The Karl Malone Thread

[nuraman00]

True, but I'm talking about what I want to have, not what I expect to have. It's just, I can't get myself to say I'd be happy with "4-6 assists per game." It makes me cry in my sleep.

OT: In football, I'm ok with few passing yards if we win the game. In basketball, I don't need a 20+ scorer, just a 6+ assist man. To me, 6+ speaks to someone who is selfless, intelligent, a real general on the court. A guy who plays point guard has to have assists to remark on, or else, to me, we have 2 SGs and a SF on the court. But that might just be me, being raised with Stockton. Funny that I don't mind not having a Malone as long as we win (even though he was a close second for me). When Boozer was here, some expected/hoped for a poor man's Malone, I didn't care, I just wanted a PG (we had) and wins.

Mo Williams should just get 6 assists per game.

I'm just saying that you should look at team AST %. The Jazz have always gotten a lot of assists per offensive possession on a team level. You don't need John Stockton or Deron Williams. Look at the 3 years where Carlos Arroyo and Keith McLeod were the main PGs, from 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. Individually, no one averaged more than 5.1 assists per game.

But on a team level, the Jazz were 19th, 7th, and 7th in assist %. Which shows they still moved the ball well. It's the system that got the assists, not the PG. Kirilenko himself averaged 4.3 assists in 2005-2006. Hence my observation that Jazz bigs like Kirilenko, Boozer, and even Jefferson last year do more passing and generate more assists. They pass to cutting guards for layups a lot. The Sloan Flex offense generated a lot of dunks and layups, and not necessarily from bigs, but from guards too.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter who's scoring or who's getting the assists if you're still getting the ball movement, as shown with a team level stat like assist %, and you're still getting a lot of close shots at the rim.

I would pull up stats from Hoop Data about how the Jazz take more shots at the rim, however:

1) They only go back to 2006-2007, which is one year too late for the time period I'm examining without an elite PG.

2) FGA attempts per game at the rim is nice, but I would have preferred it normalized as a percentage of total FGAs by the team, so that it was pace independent.

To use your football analogy, I'm saying there's still a lot of passing yards -- it's just that it's coming from other positions like RBs, Tight Ends, and Safetys. Or back to basketball positions, Centers, PFs, and SFs. It's not all about the PG, but rather the floor spacing and the system and guys moving to the spots that the plays call for for those dunks and layups.

Those dunks and layups do come at a price, as the Jazz are always among the fewest in 3-point attempts. But that's been the principle, to go for the closer shot rather than the long shot. Plus I can't recall too many teams that had great 3-point shooters anyways.

I'm thinking that if Keith McLeod, Milt Palacio, and Carlos Arroyo had the scoring talent surrounding this team, the Jazz could have moved even higher than 7th in assist %. All without increasing their individual assists per game much, but the assists coming from other positions.

Assists also depend on one other dependency: Players who catch and shoot or catch and drive.

If your team has a lot of players who isolate and get fouled, then your assists will go down, and instead those players will attempt a lot of FTs. If you had Blake Griffin and Kevin Durant on your team, you may lose a few assists, but those players would combine for 20 free throw attempts per game by themselves and get the other team in the bonus. However, the Jazz seem to be high in free throw rate themselves, as they were 2nd in 2006-2007. My guess is that those dunks and layups attempts that are generated also result in a lot of and-ones or fouls near the rim.


In the Flex Offense I trust. (Which I don't think Corbin runs as much, his offense is a little different).

 

[nuraman00]

Speaking of big men who pass (as an observation of the many Jazz big men who pass), clintonite33 and I got into a huge discussion about our favorite passing big men.

I told him one of my favorite plays was the Malone to Stockton -- Big passing to the guard. He agreed.

Then we talked about what Boozer was doing.

He then did some research, and wrote this article on passing bigs (long):

The Art of the Interior Post Pass Gone From the NBA? | Shoot Hoops

 

[nuraman00]

So, MHSL82, maybe in my sick mind I want Malone to average more assists per game than Stockton.

Haha.

 

[nuraman00]

Only 12 % of voters said Malone would make a good coach.

 

[MHSL82]

This is after the fact, but wanted to make a thread for it.

Yes!!! I hate losing by a bucket or two - I'd rather lose by 8 than 1 and winning by any margin obviously beats all.

On ESPN's broadcast, Chris Mullin was saying that Duncan should/could be MVP this year because he's bounced back from a few years ago. I was confused because he's averaging 18 points, 10 rebounds, 2.5 assists, and 2.6 blocks. I get that he has intangibles and all, but that's not MVP!

The rest I'm going to say is biased, obviously, but I'll say it regardless. It always bugged me that Duncan has never had great stats and yet was talked about being the best PF ever - fine, but now people ignore Malone in that sentence. People are removing the "possibly" or the "one of" from their statements. I'm fine with him being in the conversation, but I think people forget about Malone's reliability throughout his career in doing what PFs are supposed to do. Malone would never dip to 13.4 points, 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, and 1.9 blocks in Utah. He did better, older with Kobe Bryant and Shaq getting most of the touches.

Stats are not everything, obviously. Winning matters and his team with the Coach of the Decade won a lot (not that Sloan was a slouch or anything). But I feel, the Spurs peaked at the right time, when Michael Jordan wasn't there. True, the Jazz were missing in the Rockets years and only got to the Finals twice, but I think the Spurs would have a few losses if it happened a few years earlier, when the Jazz peaked. Or the Jazz would have a few titles if they peaked after Jordan. If Duncan had been drafted in say 1988, we'd be looking at him differently. Damn Jordan!

I think Duncan is a great guy, better guy by far than Malone was. He's a family man, modest, quiet, respectful, shy, and he wins. I think that's also contributed to this belief that he's a great leader, which I sure he is on the court. Malone too lead by example and teammates worked hard because they saw that he gave his effort and performed night in and night out.

I'm fine with people thinking Duncan was better, despite his team helping more than Malone's did (Jazz did have a superstar in Stockton and after Robinson, there was no big guy in SA - but overall, I feel the Spurs teammates helped more, complimentary). I just get tired that no one mentions Malone anymore when talking about Duncan as the best PF ever. News to you: it's not like how Jordan is consensus #1.

While I am biased for Stockton, I totally understand and respect the consensus that Magic was better - due to his scoring abilities and titles - against big stars (and with them, too). So I'm not so biased that I can't see. I just want Stockton and Malone to perpetually be given their due.

 

[nuraman00]

Between 1989 - 2003, the Jazz lost in the first round 7 times. 7/15 times.

The Spurs, with Duncan, have lost twice.

That makes a huge difference in perception, IMO. Malone with the Jazz lost earlier more often.

This is how I'm relating to your analysis / criteria of winning.

 

[nuraman00]

Duncan is also one of the best defensive players of all time.

Malone was a good defender too, but Duncan was better.

 

[nuraman00]

Duncan was a better rebounder than Malone. Rebounding % confirms this.

 

[MHSL82]

Phil Jackson can't win with this roster either. They're most likely going to have a bottom 4 seed, and they'd need another low seed to break through to have homecourt beyond the 1st round.

And even though I don't think homecourt matters as much if you're an elite team, I think they're just too behind the 8-ball.

I don't think teams that get off to this kind of a start recover to go to the NBA Finals.

Dallas, in 2010-2011, didn't have that great of a regular season, though, but it wasn't this bad.

I want Jackson back and then for us to beat him. This is and sounds like blasphemy, but I wanted the Lakers to win it with Malone and I wanted Jackson to win his last threepeat - but only because the Jazz weren't in it. I feel dirty. Going to bed without a midnight snack as part of my punishment for my basketball sins.

 

[nuraman00]

While I am biased for Stockton, I totally understand and respect the consensus that Magic was better - due to his scoring abilities and titles - against big stars (and with them, too). So I'm not so biased that I can't see. I just want Stockton and Malone to perpetually be given their due.

Bird > Magic. Better, tougher defender.

Robertson > Magic.

Kidd > Magic.

Payton = Magic.

Kidd for his two-way play, and rebounding, and defense.

Payton for his low-turnover game, and defense.

With respect to great PGs, Payton has one of the lowest turnover rates among them.

 

[nuraman00]

The rest I'm going to say is biased, obviously, but I'll say it regardless. It always bugged me that Duncan has never had great stats and yet was talked about being the best PF ever -

You're not looking at the right stats then.

His FG%, great.

Rebounding, one of the best ever.

Blocked shots and assists, one of the greatest ever.


Duncan might be the best player ever (Hakeem, Jordan, Bird, Russell, throw in 2-3 of your other favorites) are in the mix.

The two best PFs are Duncan and Malone, depending on preference.

I don't know if Malone was the better scorer. He had a 1.7% higher usage rate, which could account for the higher points per game average. Both were great in the post, in different ways. Malone was more physical, Duncan with his variety.

Malone was a good rebounder, Duncan was a great rebounder. The Spurs pace hurt some of Duncan's per-game rebounding averages. But their defense provided for more misses overall.

The Jazz defense was more about steals or fouling than forcing misses, so Malone might have had less rebounding opportunities.

Malone had a better jumper.

Both had long careers.

Part of Duncan's MVP candidacy, in the early season, is because of his defense. It's really good right now. But I doubt he can sustain that.

Parker was an MVP candidate last year.

 

[MHSL82]

You're not looking at the right stats then...

Malone had a better FG%, so as great as Duncan is, Malone is better. Malone is shorter so his shots are presumably farther and more difficult - though Duncan can shoot from anywhere within the three point line. Obviously, uncontested or averagely contested jumpshots aren't affected by height and Malone had plenty of dunks, if not more than Duncan. I just think that some of the closer, more clogged lane shots, Duncan had a Center-like advantage. I, unlike you probably, have a distinction between centers and PFs when I compare.

Sure, Duncan's a great rebounder, but for his size, Malone to me was more impressive - 11.2 compared to 10.1 - yeah a lot of rebounds are not height determinative - as boxing out and the way the ball bounces is huge, but only 1 more rebound is underwhelming for me. But then again, I look at Duncan as somewhere between a PF and Center. You did shed some light on why this might have been due to offenses and defenses styles and qualities.

Height is definitely a help for Duncan over Malone in blocks, but I concede that he has more skill in doing it. Malone's steals make up for it a bit (though you did point out our system's style helping this). 2.9 vs. 2.2, Duncan and Malone respectively if you add blocks and steals, which I know is not statistically sound to do.

Assists? Look at Malone from 1993-end of career - that's better than any stretch Duncan had. Overall, Malone averaged more assists than Duncan, had a higher maximum, and a higher minimum.

Some of these stats that Duncan has now will go down on average the longer he plays. Malone played 20 years and so for example, the 10.1 rebounds, was higher before his last 4-5 seasons (340+ more games, older).

So, I see why some say Duncan is better. I just don't like people stating it like it's a consensus. Malone brought enough that he should be in the discussion. Just because Duncan is still playing doesn't mean he should be more in the minds. Winning titles may be the tiebreaker - fine, but there should be some reference to the tie. It's like losing in OT and no one mentioning that it was in overtime. (I do see how some people start out with that as their knockout punch and therefore never get to the tiebreaker - but I think this is lazy, as basketball is a team sport affected by context.) Also, I'm sure Duncan has learned from Malone's game and those prior to Malone, something Malone didn't have. Not Duncan's fault, but a reason to be impressed with Malone, that he was a pioneer of sorts in some ways.

 

[nuraman00]

Malone had a better FG%, so as great as Duncan is, Malone is better. Malone is shorter so his shots are presumably farther and more difficult - though Duncan can shoot from anywhere within the three point line. Obviously, uncontested or averagely contested jumpshots aren't affected by height and Malone had plenty of dunks, if not more than Duncan. I just think that some of the closer, more clogged lane shots, Duncan had a Center-like advantage. I, unlike you probably, have a distinction between centers and PFs when I compare.

Sure, Duncan's a great rebounder, but for his size, Malone to me was more impressive - 11.2 compared to 10.1 - yeah a lot of rebounds are not height determinative - as boxing out and the way the ball bounces is huge, but only 1 more rebound is underwhelming for me. But then again, I look at Duncan as somewhere between a PF and Center. You did shed some light on why this might have been due to offenses and defenses styles and qualities.

Height is definitely a help for Duncan over Malone in blocks, but I concede that he has more skill in doing it. Malone's steals make up for it a bit (though you did point out our system's style helping this). 2.9 vs. 2.2, Duncan and Malone respectively if you add blocks and steals, which I know is not statistically sound to do.

Assists? Look at Malone from 1993-end of career - that's better than any stretch Duncan had. Overall, Malone averaged more assists than Duncan, had a higher maximum, and a higher minimum.

So, I see why some say Duncan is better. I just don't like people stating it like it's a consensus. Malone brought enough that he should be in the discussion. Just because Duncan is still playing doesn't mean he should be more in the minds. Winning titles may be the tiebreaker - fine, but there should be some reference to the tie. It's like losing in OT and no one mentioning that it was in overtime. (I do see how some people start out with that as their knockout punch and therefore never get to the tiebreaker - but I think this is lazy, as basketball is a team sport affected by context.) Also, I'm sure Duncan has learned from Malone's game and those prior to Malone, something Malone didn't have. Not Duncan's fault, but a reason to be impressed with Malone, that he was a pioneer of sorts in some ways.

Assists: Look at assist %. Spurs slow pace hurt some offensive stats.

Duncan 16.5% rate, Malone 17.6%.

But I think trying to compare which one is the greatest passer is just splitting hairs. They're both the best passing big men, outside of Boerwinkle and a few others.


Rebounding: You to look at rebounding %. Not only did the Spurs slow pace hurt Malone's rebounding, but Malone also averaged 1.9 more minutes per game than Duncan. If Malone played the same minutes as Duncan, he would have had less rebounds.

Popovich rests Duncan a lot more, and he pulls his starters early in the 4th if they're down.

Malone 16.0 rebounding %, Duncan 18.5%. And a 2.5% rebounding percentage is big. If I was comparing any two players for rebounding, and they had a 2.5% difference, it would be an easy choice. Even a 2% difference is big. Only 1% or less isn't that big.




Sure, it's debatable as to who's better. If you're hearing it's a consensus, then you're not listening to enough sources. I've heard enough times that Malone is the greatest PF too, still within the past 5 years.

I think Duncan's recent longevity, as well as continued playoffs success, has leaned it back toward Duncan. The Jazz weren't as successful in Malone's last few years. A lot of that is on the team just naturally declining, so it's more about the GM. But it doesn't help. And as I said, for this year specifically, it's his defense I'm most impressed with.

Actually, I don't even think I've seen Duncan score more than 30 points in a game since 2000-2001. I know he has, it's just never been a national TV game that I've been able to watch. I know Duncan had 37 points in the closeout game against the Lakers in the 2003 playoffs, but I was in class, and just had to listen to friends talk about it during class.


I know this isn't a good source to show that it's not a consensus, but an ESPN Spurs poster says Robinson was better than Duncan because Duncan got beat by Malone in the 1998 playoffs. He bases the majority of his argument on that, so therefore he would also say Malone > Duncan.


So it's not a consensus, I just think Duncan's defense and rebounding are just that good with respect to bigs, and his passing is always there. Whether you want to look at assists, or just look at his "feel for the game" (because he could have passes that set up the assist.

I think Duncan was a better ball handler and passer in congestion, while Malone was more likely to get stripped. Malone is favored in A/T though. That's just my opinion.

 

[nuraman00]

I want Jackson back and then for us to beat him. This is and sounds like blasphemy, but I wanted the Lakers to win it with Malone and I wanted Jackson to win his last threepeat - but only because the Jazz weren't in it. I feel dirty. Going to bed without a midnight snack as part of my punishment for my basketball sins.

You're so religious.

You're entitled to root for whoever you want, whenever.

Sports are about entertainment, to me. If you're not having fun, it's time to find a new hobby.

And if rooting for Phil kept your interest in the playoffs a little longer those years, then all the better.

I think Phil and Sloan were similar in one way - They let their players play through mistakes and didn't call quick timeouts. I didn't always agree with it, but I like how they had a philosophy.

As an offensive coach, Sloan and Popovich were much better. Phil just got his offense from Tex Winter.

Pat Riley sucked as a coach, IMO.


As for the Jazz beating a team in the playoffs, I would rather see them beat the Spurs in the playoffs.

The Lakers aren't good, so why beat on an irrelevant team? Beat the Spurs, and Celtics, in the playoffs. Or Bulls.

Of course, if you beat the Bulls, Celtics, or Knicks in the playoffs, you know what happens:

You do this to your hair:

http://www.yellmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/blue-hair2.jpg

 

[MHSL82]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I don't mind him being rated high and being in the discussion as best; heck, I wouldn't mind someone coming out and just saying that he was better than Malone and state reasons besides "leadership" and team achievements. I just don't like the gushing and what, to me, seems to be somewhat incomplete - to just say he's the best without mentioning Malone or others and reasons.

I guess what got to me is that over the past year, I've heard people on TV and radio, stating it like they state that Jordan is the best ever. I know this isn't you, it's just tiring to me and I don't agree. But disagreement with me is ok if I feel that it's stated in a non-excited, non-matter of fact way.

 

[MHSL82]

Stats aren't everything but it is something to factor in.

Duncan: 20.3 points, 11.3 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 2.2 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 25.0 points, 10.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 0.8 blocks, 1.4 steals

And Malone's numbers are AFTER 342 more games (including the stat-killing last year with the Lakers) - if Duncan plays that long, to around 1480 games (Malone played 1476), averages what he has for the last 340 games (extrapolated this year for full season), he'd average this for his career:

19.45 points, 10.9 rebounds, 3.02 assists, 2.13 blocks, 0.7 steals

Another way to look at it, Duncan has played 1134 games. Malone, through 1134 games, averaged (Malone was better in assists later in his career, so those numbers are lower):

25.52 points, 10.65 rebounds, 3.34 assists, 0.82 blocks, 1.41 steals

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

Duncan shoots .507 for his career. Malone through 1134 games shot 52.6% (51.6 over entire career). Didn't do the numbers but Malone is a better free throw shooter - 74.2 vs. 68.9. Malone is a better three-point shooter - 27.4 vs. 18.5. Duncan averages fewer turnovers than Malone did.

Postseason stats

Duncan: 22.3 points, 12.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.5 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 24.7 points, 10.7 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 0.7 blocks, 1.3 steals

I can't project ahead in playoffs because I think that's an entirely different animal. I know that Malone's last year hurt his averages both in that he was injured and in that Kobe and Shaq were primary players, where in Utah, Malone was the man. I remember noting after the last Jazz year that he averaged more everything in playoffs than regular season - this wasn't true after the Laker year. Duncan was better at shooting in the playoffs than Malone.

Maybe you are more familiar with Winning Shares on basketball reference than I am, but Malone was higher overall, but Duncan had one year better than Malone's best. Duncan's rookie year was better than Malone's in all stats, but Malone picked it up and was reliable throughout his career.

 

[nuraman00]

Stats aren't everything but it is something to factor in.

Duncan: 20.3 points, 11.3 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 2.2 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 25.0 points, 10.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 0.8 blocks, 1.4 steals

And Malone's numbers are AFTER 342 more games (including the stat-killing last year with the Lakers) - if Duncan plays that long, to around 1480 games (Malone played 1476), averages what he has for the last 340 games (extrapolated this year for full season), he'd average this for his career:

19.45 points, 10.9 rebounds, 3.02 assists, 2.13 blocks, 0.7 steals

Another way to look at it, Duncan has played 1134 games. Malone, through 1134 games, averaged (Malone was better in assists later in his career, so those numbers are lower):

25.52 points, 10.65 rebounds, 3.34 assists, 0.82 blocks, 1.41 steals

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

Duncan shoots .507 for his career. Malone through 1134 games shot 52.6% (51.6 over entire career). Didn't do the numbers but Malone is a better free throw shooter - 74.2 vs. 68.9. Malone is a better three-point shooter - 27.4 vs. 18.5. Duncan averages fewer turnovers than Malone did.

Postseason stats

Duncan: 22.3 points, 12.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.5 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 24.7 points, 10.7 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 0.7 blocks, 1.3 steals

I can't project ahead in playoffs because I think that's an entirely different animal. I know that Malone's last year hurt his averages both in that he was injured and in that Kobe and Shaq were primary players, where in Utah, Malone was the man. I remember noting after the last Jazz year that he averaged more everything in playoffs than regular season - this wasn't true after the Laker year. Duncan was better at shooting in the playoffs than Malone.

Maybe you are more familiar with Winning Shares on basketball reference than I am, but Malone was higher overall, but Duncan had one year better than Malone's best. Duncan's rookie year was better than Malone's in all stats, but Malone picked it up and was reliable throughout his career.

When comparing stats, I like to factor in minutes. As I mentioned earlier, Malone played 1.9 more minutes than Duncan in the regular season.

In the playoffs, Malone averaged 41.0 minutes, while Duncan averaged 39.0.

So I would either use per 36 minutes (or per 48), or use minute-independent stats, such as ORTG (offensive rating), TS% (true shooting percentage -- incorporates 3's and FT%), OREB %, DREB %, TRB % (rebounding percentages for offensive, defensive, and total), AST %, TO %.

Blocks and steals per game are fine, but %'s make a more fair comparison.

All of this can be found on basketball-reference.

I also don't like Win Shares.

I prefer Roland Rating, or Wins Produced.

Roland Rating is on 82games.com, and Wins Produced is here:

The NBA Geek - Advanced NBA Statistics for all players

 

[nuraman00]

Growing up, I didn't like Garnett as much as I should, because while he barely averaged over 20 points in Minnesota - his last four years in Minnesota were awesome in points and rebounds and his assists, steals, and blocks were always great. I don't like him now for his personality but that's fine.

I used to like Garnett, for his passing and defensive ability.

But once he got to Boston, I didn't like his personality. There were also some things from before he got to Boston.

During 2003-2004, Nesterovic stated that Garnett had been verbally abusive to him in Minnesota, and how Nesterovic was much happier with the Spurs and Duncan.

I used to root for Garnett against Duncan when Garnett was on Minnesota, but I started to shift away from Garnett because of his personality, the last few years in Minnesota.

Garnett is a HOF just based on his defense and passing alone.

He's not a very skilled scorer though. The Gasols, Duncan, Boozer, Malone, Jefferson, probably Brook Lopez are all better.

Mutombo, Mourning also sucked on offense. Too turnover prone, didn't have any range.

Ewing also sucks on offense. His efficiency is poor compared to other great centers (which becomes more clear when you look at ORTG). I wouldn't have Ewing in the HOF. And he was not as skilled either. He had a passable jumper, but not like the bigs I mentioned earlier in this post.

 

[nuraman00]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I don't mind him being rated high and being in the discussion as best; heck, I wouldn't mind someone coming out and just saying that he was better than Malone and state reasons besides "leadership" and team achievements. I just don't like the gushing and what, to me, seems to be somewhat incomplete - to just say he's the best without mentioning Malone or others and reasons.

I guess what got to me is that over the past year, I've heard people on TV and radio, stating it like they state that Jordan is the best ever. I know this isn't you, it's just tiring to me and I don't agree. But disagreement with me is ok if I feel that it's stated in a non-excited, non-matter of fact way.

Duncan's usage rate was higher before Ginobili, in general.

So I think if it was just Parker and Duncan, sort of like Stockton and Malone, then Duncan would have had a few more touches, thus driving up his scoring per game a little more.

 

[nuraman00]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I agree with this to an extent.

But then you also have players like Pau and Garnett who could also block shots a high rate from the PF spot. (Or maybe you can argue they're centers, it's an openly debatable topic).

I don't want to sort and rank PFs for their block % right now, but I'm pretty sure there have been good shot-blocking PFs too, like Pau and Garnett.

And there have been great rebounding PFs like Reggie Evans, Barkley, Dale Davis (or is he a center?), Kevin Love (or is he a center?), Rodman, Humphries, David Lee, Zach Randolph.

Player Season Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

Boozer would have been in the top 10 but he was filtered out for being a "F-C" (which I had unchecked).


I also think that Duncan spent a decent amount of time guarding PFs. For example, he used to guard Nowizki, Webber (I think), etc.

Speaking of Webber, interesting, he was filtered out too, but he only would have been in the top 50 for TRB%.

I don't think Duncan being better positioned for rebounds made him a center. I think he was just a better rebounder, like Reggie Evans or Rodman or Lee.


Also, it's also muddy/blurry to say Duncan was a PF on offense. I think that on one hand, he was a PF because he could hit a jumper. I think stretching the floor like that leans him to a PF.

But then I remember C's from the 90s could hit jumpers too, like Rik Smiths, Olajuwon, Dale Davis, Ewing, Charles Oakley, Charles Smith. Some of those might have played more PF, but they also played some C too.

So, hence, I've seen both C's and PFs have similar enough games, that sometimes I can merge their profiles of how they played.

So, Duncan's game is like both other C's and PFs, on both offense and defense, IMO.

Greg Monroe is another PF who's a better rebounder than Malone, if you look at TRB% or per-36 rebounds.