Best PF of all time?

[The Regime]

I was reading this thing on ESPN, and thought that this debate was pretty interesting. You can't really go wrong with either guy.

 

Tim Ducan normally gets the knod as the greatest PF of all time, and deservingly his career has been nothing short of amazing. No player has been more humble, he has won four championships, three Finals MVP awards, two regular season MVP awards, has 11 All-Star appearances, he has been voted to 12 All-NBA Teams and 12 All-Defensive Teams.

 

On the other hand Malone has won two regular season MVP awards and has been named to 13 All-Star teams, 11 All-NBA First Teams, one All-NBA Third Team, three All-Defensive First Teams, and one All-Defensive Second Team. Imo, the only thing that holds his legacy back is the fact that he didn't win any championships.

 

Their career averages are almost identical. Tim Duncan has averaged 20.6 and 11.4, while Malone averaged 25 and 10 over a 19 year career. Anyway, discuss.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Simba

[ChosenOne]

Gotta go with Tim Duncan. The Mailman doesn't get it due to the lack of rings.

[Built Ford Tough]

The only way I'd put Malone as the best power forward ever is if you classify Duncan as a center considering he has spent a large chunk of his career as a center. You can argue that Duncan has played more center than power forward since the Rasho Nesterovic left the Spurs which I believe was after the 2005-2006 season.

 

Even then, that is only 5 years out of a 13 year career which definitely isn't enough to classify him as a center.

 

That is no slight against Malone because he had a phenomenal career, but Duncan has accomplished more in his career than Malone did, and who knows, Duncan may add a couple more accolades to his career before he calls it quits, although it is probably safe to rule out any major hardware.

[Karl Malone]

Is this a question? It's def. me. I could take Tim anyday. Knock his ass out. I was on Monday Night Nitro! come on!

Edited July 29, 2011 by Karl Malone

[Real Deal]

Is this a question? It's def. me. I could take Tim anyday. Knock his ass out. I was on Monday Night Nitro! come on!

LOL, the Diamond Cutter to Mr. Perfect.

 

Anyway, if you take away the rings, it's Malone. I think Karl was a more dominant offensive player (the gap is larger) than Duncan was a better defender.

 

Blame Jordan, though, because if it wasn't for MJ, Malone has two rings, no doubt in my mind. No other team in 1997 or 1998 would've stopped the Jazz.

 

Duncan is the greatest at the position, though.

[?QuestionMark?]

I go with Duncan.

 

Malone may be a slightly better offensive player, IMO, but Duncan was the more complete player, better defender, and a legit anchor.

[Dr. Feelgood]

I go with Duncan.

 

Malone may be a slightly better offensive player, IMO, but Duncan was the more complete player, better defender, and a legit anchor.

 

QFT.

 

It's gotta be Duncan, no doubt in my mind. Sure, Malone was damn great but I can't go against Duncan.

[Nitro]

It's very close, but give me Duncan. Malone was easily the better scorer, but besudes that he had nothing on Duncan. Duncan was a significantly better defender, a better rebounder, better post player and post passer, and a better clutch player and playoff performer (which is Malone's biggest knock). He was an overall better and easier player to build a championship team around.

 

Also, as far as the Jordan excuse for Malone having no rings, Duncan defeated the 3=peat Kobe/Shaq Lakers with Robinson being his last year, and Parker/Ginobili/Jackson all being 1st/2nd year players. That post-season, one of the greatest I've ever seen, he averaged 25/15/5 wirh 3+ blocks, and led his team to the championhip. In his prime, he was plain a more dominant and impactful player than Malone was.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Nitro

[Real Deal]

Duncan was a significantly better defender

Significantly better? In the mid and late 90's, Karl Malone was arguably the second best defensive PF in the NBA, and that's ONLY because Dennis Rodman was still a monster. I'm sure Malone was in the running for DPOY a few times, or on a few defensive teams.

 

Duncan was the better defender because he was a true defensive anchor, but Malone was no slouch. I wouldn't say Tim was significantly better.

 

and playoff performer (which is Malone's biggest knock)

I wouldn't say that about a guy that was putting up 25-30 PPG and 10-15 RPG in the playoffs.

 

Also, as far as the Jordan excuse for Malone having no rings, Duncan defeated the 3=peat Kobe/Shaq Lakers with Robinson being his last year, and Parker/Ginobili/Jackson all being 1st/2nd year players. That post-season, one of the greatest I've ever seen, he averaged 25/15/5 wirh 3+ blocks, and led his team to the championhip. In his prime, he was plain a more dominant and impactful player than Malone was.

Come on...that was probably the same year Kobe hoisted 38 FGA in the first game, right? Shaq and Bryant's problems were visible at that point, more than ever, and when Kobe wasn't jacking shots, Shaq was trying to do too much, and vice-versa...and it was basically inevitable. The Lakers (well, Kobe and Shaq) had no chance. They would've lost to Dallas anyway. It wasn't a coincidence they walked all over New Jersey, swept them, the previous Finals series...while the Spurs had some trouble.

 

The Chicago Bulls, and a feuding Kobe and Shaq, are two different animals.

[NomarFachix]

Other: Charles Oakley.

[NomarFachix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9sQadePRh4

[Oliver P]

The first thing I wanna say here is that rings are totally irrelevant to determine who the best player here is. Most people think that Duncan is clearly the best of the two because he won rings which is something that I always found to be totally ludicrous. The Duncan's Spurs never had to play against the Jordan's Bulls and if they had I am 100% sure that the Bulls would have beaten them. Besides I watched both the Duncan's Spurs and Malone's Jazz play and there is no doubt in my mind that the Jazz, especialy in the late 90's, were a better team than all the 2000's Spurs teams. Not by far, don't get me wrong, but they were better overall teams. So if the Spurs had played in the 90's I am sure that Duncan would be ringless and if the Jazz had played in the 2000's I am sure that Malone would have at least a couple of rings. So the rings argument is just totally irrelevant.

 

Then I have to say that I agree with Real Deal about the 2003 Lakers. I heard quite some times people saying that the Spurs could have definitely beaten the Jordan's Bulls as they beat the O'Neal-Bryant's Lakers but the fact is just that the 2003 Lakers had nothing to do with the 2000-01-02 Lakers.

First of all the early 2000's Lakers strength was that every year they managed to sign some quality veterans to surround the two stars and the three superfriends. Yet they did not manage to do that in the summer of 2001. They only signed Walker and Hunter. Walker turned out to be a big disappointment (not that big cause I never expected him to become a great player and I'm certainly sure that I wasn't the only one..) and Hunter was just not the same player that he was in his Pistons days. He used to be one of the greatest shooters in the league but at some point he just totally lost his shot and never got it back. And so did not in his Lakers days. Lindsey was still usefull for his defense but that's it. So the 2002 Lakers managed to get a ring with ONLY Shaq-Kobe and the superfriends that were Horry-Fish-Fox. Horry even had to start because of that that year, Phil wanted to use him on the bench but he just couldn't. Oh and George as the sixth man. But that's it. The still managed to get a ring but it was clear that they HAD to get some quality players the following summer. Yet they just did not...

 

So the following year we were back with the same team, with only six quality players and a clear lack of depth. It was already very hard to win a ring with so little depth but two... Not only that but this year was the year that Shaq and Kobe just couldn't stand each other for good. As a matter of fact before that Phil always found a way to get those two back together but this time even he could not... They both played for themselves. The result ? The chemistry of the team was forever broken. Well until one of the two would eventually leave (I wasn't surprised when Shaq was traded in 04, either him of Kobe HAD to leave). But that's not all... On top of that, this year Robert Horry, definitely a key player of the team at the time, the Lakers wouldn't have won three in a row without his clutch D and shots, TOTALLY lost his game. Many people thought that he was just done. I was one of them. And was wrong as we all know that Bob got back to his true self the following year with the Spurs...

So when you combine all of this it was not surprising to see the Lakers struggle this year. Many might not remember this but there were even doubts that the Lakers would make the playoffs that year. They were not a playoffs team at mid season. They still managed to get better in the second part of the season and eventually make the playoffs. But because of all of this they were never themselves during the playoffs and it was just not surprising to see them lose in the playoffs. Especially that Rick Fox got injured and missed most of the playoffs games in the playoffs... So the Spurs beat a Lakers team that basically had only four good players : O'Neal, Bryant, Fish and George. And two of them, the two superstars, dispised each other more than ever. So the team that the Spurs beat, in six games, just had nothing to do with the three peats teams. And I am personally sure that the Spurs would have never beaten the 2000-02-03 Lakers.

So anyway the ring argument is just plainly flawed.

 

Now let's compare the two players individually. I first want to say something, I have seen too many times the words "easily" or "significantly better" in this thread. The fact is that both players were very good on both ends of the floor and it's just impossible to say that one of them was "by far" better than the other in any area.

 

First of all let's compare the two players offensively. It is true that Malone has overall averaged better numbers there. But when we look more closely at it we can see that both had a very effective mid range jump shot. I'd give the advantage to Malone there. But Duncan had better post moves than Karl. Tim is probably even the PF that has the best post moves ever, with McHale. So Tim has a better offensive repertoire overall. I think I would still give the edge to Malone there but it is arguable nonetheless.

Now both players were terrific passers. But I think I would give the edge to Duncan there though, he was a bit better than Karl IMO.

 

Defensively we have two of the best defensive PFs of All Time. Malone was a fantastic defender. But I can't put him over Duncan in that area. Because, honestly, in terms of defense and rebounds, and at the exception of Dennis Rodman of course, Tim is definitely the best that we ever seen at the PF position in my opinion.

 

The most important area for me, when talking about the All Time great, is clutchness, leadership and dominance. I said in another thread that in my opinion a case could be made for Dirk as the best PF ever because of his leadership and dominance on the offensive end during the last playoffs run. Honestly I have very rarely seen a player take over in the fourth like he did. It was very impressive. And that is why I think that a case can definitely be made for him over every other PF. Except... yeah Tim Duncan. Why ? Because Tim happens to have had the same kind of dominant performance, not only offensively but also defensively. As a matter of fact Duncan not only destroyed his opponents offensively but he also annihilated them on the defensive end. In 2003 Tim just had one of the greatest performances ever. And he even had two of the most impressive games ever that year, in game 1 of the Finals with 32 PTS, 20 REB, 6 AST, 3 STL, 7 BLK and in game 6 of the same Finals with 21 PTS, 20 REB, 10 AST, 8 BLK. Duncan averaged 24.2 points, 17 rebounds, 5.3 assists and 5.3 blocks during those Finals. His BPG happens to be the most for any player since the NBA-ABA merger.

Also back to the game 6, it's important to remember that the Nets were leading by 8 at the beginning of the 4th and it's totally thanks to Duncan that they got back into the game and eventually won it, Tim not only took over on the offensive end but destroyed Martin on the defensive end, he forced him to a pathetic 3/23 in this game.

 

So honestly, as much as I would love to say that Malone is the best PF of All Time, I just can't, it's in my opinion just impossible to make a case against Tim for best PF ever.

[Nitro]

Significantly better? In the mid and late 90's, Karl Malone was arguably the second best defensive PF in the NBA, and that's ONLY because Dennis Rodman was still a monster. I'm sure Malone was in the running for DPOY a few times, or on a few defensive teams.

 

Duncan was the better defender because he was a true defensive anchor, but Malone was no slouch. I wouldn't say Tim was significantly better.

 

Yes, a signficantly better deffender. As you said, Duncan was a true defensive anchor, and he was dominant at that, anchoring some of the best defenses in NBA history. Pretty much every advanced stat, from Drtg to DWS, show how huge of an advantage Duncan has over Malone there.

 

Come on...that was probably the same year Kobe hoisted 38 FGA in the first game, right? Shaq and Bryant's problems were visible at that point, more than ever, and when Kobe wasn't jacking shots, Shaq was trying to do too much, and vice-versa...and it was basically inevitable. The Lakers (well, Kobe and Shaq) had no chance. They would've lost to Dallas anyway. It wasn't a coincidence they walked all over New Jersey, swept them, the previous Finals series...while the Spurs had some trouble.

 

The Chicago Bulls, and a feuding Kobe and Shaq, are two different animals.

 

Give me a break. The Lakers were coming off a 3-peat, and they still had a prime Kobe and Shaq. I agree those Bulls teams were probably better, but Malone also had one of the greatest PG's of all-time by his side and a very solid supporting cast. Malone also performed nowhere near as dominantly as Duncan did against the Lakers.

[Real Deal]

The 2011 Lakers were coming off two consecutive championships, and they were swept by Dallas in the second round. I'm not sure what your point is. Kobe and Shaq didn't want to share the ball that year, and it was clear by the end of the regular season. Oliver also pointed out what I figured was a minor detail, but still a legit one: they didn't get anything done in the offseason.

 

You can make your arguments about Duncan being better, and I will give you a different answer each day (coin toss for me), but there's no way you can convince me that the 2003 Lakers were as good as the three-peat Lakers. That particular team had "playoff exit" written all over them from the start of the season, when they had to start Stone Hands Walker in place of Shaq for the first 15 games or so, then they went 5-7 in the next 12 after Shaq's return to the lineup (when they were starting Medvedenko, Madsen, Walker, AND Horry JUST in that stretch because all of them sucked ass).

 

Malone also performed nowhere near as dominantly as Duncan did against the Lakers.

Haha, I'm sure he didn't. He was 33 when he started playing the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, and was really in his ultimate prime for two more years. Duncan's first seven years were against those Lakers. Prime Malone averaged 31/11 on 56% FG, 1.5 SPG, 11 FTA/G, and he took 19 or 20 FGA. All but one of those stats (rebounds), Duncan has never touched in his career...so let's not bother discussing who did well against the dynasty Lakers.

 

In fact, Malone put up a 23/17 game in his second season against Magic and Kareem's Lakers, had 35 against them four days earlier. Had a 28/16 game against them the following season. Both seasons, LA won the championship.

 

Hell, Malone had 25/15 against Kareem's Lakers in 1985, two months into his rookie season, lol. Kareem, Worthy, Rambis and Green were all in foul trouble, with five each, mainly because they had no idea how to stop Malone.

 

I'm not going to compare Malone's games vs. Kobe/Shaq to Duncan's. If we're going to do that, I'll give you another topic that proves Jason Kidd isn't a greater PG than Chris Paul, based on what CP3 has done to the Kobe/Gasol duo vs. how Kidd has fared against the two.

[Real Deal]

FYI...

 

I looked it up earlier, closed it because I didn't think I needed it anymore...but the 33+ year old Malone averaged around 24 PPG and 8-9 RPG (may have been 8.5 RPG, can't remember) against the Kobe/Shaq Lakers when O'Neal was in the lineup. Not bad at all. Prime Malone would've been more difficult to defend, probably putting up at least 27-29 PPG and 10-12 RPG, but I digress.