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

[QUOTE=Money 23]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE]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. [B]Choosing him in his Lakers years would be wasting him since I want the team to be built around him[/B], 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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]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[/B][/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=joshwake]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.[/QUOTE]

[B]Longevity Is NOT A Skill.[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound]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?: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqYWjCCGRs[/url]

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

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!!!

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Navy"][U]Duncan and Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[I][U]Season:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]21.6 PPG on 58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]12.9[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]20.2 PPG on 50.97%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]15.3[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

[I][U]Play-Offs:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]22.5 PPG on 55.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]14.5[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG.

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]22.2 PPG on 50.47%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]16.6 [/COLOR] 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:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=fpliii]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=fpliii]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=fpliii]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=fpliii]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.[/QUOTE]

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 [i]them[/i].

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Good stuff.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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).

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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 [i]them[/i].[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=rmt]Sorry, but Barkley HIMSELF agrees with me that Duncan is the best PF ever.[/QUOTE]

[B]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.[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]

What don't you understand about Barkley's [B]NUMEROUS[/B] 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.

[QUOTE=rmt]What don't you understand about Barkley's [B]NUMEROUS[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

[B]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.[/B]

[QUOTE=fpliii]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).[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=fpliii]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]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, [B]is equipped to defend Shaq[/B], 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.[/QUOTE]

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).

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=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. [B]The last player to do that wht Dirk pulled off was hakeem with the 94 rockets[/B]. I don't let kg leapfrog Karl or chuck as he wasn't the leading man with his title.

Duncan
Nowitzki
Malone
Barkley
Garnet[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Longevity Is NOT A Skill.[/B][/QUOTE]
No one said it was?