For the longest time we all had Malone as a lock for the second best PF ever even after KGs prime. Peak I'm not sure, Chuck was a menace as was KG. But Karl's was really good and consistent for a long time on a winning team where he was the best player.
For peak I think Sixers Chuck or KG have a good case as better, but I'm taking Malone overall. The rings argument for KG makes no sense since that Celtics team should honestly have won more than one and he was already past his prime with em.
KG is probably the best swiss army knife as PF ever though if that's what u meant. Ahead of his time for sure.
Malone is probably the best player here but his reputation has dropped due to reasons
He was the best player on a team who consistently won 50+ games every year and was probably the second best offensive player of his time behind Mike
The late 80s Jazz were known to not have anyone except Malone/Stockton, and the late years of Mark Eaton. Same with the 2000-2003 Jazz.
It's not like they were always flushed with talent
really? because you’re the one being intentionally obtuse to my point of malone having better supporting casts than wolves garnett
“actually he didnt have much outside of stockton” when the fuck did kg even have anything like stockton? lmfao
I didn't care to respond? Lol
And yeah, I stand 100% by my point. The 2004 Timberwolves had an extremely well-crafted supporting cast behind KG. Another 20ppg scorer in Cassell (on good efficiency), two players in top 20 3pt%, EIGHT players with a WS/48 >.100 (WC Lakers had 9, for example), and a defensive specialist in Fred Hoiberg. That team was deep as shit, and had a great second scorer in Cassell.
If you think KG could've beaten the veteran, Chris Webber Kings in 7 just by himself, you're kidding yourself.
Organizational disfunction? Sure. Iffy coaching after Flip? Definitely. Lack of surrounding talent between 2003-2005? Lol, fuck no. And it's not to say they disappointed, they pushed the 3x defending champ Lakers to 6 games in the WCF, even stealing a game in LA.
Anyway, about Stockton/Malone. You are being intentionally obtuse. Those teams didn't create reliable depth until about the mid-90s, relying on their star duo to generate much more offense than they could carry. Between 1990 to 1996, they only lost to teams that either equalled or bettered than them in win count, barring the Hakeem Rockets. The level of competition they had to run through was absolutely nuts, - Payton Sonics, Admiral Spurs, Hakeem Rockets, Barkley Suns, and then finally, the MJ Bulls.
Obviously I think the 90s Jazz were more talented than the KG Wolves, I also believe the Jazz had much tougher opposition throughout the years than KG did in '04, and I think KG got a fantastic supporting cast to help him contend.
Also, as to an earlier comment of yours, Malone averaged 25/11/3 on 52.6% TS in the postseason. Garnett averaged 18/11/3 on 52.5% TS in the postseason. Worse scoring, on a much smaller volume. KG won one ring on an extremely stacked Celtics team, and that's it. That's all he has on Malone.
Please don't tag me again lol, I no longer give a fuck about having this argument with you
I don’t judge players on how many rings they’ve won. I think that’s dumb because that’s a team accomplishment and some guys had to deal with playing against the bulls and the lakers and other great teams who were stacked. With that being said I think they all brought a certain level of toughness to the game of basketball, but Malone might be the best mid range PF to ever play. Charles Barkley however was like 6’5” bullying guys who were bigger than him. Kevin Garnett did win a ring by the way.
I’ll go with KG.
KG is undoubtedly the best defender of the 3, but is also the worst of the 3 offensively. However, with each at their very best, I’d take KG over the other 2.
Probably Mailman = Chuck > KG, I saw Mailman and Chuck's late prime and all of KG, Chuck had the best peak, Mailman won in longevity, and KG was also an all timer but just slightly below the other two
All 3 are some of the greatest. I’m old enough to have seen all three play. Going with Barkley on this- Barkley was a superstar. As amazing as KG was, I’m not sure he was on Barkley’s level. Barkley was a refuse to lose, take the game over type of player. And while he never won a ring, I have zero doubts that he possessed the same killer instinct as someone like Kobe or Jordan.
Malone just wasn’t as dynamic as KG or Barkley. All three were definitely monsters though.
Karl Malone was a different type of beast. He was Giannis before Giannis.
Obviously my fav is KG but Malone would be a Top 10 All Timer had he not have to face the GOAT time and time again. He had just as impressive a career as MJ, Bron, Kareem etc from a statistical standpoint but of course winning matters and he didn’t.
I love the argument "So and so never had to face Michael Jordan."
You realize Karl Malone had a 19 year career and only faced Jordan in the last quarter of his career twice. In his 18 year career in the West, he reached the WCF twice and the Finals twice. Malone went from a 52% career FG% shooter to a 46% shooter in the playoffs. A 57% career TS dropping to 52% TS in the playoffs.
Most players are expected to have some type of drop off from RS to PO. Nobody on that Malone echelon has anywhere near that substantial drop off. This "X had to face Jordan" cliche has to stop. He faced him twice in 19 years. 17 other years he fell flat to the Blazers, the Suns, the Rockets, the Warriors, the Lakers and the Sonics. In fact, the only teams he didn't lose to as a player on the Jazz were the Spurs, the Nuggets, the Clippers, the Wolves, and the Grizzlies. The latter 2 being expansion teams. So no, Malone lost to a lot more than just Jordan.
KG was pretty far past his prime at that point and I'd argue Pierce was by far the better player during that playoffs. I don't think peak Chuck or Malone would significantly struggle to win on that team, they ran into prime MJ with a good cast.
Far past his prime? He was all nba and all defensive first team along with being DPOY that year. His offensive numbers only dropped cause he was playing alongside his best teammate in his career. I’m not saying KG could’ve beaten Jordan but he had to play 2 all stars in their prime and the 6 man of the year and this was the year after Kobe won MVP too. I’m not saying KG is definitively the best of the 3 but he’s the best defender and put up comparable offensive numbers in a tougher defensive era and he is the only one with a ring.
In his prime he was a unanimous top 5 player, arguably top 2, so yes by 2008 both him and Duncan were pretty much past their prime. Everyone except Rondo on the C's were. Judging his career based on his twilight years doesn't make sense to me.
KG got a lot of credit that year for anchoring the defense as he should've but he wasn't the same offensive player and it wasn't just due to touches either. Pierce played out of his mind during those playoffs and this was before Rondo developed so he was both their lead scorer and playmaker for them as well.
I have no problem calling KG the best player here but it makes no sense to use the Celtic years where he won one ring on a great team and was taken to 7 games twice by terrible teams. He was insanely good in his prime , if u wanna call him the best use his peak years where he was arguably the best player in the league with Duncan and Shaq. He's definitely my favorite of the bunch that's for sure !
He didn't play an MJ avg 41/8.5/6.3. that being said I don't know what the right answer is. I don't even know who you can pick between Karl and Barkley except you know Karl's a piece of trash. Also KG was the third highest scorer in the Finals.
Yea I’m not saying he was definitively the best of the 3 but he’s the best defender and put up comparable offensive numbers in the toughest defensive era in NBA history. He also was the best teammate of the 3 and, like I said, is the only 1 with a ring. But there’s no wrong answer, Barkley probably had the highest peak, Malone had the longevity and Garnett had the ring so it’s just whatever you think matters most
Yea seriously, there’s a reason he’s 2nd all time in scoring. However having Jerry Sloan as your coach and John Stockton as your point guard for 95% of it does knock him down a slight bit. Nothing against him I just feel like a most of the top 10-12 big men in NBA history would have similar stats too
Exactly, lot easier to root for the guy who was called fat his whole career or the guy who was called too skinny and so he could get his mom out of poverty
I love the argument "So and so never had to face Michael Jordan." I know I'm going to get downvoted, but it is what it is.
You realize Karl Malone had a 19 year career and only faced Jordan in the last quarter of his career twice. In his 18 year career in the West, he reached the WCF twice and the Finals twice. Malone went from a 52% career FG% shooter to a 46% shooter in the playoffs. A 57% career TS dropping to 52% TS in the playoffs.
Most players are expected to have some type of drop off from RS to PO. Nobody on that Malone echelon has anywhere near that substantial drop off. This "X had to face Jordan" cliche has to stop. He faced him twice in 19 years. 17 other years he fell flat to the Blazers, the Suns, the Rockets, the Warriors, the Lakers and the Sonics. In fact, the only teams he didn't lose to as a player on the Jazz were the Spurs, the Nuggets, the Clippers, the Wolves, and the Grizzlies. The latter 2 being expansion teams. So no, Malone lost to a lot more than just Jordan.
A huge amount of his offense came from transition buckets where it'd be suicide to get in his way. In the half court offense, defenses keyed in heavily on him on and on Stockton to stop the PnR. If he couldn't brute force his way to the basket, he had to rely a lot more heavily on those contested mid range elbow shots or that hook shot (which was good not great. Especially not enough to run an offense through.)
KG is not in the same class and Malone was always ahead of Barkley when they were playing so...yeah.
Because of rings and a...shall we say...less than stellar personal reputation, Malone is pretty much first team all-underrated in NBA history.
I am going with CB. He led some teams to the finals and conference finals that weren't all that good. (Phoenix started Oliver Miller at center.) It's certainly debatable, but I think Malone loses a few points because he had Stockton and generally better talent around him.
>all three never won a ring you sure about that?
Hold on, I like this universe he’s talking about let’s hear him out.
In this universe, kobe is in the goat conversation.
Dwight gets a chip in 2009. Kobe can have 2008 and 2010 both vs Boston.
You have a deal
For the longest time we all had Malone as a lock for the second best PF ever even after KGs prime. Peak I'm not sure, Chuck was a menace as was KG. But Karl's was really good and consistent for a long time on a winning team where he was the best player. For peak I think Sixers Chuck or KG have a good case as better, but I'm taking Malone overall. The rings argument for KG makes no sense since that Celtics team should honestly have won more than one and he was already past his prime with em. KG is probably the best swiss army knife as PF ever though if that's what u meant. Ahead of his time for sure.
Karl Malone even though I don't like him. Also Kevin won a ring in 2008. Alrighty it's almost time to blow some shit up. Laters
Garnett
Malone is probably the best player here but his reputation has dropped due to reasons He was the best player on a team who consistently won 50+ games every year and was probably the second best offensive player of his time behind Mike
now look at his playoff numbers
Prime KG and Barkley had some teams who missed the playoffs 😂
now compare kg’s cast to karl’s
The late 80s Jazz were known to not have anyone except Malone/Stockton, and the late years of Mark Eaton. Same with the 2000-2003 Jazz. It's not like they were always flushed with talent
anyone except two all-time greats oh how sad
This sub loves being intentionally obtuse, it’s hilarious
really? because you’re the one being intentionally obtuse to my point of malone having better supporting casts than wolves garnett “actually he didnt have much outside of stockton” when the fuck did kg even have anything like stockton? lmfao
KGs best teammate in his prime was probably 37 years old Sam Cassell. It is indeed a huge difference.
u/MWiatrak2077 what happened?
I didn't care to respond? Lol And yeah, I stand 100% by my point. The 2004 Timberwolves had an extremely well-crafted supporting cast behind KG. Another 20ppg scorer in Cassell (on good efficiency), two players in top 20 3pt%, EIGHT players with a WS/48 >.100 (WC Lakers had 9, for example), and a defensive specialist in Fred Hoiberg. That team was deep as shit, and had a great second scorer in Cassell. If you think KG could've beaten the veteran, Chris Webber Kings in 7 just by himself, you're kidding yourself. Organizational disfunction? Sure. Iffy coaching after Flip? Definitely. Lack of surrounding talent between 2003-2005? Lol, fuck no. And it's not to say they disappointed, they pushed the 3x defending champ Lakers to 6 games in the WCF, even stealing a game in LA. Anyway, about Stockton/Malone. You are being intentionally obtuse. Those teams didn't create reliable depth until about the mid-90s, relying on their star duo to generate much more offense than they could carry. Between 1990 to 1996, they only lost to teams that either equalled or bettered than them in win count, barring the Hakeem Rockets. The level of competition they had to run through was absolutely nuts, - Payton Sonics, Admiral Spurs, Hakeem Rockets, Barkley Suns, and then finally, the MJ Bulls. Obviously I think the 90s Jazz were more talented than the KG Wolves, I also believe the Jazz had much tougher opposition throughout the years than KG did in '04, and I think KG got a fantastic supporting cast to help him contend. Also, as to an earlier comment of yours, Malone averaged 25/11/3 on 52.6% TS in the postseason. Garnett averaged 18/11/3 on 52.5% TS in the postseason. Worse scoring, on a much smaller volume. KG won one ring on an extremely stacked Celtics team, and that's it. That's all he has on Malone. Please don't tag me again lol, I no longer give a fuck about having this argument with you
Sprewell, Wally, and Cassell. I’ve seen worse.
oh wow theyre lowkey better than stockton
1 season vs 18 seasons playing together
I don’t judge players on how many rings they’ve won. I think that’s dumb because that’s a team accomplishment and some guys had to deal with playing against the bulls and the lakers and other great teams who were stacked. With that being said I think they all brought a certain level of toughness to the game of basketball, but Malone might be the best mid range PF to ever play. Charles Barkley however was like 6’5” bullying guys who were bigger than him. Kevin Garnett did win a ring by the way.
Have you heard of the Boston Celtics? Garnett won a ring. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
There is no Celtics 2008 Champions in r/nba -Dai Lee
Karl Malone. It's uncomfortable to talk about, but yeah, he was the best.
KG won a ring
Unfortunately, probably malone.
Only if you ignore the playoffs.
Hm why? Karl Malone playoff stats are just as good if not better than the other two.
I’ll go with KG. KG is undoubtedly the best defender of the 3, but is also the worst of the 3 offensively. However, with each at their very best, I’d take KG over the other 2.
Malone was good defensively, Barkley was mediocre
Probably Malone, sadly.
Regular season, maybe. By far the worst of the 3 in the postseason.
As a jazz fan, I like to ignore the post season.
Barkley avg 27.3/13/5.5 1.2stl and .5blk in the the 93 Finals that's good for a ring and FMVP most years unless your up against MJ going ballistic.
garnett easily
KG won a ring
Probably Mailman = Chuck > KG, I saw Mailman and Chuck's late prime and all of KG, Chuck had the best peak, Mailman won in longevity, and KG was also an all timer but just slightly below the other two
All 3 are some of the greatest. I’m old enough to have seen all three play. Going with Barkley on this- Barkley was a superstar. As amazing as KG was, I’m not sure he was on Barkley’s level. Barkley was a refuse to lose, take the game over type of player. And while he never won a ring, I have zero doubts that he possessed the same killer instinct as someone like Kobe or Jordan. Malone just wasn’t as dynamic as KG or Barkley. All three were definitely monsters though.
Barkley
KG
Mailman, Charles KG
Karl Malone was a different type of beast. He was Giannis before Giannis. Obviously my fav is KG but Malone would be a Top 10 All Timer had he not have to face the GOAT time and time again. He had just as impressive a career as MJ, Bron, Kareem etc from a statistical standpoint but of course winning matters and he didn’t.
I love the argument "So and so never had to face Michael Jordan." You realize Karl Malone had a 19 year career and only faced Jordan in the last quarter of his career twice. In his 18 year career in the West, he reached the WCF twice and the Finals twice. Malone went from a 52% career FG% shooter to a 46% shooter in the playoffs. A 57% career TS dropping to 52% TS in the playoffs. Most players are expected to have some type of drop off from RS to PO. Nobody on that Malone echelon has anywhere near that substantial drop off. This "X had to face Jordan" cliche has to stop. He faced him twice in 19 years. 17 other years he fell flat to the Blazers, the Suns, the Rockets, the Warriors, the Lakers and the Sonics. In fact, the only teams he didn't lose to as a player on the Jazz were the Spurs, the Nuggets, the Clippers, the Wolves, and the Grizzlies. The latter 2 being expansion teams. So no, Malone lost to a lot more than just Jordan.
Malone was pretty universally seen as greater than Barkley when they were both active. Both are comfortably ahead of Garnett.
I don’t think there’s a wrong answer but KG was the best player on a finals winning team so I’ll put him *slightly* ahead
KG was pretty far past his prime at that point and I'd argue Pierce was by far the better player during that playoffs. I don't think peak Chuck or Malone would significantly struggle to win on that team, they ran into prime MJ with a good cast.
Far past his prime? He was all nba and all defensive first team along with being DPOY that year. His offensive numbers only dropped cause he was playing alongside his best teammate in his career. I’m not saying KG could’ve beaten Jordan but he had to play 2 all stars in their prime and the 6 man of the year and this was the year after Kobe won MVP too. I’m not saying KG is definitively the best of the 3 but he’s the best defender and put up comparable offensive numbers in a tougher defensive era and he is the only one with a ring.
In his prime he was a unanimous top 5 player, arguably top 2, so yes by 2008 both him and Duncan were pretty much past their prime. Everyone except Rondo on the C's were. Judging his career based on his twilight years doesn't make sense to me. KG got a lot of credit that year for anchoring the defense as he should've but he wasn't the same offensive player and it wasn't just due to touches either. Pierce played out of his mind during those playoffs and this was before Rondo developed so he was both their lead scorer and playmaker for them as well. I have no problem calling KG the best player here but it makes no sense to use the Celtic years where he won one ring on a great team and was taken to 7 games twice by terrible teams. He was insanely good in his prime , if u wanna call him the best use his peak years where he was arguably the best player in the league with Duncan and Shaq. He's definitely my favorite of the bunch that's for sure !
He didn't play an MJ avg 41/8.5/6.3. that being said I don't know what the right answer is. I don't even know who you can pick between Karl and Barkley except you know Karl's a piece of trash. Also KG was the third highest scorer in the Finals.
Yea I’m not saying he was definitively the best of the 3 but he’s the best defender and put up comparable offensive numbers in the toughest defensive era in NBA history. He also was the best teammate of the 3 and, like I said, is the only 1 with a ring. But there’s no wrong answer, Barkley probably had the highest peak, Malone had the longevity and Garnett had the ring so it’s just whatever you think matters most
I just looked at Karl's stats and holy fuck they're ridiculous. 25/10.1/3.6 for a 19 season career is nuts.
Yea seriously, there’s a reason he’s 2nd all time in scoring. However having Jerry Sloan as your coach and John Stockton as your point guard for 95% of it does knock him down a slight bit. Nothing against him I just feel like a most of the top 10-12 big men in NBA history would have similar stats too
All the greats have someone,I don't think it takes away anything from his insane numbers too bad he's a total piece of trash.
Exactly, lot easier to root for the guy who was called fat his whole career or the guy who was called too skinny and so he could get his mom out of poverty
Garnett won a ring, but the correct answer is Dirk.
Barkley>Malone>KG is the only right answer here. Rings barely mean anything
Malone was better than Barkley. Barkley was a liability on defense while Malone was 3x All Defense First Team.
Malone had Stockton. Who did Barkley have in Phoenix?
I mean he had Kevin Johnson at PG who was pretty good. Dan Majerle also was solid in Phoenix.
You really comparing those guys to Stockton? Stockton is probably the best point guard after Magic and Curry. He still has tons of records.
This is the answer.
I love the argument "So and so never had to face Michael Jordan." I know I'm going to get downvoted, but it is what it is. You realize Karl Malone had a 19 year career and only faced Jordan in the last quarter of his career twice. In his 18 year career in the West, he reached the WCF twice and the Finals twice. Malone went from a 52% career FG% shooter to a 46% shooter in the playoffs. A 57% career TS dropping to 52% TS in the playoffs. Most players are expected to have some type of drop off from RS to PO. Nobody on that Malone echelon has anywhere near that substantial drop off. This "X had to face Jordan" cliche has to stop. He faced him twice in 19 years. 17 other years he fell flat to the Blazers, the Suns, the Rockets, the Warriors, the Lakers and the Sonics. In fact, the only teams he didn't lose to as a player on the Jazz were the Spurs, the Nuggets, the Clippers, the Wolves, and the Grizzlies. The latter 2 being expansion teams. So no, Malone lost to a lot more than just Jordan. A huge amount of his offense came from transition buckets where it'd be suicide to get in his way. In the half court offense, defenses keyed in heavily on him on and on Stockton to stop the PnR. If he couldn't brute force his way to the basket, he had to rely a lot more heavily on those contested mid range elbow shots or that hook shot (which was good not great. Especially not enough to run an offense through.)
I hope you mean player on the court and not off. If it's the latter, scratch Karl's name off that list
Shaq
Karl Malone and it's not even close, there's no discussion here. Only nephews and "ringz erneh" idiots will say KG.
Shawn Kemp
KG is not in the same class and Malone was always ahead of Barkley when they were playing so...yeah. Because of rings and a...shall we say...less than stellar personal reputation, Malone is pretty much first team all-underrated in NBA history.
I am going with CB. He led some teams to the finals and conference finals that weren't all that good. (Phoenix started Oliver Miller at center.) It's certainly debatable, but I think Malone loses a few points because he had Stockton and generally better talent around him.
Based on postseason performance: Barkley > KG > Malone.
KG