Does anyone disagree that Al Horford is not Karl Malone's clone

[Diesel]

ON this topic.

I think we need to point out this...

Young Karl Malone was less skilled than Al offensively. He was a player who was really able to improve his game at the pro level. But Young Karl Malone had John Stockton and the whole city of Utah there to support his development. It's not even fair to compare Al to matured Karl Malone because Malone was a first option scorer who scored 20 points per. Skillwise, Malone was one of the best finishers of the game and he could hit a high post shoot. IF Al gets the consistency to hit a high post shot, who knows where this comparison can go.

[EazyRoc]

I know. Wilt Chamberlein would get ruled by the All-Stars today like Chris Kaman, Al Horford, David Lee, and Zach Randolph. How could old timey, inferior interior players like Walt Bellamy, Wilt Chamberlein, and Bill Russell hope to compete against the kind of really outstanding big man play in the league today?

Seriously, the big men competition was better in those days due to the lack of expansion. Shaq would dominate in any era but so would guys like Wilt, Pettit and Russell.

the point I was making was more about the size of the nba. there just wasn't big players back in those days like it is now. I'm not saying they wouldn't still be good but I'm almost certain that their production wouldn't be as great.

[Endy9]

I've just been impressed with his leadership. I think for the first two years, he attempted to assert himself as a leader, but didn't quite feel comfortable doing that at the NBA level, like he did at UF. The last few weeks, it seems he has that confidence now at the NBA level. To feel he can take control, rather than waiting for something to happen and push his team to victory.

[HawksFan87]

absolutely not, Al is more like a Carlos Boozer type of player....

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Good Lord nbasuperstar . . . I thought you were an "NBA Scout". We all like Horford. Well . . . most of us. But there is no way in the world that you can compare Horford to Malone. If you took this argument outside of Hawksquawk and into a neutral basketball blog/board, they'd laugh you off of it.

Karl Malone was one of the best players in NBA history when he got the ball around the rim. Karl Malone could also effectively create his own shot from 15 feet on in. Even without Stockton getting him easy looks, he'd easily average 20 ppg because of his ability to create and make shots, and his ability to draw contact and get to the free throw line.

The right comparison is Carlos Boozer, even though Horford isn't on Boozer's level yet offensively. Could he get there? Definitely. But he has to show the ability to create AND MAKE shots in the post. Right now, that's his weakness as an offensive player.

This is Boozer explaining how to play in the low and high post. Now you tell me if Horford can do all of this yet.

As for Karl Malone . . . lol . . . stop. Dominant offensive player . . dominant defensive player (especially as a defensive rebounder ) . . could kill you in the low post . . could kill you in the high post . . could kill you by filling the wing on the fast break. Horford can't do all of this man.

[dlpin]

ON this topic.

I think we need to point out this...

Young Karl Malone was less skilled than Al offensively. He was a player who was really able to improve his game at the pro level. But Young Karl Malone had John Stockton and the whole city of Utah there to support his development. It's not even fair to compare Al to matured Karl Malone because Malone was a first option scorer who scored 20 points per. Skillwise, Malone was one of the best finishers of the game and he could hit a high post shoot. IF Al gets the consistency to hit a high post shot, who knows where this comparison can go.

This is nonsense. As I've pointed out before, Stockton didn't become a starter or play more than 25 minutes a game until 87-88, and Malone was already a gifted offensive player well before that. Malone was much better than Al offensively from the very start.

the point I was making was more about the size of the nba. there just wasn't big players back in those days like it is now. I'm not saying they wouldn't still be good but I'm almost certain that their production wouldn't be as great.

Shaq is 7'1 325 lbs, Howard is 6-11, 240 lbs.

In comparison, Wilt was 7'1, 275 lbs, Kareem was 7'2, 225lbs, Bob Lanier was 6-11, 250lbs. Only Russel was a bit smaller, at 6'9, 215lbs. Keep in mind that the listed heights for NBA players now is generally using sneakers, and back then it was barefoot.

Sure, they would be great back then too, but not really greater, especially when you consider that without expansion they would be playing a top notch center every night.

[AHF]

I'll take the suspect height of:

6'5'' Oscar Robertson (26 ppg, 9.5 apg, 7.5 rpg - career averages)

6'9'' Bill Russell (15/23 career average)

6'9'' Bob Pettit

6'11'' Walt Bellamy (20/14 career average)

7'1'' Wilt Chamberlein (30/23 career average)

etc.

Over what we see in the NBA today.

Looking at the rosters in 64-65, the only teams without a 7 footer had the following players at center: Bill Russell - HOF, Willis Reed - HOF, Jerry Lucas/Wayne Embry (Cinci) - HOF, LAL - Leroy Ellis - 6'10'', Walt Bellamy - HOF, Zelmo Beatty - 6'9'' 17/10. Not too much in the way of stiffs for the height deprived teams.

Today, we have so much height in the league that a broken down Ben Wallace has started 60 of 61 games.

[Joker]

Good Lord nbasuperstar . . . I thought you were an "NBA Scout". We all like Horford. Well . . . most of us. But there is no way in the world that you can compare Horford to Malone. If you took this argument outside of Hawksquawk and into a neutral basketball blog/board, they'd laugh you off of it.

Karl Malone was one of the best players in NBA history when he got the ball around the rim. Karl Malone could also effectively create his own shot from 15 feet on in. Even without Stockton getting him easy looks, he'd easily average 20 ppg because of his ability to create and make shots, and his ability to draw contact and get to the free throw line.

The right comparison is Carlos Boozer, even though Horford isn't on Boozer's level yet offensively. Could he get there? Definitely. But he has to show the ability to create AND MAKE shots in the post. Right now, that's his weakness as an offensive player.

This is Boozer explaining how to play in the low and high post. Now you tell me if Horford can do all of this yet.

As for Karl Malone . . . lol . . . stop. Dominant offensive player . . dominant defensive player (especially as a defensive rebounder ) . . could kill you in the low post . . could kill you in the high post . . could kill you by filling the wing on the fast break. Horford can't do all of this man.

In 1988, he was just as good as creating his own shot as Al is today.

Al Horford could get 20ppg with 5 more attempt a game which would than make him the #3 or #2 option on this team.

I greatly disagree with Horford not on Boozer level. Boozer doesn't have the athletic ability to be on Al's level if Al was a PF on this team.

Al Horford really hasn't showed weaknesses in that area, he's just not used to capacity. Referring to your Boozer/Horford comment.

Boozer is a poor man's Karl Malone to be honest. He has a similar style of play but is undersized at PF plus he's not very athletic. Horford is much more athletic and is because of that, it's negates his size at the position. You have to remember that a lot of these PF's are 6'10 or their very versatile today. Boozer lacks that athletic ability to be a great at PF. Like Joe lacks it at SG/SF to be a great SG/SF.

[Joker]

This is nonsense. As I've pointed out before, Stockton didn't become a starter or play more than 25 minutes a game until 87-88, and Malone was already a gifted offensive player well before that. Malone was much better than Al offensively from the very start.

Shaq is 7'1 325 lbs, Howard is 6-11, 240 lbs.

In comparison, Wilt was 7'1, 275 lbs, Kareem was 7'2, 225lbs, Bob Lanier was 6-11, 250lbs. Only Russel was a bit smaller, at 6'9, 215lbs. Keep in mind that the listed heights for NBA players now is generally using sneakers, and back then it was barefoot.

Sure, they would be great back then too, but not really greater, especially when you consider that without expansion they would be playing a top notch center every night.

Shaq was at Cole High School when Malone was in 1988. As for the size of players in the front-court, the players than were taller but much like versatility. Malone surprised people when he came out of LA Tech, we knew he was good but he was better than expected. In fact, there were a lot of scouts who liking him to Malone out of Florida. I was not one of them, but I finally see exactly what they were talking about. I really think some of you are looking to far into his career than what we are actually comparing him to.

[niremetal]

Shaq was at Cole High School when Malone was in 1988. As for the size of players in the front-court, the players than were taller but much like versatility. Malone surprised people when he came out of LA Tech, we knew he was good but he was better than expected. In fact, there were a lot of scouts who liking him to Malone out of Florida. I was not one of them, but I finally see exactly what they were talking about. I really think some of you are looking to far into his career than what we are actually comparing him to.

Malone averaged 28 and 12 in his third year. So no.

I'm sorry, but the longer you keep this thread going, the more foolish you look. Karl Malone is one of the top 10 players in the history of the game. Al Horford is not. It's not hating on Al to say it's not close. And Al will tell you the same thing, I'm sure.

Edited March 21, 2010 by niremetal

[EazyRoc]

This is nonsense. As I've pointed out before, Stockton didn't become a starter or play more than 25 minutes a game until 87-88, and Malone was already a gifted offensive player well before that. Malone was much better than Al offensively from the very start.

Shaq is 7'1 325 lbs, Howard is 6-11, 240 lbs.

In comparison, Wilt was 7'1, 275 lbs, Kareem was 7'2, 225lbs, Bob Lanier was 6-11, 250lbs. Only Russel was a bit smaller, at 6'9, 215lbs. Keep in mind that the listed heights for NBA players now is generally using sneakers, and back then it was barefoot.

Sure, they would be great back then too, but not really greater, especially when you consider that without expansion they would be playing a top notch center every night.

If you look at their listed weight, each one of those guys are small in comparison to centers today. Howard is not 240..he's 265. Shaq hasn't been 325 in years.

Edited March 22, 2010 by EazyRoc

[EazyRoc]

I'll take the suspect height of:

6'5'' Oscar Robertson (26 ppg, 9.5 apg, 7.5 rpg - career averages)

6'9'' Bill Russell (15/23 career average)

6'9'' Bob Pettit

6'11'' Walt Bellamy (20/14 career average)

7'1'' Wilt Chamberlein (30/23 career average)

etc.

Over what we see in the NBA today.

Looking at the rosters in 64-65, the only teams without a 7 footer had the following players at center: Bill Russell - HOF, Willis Reed - HOF, Jerry Lucas/Wayne Embry (Cinci) - HOF, LAL - Leroy Ellis - 6'10'', Walt Bellamy - HOF, Zelmo Beatty - 6'9'' 17/10. Not too much in the way of stiffs for the height deprived teams.

Today, we have so much height in the league that a broken down Ben Wallace has started 60 of 61 games.

It's not just about height. It's about weight to, but since we're having a debate about a hypothetical situation. Do you honestly think Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Bob Petit would have put up such outstanding numbers playing in today's NBA ? Seriously. Do you think Wilt the Stilt would come into the league, even in his prime, and average 30/23 ?

[dlpin]

It's not just about height. It's about weight to, but since we're having a debate about a hypothetical situation. Do you honestly think Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Bob Petit would have put up such outstanding numbers playing in today's NBA ? Seriously. Do you think Wilt the Stilt would come into the league, even in his prime, and average 30/23 ?

He wouldn't average those numbers because the game is slower paced, but he would still absolutely dominate. Heck, Bill Russel was so athletic that he was offered a spot on the US track team for the 56 Olympics. He ran the 440 yard event in college (which he ran in under 50 seconds) and was ranked the 7th best high jumper in the world. As high as Howard jumps he has absolutely nothing on Russel. Meanwhile, Rasheed Wallace dominates Howard defensively even though he has man boobs due to basketball IQ alone.

And you talk about this as if centers today are these huge beasts. Pau Gasol is one of the top centers and weighs 250. Patrick Ewing's playing weight was 240. A 240lb Ben Wallace held shaq to 20 points or less in 2 out of games in the 04 finals and is still a starter to this day. Chris Andersen is a heck of a defensive player and weighs 228.

[FrankWhite]

Why can't Al Horford just be Al Horford, damn good basketball player?

[EazyRoc]

He wouldn't average those numbers because the game is slower paced, but he would still absolutely dominate. Heck, Bill Russel was so athletic that he was offered a spot on the US track team for the 56 Olympics. He ran the 440 yard event in college (which he ran in under 50 seconds) and was ranked the 7th best high jumper in the world. As high as Howard jumps he has absolutely nothing on Russel. Meanwhile, Rasheed Wallace dominates Howard defensively even though he has man boobs due to basketball IQ alone.

And you talk about this as if centers today are these huge beasts. Pau Gasol is one of the top centers and weighs 250. Patrick Ewing's playing weight was 240. A 240lb Ben Wallace held shaq to 20 points or less in 2 out of games in the 04 finals and is still a starter to this day. Chris Andersen is a heck of a defensive player and weighs 228.

That's the point I'm making. Like I said, those players would still be good, but the dominant numbers they're putting up wouldn't. I don't think Petit (in his prime) could come in the league today and put up the same averages. Just a correction as well, Pau Gasol isn't a center. He's been a PF for most of his career and 250 is solid size for the PF position.

Edited March 22, 2010 by EazyRoc

[AHF]

It's not just about height. It's about weight to, but since we're having a debate about a hypothetical situation. Do you honestly think Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Bob Petit would have put up such outstanding numbers playing in today's NBA ? Seriously. Do you think Wilt the Stilt would come into the league, even in his prime, and average 30/23 ?

Wilt would average a lot more than 30 points in today's NBA but the rebounding numbers for all those guys would be significantly lower. All of them would be huge stars. For goodness sake, guys like Tracy McGrady and Jermaine ONeal are 7-time and 6-time All-Stars.

Wilt was so much more athletic than any big man in the NBA today other than Dwight Howard (who he was significantly more athletic than but at least not "so much" more) it isn't funny. How many 7 footers in the NBA today were track stars as well as basketball stars?

As dlpin points out, this applied to Bill Russell as well (probably why both are regarded among the top 10 players in league history still today).

In track and field, he high jumped 6 feet 6 inches, ran the 440 in 49.0 seconds, ran the 880 in 1:58.3, threw the shot put 53 feet 4 inches, and long jumped 22 feet while still a high school student.[4] At the University of Kansas, he ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, threw the shot put 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.[5] He also played professional volleyball in the late 1970s (when he founded and starred in a pro league, the International Volleyball Association), and auto racing. He flirted with boxing, and he was offered a pro football contract by the Kansas City Chiefs in 1966

Wilt was a freak of nature in any era - much like Shaq - with his size and athleticism combination being something unseen in generations. Russell, Pettit and others were stars then and in any era. Certainly, they would be more cut in today's NBA due to differences in training but that is an insignificant sidebar when comparing these guys to today's All-Star big men:

2010 All-Star Big Men:

Dwight Howard

Kevin Garnett

Chris Bosh

Al Horford

David Lee

Amare Stoudamire

Tim Duncan

Pau Gasol

Zack Randolph

Chris Kaman

Edited March 22, 2010 by AHF

[Johnnybravo4]

I see what you are trying to say. But most people never like to compare anyone with their childhood stars. Everyone always looks better when you are 14 years old, like many of us were when Malone played.

I see him more as a Horace Grant type player rather than Malone.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Why can't Al Horford just be Al Horford, damn good basketball player?

Exactly this thread is ludicrous. Let's just compare Josh Smith to Bill Russell while we're at it, geez.

Comparing Al Horford to the greatest PF of all-time is not fair to either player.

Just let the guy be his own player. If Al Horford can consistently put up 16/10 guy for the Hawks. then I don't think we can really ask for more than that.