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

[QUOTE=brain drain]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.[/QUOTE]

[B]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.[/B]

[QUOTE=brain drain]Had Dallas not come along and beaten them, they'd have proven that you [i]can[/i] 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 [i]after[/i] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote]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? [/quote]

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?

[QUOTE=Locked_Up_Tonight]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?[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=SCdac]Have to wonder how many championships prime Barkley or Malone could have won in this era though.[/QUOTE]

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.