I hear this all the time, "Malone was better than Duncan" But why?
*The dude choked too many times to count in the playoffs, you know, where it matters MOST
*Had another all star (and great supporting cast) but couldn't win at least one ring (whereas Timmy has done it with no other all star, and don't give me DRob shyt because DRob was not an all star even during their first title, much less their last together. DRob was still a very important player, but he was NOT the player he was in his prime, not even close)
*Duncan is a much better defender than Malone. Malone was a very good defender, to be sure, but Duncan anchors the Spurs' d, and is a flat out defensive monster
*Is more of a presence in the post than Karl "I like to shoot outside jumpers during crunch time" Malone
The only way I can see taking Malone over Duncan is if you just flat out don't like Tim Duncan and can't stand the idea of him being the best PF of all time. That's all that makes sense.
Although I was too young to watch him in his prime I'll give it a go at answering a question or two.
Quote:
Had another all star (and great supporting cast) but couldn't win at least one ring (whereas Timmy has done it with no other all star, and don't give me DRob shyt because DRob was not an all star even during their first title, much less their last together. DRob was still a very important player, but he was NOT the player he was in his prime, not even close)
From what I remember, Malones team never had any other noteable players on the team except for Stockton and Malone. They had Hornaceck for a couple years, and some more spot-up shooters, but nothing to the quality that the Spurs and Duncan have.
I believe that the Spurs have depth in every single position out on the court. Their weakest being the SF spot, but they have a warrior to play most of the game there anyway. From what I recall, and I most likely am wrong, were the Jazz ever a DEEP team? Could they ever rely on their bench as much as the Spurs can?
I believe just a lack of talent on the team is the reason that Malone and them Jazz teams didn't win a championship or two, and also because they were playing in the same era as Michael Jordan and the Bulls Dynasty.
Malone in his two finals played better individually than Duncan in his last two. And both were at similar stages of their career. It's very simple, the Spurs are a better team than the 90's Jazz, Duncan has other great scorers that can step in for him (Parker and Manu).
It's far more likely and excusable to choke against the GOAT player and team than to play subpar against two weak teams from the western conference who are nowhere near the Bulls.
We can only assume what damage a REAL prime Malone (i mean the 30/12 Malone in his late 20's, not the 25/9 Malone in his mid 30's) would have done in late stages of the playoffs. Too bad his team was never good enough.
If you only look at stats, which most of this board usually does, I guess an argument could be made for Malone.
If youd select a player to build around for a title during Malones prime years he probably wouldnt be top 10. Yes he was a great scorer but his stats are among the most misleading ever.
If you would pick a player from the last ten years of basketball to build a title-team around, Duncan would be at worst number two.
Malone in his two finals played better individually than Duncan in his last two. And both were at similar stages of their career. It's very simple, the Spurs are a better team than the 90's Jazz, Duncan has other great scorers that can step in for him (Parker and Manu).
Malone had Stockton and Hornacek that could score as well. He had a great coach in Sloan and more than capable role players. And I see you're ignoring the divide between the two in DEFENSE. Or the fact that Duncan's presence in the post opens up the floor for his team. Why are you ignoring that?
It's far more likely and excusable to choke against the GOAT player and team than to play subpar against two weak teams from the western conference who are nowhere near the Bulls.
See above. No matter how much you want to sweep it under the rug, Duncan is vastly superior on defense. And no, it isn't "excusable" to choke in the Finals. That's where your legend is made. It has to count against you. Especially considering that Duncan has been able to do it on multiple occassions. Further, the Jazz were FAVORED over the Bulls the second year.
We can only assume what damage a REAL prime Malone (i mean the 30/12 Malone in his late 20's, not the 25/9 Malone in his mid 30's) would have done in late stages of the playoffs. Too bad his team was never good enough.
This is a cop out. Jordan was in his mid thirties winning titles. Duncan is 31 winning titles. By the way, Malone didn't just choke against the Bulls. He dissapeared in other series as well. The bottom line is that he DID have teams that were good enough to get over the hump, and he could never do it. Had he played better against the Bulls they would have beaten them. Had he played better in other crucial times during the playoffs his team could have won.
He was playing against Jordan and he probably had more weapons on offense. He was a great player no doubt about that. He just couldn't get it done against GOAT. Like who could?
If you're talking careerwise, (rings, stats, individual accolades etc. ) then Duncan passed him. Duncan now is a Top 10-12 player. Malone is somewhere in the TOP 10-20.
One thing you're wrong about is that DRob was still very good in 1999. Despite playing just 32mpg, he was in the Top 10 in rebounds and blocks throughout the league with a TS% of .564.
Plus, he was 3rd in PER around the league. (yes, he did not play like 38-40mpg but it still shows that he was incredibly effective at those minutes).
Malone in his two finals played better individually than Duncan in his last two. And both were at similar stages of their career. It's very simple, the Spurs are a better team than the 90's Jazz, Duncan has other great scorers that can step in for him (Parker and Manu).
Malone had Stockton and Hornacek that could score as well. He had a great coach in Sloan and more than capable role players. And I see you're ignoring the divide between the two in DEFENSE. Or the fact that Duncan's presence in the post opens up the floor for his team. Why are you ignoring that?
I was refering to your points that A Malone choked and B failed to win a title.
Duncan is superior to Malone defensively, no question. I'd say to the same degree that Malone is the better scorer. And no, Stockton and Hornacek were not as good as scorers as Parker and Manu. And Malone didn't have someone like Finley and Horry that can hit tough shots. It's a fact that Duncan's teams are better put together and have more talented players.
Quote:
It's far more likely and excusable to choke against the GOAT player and team than to play subpar against two weak teams from the western conference who are nowhere near the Bulls.
See above. No matter how much you want to sweep it under the rug, Duncan is vastly superior on defense. And no, it isn't "excusable" to choke in the Finals. That's where your legend is made. It has to count against you. Especially considering that Duncan has been able to do it on multiple occassions. Further, the Jazz were FAVORED over the Bulls the second year.
Had Parker played any worse, say, only up to the level he played in the regular season, the Cavs would have had a really good chance to have a even series right now.
Had Duncan played against a GOOD team, let alone a team like the Bulls Malone faced, the way he did this and last finals, he'd have lost both and be considered as much a choker as Malone.
I was refering to your points that A Malone choked and B failed to win a title.
Duncan is superior to Malone defensively, no question. I'd say to the same degree that Malone is the better scorer. And no, Stockton and Hornacek were not as good as scorers as Parker and Manu. And Malone didn't have someone like Finley and Horry that can hit tough shots. It's a fact that Duncan's teams are better put together and have more talented players.
No, it's not to the "same degree". It's well known that Duncan has sacrificed a lot of his offense for the greater good of the team. No one in their right mind doesn't believe that (especially a couple of years ago) Duncan couldn't have scored 25-27ppg if that was his goal. So I would say there is a greater difference between Duncan's d and Malone's d than the divide on offense. And you're counting out Stockton (top 3 pg all time) and Hornacek who was a tough defender and all around player, AS WELL as a good scorer? Stop it. Both Stockton AND Hornacek could and DID hit many tough shots.
Had Parker played any worse, say, only up to the level he played in the regular season, the Cavs would have had a really good chance to have a even series right now.
Had Duncan played against a GOOD team, let alone a team like the Bulls Malone faced, the way he did this and last finals, he'd have lost both and be considered as much a choker as Malone.
OK, and had Malone played BETTER in the Finals both years, say up to his normal levels, the Jazz would have beaten the Bulls. But he didn't. See how easy that is?
And ASSuming that Duncan would have fared as poorly against the Bulls as Malone did is just assinie. I can say that he would have played much better even if the Spurs still lost. Now what?
Please tell me why Malone > Duncan
