美國球迷熱議鄧肯是不是NBA歷史第一大前鋒|鄧肯也打中鋒成爭議？

美國JRS之聲

美國球迷熱議鄧肯是不是NBA歷史第一大前鋒|鄧肯也打中鋒成爭議？

GOAT PF: Not Tim Duncan

NBA歷史第一大前鋒：並不是鄧肯？

Karl Malone is the greatest power forward of all time.

The Mailman was a major douchebag. I would not be his friend. In fact, fuck Karl Malone.

But his skill set on the court I think, eclipses the Big Fundamental"s. His value as a franchise player would be greater, even today in a league full of 3pt shooting spacers. He wouldn"t even need Stockton to succeed.

Malone career: 25.0, 10.1, 3.6

2x MVP, 3x First Team All-Defensive, 11x All-NBA, 14x All-star, 2x Olympic Gold Medalist, 0 Ringzz

The Mailman tallied the second most total points ever, and that record will probably never be broken. At his peak, 31ppg. The Mailman is suuuuuper underrated as an athlete.

Virtually unstoppable in the paint through a combination of slick moves and power. Mid-range game: FUNDAMENTAL.

Malone will outrun you. He is the only guy I ever saw out hustle and out dirty Dennis Rodman at the same time on both ends.

Okay sure, Karl had his ultimate Robin sidekick in John Stockton feeding him perfectly all day, but he made his own plays and his defense was impeccable. The rest of the 90s Jazz sucked ass. In an era of too many great big men to list, Malone stood out, unquestionably.

Pretty much everyone admit right now that if it wasn"t for Michael fucking Jordan, the Utah Jazz would have been 2 time champions.

Duncan career: 19.0, 10.8, 3.0

2x MVP, 8x First Team All-Defensive, 10x All-NBA, 15x All-star, 1x Olympic Bronze, 5x Ringzz

Duncan"s game was no doubt, fundamental. But it wasn"t fun. Good positioning, good screens, good bank shots, good posture, good graces of the media. Bad highlight reel.

Hell of a Power Forward, who honestly spent about half the time at Center.

我認為卡爾-馬龍是NBA歷史第一大前鋒。

郵差生活中就是個人渣。我絕對不會和他做朋友。草泥馬的卡爾馬龍。

但是，他在球場上的技能包，讓我們的「大基本功」也只能相形見絀。馬龍作為球隊基石球員的價值非常的高，即使是在現在這個3分球橫行的聯盟也一樣。即使沒有斯托克頓，馬龍也能成功。

馬龍生涯數據：25分+10.1板+3.6助攻

2次聯盟MVP，3次一防，11次最佳陣容，14次全明星，2塊奧運金牌，0 NBA總冠軍。

郵差在NBA總得分榜上排第二，而他這個記錄基本上是很難被打破了。巔峰賽季場均31分，郵差真的被大家低估了。

馬龍在禁區內基本無法阻擋，他的腳步和力量結合的非常完美。而他的中距離也是基本功教科書級別的。

他也是我見過唯一一個可以在攻防兩端都讓丹尼斯羅德曼毫無辦法的球員。

確實，馬龍身邊有著自己的羅賓俠斯托克頓，每場比賽都不聽的喂球給他。但除此之外，爵士其他的球員基本都沒法看。馬龍在那個內線橫行的年代硬是脫穎而出了。

有一點相信大家都能認同，要不是喬丹的話，馬龍也有兩個冠軍在手了。

鄧肯職業生涯：19分+10.8板+3助攻

2次MVP，8次一防，10次最佳陣容，15次全明星，1次奧運銅牌，5冠。

鄧肯的比賽，毫無疑問對得起「大基本功」的外號。但確實沒什麼好看的。卡位出色，擋拆出色，打板出色，各種動作姿勢都很棒。但對高光集錦不是很友善。

鄧肯是個好人，大家都愛他，但他是大前鋒嗎？他生涯大約一半的時間都是中鋒吧。

[–]CavaliersCavs4life2016 59 指標 1 天前*

To be honest, Duncan is so much better defensively, I don"t know if I can take Malone over him.

But if you are looking at primes, KG was just as good, if not better than Duncan.

People use 2003 as Duncan"s prime, but KG put up better numbers than Duncan, that same year.

I have Duncan as number 1 PF because

longevity

defense

rings

講道理，鄧肯在防守端出色太多了，馬龍真的可以力壓鄧肯嗎，未必吧。

如果你只看巔峰的話，加內特即使不不能說比鄧肯出色，但也不遑多讓啊。

大家都說2003年是鄧肯的巔峰，但那一年加內特的數據更出色一些。

我覺得鄧肯是NBA歷史第一大前鋒，理由如下：

生涯長

防守好

冠軍多

[–]Jazzrbmw263 5 指標 1 天前

I believe Malone would have rings had he played with Pop and the Spurs talent eval/dev. Jazz had Stockton Malone and a gaggle of nobodies for a majority of their careers.

我相信如果馬能也能在波波維奇手下，在馬刺這個水平的球隊打球的話也能拿到總冠軍。當時的爵士基本就是斯托克頓+馬龍+其他一群戰五渣。

[–]JazzJazzxGoose 5 指標 1 天前

Malone had better longevity though. Duncan just had more complete team around him.

而且，其實馬龍的生涯更長壽些。鄧肯球隊更完整，更全面。

[–]CavaliersCavs4life2016 5 指標 1 天前

By longevity, I never meant he had more than Malone, but rather it"s a contributing piece on why I believe Duncan is a goat PF.

But Duncan has always been extremely good defensively, longer than Malone was good offensively. Obviously my opinion.

我的意思也不是說鄧肯的生涯比馬龍耐艹，我更多的是說他整個生涯一直對的球隊的貢獻巨大這方面，這讓我認為鄧肯就是第一大前。

鄧肯在防守端一直都是非常出色的，比馬龍在進攻端堅持的時間更長一些。當然這是我的個人意見。

[–]JazzJazzxGoose 8 指標 1 天前

No, Malone was a better player late into his career than Duncan. Duncan just had a really good team around him during his twilight years so he got to compete in big games more . Malone didnt have that luxury until he went to the Lakers for the final year.

並不是，生涯後期的話，馬龍要比鄧肯表現好一些。但鄧肯的生涯暮年，身邊的隊友更好了，這讓鄧肯有機會在大賽中發揮自己的餘熱。馬龍的話，直到他最後一年加入湖人前，都沒有享受過這樣的待遇。

[–][SAS] Malik RoseGolai77 10 指標 1 天前

Duncan was SA"s best player in the "15 playoffs against the Clips. The only year he was a role player was his final year, much like Malone in LA.

鄧肯在15年季後賽對上快船的時候還是馬刺發揮最好的球員吶。他唯一像角色球員的一個賽季，就是自己生涯最後一個賽季，這一點和馬龍差不多。

[–][HOU] James HardenEnterAdman 13 指標 1 天前

Fair points. I think Timmy is the GOAT PF but and argument can be made for Malone.

公平的說，我覺得鄧肯是歷史最偉大的大前鋒，但馬龍有爭一爭的資格。

[–]Spurs-Vaudeville- 1 指標 7小時前

People use 03 as Duncan"s prime because of how well he played in the Playoffs. And in the Playoffs he was absolutely better than Garnett or Malone ever were.

大家都說03年是鄧肯的巔峰，也是因為那一年他在季後賽的發揮。季後賽的鄧肯，要比加內特和馬龍出色的多。

[–]CavaliersCavs4life2016 1 指標 6小時前

Hahaha so we aretalking about 2003.

Let"s go over the numbers,

KG- 23/13.44/6/1.4/1.6 2.8 TO 54.7 TS

Duncan- 23.3/12.9/3.9/.7/2.9 3.1 TO 56.4 TS

Raw numbers are extremely similar. Duncan was more efficent, KG was significantly a better play maker despite lack of talent around his team.

Duncan was a better rim protector, Garnett was more versatile defensively.

Tim Duncan had defensive rating of 94, this is marvelous.

KG had defensive rating of 98, this is amazing.

Playoffs for that same season:

Tim Duncan- 24.7/15.4/5.3/.6/3.3 with 58% TS and 3.2 TO

KG- 27/15.7/5.2/1.7/1.7 with 54% TS and 3 TO

However KG only played against the Lakers in that playoffs,

So Duncan against Lakers:

28/11.8/4.8/.3/1.3 with 57.5 TS, and 2.3 TO

03賽季的話，我們來看看吧。

加內特，場均23分+13.44板+6助攻+1.4搶斷+1.6封蓋+2.8失誤，真實命中率54.7%

鄧肯，場均23.3分+12.9板+3.9助攻+0.7搶斷+2.9封蓋+3失誤，真實命中率56.4%

大數據上來看基本差不多。鄧肯更高效一些，加內特在球隊天賦不足的情況下串聯球隊做的極其出色。

鄧肯是一個更棒的護筐球員，加內特在防守端更全能。

鄧肯的防守效率是94，了不起的數據。

加內特的防守效率98，一樣令人咋舌。

那一年的季後賽數據

鄧肯，場均24.7分+15.4板+5.3助攻+0.6搶斷+3.3封蓋+3.2失誤，真實命中率58%

加內特，場均27分+15.7板+5.2助攻+1.7搶斷+1.7封蓋+3失誤，真實命中率54%

當然了，KG只在季後賽面對湖人打了一輪的比賽

看一下鄧肯那年季後賽面對湖人的數據吧

28分+11.8板+4.8助攻+0.3搶斷+1.3封蓋+2.3失誤，真實命中率57.5%

[–]NetsSmokee_Robinson 14 指標 1 天前

I don"t support the "rings" argument too often. But there is no way of denying it. I also think that Duncan is arguably the best "face" or human being the NBA has had, ever. There is nothing to dislike about the guy and what he accomplished in two decades. I think that alone will always keep him above Malone, at least in my eyes.

我一般不太支持「冠軍論」。但一味的去否認冠軍的加成是很不合理的。我覺得鄧肯可以說是NBA歷史上最好的門面擔當。在他生涯的20年里，沒有什麼事情、沒有任何的成就能讓你心生厭惡。光這，就能讓他排在馬龍前面，至少在我看來是這樣的。

[–]HeatIamSHLARF 7 指標 1 天前

Duncan"s personality is what allowed for the Spurs to be the team with the highest win percentage in NBA history. 20 years of dominance because his personality never let his fame and success get in the way and cloud his vision. Measuring greatness through stats is such a reductionist way of looking at it if you ask me.

鄧肯的性格讓馬刺有可能成為了這樣一支有著NBA歷史最高勝率的球隊。因為他的性格，20年的統治力帶來的成就的聲望並沒有成為他前行的絆腳石，也沒有蒙蔽他的視野。在我看來，僅僅從數據上來比較球員的偉大程度是很麻瓜的事情。

[–]RocketsTsuruta64 8 指標 1 天前

The problem with your argument basically is that you"re just talking about the regular season. If I only ranked players by how well they did in the regular season, I would say Malone>Duncan. Heck, I would probably say Malone is a top 5 player ever given his incredible consistency.

But the playoffs kind of matter, and they are Malone"s biggest weakness from a legacy standpoint. I"m not just talking rings here. I"m talking about how Malone"s stats absolutely cratered in the playoffs over and over again. I mean, on a more basic level...what is the "Holy shit, Karl kicked ass" moment in the playoffs? Duncan I can easily point to 2003 at a bare minimum, while Karl just faltered a lot.

樓主你的論點有一個問題，你只是再比較常規賽的數據。如果只是比常規賽的話，我同意馬龍＞鄧肯。考慮到他生涯的長度，甚至可以說他是歷史前五級別的球員。

但NBA還有季後賽，季後賽也很關鍵啊，而這是馬龍生涯最大的弱點。我不是在這裡鼓吹冠軍數。我要說的是，馬龍季後賽的數據比起常規賽，總是年復一年的縮水。說的再直白些，你能說出一個馬龍季後賽的經典時刻嗎？鄧肯的話我可以很輕易的把2002-2003賽季季後賽的表現拿出類，但馬龍在季後賽真的步履蹣跚。

[–]SpursThehelloman0 20 指標 1 天前

Duncan played better in the playoffs and Malone played worse.

鄧肯在季後賽更出色，而馬龍在季後賽會下滑。

[–]Spursmotivatedtech 29 指標 1 天前

Malone got worse in the playoffs and always shriveled.

Duncan got better.

That alone puts him above Malone.

馬龍一到季後賽就會萎了。

反觀鄧肯，一到季後賽就雄起。

就這一點，鄧肯就比馬龍高到不知道哪裡去了。

[–][SAS] Manu Ginobilithejuan 5 指標 1 天前

Obviously I"m biased towards Timmy, but you gotta take into account defense when you compare the two players. Malone might have a better offensive arsenal, but Timmy was better defensively. In addition, Malone"s stats went down in the playoffs, Timmy"s usually got better.

刺蜜：顯然在鄧肯的問題上我會傾向他，但真的要把防守也算進去啊。馬龍有著更好的進攻端武器庫，但鄧肯的防守更出色。再加上，馬龍季後賽數據習慣性縮水，而鄧肯一般會更出色。

[–][SAS] Tim Duncancanond08 5 指標 1 天前

Look at Duncan"s playoff win shares for 2003 and that"s all the reason you need to rank him above Malone

看看鄧肯在2003年季後賽的Winshares吧，這就是鄧肯高於馬龍的原因。

[–]cuteshyguy 11 指標 1 天前

Didnt Duncan play a large majority of his minutes at Center too?

但是鄧肯生涯大部分時間再打中鋒吧？

[–]Omniblink 8 指標 1 天前

Over 60% of his career, but in reality he was the Spurs starting Center ever since Robinson retired in "03.

大概生涯60%的時間吧，在羅賓遜03年退役後，鄧肯就是馬刺的首發中鋒了吧。

[–]Spursmotivatedtech 5 指標 1 天前

He was PF with Rasho, Splitter too

在球隊有內斯特洛維奇和斯普利特的時候，鄧肯是大前鋒。

[–][SAS] Bruce BowenAnachronym 9 指標 1 天前

Not quite. He played with Robinson, Oberto, Rasho, Splitter for most of his career, and those guys were all centers. For overall career, probably 60% PF, 40% C.

More C late in his career. More PF early.

講道理，鄧肯生涯大部分時間都和羅賓遜、奧貝托、內斯特洛維奇、斯普利特這些人在一起打球，而這些人都是全職的中鋒。所以鄧肯生涯里，大概60%的時間是大前鋒，40%的時間是中鋒吧。

[–]JazzJazzxGoose 6 指標 1 天前

Malone gets the nod in my book because he was an actual PF every single minute of his career.

Duncan was a PF/C hybrid who played mostly center in the 2nd half of his career.

爵士蜜：我投馬龍一票，他生涯每一秒都是大前鋒。

鄧肯是中鋒大前鋒搖擺人，生涯後半階段基本都是中鋒吧。

[–][SAS] Malik RoseGolai77 5 指標 1 天前

They called him GOAT PF because his prime was at PF and he did it better than anyone else.

大家認可鄧肯第一大前鋒是因為他生涯的巔峰期是大前鋒，而沒有人能在大前鋒位置上和他一較高下。

我們的公眾號：ChinaReddit，還處於成長之中~，微博：虎撲美國JRS之聲~

希望得到您更多的改善建議和支持！