Utah Jazz at San Antonio Spurs

[MHSL82]

You didn't say anything about my Beatles song. I like the drums (but I don't play - my dad didn't want to hear it all day - I barely play piano and nothing else) and I've asked my wife that question as a joke before (why don't we do it in the road?) and she reminds me that I'd be also saying why not to do it in the road.

 

[nuraman00]

But I said from my perspective. You weren't seeing it from my perspective! Everyone who sees it from my perspective agrees with me. Everyone who sees it from their perspective is inconsistent with mine. Consistency is a good thing.

Seriously though, I see your perspective too, but I feel I will already have hope or not, based upon who my team is, what their strengths and weaknesses are, etc. I don't need the game to tell me. The other 81 games shape my opinion overall. I understand head to head is important, but not being a real believer in momentum between games, I'd rather lose a game where I thought, this is what I need to work on (8 vs. 30) than what if I made one more shot? I hate the 1 point losses more than the 8 point losses(unless we make a buzzer beater three to cut the lead to 1. That's really a four point loss), because even with a 1 point loss you likely have a few things, not just one shot, to work on. Just like an 8 point loss. But this will add a loss that you thought you shouldn't have.

Most people see it your way.

I also don't believe in momentum between games, especially in a playoffs series.

I also relate this to other sports, like tennis. If you lose 6-1, 6-2, 6-1, there are so many things you need to do better next time.

Whereas if it's 6-4, 7-5, you just need to get better by one game, or maintain that level a little longer.

 

[nuraman00]

You didn't say anything about my Beatles song. I like the drums (but I don't play - my dad didn't want to hear it all day - I barely play piano and nothing else) and I've asked my wife that question as a joke before (why don't we do it in the road?) and she reminds me that I'd be also saying why not to do it in the road.

I haven't played it yet because I'm watching Inside The NBA in the background.

I like playing the drums on Rock Band.

I've been stuck on this song for almost 3 years. I finally decided to move on.

(Technically, I'm not "stuck", as in I've never completed it. But my goal is to get at least 4 out of 5 stars on every song, and/or a 80% note completion rate. This one song has a really fast beat, and I must not be able to do it right. This game also scores you based on how many note streaks you have. Therefore, if you have a 80% completion rate, but literally only hit 8 out of 10, you probably wouldn't get 4 stars. However, if you got in a 80 note streak and just messed up somewhere else, that streak would propel you to get stars more easily.

There are 58 tracks in this game, and I think I'm in the low 30s, so I still have a ways to go. But I really just wanted to do the tracks in a certain order, before moving on.

I also don't play that often, only a few times every few months.)

 

[MHSL82]

You're not looking at the right stats then...

Malone had a better FG%, so as great as Duncan is, Malone is better. Malone is shorter so his shots are presumably farther and more difficult - though Duncan can shoot from anywhere within the three point line. Obviously, uncontested or averagely contested jumpshots aren't affected by height and Malone had plenty of dunks, if not more than Duncan. I just think that some of the closer, more clogged lane shots, Duncan had a Center-like advantage. I, unlike you probably, have a distinction between centers and PFs when I compare.

Sure, Duncan's a great rebounder, but for his size, Malone to me was more impressive - 11.2 compared to 10.1 - yeah a lot of rebounds are not height determinative - as boxing out and the way the ball bounces is huge, but only 1 more rebound is underwhelming for me. But then again, I look at Duncan as somewhere between a PF and Center. You did shed some light on why this might have been due to offenses and defenses styles and qualities.

Height is definitely a help for Duncan over Malone in blocks, but I concede that he has more skill in doing it. Malone's steals make up for it a bit (though you did point out our system's style helping this). 2.9 vs. 2.2, Duncan and Malone respectively if you add blocks and steals, which I know is not statistically sound to do.

Assists? Look at Malone from 1993-end of career - that's better than any stretch Duncan had. Overall, Malone averaged more assists than Duncan, had a higher maximum, and a higher minimum.

Some of these stats that Duncan has now will go down on average the longer he plays. Malone played 20 years and so for example, the 10.1 rebounds, was higher before his last 4-5 seasons (340+ more games, older).

So, I see why some say Duncan is better. I just don't like people stating it like it's a consensus. Malone brought enough that he should be in the discussion. Just because Duncan is still playing doesn't mean he should be more in the minds. Winning titles may be the tiebreaker - fine, but there should be some reference to the tie. It's like losing in OT and no one mentioning that it was in overtime. (I do see how some people start out with that as their knockout punch and therefore never get to the tiebreaker - but I think this is lazy, as basketball is a team sport affected by context.) Also, I'm sure Duncan has learned from Malone's game and those prior to Malone, something Malone didn't have. Not Duncan's fault, but a reason to be impressed with Malone, that he was a pioneer of sorts in some ways.

 

[nuraman00]

Stockton is one of the greatest PGs, because he was a two-way player. He was dirty, but I liked that.

During the last Payton-Stockton game, in 2002-2003, Stockton had two memorable plays:

1. He shoved Payton out of bounds, away from the ball. He got called for the foul. He was pissed that he was caught.

2. He elbowed Payton in the Adam's apple. Payton went down and hit the floor. The refs stopped play to "mop the floor". I couldn't believe that A) A foul wasn't called and B) It wasn't even a medical timeout, but a referee's timeout (an allegedly wet floor).

Stockton was a good shooter, he could shoot from anywhere. And unlike some PGs like Hinrich or Bibby, Stockton could also make layups.

In Kidd's prime, I would rank Kidd as better. Especially his defense.

The Nets went from 29th in defense in 2000-2001 to 1st in 2001-2002, when they got Kidd.

But Kidd hasn't been that good of a defender since 2006-2007, IMO. Before joining the Mavs. He can be decent in spurts, but not for full time.

Stockton was still a good defender, until the day he retired.


Then, you have to factor in Stockton's shooting vs. Kidd's rebounding. Which do you prefer? That's subjective. Rebounds create possessions, but Stockton's shooting was good too.

Rondo has a similar profile to Kidd, but is a better shotmaker.

Magic was a skilled offensive player, and good rebounder, but not a good defensive player.

Stockton had a high turnover rate, but his turnovers don't bother me like Nash's.

Mark Price was another good PG, I don't know where to rank him.

Iverson was another good one, just never had a good supporting cast. Definitely less so than most of his peers I mentioned.

Tony Parker is another good one. If he played in another system, he could rack up more assists. But the Spurs ball movement eats into some of his assists, as well as playing with guys like Ginobili, Barry, Diaw, Jackson.

I can't speak for Robertson's defense, but as an offensive player, he appears complete

Terry Porter and Rod Strickland were also good.

Baron Davis, in Charlotte, was also good.


So in terms of two-way players, I'm thinking Stockton, Kidd, Payton, Iverson, I'll add Robertson. I think Strickland and Andre Miller also used their height and length well on defense. Billups, probably one of the best at chasing guys through screens with his defense. Billups didn't have the consistency of others overall, but he could be as good as anyone in his own way. Baron, but only the Charlotte version.

I don't want to put Thomas in that two-way group, I think his size probably hurt.

I'll put Paul as a two-way player, his defense is better than I thought. I think Paul plays too slow sometimes. It helps him have an insane turnover rate, but those other players could play both uptempo and halfcourt better. Paul isn't as good in a really fast offense.

I know Thomas got steals, but I would still rate Iverson and Paul as better positional defenders.

 

[MHSL82]

I didn't leave out Stockton. It's just you brought up Magic. So I was showing where I ranked him.

I didn't rank Magic as one of the best ever. It had nothing to do with Stockton, I didn't even comment on him.

I'm afraid about where you'd rank Stockton, so I must refrain from asking. I don't want our friendship to suffer. I'll just assume you agree that he was good at passing the ball - with no comparisons or qualifiers - and I'll consider that a win, good enough for me. And, yes, I know he was dirty at times.

 

[nuraman00]

Malone had a better FG%, so as great as Duncan is, Malone is better. Malone is shorter so his shots are presumably farther and more difficult - though Duncan can shoot from anywhere within the three point line. Obviously, uncontested or averagely contested jumpshots aren't affected by height and Malone had plenty of dunks, if not more than Duncan. I just think that some of the closer, more clogged lane shots, Duncan had a Center-like advantage. I, unlike you probably, have a distinction between centers and PFs when I compare.

Sure, Duncan's a great rebounder, but for his size, Malone to me was more impressive - 11.2 compared to 10.1 - yeah a lot of rebounds are not height determinative - as boxing out and the way the ball bounces is huge, but only 1 more rebound is underwhelming for me. But then again, I look at Duncan as somewhere between a PF and Center. You did shed some light on why this might have been due to offenses and defenses styles and qualities.

Height is definitely a help for Duncan over Malone in blocks, but I concede that he has more skill in doing it. Malone's steals make up for it a bit (though you did point out our system's style helping this). 2.9 vs. 2.2, Duncan and Malone respectively if you add blocks and steals, which I know is not statistically sound to do.

Assists? Look at Malone from 1993-end of career - that's better than any stretch Duncan had. Overall, Malone averaged more assists than Duncan, had a higher maximum, and a higher minimum.

So, I see why some say Duncan is better. I just don't like people stating it like it's a consensus. Malone brought enough that he should be in the discussion. Just because Duncan is still playing doesn't mean he should be more in the minds. Winning titles may be the tiebreaker - fine, but there should be some reference to the tie. It's like losing in OT and no one mentioning that it was in overtime. (I do see how some people start out with that as their knockout punch and therefore never get to the tiebreaker - but I think this is lazy, as basketball is a team sport affected by context.) Also, I'm sure Duncan has learned from Malone's game and those prior to Malone, something Malone didn't have. Not Duncan's fault, but a reason to be impressed with Malone, that he was a pioneer of sorts in some ways.

Assists: Look at assist %. Spurs slow pace hurt some offensive stats.

Duncan 16.5% rate, Malone 17.6%.

But I think trying to compare which one is the greatest passer is just splitting hairs. They're both the best passing big men, outside of Boerwinkle and a few others.


Rebounding: You to look at rebounding %. Not only did the Spurs slow pace hurt Malone's rebounding, but Malone also averaged 1.9 more minutes per game than Duncan. If Malone played the same minutes as Duncan, he would have had less rebounds.

Popovich rests Duncan a lot more, and he pulls his starters early in the 4th if they're down.

Malone 16.0 rebounding %, Duncan 18.5%. And a 2.5% rebounding percentage is big. If I was comparing any two players for rebounding, and they had a 2.5% difference, it would be an easy choice. Even a 2% difference is big. Only 1% or less isn't that big.




Sure, it's debatable as to who's better. If you're hearing it's a consensus, then you're not listening to enough sources. I've heard enough times that Malone is the greatest PF too, still within the past 5 years.

I think Duncan's recent longevity, as well as continued playoffs success, has leaned it back toward Duncan. The Jazz weren't as successful in Malone's last few years. A lot of that is on the team just naturally declining, so it's more about the GM. But it doesn't help. And as I said, for this year specifically, it's his defense I'm most impressed with.

Actually, I don't even think I've seen Duncan score more than 30 points in a game since 2000-2001. I know he has, it's just never been a national TV game that I've been able to watch. I know Duncan had 37 points in the closeout game against the Lakers in the 2003 playoffs, but I was in class, and just had to listen to friends talk about it during class.


I know this isn't a good source to show that it's not a consensus, but an ESPN Spurs poster says Robinson was better than Duncan because Duncan got beat by Malone in the 1998 playoffs. He bases the majority of his argument on that, so therefore he would also say Malone > Duncan.


So it's not a consensus, I just think Duncan's defense and rebounding are just that good with respect to bigs, and his passing is always there. Whether you want to look at assists, or just look at his "feel for the game" (because he could have passes that set up the assist.

I think Duncan was a better ball handler and passer in congestion, while Malone was more likely to get stripped. Malone is favored in A/T though. That's just my opinion.

 

[nuraman00]

I'm afraid about where you'd rank Stockton, so I must refrain from asking. I don't want our friendship to suffer. I'll just assume you agree that he was good at passing the ball - with no comparisons or qualifiers - and I'll consider that a win, good enough for me. And, yes, I know he was dirty at times.

I answered your post anyways (right before you posted this).

 

[nuraman00]

Thoughts on anything else discussed in this thread, such as the last few posts?

 

[MHSL82]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I don't mind him being rated high and being in the discussion as best; heck, I wouldn't mind someone coming out and just saying that he was better than Malone and state reasons besides "leadership" and team achievements. I just don't like the gushing and what, to me, seems to be somewhat incomplete - to just say he's the best without mentioning Malone or others and reasons.

I guess what got to me is that over the past year, I've heard people on TV and radio, stating it like they state that Jordan is the best ever. I know this isn't you, it's just tiring to me and I don't agree. But disagreement with me is ok if I feel that it's stated in a non-excited, non-matter of fact way.

 

[MHSL82]

Stats aren't everything but it is something to factor in.

Duncan: 20.3 points, 11.3 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 2.2 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 25.0 points, 10.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 0.8 blocks, 1.4 steals

And Malone's numbers are AFTER 342 more games (including the stat-killing last year with the Lakers) - if Duncan plays that long, to around 1480 games (Malone played 1476), averages what he has for the last 340 games (extrapolated this year for full season), he'd average this for his career:

19.45 points, 10.9 rebounds, 3.02 assists, 2.13 blocks, 0.7 steals

Another way to look at it, Duncan has played 1134 games. Malone, through 1134 games, averaged (Malone was better in assists later in his career, so those numbers are lower):

25.52 points, 10.65 rebounds, 3.34 assists, 0.82 blocks, 1.41 steals

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duncan shoots .507 for his career. Malone through 1134 games shot 52.6% (51.6 over entire career). Didn't do the numbers but Malone is a better free throw shooter - 74.2 vs. 68.9. Malone is a better three-point shooter - 27.4 vs. 18.5. Duncan averages fewer turnovers than Malone did.

Postseason stats

Duncan: 22.3 points, 12.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.5 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 24.7 points, 10.7 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 0.7 blocks, 1.3 steals

I can't project ahead in playoffs because I think that's an entirely different animal. I know that Malone's last year hurt his averages both in that he was injured and in that Kobe and Shaq were primary players, where in Utah, Malone was the man. I remember noting after the last Jazz year that he averaged more everything in playoffs than regular season - this wasn't true after the Laker year. Duncan was better at shooting in the playoffs than Malone.

Maybe you are more familiar with Winning Shares on basketball reference than I am, but Malone was higher overall, but Duncan had one year better than Malone's best. Duncan's rookie year was better than Malone's in all stats, but Malone picked it up and was reliable throughout his career.

 

[MHSL82]

Growing up, I didn't like Garnett as much as I should, because while he barely averaged over 20 points in Minnesota - his last four years in Minnesota were awesome in points and rebounds and his assists, steals, and blocks were always great. I don't like him now for his personality but that's fine.

 

[MHSL82]

Oh, and I like being a homer - it makes me feel better.

Seriously though, Nuraman, you are better with the stats and analytics than I am. I share the enjoyment of it, but I'm not as technical or skilled at it as you are and I don't have encyclopedic knowledge on these things. I never much paid attention to other teams consistently. I am more of a passive, lay man. I know that my opinion has bias to it, but I look at both sides.

 

[nuraman00]

Stats aren't everything but it is something to factor in.

Duncan: 20.3 points, 11.3 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 2.2 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 25.0 points, 10.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 0.8 blocks, 1.4 steals

And Malone's numbers are AFTER 342 more games (including the stat-killing last year with the Lakers) - if Duncan plays that long, to around 1480 games (Malone played 1476), averages what he has for the last 340 games (extrapolated this year for full season), he'd average this for his career:

19.45 points, 10.9 rebounds, 3.02 assists, 2.13 blocks, 0.7 steals

Another way to look at it, Duncan has played 1134 games. Malone, through 1134 games, averaged (Malone was better in assists later in his career, so those numbers are lower):

25.52 points, 10.65 rebounds, 3.34 assists, 0.82 blocks, 1.41 steals

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duncan shoots .507 for his career. Malone through 1134 games shot 52.6% (51.6 over entire career). Didn't do the numbers but Malone is a better free throw shooter - 74.2 vs. 68.9. Malone is a better three-point shooter - 27.4 vs. 18.5. Duncan averages fewer turnovers than Malone did.

Postseason stats

Duncan: 22.3 points, 12.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.5 blocks, 0.7 steals
Malone: 24.7 points, 10.7 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 0.7 blocks, 1.3 steals

I can't project ahead in playoffs because I think that's an entirely different animal. I know that Malone's last year hurt his averages both in that he was injured and in that Kobe and Shaq were primary players, where in Utah, Malone was the man. I remember noting after the last Jazz year that he averaged more everything in playoffs than regular season - this wasn't true after the Laker year. Duncan was better at shooting in the playoffs than Malone.

Maybe you are more familiar with Winning Shares on basketball reference than I am, but Malone was higher overall, but Duncan had one year better than Malone's best. Duncan's rookie year was better than Malone's in all stats, but Malone picked it up and was reliable throughout his career.

When comparing stats, I like to factor in minutes. As I mentioned earlier, Malone played 1.9 more minutes than Duncan in the regular season.

In the playoffs, Malone averaged 41.0 minutes, while Duncan averaged 39.0.

So I would either use per 36 minutes (or per 48), or use minute-independent stats, such as ORTG (offensive rating), TS% (true shooting percentage -- incorporates 3's and FT%), OREB %, DREB %, TRB % (rebounding percentages for offensive, defensive, and total), AST %, TO %.

Blocks and steals per game are fine, but %'s make a more fair comparison.

All of this can be found on basketball-reference.

I also don't like Win Shares.

I prefer Roland Rating, or Wins Produced.

Roland Rating is on 82games.com, and Wins Produced is here:

The NBA Geek - Advanced NBA Statistics for all players

 

[nuraman00]

Growing up, I didn't like Garnett as much as I should, because while he barely averaged over 20 points in Minnesota - his last four years in Minnesota were awesome in points and rebounds and his assists, steals, and blocks were always great. I don't like him now for his personality but that's fine.

I used to like Garnett, for his passing and defensive ability.

But once he got to Boston, I didn't like his personality. There were also some things from before he got to Boston.

During 2003-2004, Nesterovic stated that Garnett had been verbally abusive to him in Minnesota, and how Nesterovic was much happier with the Spurs and Duncan.

I used to root for Garnett against Duncan when Garnett was on Minnesota, but I started to shift away from Garnett because of his personality, the last few years in Minnesota.

Garnett is a HOF just based on his defense and passing alone.

He's not a very skilled scorer though. The Gasols, Duncan, Boozer, Malone, Jefferson, probably Brook Lopez are all better.

Mutombo, Mourning also sucked on offense. Too turnover prone, didn't have any range.

Ewing also sucks on offense. His efficiency is poor compared to other great centers (which becomes more clear when you look at ORTG). I wouldn't have Ewing in the HOF. And he was not as skilled either. He had a passable jumper, but not like the bigs I mentioned earlier in this post.

 

[nuraman00]

I am more of a passive, lay man.

No.

I know that my opinion has bias to it,

No.

 

[nuraman00]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I don't mind him being rated high and being in the discussion as best; heck, I wouldn't mind someone coming out and just saying that he was better than Malone and state reasons besides "leadership" and team achievements. I just don't like the gushing and what, to me, seems to be somewhat incomplete - to just say he's the best without mentioning Malone or others and reasons.

I guess what got to me is that over the past year, I've heard people on TV and radio, stating it like they state that Jordan is the best ever. I know this isn't you, it's just tiring to me and I don't agree. But disagreement with me is ok if I feel that it's stated in a non-excited, non-matter of fact way.

Duncan's usage rate was higher before Ginobili, in general.

So I think if it was just Parker and Duncan, sort of like Stockton and Malone, then Duncan would have had a few more touches, thus driving up his scoring per game a little more.

 

[nuraman00]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I agree with this to an extent.

But then you also have players like Pau and Garnett who could also block shots a high rate from the PF spot. (Or maybe you can argue they're centers, it's an openly debatable topic).

I don't want to sort and rank PFs for their block % right now, but I'm pretty sure there have been good shot-blocking PFs too, like Pau and Garnett.

And there have been great rebounding PFs like Reggie Evans, Barkley, Dale Davis (or is he a center?), Kevin Love (or is he a center?), Rodman, Humphries, David Lee, Zach Randolph.

Player Season Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

Boozer would have been in the top 10 but he was filtered out for being a "F-C" (which I had unchecked).


I also think that Duncan spent a decent amount of time guarding PFs. For example, he used to guard Nowizki, Webber (I think), etc.

Speaking of Webber, interesting, he was filtered out too, but he only would have been in the top 50 for TRB%.

I don't think Duncan being better positioned for rebounds made him a center. I think he was just a better rebounder, like Reggie Evans or Rodman or Lee.


Also, it's also muddy/blurry to say Duncan was a PF on offense. I think that on one hand, he was a PF because he could hit a jumper. I think stretching the floor like that leans him to a PF.

But then I remember C's from the 90s could hit jumpers too, like Rik Smiths, Olajuwon, Dale Davis, Ewing, Charles Oakley, Charles Smith. Some of those might have played more PF, but they also played some C too.

So, hence, I've seen both C's and PFs have similar enough games, that sometimes I can merge their profiles of how they played.

So, Duncan's game is like both other C's and PFs, on both offense and defense, IMO.

Greg Monroe is another PF who's a better rebounder than Malone, if you look at TRB% or per-36 rebounds.

 

[nuraman00]

Also, what about my post where I did talk about Stockton? Thoughts? You were thirsty for that one.

 

[MHSL82]

Posts #s 34, 37, 38 - not quoted for sake of brevity.

Why you gotta poke holes in my argument with stupid "facts" and "objectivity", man? Duncan, to me, is a center who can and does shoot from anywhere inside the three point line. I think he plays and is used like a power forward, but it's like a QB who runs like a runningback is still a QB despite his skill and use of his legs.

As to minutes, I am probably alone here, I think that's like usage rate, where part of the minutes played is due to the player's durability, role in the offense, reliability when others would be tired, the quality of backup, hack a Shaq, etc. Bear with me, because I feel this will be hard to explain what I mean. I hate the 36 minutes stat because I think you make your money in the minutes after 36, too. I understand that it's a rate - it doesn't literally mean the first 36 minutes, but I'll explain why I don't like it, despite it being a legitimate method. Again, bear with me.

Presumably, players are less effective the more tired they could be, as in the minutes before being subbed out and in the waning minutes of a game (as accumulated time takes a toll). Taking a player out at 2 minutes left of the quarter is different than taking them out at the 4 minute mark. If one player's substitution pattern removes him at the 4 minute mark because he's less durable physically or less effective or more foul prone, his rate of when he is in would be artificially higher than if he had played those last two minutes tired. The difference between Malone and Duncan's minutes is so small that I don't think it changes anything, because no coach is going to take a player out a quarter of 2 minutes (30 seconds) earlier because of concerns for efficiency and Duncan's in great shape, too; so this is a moot point, but since you cite the 1.9 minutes as a factor, I'll address it here.

I think physical and mental stamina are important in an all-encompassing comparison. Duncan and Malone are very similar in this regard, but when comparing everybody, this stands out for Malone. I think it's part of what made him great. Malone's physique allowed him to be more efficient in the minutes before substitution or took him longer to get spent than others. But compared to the fresh minutes, it took a toll I bet. I'm not comparing him to Duncan here, just in general. Rates are great, but while these rates suffer as the legs lose their freshness, those who are in great physical shape are effected less in the last minutes than others - but still affected.

The fact is, the coaches didn't use the two players equally and acting like they did would be like me inflating Alex Smith's numbers by saying "if he threw as much as Tom Brady..." Some nuttier Smith fans have done that, ignoring the fact that defenses would defend differently if Smith were to throw that much. I recognize this doesn't make any sense because minutes played is different than style of play, but applying a rate, to me, is incomplete. Every year, I see someone very efficient in few minutes, where I could not extrapolate to get accurate what-ifs. Similarly, pro-rating minutes doesn't work for me because most likely the player with longer minutes had their rate suffer due to those extra minutes (but total increased).

I know coaches also limit minutes due to other factors like long term health, how strong your backup is, rotation factors, blowout wins or losses, etc. If Malone played more per game, that's a credit to him. Same to Duncan, if he had done so. Because say, had he stopped at however number of minutes Duncan averages, his total points would be lower, but his per minute wouldn't be the same. I don't know if he was better or worse than Duncan in the waning minutes after long stretches, but the point is, not knowing, applying a rate doesn't make sense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ginobli made it easier on Duncan, just like Stockton made it easier on Malone. Not to the same extent obviously. Maybe without Ginobli, the whole winning aspect of Duncan's candidacy lessens because they lose more? Maybe his stats go down because teams wouldn't have to back off to defend the three? Again, don't want to exaggerate the extent, but we're only talking about 1-2 shots per game, so a little help from a good Ginobli can go relatively a long way. It's like how a great runningback can make a quarterback be able to pass more, despite appearing to be taking yards away from the passing game by rushing instead.

So, in regard to supporting cast's roles, there are too many moving parts for me - like how would Malone be if he had Robinson? Yes, his points would go down, but would the rings make up for it in consideration for being the best PF ever? Malone would be much less of a player without Stockton. Duncan won without Robinson, but I feel overall his supporting cast was better and more diverse. His stats and winning were affected positively and negatively in different aspects by having Ginobli and the like there. Jeff Hornacek was as great of outside shooter as Ginobli, but he didn't take usage rate points from Malone? Bryon Russell shot enough for local papers to be talking about him being a future cornerstone to when Stock and Malone retired, how did he affect usage rate? How did Robinson?

I know I feel I'm talking in circles - because I can't really discredit Duncan and I know there were some areas where Malone could have been better. I'm a traditional stat guy (since you wouldn't buy my passive lay man claim) and I value those stats more than some. I know that leaves me empty sometimes when there are other stats that disprove what's on the surface level. I just feel that Duncan has done less and achieved more - whether that's due to supporting cast, coaching, eras, etc., that's how I feel. I know I can be wrong, but this whole thing started from people shoving it down my throat how Duncan was all-time. He's the winningest qualified PF, to me - but that doesn't say as much to me as most. I'm not going to make the fake mention of Luke Longley to discredit championships as being the criteria for all-time, but I will say it's not everything to me.