Question for Jazz Fans

[tsherkin]

Hey guys,

I have a question, more of a long-standing debate.

Having grown up watching, among other teams, the Stockton/Malone Jazz, I'm of the opinion that Malone did more to help Stockton than the reverse. We all remember him hammering down low before he had serious range, getting second-chance points, taking those hi-los, etc, etc. Blah blah.

What do YOU guys remember about the way Malone played from 86 to 98? Do you think Stockton "made" Malone a lot more than what he would have been otherwise?

EDIT: Obviously, Stockton helped, durr. I'm not saying otherwise, just wanted to clarify that, but I'm asking if you think Stockton made Malone look a lot better than he really was.

[DelaneyRudd]

They would have each still been HOFers without each other.

[HammerDunk]

I personally feel that they both contributed to the success of each other pretty much equally. I can't remember seeing a duo in the league like them, in the sense that they were always on the same page and actually had the talent to achieve what they set out to do, minus getting rings. Without Malone, Stockton would never have reached his amount of assists, and without Stockton, Malone would never have gotten as many points as he did. Steals and rebounds were a huge part of their individual games, so each one was equal in that regard if you ask me.

[HammerDunk]

They would have each still been HOFers without each other.

I agree with this as well, but I don't think they would have been AS successful without each other.

I mean, look at Boozer and Williams. It seemed like they were headed in a similar path, but Boozer, being the whiny bitch that he is, is throwing that possibility away. It is amazing to me that Stock and Malone stayed along side each other for as long as they did, even with Malone's off-season BS, he ALWAYS came to play.

[JazzJuice]

Right, I agree they would have both been HOFers apart, but together they were good enough to both be mentioned in conversations about who was the greatest PG/PF of all time.

[HolyToledo]

Malone play little Defense and choked at end of games. Stockton is alltime steals leader and hit game winners. Basically wthout Malone Jazz an ok playoff team...Jazz without Stockton may not have made the playoffs. Scoring is not the only part of the game. A thing you Boozer fans dont seem to see.

[tsherkin]

Thanks for the responses, guys, much obliged. Good luck in 09/10.

[tsherkin]

Malone play little Defense and choked at end of games. Stockton is alltime steals leader and hit game winners. Basically wthout Malone Jazz an ok playoff team...Jazz without Stockton may not have made the playoffs. Scoring is not the only part of the game. A thing you Boozer fans dont seem to see.

It behooves you to remember that there are basically two clutch big men in the history of basketball; Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, because of the range and unblockable nature of his skyhook, and Hakeem Olajuwon (because of the range on his J). You can add in Dirk if you feel like calling him a big man, though because he's basically a 7' SF by style of play, I maintain that selection dubious.

Beyond that, you'll find that it is CONSIDERABLY more difficult for a big man to be clutch because guards are a lot more mobile than they are and it is way more time-consuming for a big man to go to work than a little guy, who need only take a single step back and launch a shot from wherever he may please to do so. That's why I've never bothered to rag on Malone or Garnett (or Boozer) for their end-game issues.

The Jazz without Stockton would have been Malone + parts, not a real team, and the Finals appearances against Chicago rather clearly outlined who did and did not carry those teams. Hornacek and Stockton were nowhere to be found when it mattered most, especially in '98 for Stockton, so your comments are a little off, IMO.

Now, if Malone had benefited from, say, someone like Pippen, or someone like Kobe/Wade, the way title-winning players like Jordan and Shaq have done, then maybe this is a different conversation. Perhaps if he had someone instead of Stockton like Payton, who could both play excellent (read: better than Stockton) defense AND score for himself when it counted to take the pressure off of his counterpart, then history would be different. Though it bears mention that unlike Stockton, Payton was a prickly SOB who wasn't as reliable a shooter and who used a lot of the same spaces that Malone did, so maybe that particular selection was off.

Anyway, the point is made. To reverse your point, the Jazz without Malone would have been a lot worse than the Jazz without Stockton, IMO, not that I'm indicting Stock, but merely responding to HolyToledo being crazy.

[StocktonShorts]

First, regarding Karl:

Let's not confuse Karl with Boozer. Karl was a good defender; in fact he was voted to 3 all-NBA defensive teams. Malone is the type of guy you build a championship-caliber team around. I DO think you can criticize him for choking, and big men in general. It's not like the Jazz couldn't get him the ball in one of his spots when it matters. If we're talking about end-game, clock-running-out scenarios then I'll agree with your argument, but I'd define a clutch situation as the entire length of an elimination game. And there were too many of those where Karl just faded hard.

Stockton, while a notch below one of the best PG defenders ever in Payton, still made the all-NBA defensive Second team five times. I think he could make a bunch of scrubs a playoff team and would've likely averaged 20 pts, 10 assists without a dominant scorer like Karl. While a team centered around Stockton (as much as he would allow it to be centered on him) would consistently make the playoffs, I wouldn't consider him the centerpiece like Karl was.

I think they'd both be HOFers even had they never played together. Unfortunately one of the things that made them so incredible -- their durability -- also means that many people who think of them today think of the older versions they saw: a jumpshooting, arm-flailing Malone and a step-too-slow Stockton rather than their younger counterparts.

[outerspacefella]

The Jazz without John Stockton would have never been a contender. He was the true leader of his team. Karl Malone was absolutely great, but I agree with SLoan that Stockton was a perfect player.

[FJS]

Both were unique.
Stockton gets more love, but Malone was a beast, a scoring machine, great defender, a true warrior. Malone is the best player in a Jazz uni ever. And I love and respect Stockton more, but you can deny that.

[Soul Patch]

Karl Malone was more talented, it's Stockton's intangibles that made him such a great player.

[MeestR]

i am of the opinion that stockton made malone.

if you take stockton away from malone's game, than you still have a great pf. he probably still would have been an allstar. but i highly doubt he would have the 2 mvp's and be one of, if not the greatest pf of all time.

take malone out of stocktons game, than you merely just plug and chug. he would turn a mediocre player into an allstar, or, what sloan like to do, turn a bench player into a starter. stockton may not have as many assists, but he would still be the alltime leader.

however, both were synergistic. you end up with more than just 2 all stars when you put them together. they motivated each other, by a silent competition, off the court. on the court, they somehow knew where the other was going to be, and knew where to be so the other could succeed.

[David Ginola 14]

Malone helped Stockton...
Stockton helped Malone...

[freakazoid]

Malone play little Defense and choked at end of games. Stockton is alltime steals leader and hit game winners. Basically wthout Malone Jazz an ok playoff team...Jazz without Stockton may not have made the playoffs. Scoring is not the only part of the game. A thing you Boozer fans dont seem to see.

Wow.

If you had any credibility, it would be gone now, but since you didn't, no loss.

[kane2021]

Stockton was a smart player. He saw the strengths in malones game and fed them the way any HOF PG would do. I think it helped stockton to have that type of weapon. And for malone he had a PG to make sure the ball is where he needed it to score. Got to give sloan a lot of credit here also. He maximized there talents and turned it into wins. You, like us fell victim to that MJ guy.

[qman]

IMO- I see Stockton as the more valuable. For many of the reason listed above, but most importantly Stockton was just a winner. He took and made game winning shots, passes and free throws.

Malone was a great player but he seemed to have a harder time rising to the occasion than Stock.

I guess in the end I see Stock with perfect intangibles and good physical assests. Malone has superlative physical assests with a good intangibles. I wonder if without Stock if Malone would have developed the same consistency and level of mental toughness. I am certain Stockton's game would not have changed materially.