Ringless GOAT - Paul vs Malone

[70sFan]

I think we have more mid-90s +/- numbers, though I don't have the time to find them now. I hope someone will post them here.

I think we did, for 1994, 95 and 96? Were these the numbers you were thinking of?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12wBquVtyX4RKXDFtFMLt2QvqfICO_6SCKwm3s_dkb-Q/edit#gid=0

Interestingly, Malone actually has quite a bit of (positive) separation from Stockton in 1994. Looks really good in 1994 and 1996, although Stockton was a bit higher in 1996. Also... wow, David Robinson truly was a plus minus deity, wasn't he?

Yeah, that's the sheet I was talking about. Thank you, as always!

[Owly]

I think we have more mid-90s +/- numbers, though I don't have the time to find them now. I hope someone will post them here.

I think we did, for 1994, 95 and 96? Were these the numbers you were thinking of?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12wBquVtyX4RKXDFtFMLt2QvqfICO_6SCKwm3s_dkb-Q/edit#gid=0

Interestingly, Malone actually has quite a bit of (positive) separation from Stockton in 1994. Looks really good in 1994 and 1996, although Stockton was a bit higher in 1996. Also... wow, David Robinson truly was a plus minus deity, wasn't he?

Yeah, that's the sheet I was talking about. Thank you, as always!

Done with rookie to 93 versus Philly I discussed above (tilts heavily pro-Stockton but much smaller sample)
Cumulatively Stockton and Malone on-off per 48
vs 76ers through 93 plus 94-96 Stockton: 10.12111492
vs 76ers through 93 plus 94-96 Stockton: 11.56766594
Noisy, could be read different ways ... if you extrapolated the versus 76ers to whole seasons for rookie to 93 (even regressing Stockton back, because he's a monster in that sample) you'd get Stockton as the clear leader; if you don't like versus one team as representative and ignore that then Malone opens up a gap for the 94-96 window.

[Owly]

Saying you're comparing their career on/off is dubious considering the majority of Karl's career is very much not there. As Owl said you arguably cited 3 of Karl's best season in an already shortened sample size.

Not the first time you cherry picked the best seasons from Karl Malone.

They're the only seasons available. With entire prime he'd look better.

For the reason you note [they were the only seasons easily available] I would not say it was cherry-picking. As noted above, the sample you gave for Malone is above his career norms in production (and further above younger Malone) so whilst we cannot be certain either way, it seems odd to assert with confidence (but no supporting evidence) that the earlier sample would look better.

From the above post it is hard to draw any strong conclusions (data is per 48m, rather than per 100 pos for a start) and would depend on interpretation of versus 76ers data.

[migya]

Saying you're comparing their career on/off is dubious considering the majority of Karl's career is very much not there. As Owl said you arguably cited 3 of Karl's best season in an already shortened sample size.

Not the first time you cherry picked the best seasons from Karl Malone.

They're the only seasons available. With entire prime he'd look better.

For the reason you note [they were the only seasons easily available] I would not say it was cherry-picking. As noted above, the sample you gave for Malone is above his career norms in production (and further above younger Malone) so whilst we cannot be certain either way, it seems odd to assert with confidence (but no supporting evidence) that the earlier sample would look better.

From the above post it is hard to draw any strong conclusions (data is per 48m, rather than per 100 pos for a start) and would depend on interpretation of versus 76ers data.

Malone throughout his prime until 96 surely is better than post 2001.

[Owly]

They're the only seasons available. With entire prime he'd look better.

For the reason you note [they were the only seasons easily available] I would not say it was cherry-picking. As noted above, the sample you gave for Malone is above his career norms in production (and further above younger Malone) so whilst we cannot be certain either way, it seems odd to assert with confidence (but no supporting evidence) that the earlier sample would look better.

From the above post it is hard to draw any strong conclusions (data is per 48m, rather than per 100 pos for a start) and would depend on interpretation of versus 76ers data.

Malone throughout his prime until 96 surely is better than post 2001.

I have already alluded to box number, including ones I think you are arguing for elsewhere, as well as accolades, that suggest Malone was better on average in the later window than full career average and thus a larger advantage on earlier career Malone.

I'm not sure whether you're just restating an opinion with "surely" in but no evidence or are trying to shift the topic by using "throughout his prime" (edit: and post 2001) to perhaps cut out the first two or three years of Malone's career (edit: and compare what's left to the weaker part of Malone's later career). Regardless, my point stands.

[jdzimme3]

I think the better question is paul or stockton. Give me stockton for all the obvious reasons.

[rk2023]

I think the better question is paul or stockton. Give me stockton for all the obvious reasons.

I don't see any obvious reasons upon putting basketball reference aside and watching the two play; aside from maybe an injury riddled season (like 2010) I would take all of 2008-2017 Paul > Stockton at his very best (maybe some seasons after that). The longevity gap doesn't outweigh this, as Paul isn't bad in this regard himself.

[No-more-rings]

Emphasis on Peak play and shorter prime play [5 or 10 year] really gives CP3 an edge.

Sure. But it's more shaky than it should be given Cp's nagging and oftentimes untimely injuries through his prime and career.

And how big the peak gap really even is can be disputed. In 2 of the last 3 peak projects, Paul went just 4 spots ahead and in one of them only one spot.

Longevity and Career value favor Malone.

By a pretty good margin, yes.

Good arguments can be made.

Eh, again. There's a good argument for peak and prime, career gets tougher.

This is what Paul is up against.

2 time mvp
14 time all star
11 all nba 1st teams
2 all nba 2nd teams
3 all nba defensive 1st teams

Both career and postseason averages of roughly 25/10, led two teams to the NBA finals, along with many other WCF appearances as the team's best player.

I probably don't need to tell you these things of course, but it may just be what you see as a good argument and I do are different in this particular comparison.

Paul's resume is pretty loaded too obviously, but I don't think it quite stacks up. Even though he's a better player in a vacuum, I don't think it materialized into having a better career.

But I also have Malone in the teens all time, so it's high praise.