Great article, read this:
The source was Salt lake city hoops, so take it with a grain of salt .... (ha)
I was arguing the subject with a colleague (I chose Duncan he took Karl) and he dared call duncan soft. Googled some stats to refute him and ran across the above article. Why i find it interesting is it does a great job of making both cases, but man it really underscored some things that I did not know:
1. Malone is not only the 2nd time all leading score but he is 3rd all time in win shares, behind only Kareem and Wilt ...
2. I knew Malone was a playoff "struggler" (i wont say choker) but his numbers drop from - He shot considerably worse (from 51% to 46%) in the playoffs and his WS/48 minutes dropped from 0.205 to 0.14
3. Damn, is Duncan the model of consistency even though he stepped up plenty of times I think the most amazing thing in the article, is Duncan: Compare this with Duncan who had almost identical shooting percentages and WS/48 numbers. One thing to consider is that Duncan has more Win Shares (28.6 compared to 23) in the playoffs despite playing in 23 fewer games
Bottom line is this as article sums up so: it is hard to make the case that Duncan was better than Malone in the regular season, it is also look like it is hard to make the case that Malone was better than Duncan in the playoffs.
I'd still take Duncan, but that article pointed out some great points for Karl. Sure it's a team sport and Karl never had David Robinson (or Tim, Stockton).
But the rings speak volumes so Duncan is the choice, but Malone has a good case here because he dominates the regular season argument.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 02-17-2012 at 03:29 PM.
Oh btw my colleague IM'd me this (mavs fan btw):
Man you got to look at it like this.. When Malone played one person killed some greats for not having a ring.. MICHAEL JORDAN... Duncan is soft.. You saw what the Grizzles did to him last yer. .. Malone is the MAIL MAN.. HALL OF FAMER...
You can safely say that it's not fair to judge a lot of great players during that period on not having a ring, due to the fact that michael was around at that time. But Malone isn't one of those guys, his overall playoff averages imply that he shrank in the big moment.
LOL @ YOU SAW THAT THE GRIZZLIES DID TO HIM... whhhhewww thanks for sharing. That is a good one. You saw what ____ did to Malone, he has 0 rings, despite playing with the best pure PG of all-time.
Hey, I was just pointing out that I disagree and what prompted me to look up these numbers in the first place. I actually HATE stats but others do like them advanced ones are all the rage nowadays ... I trust my eyes. Duncan > Malone and the stats back that up playoff wise, as do the ring counts.
Regular season though, different story.
Oh and I agree my co-worker is ignorant, he argued Blake Griffin over Shawn Kemp in his prime earlier ...
It makes sense; Duncan doesn't give a about the regular season.Hey, I was just pointing out that I disagree and what prompted me to look up these numbers in the first place. I actually HATE stats but others do like them advanced ones are all the rage nowadays ... I trust my eyes. Duncan > Malone and the stats back that up playoff wise, as do the ring counts.
Regular season though, different story.
Oh and I agree my co-worker is ignorant, he argued Blake Griffin over Shawn Kemp in his prime earlier ...
naw, malone would've rang TWICE if jordan never returned. bulls-jazz finals were evenly matched and both times it could've gone either way, the bulls won both times b/c they had luck & the bball God on their side
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
