JoJo White should he in the Hall

How many rings did karl win?

Please note, Again this is my opinion. Mchale made his team better and WON. If Malone was so great then where are his rings?

You can throw all the stats out there you want. To me watching both play I'd pick McHale over Malone every time. And if McHale played in Utah and Malone played in Boston..........what would the stats look like then? Would Karl exsist being second or third fiddle?

Anyway MY OPINION OK, we've been down this road before.

beat


If winning is what matters then McHale wins hands down.

Better team compared to better player is a different conversation.
Robert Horry won 7 titles, does that make him better then McHale?
So, I guess all of the best players were Celtics because the Celtics have the most championships...???

MVP Voting is a much better gauge of how great a PLAYER was then rings won.

tjmakz
Rings ,rings ,rings.Ever wonder how many rings Russ would have had if he had played for the miserable knicks in the late 50's and 60's? Sure there is no answer, but it raises the question as to whether Russ would have been considered to be less talented if the Knicks had failed to field a championship team on a regular basis. Just wondering.
swish

TJ

MY OPINION in one game at there very best I would take McHale.

Your Horry statement is crazy we arnt talking about a player who HAPPENED to be on the right teams multiple times.

McHale won Malone didn't.

I did some quick figuring of stats

In 90-91 a typical Malone year he attemoted 1608 FG's the entire Utah team shot 6537. In other words he shot .2459 % of their entier FG attempts for the season. This stat rings true for most of his seasons. Between 20-25 % of the attemots by that team were his.

McHale in a typical season 85-86 he shot 1052 times, and the team shot 7325. So McHale shot .1449 % of bostons attemts that season.
And even his best statistical year the following season when he averages over 26 PPG shot over 60% from the field and 80% from the Foul line he still only took .185 % of the available shots.

Malone WAS the focus and put up the numbers.

AgainMcHale was rarely the focus and put up solid numbers but for one game or one series I would still take Mchale over Malone.

3 rings to none. That is a very telling stat and Malone played about a 1/3 longer career to try to get just one too.

beat

beat wrote:How many rings did karl win?

Please note, Again this is my opinion. Mchale made his team better and WON. If Malone was so great then where are his rings?

You can throw all the stats out there you want. To me watching both play I'd pick McHale over Malone every time. And if McHale played in Utah and Malone played in Boston..........what would the stats look like then? Would Karl exsist being second or third fiddle?

Anyway MY OPINION OK, we've been down this road before.

beat


If winning is what matters then McHale wins hands down.

umm as most ppl have pointed, winning championships is about TEAM and no one player can win a title by themselves. Look at the players the Jazz ownership and management stuck alongside Stockton and Malone. Greg-freaking-Ostertag, Delany Rudd, Jeff Malone?? Granted when they finally found a decent 3rd option in Jeff Hornacek the team played better and did make back to back finals. Losing to Jordan and the Bulls, something every elite team of the 90's can attest too since Jordan never lost a finals. There's no shame in that at all.

You can't go calling every player who never won a ring a failure just because they never won a ring. Some great players go stuck with bad ownership and therefore bad team mates and thus didn't have the luxury of having a great coach/GM like Red Auerbauch or great ownership like the Lakers have enjoyed. If Karl Malone had played on the Celtics teams of the 80's I'd add another title and we'd have seen Larry at SF sooner than he did make the move IMO. The man was an incredibly hard worker and he'd have done whatever was asked of him to help make the Celtics successful. On the Jazz it was scoring primairly but if the Jazz had 2 other top shelf scorers, I have no doubt he'd have lead the league in rebounding a couple of times and scored a lot less points.

McHale would have been successful in Utah, had a lower FG% due to the constant double teams due to the lack of scoring options around him and he would have had more rebounds... oh and he probably wouldn't have any rings either.

CF

Again am I allowed an Opinion?
Malone didn't win for many reasons I never called any player a failure due to not winnig a ring. Show me where I said that please.

Again to say it as simply as I can, ITS MY OPINION!!
For me at their very best McHale was a better PF than Malone.
I'm not trying to change your's or anyone's mind and no one is changing mine either, so let it rest.

beat

Why is it always about the Rings?

swish

So the discussion went from who was the better player to who won the most rings to who would I rather have for 1 game...sorry it's hard for us to keep track of the ever moving opinion.
I guarantee that if McHale played for the Lakers and Worthy for the Celtics, one person wouldn't have this same opinion that McHale was a better player then Malone.
14 straight top 10 MVP votes is incredible.
Again, McHale finished in the top 20 in MVP voting 3 times.
McHale on Utah would have produced 0 championships as it did with Malone on the team.

TJ

Again for the last time MY OPINION!!

sorry sam

beat

Nobody cares that you ALWAYS have 100% pro-Celtics opinions, but don't try to bring up stats to defend an opinion that you alone have.
You can get a reputation for being a homer and not a person who is open to having a reasonable discussion.
Same old story, just a different subject...

I find that your opinion is completely biased and without merrit. If McHale had been a Dallas Maverick for all his career I have doubts that you'd place him ahead of Malone. It appears you're backing McHale because he was a Celtics player, a talented on given, but for that first reason first and foremost. I cannot fathom how people can put such blinders on to players who have played for their team and yeah it makes me think that one cannot have a rational discussion with a person like that because they'll always back the side of their favorite team regardless. I prefer to be open as possible and discuss players from my favorite team and other teams and not use the team they played for as the ultimate deciding factor.
When it comes to the Lakers though I find this hard to do

It's kinda like a Cavs fan saying LeBron James is the best SF ever and that's my opinion. It reeks of ignorance and bias.

again those are my opinions.

That's fine

Whats worng with saying mchale is better than malone?

Then calling the opinion/ me ignorant

Well enough

I am a Celtic Fan, (obviously) first and foremost. Of course there is a bias in my opinion. So whats wrong with that.

I never once called anyones opinions ignorant you did that, not me.


Does ones opinons need to be perfect an baised in fact all the time?

geesh I am far from perfect, and never pretented to be. This started out a s a simple statement that I think Mchale is a better player.

Oh well I wish we had games to discuss cause this is getting a bit much.

beat

It's one thing to like one player over another or to think that one player is a better fit then another on a particular team, but in many discussions there are some that are wrong and some that are right.
A biased person does not feel they need to agree with the other 99% because they don't have to.
The final desperation statement of debating 101 is to say: "Aren't I allowed MY opinion"?
What can others say, no?

I just feel that if you're going to discuss the merits of player vs player there should be some objectivity otherwise why have the discussion?

Now I understand there are player who are close to each other in skills and style of play and it comes down to preference, but since the majority of ppl opinions I've seen on various other basketball discussion sites consider Malone to be the 2nd best PF of all time (behind Tim Duncan) with a few considering him to be a better player than even Duncan and McHale generally being considered just below those 2 players, I find it odd to come to a Celtics fan site and see what I consider no objectivity.

It'd blind patriotism which makes having a toughtful discussion hard to do.
I don't know if everyone feels that McHale is a better PF than Malone, but I haven't really seen it being voiced he's not either save for myself and TJ.

I think there's a group of players that a reasonable person could pick from as their preferred player at that spot. I'd say McHale and Malone are both in that group, so there's nothing unreasonable about picking either player, no matter which team you're a fan of.

McHale combined fabulous footwork with his length and intelligence, resulting in about the most unstoppably devastating group of low-post moves I've seen. Malone was a more complete overall package and used his physical conditioning to be productive over an incredibly long span. Personally, I'd throw Duncan in there, and I'm sure there's others we could nominate. If I'm asked to say which of those guys I'd prefer, I'd say, "yes."

You look at each player's relative strengths and weaknesses, evaluate them within the context of the team they played on, and make your choice. These guys played at such a high level that you cannot use stats or championships or anything else to "prove" one was better than the other. It comes down to personal preference, which means I'd expect people on a Celtic-oriented board to pick McHale more often than not. Isn't that okay?

Outside

Outside,

How do you ignore stats and mvp votes?
If we can only talk about who is a better player in such a gray/undeterminable manner, why would we ever have these discussions?

Are you ok with me saying that Artest is a better player then Pierce?

stats matter. Not just by themselves mind you but you cannot ignore them either.
To some extent MVP consideration should too, even though the voting can be flawed, because it shows how valuable the player was to his team and how he is considered to be one of the best amongst his comtemporaries

McHale didn't put up the numbers that Malone did. Yes being on a more talented team affected that and yes he had great low post moves. But Malone did put up better numbers, there's no denying that he delivered more to his team than McHale did night in and night out. McHale COULD have and PROBABLY would have delivered great numbers on a lesser team, but it's all conjuncture and guesswork. Malone did deliver the goods for his team and thus has proven he can handle the responsibility of being the #1 star on his team, an opportunity McHale never got.

Outside wrote:I think there's a group of players that a reasonable person could pick from as their preferred player at that spot. I'd say McHale and Malone are both in that group, so there's nothing unreasonable about picking either player, no matter which team you're a fan of.
Outside

To me It's Malone and Duncan, then Barkley/McHale/KG/Pettit in some variable order at power forward.

That's why I'd consider McHale vs Malone a moot point.

cf,

For whatever it is worth, here is a list of the top 10 PF's of all time.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/246023-the-top-10-nba-power-forwards-of-all-time#page/12

TJ,

tjmakz wrote:How do you ignore stats and mvp votes?

I'm not ignoring them. I think you did a good job initially making the case for Malone. I personally didn't know about the MVP vote streak for Malone, and that's a nice plus for the Malone side. I find all the stats and figures interesting, but I just find them to be part of the picture. However, I do consider them part of the picture -- I don't ignore them.

A problem I see for your argument is that you seem to consider the stats you presented as irrefutable proof that Malone is a better player than McHale, and you therefore cannot accept Beat's position that McHale is better. What I'm saying is that your stats and figures may be determining factors for you, but that doesn't mean they're determining factors for everyone. There's room in the world for differing opinions that are also valid opinions. You think Malone is better, Beat thinks McHale is better, somebody else thinks Duncan is better, and I think that they're all great and, while you may "prefer" one over the others, you can't "prove" one is better than the others. I think all four of those positions are valid. What I'm getting from your posts is that you don't acknowledge that someone can have a differing opinion from yours that is valid.

For what it's worth, here's how I'd rank them: 1. Duncan, 2. Malone, 3. McHale, with the caveat that the difference in quality between them is so small that it's really 1A, 1B, and 1C. So the problem isn't that I don't agree with you that Malone is better than McHale, because, if push comes to shove and I'm forced to rank them, I probably do. The problem I have is your apparent unwillingness to accept Beat's ranking that puts McHale above Malone, because I consider any reshuffling of the order for those three to be valid.

tjmakz wrote:If we can only talk about who is a better player in such a gray/undeterminable manner, why would we ever have these discussions?

As I said above, I'm not saying you have to ignore stats, so it's not all "gray area," but I can see the basis for your point -- if you accept my position that you can't use stats or figures or otherwise definitively prove one player "better" than another, then there's no reason to even discuss it, right? From my point of view, we can (and should) have these discussions for several reasons:

-- Hopefully, because it's enjoyable.

-- To educate each other about the merits of the players.

-- To allow ourselves the opportunity to state a position and justify that position.

At the end of the day, no one "wins" or "loses" the discussion -- it's just a discussion. But for it to work, everyone has to have respect for differing, justified positions.

tjmakz wrote:Are you ok with me saying that Artest is a better player then Pierce?

I'd ask you to justify that position. If you can advance arguments to justify your position, fine. If you can't, or someone else advances arguments to show they aren't even close, and you still stick by your opinion, fine. Even if I think you're wrong, if you advance your argument in a credible manner and show respect for others who do the same, I have no problem with it. But if the arguments are presented pro and con and you say, "I still pick Artest, that's my opinion," I'm going to let it drop. I'm not going to keep hammering at you until you agree that Pierce is better.

Hope that helps.

Outside

celtic fan wrote:To me It's Malone and Duncan, then Barkley/McHale/KG/Pettit in some variable order at power forward.

I can accept that group, although I think you give Barkley too much credit considering his deficiencies on defense. I wouldn't put him in that group.

I tend to not put KG up there with the others as a prototypical power forward because, offensively, he's always played more of a small-forward's game with fade-aways and jump shots, not a power game in the post.

I don't remember seeing Pettit play, and I don't know about his play defensively, but he was one of the pioneers of the position and deserves to be mentioned in the discussion. His career stats (26.4 pts, 16.2 reb) are impressive, to say the least.

There's a basic problem with this entire discussion. That problem is the fallacy of comparing individual players. Period! Aside from the titillation it may offer, the argument has no basis in logic.

Karl Malone played in an entirely different situation than Kevin McHale did. They each had different roles that were dictated by the differences in their teams. How can anyone evaluate the ways these two guys discharged their roles when the roles were so different? It's very much like the fallacy of comparing eras.

• How many positions did Karl play? One. How many positions did McHale play? Two. That's a huge difference already.

• McHale often played as part of twin towers. Malone didn't. That's another huge difference.

• Malone didn't have to compete with as many great big men on his own team for his stats like McHale did. That's another huge difference.

• McHale played within a "womb" of greatness, to a much greater extent than Malone did. That's another huge difference.

There are more differences. I'm sure people who are more informed than I could fill a thread with them.

This fascination with individual greatness apparently blinds people to the fact that such discussions are fun but fruitless. And trying to take statistical shortcuts on a fruitless journey doesn't make the journey less fruitless. The very existence of statistics carries, for some people, a ring of authenticity about them. That's even more ridiculous than comparing individual players. The very important matter of context that I preach so often (and it's exemplified by the four bullets above) seems lost in the zeal for winning an argument.

And now I see that the discussion is taking the route of arguing about the ground rules for a debate that is factually groundless to begin with. I suggest that people recognize the fact that basketball is not simply a team sport. It's a team sport in which the players are arguably more dependent on one another than in any other sport. Excerpting players from two diversely interdependent teams, and trying to determine which individual is/was "better" than another is ill-advised, to say the least.

But I'm delighted to see the board being used, and it's entertaining to see all the effort being exerted in vain.

Sam

I'll get back to the gist of what you've said later Sam, but I'd see your comment about the team sport and individuals being dependent on one another in the exact opposite lite.
Basketball allows an individual freedom to be more independent than any other team sport within a team concept.

The sport that has players more dependent on one another most has to be football bar none. If one guy in a chain of events fails his job miserably or even in a moderately bad manner, the entire process is screwed.

Good, very good and great players can overcome a similar situation in basketball far more easily

WOW this thread took off on a strange tanget,Malone is durable and stronger than an ox,however his overall game doesn't impact the game as much as Duncan or KG.If I were starting a team I'd take those two over Karl Malone at PF,I might even take Barkley over Malone.Malone lasted longer than Chuck,but was no better,Barkley actually had a more diversified offensive game and was a better rebounder and offensive rebounder.Duncan can post as good as Malone and KG has better perimeter game as Malone got alot of his points running the floor,but in playoff games that aspect was often taken away as playoff ball always comes down to the halfcourt.Malone on defense makes little impact compared to Duncan,KG and McHale IMHO,and Duncan and KG at their best are better rebounders and IMPACT defenders which is a huge influence on outcomes of games.

If beat likes McHale better than Malone you look pathetic trying to ram him up the arss.McHale before he broke his foot in 87,could cover anyone from Dr J,Dominique and Worthy to Hakeem,Moses and Jabbar.Malone who I loved,couldn't come near McHales defensive versatility,but few could.Malone great on the block overpowering foes with speed and power,but McHale wrote the book on bigman post up.Barkley says the most talented best PF he went up against was McHale not Malone,if he says it WTF is wrong with Beat saying he prefers McHale.....and I know how great Malone was.

Sam & CF,

This is how I compare the two. I know you guys may beat me up on this, but this is how I see it.

First let me say that I think Karl was a terrific player. That being said, Kevin was more unique than Karl, and was unstoppable even when triple teamed. Triple team Malone, and draw your own conclusions.

There have been a lot of comparisons over the years, the most recent I can recall is the one with Pau Gasol. To me, again, not even close.Pau is a great player, but......... Kevin was an unbelievable offensive player as well as a defensive player. I believe it will be a long time before we see another "freak of nature" like him.

His accomplishments are often downplayed due to Bird & Parish playing a long side of him, but take minute imagine him on another team, Sure, Bird got him the ball in his sweet spot, but, really anywhere down low, and he could dominate. Although I don't go back as far as most of you, who is similar to Kevin? Who could "worm" through a triple team on a regular basis, score, then block shots, or, push his man out on the other end? He had a skill set that I would love to see emerge again, and I will find it difficult to believe Karl, Gasol, or any other forward playing today is "similar" or in the same class. Time to look at some 80s vids, and remember.

Well, enough of my soapbox, have a great weekend.

Pete