barkley >> Malone just because Dirk is a better iso scorer than Barkley. He can get you a basket on demand with his jumper. Malone was a bit too inefficient in the playoffs particularly in the mid and late 90's. As relative TS shows, he was around league average in efficiency so he places 3rd among these three guys.

[HylianNightmare]

Dirk or sir Charles

[fsvr54]

Barkley for sure

[Xiao Yao You]

Carmelo! :roll:

[HoopsNY]

Well I have Malone as a better overall player than Dirk and higher on the all-time list but just scoring I'd go with Dirk. Most people don't realize that Malone would have had 5 scoring titles (1989-1992, 1997) if MJ wasn't in the league.

Barkley I would say was clearly the best overall offensive player due to insane offensive rebounding and better ballhandling and passing. As far as scoring it's very close between him and Dirk.

Ten Best Years - Playoff Scoring

2002-2011 Dirk: 26.1 ppg on 58.5 %TS (+5.2 rTS)
1988-1997 Malone: 27.6 ppg on 53.4 %TS (-0.2 rTS)
1986-1995 Barkley: 25.9 ppg on 59.0 %TS (+5.4 rTS)

My final rankings for scoring would be Dirk > Barkley >> Malone just because Dirk is a better iso scorer than Barkley. He can get you a basket on demand with his jumper. Malone was a bit too inefficient in the playoffs particularly in the mid and late 90's. As relative TS shows, he was around league average in efficiency so he places 3rd among these three guys.

TS% is affected by 3s, so naturally Dirk would be higher in that regard. But I'm just not so sure that Dirk was a greater force offensively.

'88-'98 Malone averaged 28 PPG on 53%.

'03-'10 Dirk averaged 25 PPG on 48%.

Yes he was able to shoot threes, and that does work in his favor, but here's something else to consider.

Look at career 60, 50, 40, and 30 point games.

Malone

60 pts: 1 game
50 pts: 4 games
40 pts: 44 games
30 pts: 435 games

Dirk

60 pts: 0 games
50 pts: 2 games
40 pts: 20 games
30 pts: 245 games

And this is despite the fact that Dirk played in more games than Malone.

[NugzFan]

OP should be banned for spelling dirks last name that bad

[Round Mound]

Barkley but no one mentions McHale. Before 1987 injuries McHale was the best scoring efficiently PF.

[Pointguard]

A scorer scores. Malone has more years of scoring above any mark.

He was far more dependable to get 2000 points in a season than anybody else.
He was far more dependable to average over 25 ppg in either season. He had 12 regular seasons. Dirk and Barkley had less than half that amount.
He was far more dependable to average over 25 ppg in the post season. He had 12 post seasons. Dirk had 9 post seasons above that mark and Barkley 6.
He has tallied the most seasons of shooting over 50%.
He was more consistent in his scoring than the others.

As far as consistency and production they don't measure up to Malone. The arguments can be made on efficiency and different scoring ways. However, pure scoring Malone was better. Jordan, Kareem and Wilt didn't have great range but they were scorers on another level than these guys.

[Round Mound]

Its gotta be Barkley inside the 3-pontline he was Shaq-like in between mid range and painted area. Other than Dirk no other PF was a great 3-point shooter. Barkley then Dirk.

[dankok8]

TS% is affected by 3s, so naturally Dirk would be higher in that regard. But I'm just not so sure that Dirk was a greater force offensively.

'88-'98 Malone averaged 28 PPG on 53%.

'03-'10 Dirk averaged 25 PPG on 48%.

Yes he was able to shoot threes, and that does work in his favor, but here's something else to consider.

Look at career 60, 50, 40, and 30 point games.

Malone

60 pts: 1 game
50 pts: 4 games
40 pts: 44 games
30 pts: 435 games

Dirk

60 pts: 0 games
50 pts: 2 games
40 pts: 20 games
30 pts: 245 games

And this is despite the fact that Dirk played in more games than Malone.

Those are regular season tallies though. I agree that Karl Malone is clearly a better regular season scorer. Heck he's one of the best regular season scorers ever, definitely top 10. In the playoffs though, Dirk has a major edge in efficiency. 3pt shots are more efficient so we shouldn't knock Dirk for taking and making them. TS% is the best measure of overall efficiency.

Looking at 50, 40 and 30 point games in the playoffs including % of games.

Malone
50 pts: 1 game (0.52%)
40 pts: 4 games (2.07%)
30 pts: 54 games (28.0%)

Dirk
50 pts: 1 game (0.69%)
40 pts: 7 games (4.83%)
30 pts: 46 games (31.7%)

When you say "greater force offensively" that isn't just scoring. Considering Malone was a better passer and offensive rebounder he probably was the better offensive player but I was only talking about scoring with emphasis on the playoffs.

[dankok8]

I will say though that Malone in his athletic prime from 1988-1992 did post pretty good efficiency in the playoffs... 29.0 ppg on 56.3 %TS over those five postseasons which is arguably above even peak Dirk. Late 90's Malone got better as a passer and defender but actually lost a fair bit of explosion and had to rely more on midrange jumpers when good defenses took care of the glass and stopped him in transition. That hurt his playoff efficiency.

Come to think of it, I can't really separate Dirk, Malone and Barkley as scorers. All three are so damn close. :lol

[Patrick Chewing]

The guy with nearly 37,000 points.

[HoopsNY]

I will say though that Malone in his athletic prime from 1988-1992 did post pretty good efficiency in the playoffs... 29.0 ppg on 56.3 %TS over those five postseasons which is arguably above even peak Dirk. Late 90's Malone got better as a passer and defender but actually lost a fair bit of explosion and had to rely more on midrange jumpers when good defenses took care of the glass and stopped him in transition. That hurt his playoff efficiency.

Come to think of it, I can't really separate Dirk, Malone and Barkley as scorers. All three are so damn close. :lol

I knew you'd see the light, though I still think that Barkley and Malone have a slight edge.

[DoctorP]

Dirk. 3 beats 2.

Edit: this thread has me reconsidering Malone

[kkb_12]

1. Malone
2. AD
3. Dirk

[Pointguard]

Those are regular season tallies though. I agree that Karl Malone is clearly a better regular season scorer. Heck he's one of the best regular season scorers ever, definitely top 10. In the playoffs though, Dirk has a major edge in efficiency. 3pt shots are more efficient so we shouldn't knock Dirk for taking and making them. TS% is the best measure of overall efficiency.


For great big men TS% is not a stat to consider. It really sucks. Duncan is the clear cut best PF and his TS% sucks in comparison to some of those guys. FG% is far better indicator of effectiveness for big men. Magic is the only GOAT that ranks high (top 20) in playoff TS% in general. Look at the GOATs and you get a good look at what I'm saying about big men and the relationship to TS%. I know the guy who created TS% and he did it for smaller players and shooters.

Speaking of measures in GOATs the top ten in TURNOVERS would absolutely trash any of the top 50 in TS%. A lot of times, TS% runs opposite of players being aggressive.

[dankok8]

For great big men TS% is not a stat to consider. It really sucks. Duncan is the clear cut best PF and his TS% sucks in comparison to some of those guys. FG% is far better indicator of effectiveness for big men. Magic is the only GOAT that ranks high (top 20) in playoff TS% in general. Look at the GOATs and you get a good look at what I'm saying about big men and the relationship to TS%. I know the guy who created TS% and he did it for smaller players and shooters.

Speaking of measures in GOATs the top ten in TURNOVERS would absolutely trash any of the top 50 in TS%. A lot of times, TS% runs opposite of players being aggressive.

I don't understand your example. Yes Duncan's TS% sucks... that's why he's not considered among the best scorers ever. Duncan is arguably a top 5 player ever but he's not even a top 20 scorer ever and we're talking about scoring. I don't see where the disconnect is.

TS% shouldn't be used alone but in conjunction with scoring volume or PPG. Then it's very informative. I was comparing Malone and Dirk using both scoring volume and efficiency and TS% is the best measure of efficiency. You can use PPP (point per possessions) but it's basically the same.

[Pointguard]

I don't understand your example. Yes Duncan's TS% sucks... that's why he's not considered among the best scorers ever. Duncan is arguably a top 5 player ever but he's not even a top 20 scorer ever and we're talking about scoring. I don't see where the disconnect is.
I was talking about using TS% and its not being very useful in measuring big men. Great Big men don't distinguish themselves in TS% in general. Even great scoring ones like Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone, Karl Malone and Wilt.


TS% shouldn't be used alone but in conjunction with scoring volume or PPG. Then it's very informative. I was comparing Malone and Dirk using both scoring volume and efficiency and TS% is the best measure of efficiency. You can use PPP (point per possessions) but it's basically the same.
Volume is a no brainer - its not close - even in the playoffs. However ts% is co-dependent on other things, especially in the playoffs. And it can even be counter productive. Lebron is a great example of this. When he tries to be very efficient - he going to lose. When Lebron goes nuts and stays aggressive he can even beat the very efficient Golden State. Same way with most great players who don't have a great coach or other scorers and are trying to win. Aggression wins in the playoffs moreso than anything - efficiency included. So they can't be concerned with their TS%. Either you need points or you don't. There is never a time in the playoffs when watching a game you want your team to win, where you say bring in the TS% guys, not the aggressive guys. Remember Houston kept jacking threes - they just brought in the TS% guys. They just needed to score and they had scorers trying to be TS% guys.

You understand?

[AussieSteve]

In terms of overall scoring skill set, it's pretty clearly Barkley.

He didn't score as much as Malone for a few reasons.
1. He was generally pretty selective with his shot. He rarely took a shot he didn't like.
2. He drew double teams more often and more quickly than Malone and was better at passing out of the double
3. He was less concerned about his personal numbers and would generally try and get team mates involved where he could. It's why so many players had career high scoring years next to him.
4. Malone had Stockton, who pretty much made it his mission in life to assist Malone.

But, in the playoffs when you need a bucket, Barkley >> Malone.

Dirk may be better suited to today's game. Although Barkley would be interesting today, when it is all about the 3... he was not afraid to hoist 3s, despite not being great at them. You assume he'd hit at a higher clip today. If he could manage to draw attention out to the 3 point line it would be no contest, because inside the 3 he is already clearly the best. With the open paint today as well! Who is keeping Barkley from getting 8 dunks and 12 FTs game!?

[Round Mound]

In terms of overall scoring skill set, it's pretty clearly Barkley.

He didn't score as much as Malone for a few reasons.
1. He was generally pretty selective with his shot. He rarely took a shot he didn't like.
2. He drew double teams more often and more quickly than Malone and was better at passing out of the double
3. He was less concerned about his personal numbers and would generally try and get team mates involved where he could. It's why so many players had career high scoring years next to him.
4. Malone had Stockton, who pretty much made it his mission in life to assist Malone.

But, in the playoffs when you need a bucket, Barkley >> Malone.

Dirk may be better suited to today's game. Although Barkley would be interesting today, when it is all about the 3... he was not afraid to hoist 3s, despite not being great at them. You assume he'd hit at a higher clip today. If he could manage to draw attention out to the 3 point line it would be no contest, because inside the 3 he is already clearly the best. With the open paint today as well! Who is keeping Barkley from getting 8 dunks and 12 FTs game!?

:applause:

[AussieSteve]

And people who are saying Giannis... :oldlol:

[Round Mound]

And people who are saying Giannis... :oldlol:

If you are taller than 6'10 you should be playing center IMO.

[Pointguard]

And people who are saying Giannis... :oldlol:

Its fair ground. He's definitely a more determined scorer than all of them. And a more efficient one! He's a far better penetrator than them as well. He's still new to the game and is learning the game at a high trajectory. Anthony Davis doesn't get the business because his TS% is higher than everybody else's and he shoots the ball. People have just become distorted on the value of bigs. Near the rim, or one on one, Giannis is on a different level than these guys. He's better off the dribble than all of them as well. He is already a more dependable scorer than them because he doesn't settle like those guys do - when they start missing shots they disengage - Not Giannis. All of those guys played wiith a great point guard offensively, except Giannis. Despite that, Giannis plays at the rim better than all of them as well. He doesn't have the years yet but he still can be a better scorer than them.

[Pointguard]

If you are taller than 6'10 you should be playing center IMO.

Dirk?

[Bronbron23]

Right now it's malone and it's not close. Only difference between malone and dirk is dirk got the privilege to go up against lebron. If he was going up against a prime mj and the bulls he'd have no ring either.

[MrFonzworth]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?493593-Prime-Dirk-Notowski-on-the-MAVS-now-or-Luka

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?411690-Better-3-point-shooter-Notowski-or-Bird

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?412472-Who-wins-in-a-race-between-Carmelo-Anthony-Notowski-and-Tim-Duncan

Notowski

[dankok8]

I was talking about using TS% and its not being very useful in measuring big men. Great Big men don't distinguish themselves in TS% in general. Even great scoring ones like Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone, Karl Malone and Wilt.

Volume is a no brainer - its not close - even in the playoffs. However ts% is co-dependent on other things, especially in the playoffs. And it can even be counter productive. Lebron is a great example of this. When he tries to be very efficient - he going to lose. When Lebron goes nuts and stays aggressive he can even beat the very efficient Golden State. Same way with most great players who don't have a great coach or other scorers and are trying to win. Aggression wins in the playoffs moreso than anything - efficiency included. So they can't be concerned with their TS%. Either you need points or you don't. There is never a time in the playoffs when watching a game you want your team to win, where you say bring in the TS% guys, not the aggressive guys. Remember Houston kept jacking threes - they just brought in the TS% guys. They just needed to score and they had scorers trying to be TS% guys.

You understand?

Perimeter players are generally more efficient because they are better free throw shooters. That is reflected in the TS%.

I see your point about aggression vs. preserving efficiency. That's a very complicated discussion and really varies on a case-by-case basis. I don't think I'd be comfortable making any general conclusions on that.

[Pointguard]

Perimeter players are generally more efficient because they are better free throw shooters. That is reflected in the TS%.


I agree. I told Hollinger this. Free throw shooting gets too much pull in the final say. Big men FG% and volume is a far superior stat for bigs.

[clipps]

Carmelo was never a PF you ****ing retard.

[TAZORAC]

Carmelo was never a PF you ****ing retard.

Pretty sure Carmelo played PF with the Knicks