Better Career: Bill Walton or Karl Malone

[Findog]

Malone was arguably the best PF of his generation/era. Played on two Finals runner-ups. He was an iron man that played in 1,476 out of a possible 1,526 games, with 40 of those sit outs occurring in his final season with the Lakers. Incredible work ethic. Two-time regular season MVP. 11-time All-NBA First Team. Three-time member of All-Defensive First Team. 14-time All Star. He was also a Rogaine spokesman and developed a reputation as being poor in the clutch.

Walton is a HOF'er. He was the best player on one title team...and an important reserve on another title team that is remembered as one of the best of all-time. If not for a broken foot, his Blazers would've most likely successfully defended their title in 1978. He was the 77 Finals MVP and the 78 Regular Season MVP. He had 1 All-NBA first team selection and made the All-Defensive First Team twice. He was a two-time All Star. He left the Blazers in bitter fashion while accusing them of medical malpractice. Because of a chronically broken bone in his left foot, he played in only 44 percent of regular-season games in his career. He also annoyed many with his lefty politics.

[The Gemini Method]

I would say, Malone. Bill Walton's career is too much "what-ifs" and not enough time to really put his mark on the league. If Walton stays healthy and plays longer...who knows what would've happened. But if I'm going with overall body of work and not just who won a ring--Malone is my pick.

[lil_penny]

Malone had a better career imo

[Findog]

Longevity and consistency versus who had the higher peaks. Interesting.

[The Gemini Method]

I don't like to throw things in the reverse on most things, but if Michael Jordan stayed retired or didn't come back for a couple years--Malone and the Jazz probably would've won at least one title. That would give the Mailman his hallowed championship. Now, that's a speculation so take it for what it is. I'm saying, over the longhaul he had the better career imho.

[urunobili]

Rings > No rings

[The Gemini Method]

Rings > No rings

So, Robert Horry is better than Malone? Barkley? Stockton? Elgin Baylor?

[Findog]

You can't win a championship by yourself, not even if you're Michael Jordan or Bill Russell.

[resistanze]

I'll have to go with the pedophile.

[Leetonidas]

So, Robert Horry is better than Malone? Barkley? Stockton? Elgin Baylor?

Why is that the first thing you guys always jump to? Robert Horry is not in the HOF nor has he ever won an MVP. Walton and the Mailman have, which is why they are comparable. You can't compare a role player that amassed a bunch of ring to a couple of go to guys with their own teams.

That being said, I go with Malone, even though he is Spurs enemy #1.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Rings > No rings


Why is it not surprising at all Spurfan would post this?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Why is that the first thing you guys always jump to?


Because Spurfan logic is anyone with a ring > anyone without a ring, you guys have expressed this opinion countless times.

[IronMexican]

If anyone picks Walton, it's either tlong or a spurfan who hates(d) Malone and the Jazz.

[Findog]

I'm surprised that nobody is picking Walton. Is it better to be the best player in the game, win a title at the peak of your powers, then come back and play an important role on one of the more transcendent teams in basketball history, or just be really really good for a really really long time on a team that was really really good. Walton touched greatness twice.

[duhoh]

malone wouldve owned walton. just saying

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

I'm surprised that nobody is picking Walton. Is it better to be the best player in the game, win a title at the peak of your powers, then come back and play an important role on one of the more transcendent teams in basketball history, or just be really really good for a really really long time on a team that was really really good. Walton touched greatness twice.


You don't put Malone in the category of "great"?

[mavs>spurs2]

findog is that longjohnsilver in your avatar? :lol

[Findog]

You don't put Malone in the category of "great"?

Yeah, but don't circumstances play a part in who had a better career?

[The Gemini Method]

Why is that the first thing you guys always jump to? Robert Horry is not in the HOF nor has he ever won an MVP. Walton and the Mailman have, which is why they are comparable. You can't compare a role player that amassed a bunch of ring to a couple of go to guys with their own teams.

That being said, I go with Malone, even though he is Spurs enemy #1.

Because you cannot make the argument rings > no rings with a complete lack of comparison. That's where the consistent questioning of the whole thing stems from. If he had put the statement that winning the ring is the ultimate goal of playing in the NBA is greater than having a susbstantial career, breaking records, and being highly regarded as one of the best to play at your position, then okay, maybe I wouldn't have answered.

It just sounds off to me that someone would put "rings > no rings" when having a debate. To win a championship, you have to have a few things in place. A great team, health, and basically some kind of luck. I just don't get the whole premise that if you go by the initial statement.

Trent Dilfer > Dan Marino...

[Findog]

findog is that longjohnsilver in your avatar? :lol

gotdamn right it is.

[JamStone]

The Mexican hunter.

[baseline bum]

Walton was more talented IMO, but come on; this isn't close at all. Not even if you factor in Walton's college dominance.

[lefty]

Rings > No rings

WTF


So, Robert Horry is better than Malone? Barkley? Stockton? Elgin Baylor?
I agree with you

[mavs>spurs2]

gotdamn right it is.

:tu

[Findog]

Walton was more talented IMO, but come on; this isn't close at all. Not even if you factor in Walton's college dominance.

So the consensus is that at their peaks Walton was the better player, but Malone had the better career? Take money out of the equation, and whose career would you have rather had? Both the 77 Blazers and 86 Celtics are seen as special teams, whereas Malone had a "full" career by virtue of being healthy.

[baseline bum]

So the consensus is that at their peaks Walton was the better player, but Malone had the better career? Take money out of the equation, and whose career would you have rather had? Both the 77 Blazers and 86 Celtics are seen as special teams, whereas Malone had a "full" career by virtue of being healthy.

I'd rather have Malone's because I wouldn't be a cripple.

[Sportstudi]

So, Robert Horry and Steve Kerr are better than Malone? Barkley? Stockton? Elgin Baylor?

Fixed it for you :rolleyes

[The Gemini Method]

If you take money out of the equation doesn't really fit the arguement. Karl Malone is arguably one of the top 3 at his position and if you ask anyone who has followed basketball closely over the past 30 years can have one of those, "oh Malone was a phenomenal player and had a tremendous career..." I doubt Walton evokes such passion. He isn't in the top-10 to have ever played the center position...However, I can see where there are similarities because each player comes with their own set of "but" with their careers. Karl Malone was an exceptional PF but...couldn't win the big prize. Bill Walton was a good C but...was too injury ravaged to sustain a career.