Shane (Louisville,KY)
Is Tim Duncan the best PF ever? If not, why and who is?
Chris Sheridan (2:20 PM)
I am partial to Karl Malone in that argument. In his prime, he was unstoppable at a level Duncan has only scratched.
So Chris Sheridan why is there a day called the Tim Duncan Draft Day? ive never heard bout Malones?....Probably Championships?
Idiot Sheridan..
A fortnight or so, ago...he said that the Mavericks will overtake the Spurs on the wins column and that he suspects Manu is suffering from an ankle injury.
A good for nothing commentator limited to writing miles of words for a crappy team like the Knicks.
to bad he was never unstoppable in the clutch
Karl Malone is the biggest of all time.
Put Malone on the 99 and 03 Spurs, we have at least two fewer les. , we might not have any since we won on defense, and Karl was an average defender.
Looks like he forgot about counting the playoffs.
Duncan best PF ever when it really matters
Biggest difference between the two is that Malone's numbers usually went down in the playoffs, while Duncan's went up. That and of course post defense.....Duncan was/is on a different level. Malone's "defense" was usually slapping hard at the ball hoping to strip it.
For all of Malone's incredible scoring in the regular season (20 years is incredible) he isn't much more of a scorer compared to Duncan in the post season:
Malone - 24.7 pts 10.7 rbs 3.2 asts .7 blks .463 fg% 0 'ships 9 first round flame-outs
Duncan - 23.0 pts 12.4 rbs 3.5 asts 2.6 blks .502 fg% 4 'ships 1 first round flame-out
....I'll take Duncan
if kmalone was that great
how come he didnt win a ring during the 98/99-02/03 season when he was still posting up those avg career numbers while jordan was a wizard...
What a terrible statement. It's one thing to say that you are partial to Malone (still erroneous, but I'd let it pass) - but to say that TD has only scratched the surface of Malone's peak is flat out asinine.
Anyhow, this is a silly question because the argument for best PF of all time was settled about 5 years ago. Duncan spent a a few more years (and another le) padding his lead, and now is a center by most definitions.
I see you've found the light after coming out of the darkness (ESPN boards). Nice take. Timmy has, Malone has
. Case closed.
No guard ever feared driving the lane on Karl Malone, other than being worried he might get elbowed. Getting blocked by Mailman was never a concern.
When Duncan was at his peak, every guard in the league would have to think three or four times about driving past the free throw line extended.
Malone was average on defense at BEST. Duncan is perhaps the greatest help-side defender in NBA history.
Once more a case of rose-tinted glasses from BSPN.
Doubles!
Duncan is >>>> to Malone, no contest
But Malone could have retired with 2 rings if not for MJ
And Timmy could have 6 rings if not for Fisher .4 or Manu's last sec fault...
"avec des "si", on pourrait mettre Paris en bouteille"...
Everything that could have been said in this thread, has been said already.Sheridan...dude never played pro ball...
And my aunt would be my uncle if it weren't for balls.And Timmy could have 6 rings if not for Fisher .4 or Manu's last sec fault...
"avec des "si", on pourrait mettre Paris en bouteille"...
Playing pro ball doesn't equate to being a superior analyst. I'm not defending Sheridan, he is indeed a tool, but some of the worst analysts of all time played pro ball. Michael Irvin, Deion, Jalen Rose, Bill Walton, Terry Bradshaw and so on. And for everyone of those dummies there is a Troy Aikman, Charles Barkley, Doug Collins, Orel Herschieser, Mike Golic and so on. Then there are guys who are great analysts/writers who never played pro, Rick Riley, Mike Wilbon, Tony Kornheiser, Mike Greenberg, Bob Costas, Dan Cook and so on.Everything that could have been said in this thread, has been said already.
Mike Greenberg?!?!?
I'll even go so far as to say, you put 2003 Tim Duncan on the 1998 Jazz instead of Malone, they dethrone the Bulls. Duncan wouldnt have choked like Karl did in the finals.
lol it isn't even close. Duncan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the failman
Chris Sheridan must be lakaluva.
Not one of those guys is even a decent analyst - save for Costas, and only with baseball.
Malone is my second favorite player of all-time, but it's not even close. Malone was a scoring machine and an underrated passer and post defender, but Duncan has much more of an all around impact and if he was selfish, he could have scored more than he did.
People always rave about the scoring numbers put up by Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, etc., but go back and look at the stats. Those guys, especially in playoff games, took a ton of shots. Duncan never did that. Also, for the first half of his career, he didn't have a reliable perimeter threat and for at least a few seasons, nothing resembling a true second option of any kind, which allowed for teams to load up on him.
Sheridan is probably the least knowledgeable ESPN guy, though. It's all about shooting and scoring with him. He's clearly a novice fan, so he doesn't fully comprehend or respect the all around impact Duncan has on a game.
It's possible to make a case for Malone but to base it on being "unstoppable" is pretty damn stupid. Malone's game wasn't about being unstoppable, it was about precision and the endless execution between him and Stockton.
If the case for Malone is based on durability, longevity and consistency, I could possibly buy it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
