Small Big Duos.

[nuraman00]

Thoughts on these?

1) Stockton and Favors
2) George Hill and Malone
3) Jeff Hornacek and Gobert
4) Maravich and Gobert
5) George Hill and Boozer
6) Stockton and Kirilenko
7) Snyder and Sloan.

I don't know how tall Snyder is, but I'll count him as the small.

 

[nuraman00]

Thoughts on these?

1) Stockton and Favors
2) George Hill and Malone
3) Jeff Hornacek and Gobert
4) Maravich and Gobert
5) George Hill and Boozer
6) Stockton and Kirilenko
7) Snyder and Sloan.

I don't know how tall Snyder is, but I'll count him as the small.

8) Gordan Hayward and Matt Harpring.

 

[MHSL82]

Thoughts on these?

1) Stockton and Favors
2) George Hill and Malone
3) Jeff Hornacek and Gobert
4) Maravich and Gobert
5) George Hill and Boozer
6) Stockton and Kirilenko
7) Snyder and Sloan.

I don't know how tall Snyder is, but I'll count him as the small.

1. Favors would be better and look better than he is, Stockton would have to distribute the ball more. No offense, but Malone was Malone.

2. Malone wouldn't be the Second All-Time Leading Scorer, but he'd be no Carlos Boozer. Hill would be more pure as a point guard and would score more than Stockton.

3. Hornacek can score and if Gobert gets defensive attention, Hornacek's threes would be there - but with Stockton and Malone, they already were there.

4. Don't know enough, but imagine Gobert was better than what Maravich played with and Pete would love alley-oops - assuming they aren't goal-tending or illegal (when were dunks allowed? I know Olympics didn't allow them for awhile).

5. Better than Williams and Boozer in some ways, but a draw or worse in others. Hill can score, but so could Williams. Hill would have more assists, but Williams was in a more PG assist-friendly system. Quin spreads the ball around, much to my !@#$$%. Yes, I know, it works, too, maybe better if the overall talent is spread out well.

6. I don't know what to say here, they played together, I think? But if not, Kirlenko was a jack of all trades, but wouldn't individually bond in a duo enough to call it a duo, in my mind. Shouldn't be the focal point, he was best because he played his all over the place role, not a featured player.

7. Snyder and Sloan - Would have been great if Snyder learned under Sloan after learning under Popovich. As players, they'd both be smallish, but Sloan played big and physical.

 

[nuraman00]

1. Favors would be better and look better than he is, Stockton would have to distribute the ball more. No offense, but Malone was Malone.

2. Malone wouldn't be the Second All-Time Leading Scorer, but he'd be no Carlos Boozer. Hill would be more pure as a point guard and would score more than Stockton.

3. Hornacek can score and if Gobert gets defensive attention, Hornacek's threes would be there - but with Stockton and Malone, they already were there.

4. Don't know enough, but imagine Gobert was better than what Maravich played with and Pete would love alley-oops - assuming they aren't goal-tending or illegal (when were dunks allowed? I know Olympics didn't allow them for awhile).

5. Better than Williams and Boozer in some ways, but a draw or worse in others. Hill can score, but so could Williams. Hill would have more assists, but Williams was in a more PG assist-friendly system. Quin spreads the ball around, much to my !@#$$%. Yes, I know, it works, too, maybe better if the overall talent is spread out well.

6. I don't know what to say here, they played together, I think? But if not, Kirlenko was a jack of all trades, but wouldn't individually bond in a duo enough to call it a duo, in my mind. Shouldn't be the focal point, he was best because he played his all over the place role, not a featured player.

7. Snyder and Sloan - Would have been great if Snyder learned under Sloan after learning under Popovich. As players, they'd both be smallish, but Sloan played big and physical.

I really enjoyed this post. Good breakdown of all of those duos.

Yes, Stockton and Kirilenko played together, but Kirilenko was just a young player with potential at that time.

Even if Kirilenko wasn't renowned enough individually, I like this duo more than some others because of the combined assists, steals, and blocks they would get.

For # 5, I can't think of a way Hill and Boozer would be worse than Williams and Boozer.

Also, you'll notice I didn't mention Williams in any of my duos. You were the first to bring him up in this thread.

For Hornacek and Gobert, something about the contrast in both generations, and styles, intrigues me.

Malone and Hill intrigue me for the "big players who get steals" factor.

For # 1, your "Malone was Malone" is one of the most positive things I can recall you saying. Usually you make a joke about him. I'm glad to have read something positive.


I almost want to give this a POST OF THE MONTH, but then I'm still not sure if your frequency will be better than it was in November and December, so I don't want you to be satisfied and abandon this board until the All-Star break. There's a chance that if you get the POST OF THE MONTH award, you'd hibernate.

Interesting, so Gobert's dunks might be the most pronounced dunking feature among these duos.

 

[nuraman00]

8) Gordan Hayward and Matt Harpring.

This one intrigues me because these players don't have bursts of speed, but might be good at finding angles, and might be one of the physically tougher combos.

 

[MHSL82]

I really enjoyed this post. Good breakdown of all of those duos.

Yes, Stockton and Kirilenko played together, but Kirilenko was just a young player with potential at that time.

Even if Kirilenko wasn't renowned enough individually, I like this duo more than some others because of the combined assists, steals, and blocks they would get.

For # 5, I can't think of a way Hill and Boozer would be worse than Williams and Boozer.

Also, you'll notice I didn't mention Williams in any of my duos. You were the first to bring him up in this thread.

For Hornacek and Gobert, something about the contrast in both generations, and styles, intrigues me.

Malone and Hill intrigue me for the "big players who get steals" factor.

For # 1, your "Malone was Malone" is one of the most positive things I can recall you saying. Usually you make a joke about him. I'm glad to have read something positive.


I almost want to give this a POST OF THE MONTH, but then I'm still not sure if your frequency will be better than it was in November and December, so I don't want you to be satisfied and abandon this board until the All-Star break. There's a chance that if you get the POST OF THE MONTH award, you'd hibernate.

Interesting, so Gobert's dunks might be the most pronounced dunking feature among these duos.

You know me, right? I like assists. I don't think Hill gets those assists Williams did, and Williams was a scorer like Hill so that isn't outweighed by Hill's ability to score. So ultimately, Williams and Boozer, to me is better than Hill and Boozer. You can fill me in on their defense, rebounding, and shooting if you'd like.

 

[MHSL82]

Regarding Malone - the only negative thing I've ever said was that he was second best to Stockton, second best in scoring, and was second best in three Finals (though he didn't really play in the third Finals). I have defended him as the First Best Power Forward by saying Duncan was a Center regardless of what they called him or how he played. I don't care if that's inconsistent or wrong, my opinion stands. It's hard when someone averages less than 20 points per game for his career and only 25+ once to be seen as a power forward when he barely outrebounded Malone and didn't shoot as well. Blocks, yes, but he was taller and defended different people. I'm not commenting on who was better, just I don't like the distinction. Malone is what I think of when I think POWER forward. Duncan can be a center or a forward. Weird distinction? Then, tell me, why a distinction between a POINT guard and a SHOOTING guard or SMALL forward and POWER forward. I'd just assume their was something in between a power forward and a Center.

 

[nuraman00]

You know me, right? I like assists. I don't think Hill gets those assists Williams did, and Williams was a scorer like Hill so that isn't outweighed by Hill's ability to score. So ultimately, Williams and Boozer, to me is better than Hill and Boozer. You can fill me in on their defense, rebounding, and shooting if you'd like.

Yeah, I was just thinking about Hill's overall consistency, and think he would be better at that.

Williams FT%, turnovers always bothered me. I didn't trust Williams too much to go 2/2 or 3/3 from the line in close games.

Hill doesn't seem like a player who makes too many turnovers, and he's a better FT shooter, so he seems more complete.

You are right that Williams would average more assists. But I think Hill would be capable of high assist games, so I would have the belief that if Hill could have a big game, it would possibly involve assists.

In addition to assists, I also like big man assists. I don't think any of the other bigs can come close to comparing Malone's shovel passes to slashing cutters.

Since I only named Malone in one duo, I don't think he would get many assists to a cutting George Hill. To me, Hill is better at creating a shot, not finishing it driving from a pass. So, I think Malone-to-Stockton (or another player former era Jazz player) would still be the best source of big man assists.

Boozer did average 3+ assists a game during several seasons. And while he was an above average passing big for his generation, Malone's passes were still more frequent and versatile.

Malone is 53rd on the ABA/NBA career assist list.

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Assists | Basketball-Reference.com

Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Kevin Garnett are the only power forward or centers with more assists than Malone.

Malone has 1056 more assists than Tim Duncan.

Even Shaq and Hakeem have less than 3098 assists, and they were good passing bigs for all-time too.

So Malone's 5248 has to place him at the top when looking at best passing bigs.

And again, because I don't like the fit with George Hill in terms of receiving those passes, I have to go with Stockton as the duo with Malone.

Stockton might even average less receptions per game from Malone, when compared to a duo with Hill, but Stockton would make more of them count because he's a better finisher (and shooter).

 

[nuraman00]

Regarding Malone - the only negative thing I've ever said was that he was second best to Stockton, second best in scoring, and was second best in three Finals (though he didn't really play in the third Finals).

If I were to rewatch the 1997 and 1998 Finals, I might put Pippen as 2nd best. There's also a chance he would get best player in the Finals from me for one of those years.

It would be similar to how Andre Iguodala got a Finals MVP.

 

[MHSL82]

If I were to rewatch the 1997 and 1998 Finals, I might put Pippen as 2nd best. There's also a chance he would get best player in the Finals from me for one of those years.

It would be similar to how Andre Iguodala got a Finals MVP.

Second-best refers to the Jazz being second-best to the Bulls.

I don't want to get into talking about Scottie Pippen being second best. Between, Stockton, Malone, and Pippen, I would take someone else than Pippen. But I don't want to argue about it.

 

[nuraman00]

Second-best refers to the Jazz being second-best to the Bulls.

I don't want to get into talking about Scottie Pippen being second best. Between, Stockton, Malone, and Pippen, I would take someone else than Pippen. But I don't want to argue about it.

Well, one way I might think about it, where Scottie would be the best player in the series (better than Airball Jordan) would be Scottie averaged more assists than Jordan in 1998. Therefore he was better than Jordan. Because of how assists are valuable.

He had one less steal, but his steals were on Stockton, therefore he was better than Jordan.

That would go by the stats, though. I would need to rewatch to see if I would still agree with that assessment.