Philaflava.com ::

Who is the best PF in the history of the NBA not named Duncan?

I didn't include Petitt or Hayes because fuck you if you think you know anything about them. Also rank your top 4 Pf of all-time.

Man, I have to think on this one. KG, Garnett, Barkley, or McHale?

I think I will knock McHale off right off the bat because his career was shorter.

I think it's Malone. He doesn't get the credit because he didn't win a ring.

Gregg Popabitch wrote:Man, I have to think on this one. KG, Garnett, Barkley, or McHale?

I think I will knock McHale off right off the bat because his career was shorter.

No matter how much time you gave me I don't think I could ever choose between KG vs Garnett.

naturalborn103 wrote:

Gregg Popabitch wrote:Man, I have to think on this one. KG, Garnett, Barkley, or McHale?

I think I will knock McHale off right off the bat because his career was shorter.

No matter how much time you gave me I don't think I could ever choose between KG vs Garnett.

LOL I meant malone.

I'm at work so I'll give my short answer now and explain why i choose who I did tonight.

Barkley.

Barkley, because the Mailman never threw no one through plate glass. Also, there's a longevity vs peak thing here, and I'm usually a peak guy. Malone was never as flat-out dominant as Sir Charles.

EDIT: Duncan, Chuck, Malone, KG.

Mailman for me but trust I wanted to pick Chuck.

1. Duncan
2. Malone
3. Barkley
4. KG

Id go Barkley, KG, Malone. Not sure if my hatred of Malone is influencing my choice too much, but I definitely would have Barkley first.

Malone is the choice here. Malone was a better defender then Barkley.

Barkley never had a Stockton.

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

I find it funny that Dirk, at nearly 7 foot, plays smaller than Chuck, who is 6'6" wearing shoes.

Anyway, my heart says Chuck, but my brain says Malone. Not sure what to make of that. Probably some recency bias against KG too, because we see him playing at a level below his prime now, while Chuck and the Mailman benefit from our collective nostalgia. But whatever. All I know is that Rodman has no place on this list, especially if we aren't considering greats from a previous era.


2. Malone
3. Chuck
4. KG
5. Dirk


PEACE

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

PEACE

Sir Cumference

Only one of these guys who completely changed his game and stayed just as dominate after his physical skills diminished.

peanut butter wrote:

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

PEACE

As good as Stockton?

Stop yourself now, PB.

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

peanut butter wrote:

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

PEACE

As good as Stockton?

Stop yourself now, PB.

Not quite. But still damn good. Kidd too.


PEACE

PopeyeJones wrote:Sir Cumference

Only one of these guys who completely changed his game and stayed just as dominate after his physical skills diminished.

KG has done this too, but better.


PEACE

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

peanut butter wrote:

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

PEACE

As good as Stockton?

Stop yourself now, PB.

The Pasty Gangsta >>> Ackbar Sr.



39

IDK if Rodman doesn't belong on this list either or maybe I'm arguing for the sake of arguing at this point but........

He is the best rebounder on this list and the best one on one defender on this list.

peanut butter wrote:

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

peanut butter wrote:

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

PEACE

As good as Stockton?

Stop yourself now, PB.

Not quite. But still damn good. Kidd too.


PEACE

Past his prime Kidd?

What's going on here, PB. Have you and the guy from the video I'm about to post switched bodies?

Gregg Popabitch wrote:

naturalborn103 wrote:Barkley never had a Stockton.

None of these PFs have played with a PG as good as Stockton.

True. I said just Barkley because most people who did not have Barkley #1 had Malone over him.

Wow I couldn't disagree anymore. Karl Malone averaged 20 points his 18th season in the NBA. He averaged over 20 points every year but his rookie year and his Laker year. His fadeaway jumper in the post is the best move of all time for a declining player. That is why MJ stayed so good for so long as well.

PopeyeJones wrote:Sir Cumference

Only one of these guys who completely changed his game and stayed just as dominate after his physical skills diminished.

Gregg Popabitch wrote:maybe I'm arguing for the sake of arguing at this point but........

I suppose this might could cut both ways



PEACE

Gregg Popabitch wrote:IDK if Rodman doesn't belong on this list either or maybe I'm arguing for the sake of arguing at this point but........

He is the best rebounder on this list and the best one on one defender on this list.

Arguing for it's own sake it is: peak Barkley was a better rebounder if you factor in that he had a lot more to do on offense than just put himself in good rebounding position. Rodman has 6 seasons in the top 15 all time offensive rebounding years; in exactly none of them does he top 10 PPG, and in one he tops 3 APG. Barkley had one season averaging less than 3 APG: his rookie year. He was more versatile, so specialized less, but had more ability as a rebounder.

Also: I think peak KG was tougher to score on, and so does defensive win shares (a really, really blunt instrument when measuring defense, but better than nothing). The Worm has some good defensive years, but only 91-92 jumps out at you, and it's still not better than KG's best. And I can't think of any situation where KG was moved off a big defensively, but I'm pretty sure Pippen was moved onto Juwan Howard in 96 because Rodman wasn't getting the job done (I could be remembering wrong, because I was high a lot that year).

Barkley and KG are all-time greats, and there's a big gap between them and the merely good players in the league, and it doesn't matter if that really good player had funny hair, played on one of the two greatest teams of all time, or banged the shit out of Madonna's pussy and/or anal cavity.

But: I only really believe one of the two above arguments.

Completely realize the fact that Rodman was a specialist and Barkley had more responsibilities on offense but that only takes into account the offensive side of the ball and doesn't take defensive rebounding in to play. Now you can say that because of all of Barkley's responsibilities, he could have gotten more fatigued easier and thus opening a pandora's box of hypotheticals. The thing that impressed me the most about Rodman is that he broke rebounding down to a science. I think this article breaks down the more articulate side of Rodman's rebounding for people who think he's just a clown: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Also, the fact that he was one of the most well conditioned athletes to play the game at that time also probably helped with his case as well.

An argument could be made that Barkley is a better rebounder considering he was 6'4 or 5 and he had more responsibilities but at that point, it feels like people are making excuses for a no doubt hall of famer. If I decided maybe Rodman would have partied less and if he would started his career sooner so he could have had some more pro coaching that could have made him an even more honed rebounder, where would we stop? The fact of the matter is Rodman has 7 of the top 10 best rebounding percentages in NBA history. Barkley's best mark comes in at 64th. One can make an argument that Barkley is a better rebounder but it wouldn't be a good argument in my opinion.

Saying that Rodman only has one good defensive year is shortchanging him. Especially considering I'm not sure whether defensive win shares is a completely trustable stat. Rodman is probably the most diverse defensive player on this list. Rodman in '96 was not the defensive player he was from 88-93 or 94 which is probably his defensive prime even though he was still a good defensive player then. In his prime, he was guarding anyone from 1-5 and had the most lateral quickness out of anyone on this list by a mile. Sure some point guard and center matchups were too much for him but he was a defensive jack of all trades. I'm actually more willing to believe this argument though (even though I feel like you believe the former argument more). Using the eye test, Garnett and McHale were helluva one on one defenders and along with Rodman, the best on this list. Garnett is far and away the best overall defender on this list because his help defense was at a pantheon level and that is probably what helps his defensive win shares numbers far more than his one on one defense does.

Gregg Popabitch wrote:Completely realize the fact that Rodman was a specialist and Barkley had more responsibilities on offense but that only takes into account the offensive side of the ball and doesn't take defensive rebounding in to play. Now you can say that because of all of Barkley's responsibilities, he could have gotten more fatigued easier and thus opening a pandora's box of hypotheticals. The thing that impressed me the most about Rodman is that he broke rebounding down to a science. I think this article breaks down the more articulate side of Rodman's rebounding for people who think he's just a clown: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Also, the fact that he was one of the most well conditioned athletes to play the game at that time also probably helped with his case as well.

An argument could be made that Barkley is a better rebounder considering he was 6'4 or 5 and he had more responsibilities but at that point, it feels like people are making excuses for a no doubt hall of famer. If I decided maybe Rodman would have partied less and if he would started his career sooner so he could have had some more pro coaching that could have made him an even more honed rebounder, where would we stop? The fact of the matter is Rodman has 7 of the top 10 best rebounding percentages in NBA history. Barkley's best mark comes in at 64th. One can make an argument that Barkley is a better rebounder but it wouldn't be a good argument in my opinion.

Saying that Rodman only has one good defensive year is shortchanging him. Especially considering I'm not sure whether defensive win shares is a completely trustable stat. Rodman is probably the most diverse defensive player on this list. Rodman in '96 was not the defensive player he was from 88-93 or 94 which is probably his defensive prime even though he was still a good defensive player then. In his prime, he was guarding anyone from 1-5 and had the most lateral quickness out of anyone on this list by a mile. Sure some point guard and center matchups were too much for him but he was a defensive jack of all trades. I'm actually more willing to believe this argument though (even though I feel like you believe the former argument more). Using the eye test, Garnett and McHale were helluva one on one defenders and along with Rodman, the best on this list. Garnett is far and away the best overall defender on this list because his help defense was at a pantheon level and that is probably what helps his defensive win shares numbers far more than his one on one defense does.

Actually, I agree with all this. I didn't mean to imply Rodman had only one good defensive season, but even his best defensive seasons are average for Garnett. Partially, and I think we agree here, as a team defender Garnett is otherwordly; but I can't say I'd take Rodman over KG defending too many players one on one. I think the reputation of Rodman grew because of his association with the myth of Jordan, though by his Bulls years he was already slipping. Again, I loved Rodman growing up, but for me a hard look at distance shrinks his stature (and in regards to Garnett, I think Peanut Butter is dead on: if he had accomplished what he did a decade earlier, we'd be comparing him directly to Duncan, and I expect when we all get over what a fucking bitch he is we'll all upgrade him a spot or two).

But yeah, the rebounding thing was for the sake of argument. Barkley is a great rebounder, but he'd need another 3-4 inches of height/wingspan to compete with Rodman. That article is fucking great (though Phil fires shots at his inattentive defence because of his chasing rebounds, and Wes Unseld thinks Barkley could have put the same numbers if all he did was rebound).

Revisit those Bad Boy years and you'll see such how intricate Rodman was to the Pistons. He brought the same thing to the Bulls. He most certainly is "worthy" to be on a list. Maybe not to receive votes but he pretty much revolutionized his position with that skill.

I don't think he brought the same thing to the Bulls. I feel like Pippen and Jordan were better defenders at that point. But when he was on the Pistons and his first year or two on the spurs, he was amazing defensively. This is a man that consistently guarded Magic Johnson when the Pistons played the Lakers.