Please tell me why Malone > Duncan

[Anaximandro1]

You can´t compare Malone,Garnett or Duncan stats,because you can´t compare apples and oranges.Every superstar willing to play for Popovich will have to sacrifice his regular season numbers.Spurs play at slow pace and the starters play limited minutes because they use regular season to get ready for the playoffs.

Example 99 Spurs.They won championship averaging 92.8 ppg (opponent 84.7 ppg).Compare with 90 Jazz (106.8 ppg,opponent 102 ppg) and you have apples and oranges.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1999.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1990.html


If you wish to play the stats game,play the whole game.Folks like to bring Duncan´s regular season stats(guy averaged 22/12/3/3 for 10 years,which is great IMO),but forget about Duncan´s playoff stats.Why?I don´t know.

Last time I checked,rings are earned in the postseason.Problem here is that Duncan plays more than 34 mpg. thus his numbers are up…

That´s why Duncan is ranked among all-playoffs leaders:by blocks(4th),rebounds(8th) and total points(13th)

http://www.nba.com/statistics/encyc/...all&x=1 8&y=2

plus Duncan owns better averages than Malone or Garnett

Duncan 23.8 ppg (50.7%) 12.5 rb 2.8 blk mpg(40.1)

Malone 24.7 ppg (46.2%) 10.7 rb 0.7 blk mpg(41)

Garnett 22.3 ppg (45.8%) 13.4 rb 1.9 blk mpg (42.6)


Believe me,stats are a dangerous tool.Don´t play the game

Duncan 23.8 ppg (50.7%) 12.5 rb 2.8 blk mpg(40.1) (4 championships,3 finals MVP)

Larry Bird 23.8 ppg (47.2%) 10.3 rb 0.9 blk mpg (42.0) (3 championships,2 finals MVP)



Make not mistake I don´t give a **** about stats.Facts are more important .

what happened to 2000 Spurs when Duncan blew out his knee,shortly before the end of the regular season?Come playoffs time and Suns destroyed the champs in the first round.The Funny thing is that Duncan playoff record is 4-0 versus Suns…I love the asterisk thing.

Thats why Duncan is the real NBA MVP .Thats why he led three different teams four times to the promised land.

[gigantes]

Originally Posted by Knoe Itawl

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.

excellent arguments IMO.

you pretty-much totally deflated the malone camp right there...

[EricForman]

who the hell still thinks Malone > Duncan? That's gross.