Re: Please tell me why Malone > Duncan
I disagree with the whole "Malone sucked in the playoffs" thing. he had some disappointing games, and he had some dominating games. the thing about Malone is that he can't dominate a game with his presence. he did so with points and rebounds... almost all players have great stastical games and then less than great ones. didn't Malone have 30 and 40 pt games against the Bulls while everyone said Rodman shut him down? the problem with Malone like I said is that he had little intangible effect on the game. he was like Boozer- scored a lot, grabbed every board but that's all.
I don't think most people think Malone was better than Duncan is.
I don't personally think these two should be compared. there are four types of big men in my opinion:
1. Shaqs and Wilts (Cs)
2. Duncans (CF)
3. Malones (PF)
4. Dirks (SFs/SGs with PF/C size)
guys like Duncan impact the game the same way Centers do. really, by any logical definition, Duncan is a center. how is he not? defensively he plays like a Center... and offensively he plays like a Center. how, then, can you compare him to Malone who is a CONSUMMATE PF? they play the game a different way. Malone wasn't a guy who stood in the middle of the floor and anchored a defense; Malone didn't control the middle. Duncan does these things.
if everyone has equal talent, Shaqs will always be better than Duncans who will always be better than Malones who will always be better than Dirks. do you get what I'm saying? that's how it'll always be. I think Hakeem vs. Duncan makes much more sense as a comparison than Duncan vs. Malone.
Last edited by geeWiz15 : 06-15-2007 at 03:49 PM.