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

Earl Clark = #1

[QUOTE=fpliii]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... Russell's the GOAT defender, so adding [I]prime[/I] Thurmond would stack the team too much defensively. I just wanted a bigger body who could defend Shaq went he came to town, freeing Russell and enabling him to help. '75-76 Thurmond was perfect though, as he wasn't in his prime anymore, which wouldn't stack the team too much (and that only affected his offensive game, which he isn't here for in the first place. They have enough offense), he actually came off the bench in the given season, which was key as I only wanted actual bench players on the bench, and he still had it defensively, shutting down prime Kareem who was MVP of the league to 3-14 shooting in the fourth quarter of a game in which he was brought in to defend him:

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=V5NSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cl8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5084,5868324[/url]

and he was highly effective against Dave Cowens--who was third in the MVP voting--and the postseason against the Celtics who were an uptempo team when he was pressed into starting duty and had to play 40 minutes a game. He was the perfect backup for what I was looking for. (He'd be the functional defensive equivalent of '86 Walton.)

There are some matchups I think about when forming a team, "How would they do against Shaq," and how would they do against high-scoring wings? Russell's team can defend Shaq with Thurmond (and the point isn't to shut him down, just limit/contain him enough to enable the team to win. As was the case with Wilt, whatever individual numbers he puts up don't matter so long as the team gets the "W"), they can defend Jordan, Kobe, etc., with Cooper backed by Russell, Nance and Thurmond off the bench, and they can defend Bird, who has always said Cooper was his toughest defender. Duncan's team can defend Shaq with the Twin Towers as the Spurs actually did, and they can defend Jordan, with Dumars being credited as his toughest defender, etc. I don't want any team to have too much of an advantage over everyone else, as the point is to put everyone on equal footing.

[QUOTE=fpliii]I'll have to take a look at the thread and see if I can parse out some reasonable suggestions.[/QUOTE]

Kobe might be difficult, as finding the right mix of players won't be as easy as it was for the more team-oriented players in Russell, Magic, and Duncan, and in real life there were clashes with teammates and complaints about touches, which compounds the problem of forming a complementary team that will enable him to shoot as much as he wants without his teammates becoming dissatisfied from not being involved enough in the offense, while still being competitive against the other teams. Which was why I was trying to get some opinions from people who watch him all the time. As there is only so much time in the day, I can't watch everyone to the same extent, so I have no problem with consulting other people who've watched a particular player more than I have.

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Longevity Is NOT A Skill.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yet it is taken into account when ranking players, don't act like you don't either. I shouldn't have to even try to pull examples that show this.

In terms of GOAT, I have no problem with Timmy, Mailman, Barkley, KG, and Dirk as the top five GOAT PF's. Can't forget McHale, Hayes, and Petit as well. Timmy had the size and skillset of the legendary centers. But he gained his fame and notoriety as a PF, even though he played a ton of C. To me it's no different than a swingman, combo guard, or SF-PF. Most guys have a secondary position they may play often. The problem with Timmy is when these commentators list a Blair or Bonner as Center and Timmy as PF. And that has happened a lot to Duncan once Robinson retired. So the problem is Timmy being lined up with guys who are natural PF's and STILL being called a PF. It's not the fact that Timmy is a 7 footer who happens to blessed with epic ability and can play PF, C, and in his younger days even some SF.

When looking at the legendary PF's, Barkley is the BIGGEST STAR of them all and made the PF spot make up ground on the other spot in that regard. When u factor everything, I think Barkley is the MOST IMPACTFUL PF ever in terms of redefining the position, ticket sales, exposure worldwide, ratings, etc. So even though Timmy is the GOAT PF, I think Barkley is to PF's what MJ was to SG, Magic PG,and Bird SF. Barkley made it cool to be a PF, when before it was known mainly as an enforcer position. Or it had skilled scorers and rebounders like Hayes, Lucas, and Pettit fly under the radar while the other stars got more attention. Barkley put PF's on the front page and was as visible as anybody. Once Bird and Magic retired, Barkley was the second biggest star in the L and a transcendant kind of star at that.

[QUOTE=bizil]In terms of GOAT, I have no problem with Timmy, Mailman, Barkley, KG, and Dirk as the top five GOAT PF's. Can't forget McHale, Hayes, and Petit as well. Timmy had the size and skillset of the legendary centers. But he gained his fame and notoriety as a PF, even though he played a ton of C. To me it's no different than a swingman, combo guard, or SF-PF. Most guys have a secondary position they may play often. The problem with Timmy is when these commentators list a Blair or Bonner as Center and Timmy as PF. And that has happened a lot to Duncan once Robinson retired. So the problem is Timmy being lined up with guys who are natural PF's and STILL being called a PF. It's not the fact that Timmy is a 7 footer who happens to blessed with epic ability and can play PF, C, and in his younger days even some SF.[/QUOTE]
Tim is 6'10.

[QUOTE=Big#50]Tim is 6'10.[/QUOTE]

Ben Wallace is 6'9 and Dwight Howard is 6'11 at the most.

Chuck Hayes is a 6'6 center and DeJuan Blair's natural position is center also.

Height certainly doesn't determine position

[QUOTE=SCdac]Ben Wallace is 6'9 and Dwight Howard is 6'11 at the most.

Chuck Hayes is a 6'6 center and DeJuan Blair's natural position is center also.

Height certainly doesn't determine position[/QUOTE]
I've watched Tim play since the first time he played ACC ball. I know he is a center. To me he has always been a center. Best big since JABBAR. I only said he was 6'10 because people call him a 7 footer. Stupid Spurs fans have to be the most annoying trolls.

[QUOTE=joshwake]Yet it is taken into account when ranking players, don't act like you don't either. I shouldn't have to even try to pull examples that show this.[/QUOTE]

[B]Kobe Will End Up With More Points, Rebounds, Assists etc than Jordan Was He Better? :no:

If Longevity Makes a Player Better than Use It But It Doesn`t Malone Stayed at Better Level than Barkley True But Was Never a More Dominant Player than Barkley in Both Their Primes. Ever! More Numbers Look Nice On Paper To the Eye Thats All!

Dominance > Longevity

Jordan > Kobe

Barkley > Malone[/B]

[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]



Barkley has said, numerous times, that he was a better player but that Duncan has earned the title of the best PF ever. Duncan has the accomplishments, but he was also the most important player on those teams, so he earned it. But Barkley has always said that he was the better player, at his best.

[QUOTE=rmt]Are you forgetting 03 Duncan? Or do you think that Dirk's 11 run > Duncan's 03 run?[/QUOTE]

Damn I thought either Manu or Parker woulda been selected. Allstar guards for the west that year were Kobe, Steve Francis, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, and Stephon Marbury

To answer your question though, I do consider Dirk's run more impressive as he had a much stiffer challenge in the finals with Lebron's Heat compared to the Ason Kidd led Nets.

[QUOTE=barkleynash]Damn I thought either Manu or Parker woulda been selected. Allstar guards for the west that year were Kobe, Steve Francis, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, and Stephon Marbury

To answer your question though, I do consider [B]Dirk's run more impressive[/B] as he had a much stiffer challenge in the finals with Lebron's Heat compared to the Ason Kidd led Nets.[/QUOTE]

Dirk's run was indeed impressive but mostly on the offensive end of the court. Duncan was impressive on [B]BOTH[/B] ends of the court. Chandler was the one manning the paint (for which he was "rewarded" the next year with DPOY). As far as the competition is concerned, Lebron (who had won nothing as yet) and the newly-formed Heat vs Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson and the 3-time defending champions?

The experience difference in their team mates is also important. 2nd year Parker, 2nd year SJax, rookie Manu, 38 yr old DRob vs Terry, Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Barea. IMO, Duncan had to do a lot more heavy lifting than Dirk.

03 playoff Duncan/ 11 playoff Dirk
24.7 pts / [B]27.7 pts[/B]
[B]15.4 rebs[/B] / 8.1 rebs
[B]5.3 assts[/B] / 2.5 assts
[B]3.3 blks[/B] / 0.6 blks
[B]52.9 FG%[/B] / 48.5 FG%

Duncan led the Spurs in points, rebounds, assists and blocks. Dirk led the Mavs in points and FT%.

[B]Why is Dirk Name Even Mentined With Charles, Karl and Tim?[/B] :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Why is Dirk Name Even Mentined With Charles, Karl and Tim?[/B] :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

LOL.

1st off, Malone just wasn't a great player in the playoffs.
He stuffed the statsheet at first glance, but when you take a closer look, it looks much worse. The guy has a career playoff TS% of 52.6%. He only topped 58% TS in 2 playoff runs in his whole career. Dirk has a career playoff TS% of 58.1%.

Now, when you consider that Malone played the vast majority of his career being fed passes by John Stockton, and played a good part of his career at a time when league wide fg% was a good bit higher than during Dirk's career, the difference gets even more glaring.

Malone might've looked mighty good with his big muscles and raw stat sheet numbers, but the fact is, as a scoring threat he's simply nowhere near Dirk.

You should rather ask why Malone should be in the discussion.

[QUOTE=brain drain]LOL.

1st off, Malone just wasn't a great player in the playoffs.
He stuffed the statsheet at first glance, but when you take a closer look, it looks much worse. The guy has a career playoff TS% of 52.6%. He only topped 58% TS in 2 playoff runs in his whole career. Dirk has a career playoff TS% of 58.1%.

Now, when you consider that Malone played the vast majority of his career being fed passes by John Stockton, and played a good part of his career at a time when league wide fg% was a good bit higher than during Dirk's career, the difference gets even more glaring.

Malone might've looked mighty good with his big muscles and raw stat sheet numbers, but the fact is, as a scoring threat he's simply nowhere near Dirk.

You should rather ask why Malone should be in the discussion.[/QUOTE]

[B]Scoring Wise They are Very Similar....With Dirk Being a Better Pure Shooter.

Dirk Wasn`t the Post Player (late in his career he was very good) Malone Was. Dirk Wasn`t The Rebounder, Passer or Defender Malone Was.

Malone Was a Better Total Player.[/B]