RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #17 (David Robinson)

[trex_8063]

as for the stockton argument, i totally agree he absolutely cannot be in the top 30 or even top 35 if malone is going to be in the top 20.

stockton over dwade in the last project just seems like a terrible misapplication of "longevity" over peak results. stockton could still be playing today and i wouldn't put him over dwade. one guy can throw a team on his back and be an alpha on a championship for like 5 healthy playoffs (but his supporting cast wasn't good all 5 years) and could still be the second best player on other championships for a few other years while the other guy is just proving that slow and steady does not win the race in the nba.

The second paragraph here speaks to a differences in philosophy. You're free to value a "peak over longevity" principle, but you can't mandate others do the same; just as I can't mandate "career value above replacement and/or CORP over peak" on to you.

By the latter philosophy(ies), even calibrating for seasons played (to avoid the "fringe All-Star for 50 years being GOAT" conundrum), longevity ends up being pretty important.


The first statement appears [I could be wrong] to speak to the general notion that "if they were that good, they would have won more".
To that, I want to point out that they did anchor some REALLY good teams; teams that win the title a lot of years in NBA history.

If you've not read through Sansterre's Top 100 Teams project, it's well worth the time to start at #100 and work your way down. His methodology is consistent and carries reasonable validity; and he's an excellent writer [I thought]. Each instalment was fun/interesting to read.

Anyway, I bring that up to note that the '96 Jazz are ranked as the 35th-best team of All-Time there; and the '97 Jazz are the 64th-best all-time. But the '96 squad just happened to lose in 7 games to the 75th-best team of all-time; though even if they’d won, they had in their way the 2nd-best team of all-time; meanwhile the '97 squad had to face the 14th-best team ever.
Ironically, what was only the 3rd-best Stockton/Malone anchored team (the '98 squad) is perhaps the one that came the closest to winning a title, as I've said coming two blown shotclock calls (which COULD NOT HAPPEN today, because they now allow replay review) kept them from most likely winning game 6, and then having a game 7 at home with Pippen injured. That '98 Bulls team was ranked as the 19th-best team of all-time, too, btw.

So that's THREE legit title-worthy teams they anchored together. And while there was Stockton and Malone, and Hornacek was an excellent third wheel/"Alfred" (and Russell and Ostertag were OK(ish) starter-level guys at best [they were a nice fit]), I want to illustrate that the bench on the '97 squad was actually kinda awful. They managed the 64th-best team of all-time with a near-crap bench (because that "big three" was just that good).

I posted about it at length in response to a poster a few years ago who was trying to sell that that squad had like SIX of the best bench players in the league. Below was my reply (I've clipped out his portions, so as not to publicly call out):

Spoiler:

I haven’t had a chance to reply till now, but I have been sort of mulling it over, as well as studying the question and re-watching some of the ‘97 Finals. I was perhaps mildly harsh on a couple of Jazz players, but not to the degree that the above is right (even remotely so).

I’m all for differing opinions [it’s sort of what keeps the forum going], but I’ll be frank, this^^ post is sort of bizarre; and by bizaare I mean inaccurate to the point that I worried that you’re merely trolling. This concern is perhaps augmented by the fact that you made no attempt at all to substantiate your opinions (merely stating your opinion in authoritative language [“so and so is this”, as opposed to “I think so and so is this”] and with confidence [as though it’s a foregone conclusion that doesn’t require qualifying] does not act as substitute for evidence, nor make your statement true).

Substantiation is not required only when it’s a truly obvious statement. If I were to say “Michael Jordan was pretty good at basketball”, that doesn’t really require qualifying; we can take that as a given. However, if I were to say “Charles Oakley was better than Charles Barkley”, THAT would certainly require a hefty chunk of evidence and sound [“sound” meaning logical, reasoned, connected to reality, and at least in SOME small way: measureable] argumentation to convince anyone that I wasn’t trolling.

Which brings me to your above post. There’s some of it that is perhaps merely hyperbole, but other parts that are flat false (and demonstrably so, which I’ll take a deep dive into below). To a partial degree, I already DID demonstrate some of this as false even prior to your post. That you STILL posted it is part of what has left me sort of incredulous.

I’ll offer a lukewarm apology for being so brutally candid, but when I---for example---allude to some weaknesses/short-comings of a specific player, express a generally low opinion of him which I then back up with a broad-strokes statistical review: noting he had a 9.7 PER, looks kinda bad via other composite metrics, AND had the 8th-worst RAPM in the league [that is: 417th out of 424 players].......and then you reply [straight-faced and presumably non-sarcastically], yeah what a fantastic player to have off the bench, one of the best at his position that ANY team had coming off the bench......you can hopefully see where one would be suspicious he’s being trolled.

I mean, ONE of three things is happening: either 1) you’re conflating or confusing some of these players in ‘97 with the players they used to be in prior years (or the one’s they would eventually become in future years); 2) you’ve [for reasons unknown to the rest of us] latched on to an idea with an unwarranted degree of veracity which you’re now vocalizing without bothering to investigate its validity at all (fwiw, an effort to provide substantiating evidence might have made it clear that the idea was more than a touch erroneous before making the statement in the first place); or 3) intentional trolling.


I don’t expect you to bend or alter course, but for the benefit of anyone else reading, I’ll lay out the case for why the above post is grossly in error.

For starters----since you’ve stated that the ‘97 Jazz had not one, but FOUR (in another place you indicated SIX) players who were “one of the best in the league off the bench [at their positions]”......

.....I’ll note that there is not a single Jazz player who received a single vote for 6th Man of the Year. Four (or six?) who were “one of the best”, and yet not one out of 115 voters cast a single vote for any of them. There were 11 players who received at least one 6MOY vote (6 “wings”, 5 “bigs”); despite the Jazz apparently having TWO of the the best bench wings and [apparently] THREE of the best bench bigs (plus one of the best bench PG’s), none of them got a single vote.

Never one to put a great deal of stock in media-voted accolades, I’m going to quickly move on to the more nuanced meat of my arguments. But I will say this arguably undermines your post right off the bat. At the very least it probably indicates your choice of language was a pinch exaggerated.
But let’s move on, taking a closer look at individual players…..

Chris Morris (*and insinuations about the bench as a whole)
I guess I could put the question to you, what do you think he did so well this year that makes him “one of the best wings any team had coming off the bench”?
I’ll grant you Morris can be a tricky one, because ‘97 Chris Morris doesn’t well-align to my general memory of him (or indeed: to the rest of his career). I remember him being a better player (which was why in my original post I sort of allude to some confusion as to why he underperformed this year [since there doesn’t appear to be an injury explanation]); and the record would indicate he generally WAS a better player in basically any other year. But we’re not talking about any other year; this thread pertains specifically to ‘97.

If you take a close look, ‘97 is a bizarre outlier year [not in a good way] for Chris Morris. As has been mentioned [twice], he had a PER of 9.7: the worst of his career by far; the 2nd-worst PER of his entire career was 14.4.
It is also his career-worst WS/48 (a metric which, theoretically, should be “boosted” by playing for a 64-win team), his career worst BPM (by a notable margin), and his career worst net rating [ORtg-DRtg] (again, despite these being something curved toward team result, too, so should be aided by playing on the best team of his career).
And as if all this isn’t enough, I’ll again note he was 417th (out of 424) in NPI RAPM this season.

Fun fact: Chris Morris’s rs net on/off in ‘97 was -35.0. That’s in 977 minutes played. I’ll be honest, I’ve never seen a figure like that except for garbage players with infantismal samples (of 29, 11, or 44 minutes played). Have never seen it for someone who actually has a significant sample of minutes.
*And where this gets interesting in terms of implications or insinuations about the Jazz bench at large, is that Morris was one of the only bench players who played the majority of his minutes with [mostly] other bench players. He almost always had John Stockton in the line-up with him, though, because Stock was the guy tasked with keeping things afloat when the 2nd unit was in (more on this later). But he otherwise only sporadically got time with Malone on the court (and even less with Hornacek). The vast majority of his minutes were with John Stockton, Shandon Anderson, and any two of the non-Malone bigs on the roster [Antoine Carr the one most commonly a part of the line-up].
And when this Jazz team had [mostly] bench player Morris/Stockton-included line-up, they were getting outscored by >20 pts per 100 possessions.

That right there begs the question: if this bench was so special, why is it that when you put them on the court, they can’t even remotely stay afloat even against rs opponents [and, presumably, often the 2nd units of these rs opponents]?
And if Morris, specifically, is such a special bench player, why is it that with him AND Stockton on the court with other [per your assertion] excellent bench players, they in fact can’t even manage to be a -20 net rating team?

All of this undermines the notion that this was a special bench, or that Morris in particular was a special bench player.

One can try to hide behind “well that’s just stats, basketball is more than stats” and “eye-test” arguments; but the latter is basically code for “I don’t have an argument that goes beyond ‘because I say so’”, and sort of meaningless on the PC forum because basically EVERYONE here has an eye-test on the player he’s speaking about. And as to the former, to be taken seriously one eventually needs to come up with something beyond a “because I say so” argument. Again, otherwise anyone can say any silly thing (Charles Oakley was better than Charles Barkley). At some point one has to put his money where his mouth is and provide SOMETHING to validate his opinion.

Individual or cherry-picked stats always have flaws and biases. But when ALL stats and ALL impact indicators are at odds with what you’re saying; when there is literally NOTHING that corroborates your opinion (when there’s literally NOTHING that comes even remotely close to corroboration)…...at that point you really should be thinking this is perhaps not a good hill to dig in and die on.

We can go a bit further on Morris and take a closer look at specific skillset aspects of his game, looking more closely at what he did well or not well this season……

To my “eye-test” he does still strike me as a fair/decent defensive forward in ‘97. Certainly not any kind of “stopper”, All-D calibre, or big impact defender; but perhaps not bad either, imo. And again, he’s a respectable [though not elite] rebounding wing.

But otherwise…...in this particular year [which again: was a clear outlier for him], he’s not doing anything else at an even respectable [much less “good”] level.
He’s scoring at a below avg rate, AND at -5.0% rTS (despite only sporadically sharing the floor with a primary scorer [e.g. Malone or Hornacek] whom he’d have to defer to, AND while playing essentially ALL of his minutes with an elite-level playmaker [Stockton]).

His poor efficiency is further unusual because he’s actually right on mark with modern ideal shot distribution: almost all of his attempts are either <3 ft or outside the 3pt line. But he just couldn’t hit shots worth a damn from either area this year: he only converted 47.8% of his attempts at the rim [which is awful], and [despite this being the last year with the shortened line] he hit just 27.4% from 3pt [also awful].
He also had the worst FTAr of his entire career, and then only hit 72.2% at the line when he did get there. It all culminates with the lowest TS% of his career, while also scoring the lowest volume.
He’s additionally not a playmaker: he never was, but in this particular year he’s averaging a [tied for career-worst] 2.3 ast/100 possessions [this is <2 ast per 36 min] with an Ast:TO ratio <1), and commits an average 4.5 PF per 36 minutes (another career worst).

To his credit his level of play did improve in the playoffs (and particularly in the finals); but even based solely on playoff sample, one can’t qualify the “one of league’s best” statement. His improvement was mostly by way of a slightly increased rebounding rate, marginally increased steal rate, and managing 32% from behind the arc in the playoffs (though he also fell to 60% at the FT-line). Additionally, this improvement in his rate output is in a decreased minute-load: a mere 8.75 mpg, in fact (we’re talking about a sample size of 175 minutes for the whole playoffs). It’s hard to credit someone as “one of the best” at anything when he’s a <9 mpg player (and was still a -17.4 net on/off in the playoffs, fwiw; box composites still indicating basically replacement-level or barely above, too).

So….I’m sorry, but no: this is not one of the best bench wings in the league, not even close. No matter where you choose to [cherry-pick] place your focus, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is a remotely accurate statement.


Howard Eisley
I may have been mildly harsh toward him in my prior post---and he’s certainly a better back-up than Chris Morris was this year----but one of the best back-up PG’s in the league? Hmm, probably not (pending just how many spots we’re included when we say “one of”).

He’s perhaps not even the 3rd-best back-up PG in the WC that year. Terry Porter in Minnesota is comfortably better (this is something corroborated by basically everything, so I’m not going to linger here). Except for the missed games, Nate McMillan in Seattle was comfortably better. And again if not for injury and playing only 20 games, Brent Price (HOU) was better. Those guys at the least; and that’s without even looking at the EC.

I’ll credit Eisley with a few things, though…..
For one, he’s a passable defender [not necessarily good, but not bad].
For two, he has a lot of responsibility placed on him. He subbed pretty exclusively for John Stockton, and when he was in he wasn’t permitted a fringe role in the offense: he was tasked with initiating the halfcourt offense, with running the pnr…..basically with being Stockton’s “substitute”, in the truest sense of the word. And while there are some things he did reasonably well----for instance he wasn’t terrible at getting into the interior of the defense, and when he did opportunistically get to the rim he was a decent finisher (64%)---in other ways it’s clear he was sort of in over his head in this role: evident by lots of turnovers.

But there’s not necessarily another role he’s suited to. It’s not like you can cast him in a spot-up shooter role: he was a mediocre mid-range shooter (38.2% from 10-22 ft) and a poor 3pt shooter (27.8% this year).

So let’s look at how poor his turnover economy was. I don’t really make any use of TOV%, because the ONLY inputs are true shooting attempts and turnovers; so it’s really only of any use if comparing players of pretty much the exact same role.
I constructed my own formula, which starts the the formula for TOV% [which is as follows]:

Tov / (TSA + Tov)

…..but then adding in consideration of other circumstances wherein one might commit a turnover (most notably: playmaking). With a little input from others, I’m tentatively going with the following:

Tov / (TSA + Tov + (2.33 * Ast) + (0.04 * TRebs))

The modifier on Ast is based on the assumption that for every pass that results in an assist there is likely AT LEAST one other completed potential assist-pass for which the passer does not accrue an assist (either because the teammate misses the shot, gets fouled, or perhaps drops the pass). It was made a little >2 also based on the [admittedly imperfect] assumption that higher assist outputs are generally coming from players with increased ball-handling responsibilities (and turnovers can sporadically occur within that context, too).
The small consideration on rebounds works on the observation that a turnover will occasionally be committed immediately after a rebound (whether it’s an errant outlet pass, or getting stripped in traffic immediately after the board); the modifier assumes this occurs roughly once for every 25 rebounds (realistically, it might be marginally more frequent than that, though increasing the modifier to 0.05 or 0.06 doesn’t change the outcome much, fwiw).

I call this Modified TOV%; it can be used a little more broadly for player comparisons: more or less suitable [or pretty close] for comparing any players of same position (e.g. 2 PG’s, 2 wings, 2 bigs, etc), almost regardless of role within that position [because it is considering their turnovers in light of their overall output].

‘97 Howard Eisley’s mTOV% is 11.93%. This is an almost astronomically high figure for a PG. I haven’t run every player thru this formula, but to date I have not identified a PG with a higher mTOV% than this. The closest one I’ve found is ‘99 Charlie Ward (11.52%).

Guards/wings whom we typically think of as having bad turnover economies, such as James Harden or late-career Pete Maravich don’t touch this: Harden’s worst single-season mTOV% is 10.26% (in ‘17), and his career mark is 9.42%; ‘78-’80 Maravich is 10.18%.

Some guard/wing examples of elite-level career mTOV% are Muggsy Bogues (5.98%), Michael Jordan (6.54%), Steve Kerr (5.60%), Chris Paul (5.94%), John Paxson (5.34%), Wesley Person (6.22%), and the outlier elite [so far] Monte Morris (3.75% [his career Ast:TO ratio so far is 5.45]). Again, those are CAREER figures for those individuals, not a cherry-picked best year…...just to give an idea how far off of that Eisley is in this season.

Put another way: if you search for all seasons in the 3pt era (‘80 to present) for guards who averaged less than 18.5 pts/100 @ <53.5% TS, less than 9.75 Ast/100, and greater than 5.3 Tov/100, but who were still given >13 mpg (and eliminate all paltry sample-sizes, let’s say anything <20 games played)........we’re left with just 11 player-seasons in the last 41 years. One of them is ‘97 Howard Eisley. His company in this are guys like ‘98 John Crotty, ‘01 Mateen Cleaves, ‘89 Frank Johnson, rookie Eric Bledsoe, rookie Randy Livingston, ‘89 Michael Anderson, ‘81 Eddie Jordan, post-injury Jamal Tinsley, and ‘11 Johnny Flynn (who washed out of the league within three years).
To be fair, I think ‘97 Eisley was better than most [if not all] of these guys. But just pointing it out.

Eisley’s rs on/off was -7.8, which almost exactly mirrors Stockton’s on/off [in the other direction], since he was very nearly the exclusive sub for Stockton [and no one else]. But it’s not as though a mere 7.8/100 is the difference between him and Stockton, because Eisley mostly got to play with the other starters while Stockton was frequently tasked with carrying the 2nd unit:
The most common line-up Eisley took the floor with was with the other four starters [him in place of Stockton]; ALL of his four most common line-ups (and five of the top six) were with all three of Malone/Hornacek/Russell (and then one of the bigs). With Stockton, otoh, the 4th, 5th, and 9th most common line-ups contained NONE of the other starters, and four of the top nine most common line-ups contained none of Malone/Hornacek/Russell; a further two of the most common line-ups contained Malone, but none of the other starters.
Eisley’s full season RAPM was -1.98.

So anyway, this one isn’t as off as calling Morris one of the best bench wings in the league. There’s room, at least, to call Eisley a fair/passable back-up PG. But there’s not much [anything?] to support calling him “one of the best”; certainly not yet in ‘97 (he does improve in all ways in ‘98).


Shandon Anderson
This post is getting remarkably long, so I’ll try to be more brief for these last few points….

Again I’ll note that Anderson makes strides forward as a player [in almost all ways] in his sophomore season. But there’s not much to support the notion that he’s one of the best bench wings in the league. What does he do so well to call him that?

Like Morris, he’s a fair defensive player (although a bit foul-prone), and a decent rebounding wing. He otherwise scores below league-avg volume on mediocre shooting efficiency (his post game would be much better in ‘98, and he also only shoots 68.7% from the line this year). He doesn’t have much of a handle, and has a terrible turnover economy (mTOV% of 13.13%, which is the worst single-season mTOV% I’ve yet found for ANY guard or wing, btw).
Like Morris, he does improve marginally in the playoffs (mostly by way of a reduced turnover rate), but still.


Greg Foster
Serviceable? OK, perhaps. “One of the best”? How is that a defensible statement?

Foster was a good mid-range shooter (and 83% at FT-line too), but was a terrible finisher near the rim (like seriously terrible, finishing just 44.6% from <3 ft).
He wasn’t afraid to be physical and played with hustle and intensity, I’ll give him that. But he was also a poor athlete (other than being 6’11”), and had a kinda low bball IQ. That, combined with his intensity sometimes left him a bit out of control, and he consequently had a high turnover rate, and an extremely high foul rate.
Was a decent post defender, though again foul-prone (and btw, the ability to commit fouls is not really a skill). He wasn’t a rim protector, nor a particularly good rebounding big, and sort of hit or miss in terms of rotational team defense.

In broad strokes (which I already kinda touched on): 8.4 PER, -5.3 BPM, .054 WS/48, and was 412th (out of 424) in NPI RAPM (was -18.3 net on/off in rs, -16.3 in the playoffs).

There is simply NOTHING to suggest this is a good (much less “one of the best”) bench player. “Serviceable” is as generous as one can go with any sort of intellectual honesty.


Antoine Carr
Definitely one the best [if not the best] bench player for the Jazz. But “one of the best in the league” is once again stretching things. He was a fair/decent scorer (fair/decent, nothing more), and he did provide some rim protection, though tbh was a bit eager for the block, which made him very foul-prone (was re-watching some of the ‘97 Finals, and actually watched him leave his feet biting on a pump fake from outside the arc by Dennis Rodman). I realize that’s just one play, but it’s SO bone-head that it does undermine the overall impression of his defensive IQ (which I never thought was stellar anyway).

The broad strokes on Carr: 12.1 PER, .079 WS/48, -3.1 BPM, -1.65 RAPM (-14.5 net on/off in rs, -21.6 in playoffs), -3 net rating.

Again, just absolutely nothing to support this “one of the best in the league” impression.


Re: them out-performing other benches (particularly the Lakers in the playoffs)
This is at best only partially correct [they did thoroughly outplay the Clipper bench in the 1st round, for example]; but otherwise, and in particular against the Lakers in ‘97 it’s misleading [or wrong]. While the Jazz bench was perhaps a little better defensively, it’s otherwise no contest in the Jazz/Laker WCSF (5 games) from that year:

Jazz bench: 103 pts @ 52.3% TS, 42 reb, 22 ast, 18 tov.
Laker bench: 128 pts @ 56.9% TS, 44 reb, 26 ast, 20 tov.

So the Laker bench was outscoring them by an avg of +5 per game on notably better efficiency, as well as being +0.4 rpg, +0.8 apg, and just +0.4 topg in the balance.

The Jazz bench was played to a stand-still, if not slightly out-played, in both the finals and the WCF, too….

Jazz bench: 124 pts @ 52.7% TS, 59 reb, 28 ast, 19 tov.
Bulls bench: 129 pts @ 51.7% TS, 54 reb, 31 ast, 15 tov.

Jazz bench: 132 pts @ 49.4% TS, 68 reb, 18 ast, 24 tov
Rockets bench: 119 pts @ 55.4% TS, 50 reb, 23 ast, 12 tov

fwiw....

[lessthanjake]

I would have to agree. Karl Malone is usually pushed by the longevity crowd but Dirk was a great player for a very long time. This must mean that a lot of the Karl Malone crowd thinks they are roughly equal or Karl is better on the court.

I have a hard time buying that but I would love to hear opinions because I am really low on Karl Malone.

This is a bit of a crude measure, but I’ll just note the following:

Karl Malone was top 8 in MVP voting for 14 straight seasons. And over those 14 years, his average MVP placement was 4.57. Dirk was only top 8 in MVP voting in 7 seasons in his career. And Dirk only had 3 seasons in his career in which he placed higher in MVP voting than Karl Malone averaged over 14 years.

I think there’s a good argument that the esteem in which Karl Malone and Dirk were held when they played was materially different, with Karl Malone being thought of substantially more highly. It doesn’t mean Karl Malone has to be ranked more highly here, but I do think there’s a significant hurdle for Dirk to climb to overcome that.

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

I wouldn’t really call Dirk a “playoff monster.” People seem to forget that, prior to 2011, he was regarded as a bad playoff performer. I don’t know that that reputation was truly deserved, but the notion that he’s a “playoff monster” was essentially built upon one playoff run. And it’s a playoff run that I think Malone’s Jazz would’ve stood a good shot at making too, given how great they played in the playoffs in the late-90’s (the two best three-year playoff rNetRTG’s in history for a non-champion). Of course, I’ve long said we can’t judge players based on hypotheticals, so the reality is that Dirk won a title as the #1 guy and Karl Malone did not. And that weighs significantly. It also weighs significantly that, at least in box terms (but IMO not really team success terms), Malone dropped more in the playoffs than Dirk even when we leave aside 2011. But all I’m saying is that there really is a significant RS gap for Dirk to make up. Is the aforementioned stuff enough for Dirk to make up that gap? Not for me, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable if it does for someone else.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction tallies:

Robinson - 12 (HBK, OaD, beast, Doc, DGold, Samurai, trelos, ltj, iggy, OSNB, speel, cupcake)
Dirk - 8 (rk, hcl, AEnigma, f4p, Dr P, Ohayo, Clyde, falco)
Karl - 2 (trex, Joao)
Erving - 1 (ShaqA)

Robinson wins majority.

David Robinson is Inducted at #17.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Karl Malone
Nominate: Steve Nash

So you know, I'm only counting votes with reasoning in them.

[70sFan]

This is a bit of a crude measure, but I’ll just note the following:

Karl Malone was top 8 in MVP voting for 14 straight seasons. And over those 14 years, his average MVP placement was 4.57. Dirk was only top 8 in MVP voting in 7 seasons in his career. And Dirk only had 3 seasons in his career in which he placed higher in MVP voting than Karl Malone averaged over 14 years.

I think there’s a good argument that the esteem in which Karl Malone and Dirk were held when they played was materially different, with Karl Malone being thought of substantially more highly. It doesn’t mean Karl Malone has to be ranked more highly here, but I do think there’s a significant hurdle for Dirk to climb to overcome that.

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

I wouldn’t really call Dirk a “playoff monster.” People seem to forget that, prior to 2011, he was regarded as a bad playoff performer. I don’t know that that reputation was truly deserved, but the notion that he’s a “playoff monster” was essentially built upon one playoff run. And it’s a playoff run that I think Malone’s Jazz would’ve stood a good shot at making too, given how great they played in the playoffs in the late-90’s (the two best three-year playoff rNetRTG’s in history for a non-champion). Of course, I’ve long said we can’t judge players based on hypotheticals, so the reality is that Dirk won a title as the #1 guy and Karl Malone did not. And that weighs significantly. It also weighs significantly that, at least in box terms (but IMO not really team success terms), Malone dropped more in the playoffs than Dirk even when we leave aside 2011. But all I’m saying is that there really is a significant RS gap for Dirk to make up. Is the aforementioned stuff enough for Dirk to make up that gap? Not for me, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable if it does for someone else.

To the bolded - do you think it is? To me, there is nothing outside of 2007 suggesting that Dirk underperformed in the postseason and 2007 sample is significantly smaller than 2011.

[Colbinii]

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Karl Malone
Nominate: Steve Nash

So you know, I'm only counting votes with reasoning in them.

Sounds good. I'll make a post in the next thread [Been traveling, still traveling but stationary for the next few days in Charleston, SC]. I don't think my vote changed the outcome any ways.

[Colbinii]

This is a bit of a crude measure, but I’ll just note the following:

Karl Malone was top 8 in MVP voting for 14 straight seasons. And over those 14 years, his average MVP placement was 4.57. Dirk was only top 8 in MVP voting in 7 seasons in his career. And Dirk only had 3 seasons in his career in which he placed higher in MVP voting than Karl Malone averaged over 14 years.

I think there’s a good argument that the esteem in which Karl Malone and Dirk were held when they played was materially different, with Karl Malone being thought of substantially more highly. It doesn’t mean Karl Malone has to be ranked more highly here, but I do think there’s a significant hurdle for Dirk to climb to overcome that.

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

I wouldn’t really call Dirk a “playoff monster.” People seem to forget that, prior to 2011, he was regarded as a bad playoff performer. I don’t know that that reputation was truly deserved, but the notion that he’s a “playoff monster” was essentially built upon one playoff run.

The idea that what the Media thought of Dirk has bearing for what he actual should have been viewed isn't an argument worth standing on. If this is the hill you want to keep standing [and dying] on, by all means, do so, but it has been disproven that Dirk was this playoff choker again and again in this thread.

And it’s a playoff run that I think Malone’s Jazz would’ve stood a good shot at making too, given how great they played in the playoffs in the late-90’s (the two best three-year playoff rNetRTG’s in history for a non-champion). Of course, I’ve long said we can’t judge players based on hypotheticals, so the reality is that Dirk won a title as the #1 guy and Karl Malone did not. And that weighs significantly. It also weighs significantly that, at least in box terms (but IMO not really team success terms), Malone dropped more in the playoffs than Dirk even when we leave aside 2011.

Yup--Malone dropped more in the box-score than Dirk, Stockton didn't drop as much and carried much of the teams impact on his shoulders.

But all I’m saying is that there really is a significant RS gap for Dirk to make up. Is the aforementioned stuff enough for Dirk to make up that gap? Not for me, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable if it does for someone else.

Regular Season gap isn't big.

Malone (1990-2000, 11 seasons): 5.6 OBPM, 106.6 OWS [.152 OWS/48], 215.7 TS+/Year [2371 TS+]
Dirk (2001-2011, 11 seasons): 5.3 OBPM, 108.5 OWS [.161 OWS/48], 175.2 TS+/Year [1927 TS+]

Post-Season gap is bigger.

Malone (1990-2000, 11 seasons): 4.8 OBPM, 10.5 OWS [0.090 OWS/48], 53.3 TS% [Down from 59.2 TS%, -5.9 TS%]
Dirk (2001-2011, 11 seasons): 5.7 OBPM, 17.0 OWS [.159 OWS/48], 58.4 TS% [Up from 58.2 TS%, +0.2 TS%]

Now, these are similar caliber offensive players [By the Box Score, which is where I assume you are getting "Malone is much better in the RS] in the regular season, but come playoffs, these two players are extremely far apart.

When we look at why Malone struggled in the post-season, at first glance, you may be thinking FTR, but that wasn't actually the case. Where Malone's game struggled in the post-season was simply scoring from the Field. His FG% drops from 53% in the RS to 47% in the PS. That's a massive drop.

Dirk, on the other hand, see's a minor dip in FG% [51% eFG% in RS, 48% eFG% in PS] but his FTR sky-rockets, from just 38% in the RS to 47% in the PS. This single-handedly shows that Dirk can essentially be RS Malone in the PS [Comparing FTR here] against great defenses while Malone simply struggles.

Here are the main, basic principals/points I would put forth for Dirk.

-Dirk has a skill-set that could scale up in the post-season, Malone didn't.
-Dirk was able to prove he could be successful in the post-season with a co-star [Nash] and two separate collectives as supporting casts, Malone always had Stockton.
-The Regular Season Primes are similar, the Post Season Primes are not similar [heavily slanted in Dirk's favor].
-I don't really care about how the media perceived these players [MVP Votes, Regarded as a playoff failure, ect]

Now, maybe you want to spend more time breaking down the below and try to explain or rationalize certain aspects, but before you do, please note Dirk is extremely resilient and consistent against any defence--Malone isn't.

If you want to play the longevity card, just note Dirk had a 5.0 OBPM season at age 35 while Malone had one at age 37 [But Malone did have a larger impact footprint through his age 37 season--although it is hard to parse through because he spent most of his minutes with Stockton].

Dirk Nowitzki (2001-11):

RS: 37.4 mpg, 8.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.0 tov, 24.3 ppg on 47.9% FG, 38.5% 3FG, 88.2% FT and 58.6% TS (+5.43% rTS)
Against Bad Defenses (4.03% of playoffs games): 42.4 mpg, 11.8 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.2 tov, 26.6 ppg on 45.0% FG, 46.7% 3FG, 85.7% FT and 56.1% TS (+4.53% rTS)
Against Average Defenses (48.39% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.5 tov, 27.4 ppg on 46.7% FG, 39.1% 3FG, 88.4% FT, 59.4% TS (+6.08% rTS)
Against Good Defenses (19.35% of playoffs games): 40.6 mpg, 9.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.5 tov, 25.8 ppg on 46.8% FG, 45.9% 3FG 94.5% FT and 57.8% TS (+4.38% rTS)
Against Elite Defenses (28.23% of playoffs games): 41.1 mpg, 10.6 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.0 tov, 23.4 ppg on 45.5% FG, 29.3% 3FG, 88.4% FT and 57.4% TS (+4.41% rTS)
Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --

Karl Malone (1989-01):

RS: 37.9 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 3.0 tov, 26.9 ppg on 52.6% FG, 75.9% FT and 59.1% TS (+5.98% rTS)
Against Bad Defenses (3.50% of playoffs games): 39.8 mpg, 12.6 rpg, 1.6 apg, 2.8 tov, 26.6 ppg on 46.1% FG, 83.0% FT and 54.2% TS (+1.81% rTS)
Against Average Defenses (33.57% of playoffs games): 41.0 mpg, 11.1 rpg, 3.0 apg, 3.0 tov, 28.6 ppg on 47.9% FG, 78.9% FT, 55.5% TS (+2.58% rTS)
Against Good Defenses (21.68% of playoffs games): 41.6 mpg, 11.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.9 tov, 26.5 ppg on 43.7% FG, 80.5% FT and 52.5% TS (-0.79 rTS%)
Against Elite Defenses (41.26% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 11.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.7 tov, 25.4 ppg on 46.8% FG, 67.0% FT and 51.5% TS (-1.56% rTS)

[lessthanjake]

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

I wouldn’t really call Dirk a “playoff monster.” People seem to forget that, prior to 2011, he was regarded as a bad playoff performer. I don’t know that that reputation was truly deserved, but the notion that he’s a “playoff monster” was essentially built upon one playoff run. And it’s a playoff run that I think Malone’s Jazz would’ve stood a good shot at making too, given how great they played in the playoffs in the late-90’s (the two best three-year playoff rNetRTG’s in history for a non-champion). Of course, I’ve long said we can’t judge players based on hypotheticals, so the reality is that Dirk won a title as the #1 guy and Karl Malone did not. And that weighs significantly. It also weighs significantly that, at least in box terms (but IMO not really team success terms), Malone dropped more in the playoffs than Dirk even when we leave aside 2011. But all I’m saying is that there really is a significant RS gap for Dirk to make up. Is the aforementioned stuff enough for Dirk to make up that gap? Not for me, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable if it does for someone else.

To the bolded - do you think it is? To me, there is nothing outside of 2007 suggesting that Dirk underperformed in the postseason and 2007 sample is significantly smaller than 2011.

Well, as I indicated, I don’t know that I think the reputation was fully deserved. I think people definitely had a bit of a reaction to the Mavs having kind of choked the 2006 Finals and then coming back the next year and losing to an 8th seed in the first round. But even before that, the Mavs were seen as a bit of playoff lightweights, though I’m not sure that was totally fair (they’d typically lost to some genuinely good teams).

More generally, I think we can look at box stats and say Dirk was a better playoff performer than Karl Malone, but it gets a bit complicated when we try to see how that translated to team success. The Mavericks made the conference finals only three times (compared to five for the Jazz). They only even got out of the first round 7 times (compared to 9 times for the Jazz). If the Jazz had won one of those two finals, they’d have clearly had more playoff success than Dirk’s Mavericks. And that’s despite the Mavericks and Jazz being essentially equal in terms of how good they were in the regular season (where there seems to be general agreement that Malone was the better performer). So it doesn’t feel to me like Dirk’s advantage in individual playoff performance/box-numbers actually translated much to superior playoff team success. If Karl Malone was the better RS performer and Dirk was the better playoff performer, and yet their teams were essentially equally good in the regular season, then we’d expect the Mavs to have done much better in the playoffs than the Jazz. It didn’t really happen. Instead, the only real difference is just that the Mavs won in 2011, but I find it hard to weigh that *super* highly, given that the 1997 Jazz had to face a 10.7 SRS team in the finals (far better than any team the 2011 Mavs faced) and played them close. It’s hard for me to be super convinced that one player is better than another because he won a Finals with a +2.8 net rating against a 6.76 SRS team, while the other guy lost a Finals with a -0.8 net rating against a 10.70 SRS team. It’s a positive for sure, but the context makes me not weigh it super highly in this comparison.

Of course, I think one counterpoint to the above is perhaps that the Mavs were in a loaded conference so they weren’t getting that far because they were facing great teams. But that wasn’t always true (see, for instance, 2007). And the Jazz beat some really good teams, and when they lost it was typically to really good teams. In the 14 years starting in 1990, the Jazz only lost to 4 teams that had an SRS below 6.36, and 2 of those 4 teams were the eventual champions (and another was above 5.50 SRS). And, in their careers, the Mavs only beat 1 more team that had above a 5.00 SRS than the Jazz did (which would make them equal in this regard if the Jazz had pulled off one of those Finals—again, that’s really the difference in team playoff results).

I just find it hard to weigh superior playoff performance all that highly when it didn’t really result in all that much more playoff team success on teams that were equally good in the regular season (especially when that equally-good-in-the-regular-season occurred with the other guy being a better RS performer, so you’d expect the team results to flip significantly if the opposite were true in the playoffs). There’s a lot of stuff that box numbers don’t account for. Is the argument going to be that Stockton was a big playoff riser that made up for the fact that the gap between Malone and Dirk totally flipped in the playoffs? Or maybe the gap didn’t flip as much as box numbers might make it seem.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

This is a bit of a crude measure, but I’ll just note the following:

Karl Malone was top 8 in MVP voting for 14 straight seasons. And over those 14 years, his average MVP placement was 4.57. Dirk was only top 8 in MVP voting in 7 seasons in his career. And Dirk only had 3 seasons in his career in which he placed higher in MVP voting than Karl Malone averaged over 14 years.

I think there’s a good argument that the esteem in which Karl Malone and Dirk were held when they played was materially different, with Karl Malone being thought of substantially more highly. It doesn’t mean Karl Malone has to be ranked more highly here, but I do think there’s a significant hurdle for Dirk to climb to overcome that.

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

I wouldn’t really call Dirk a “playoff monster.” People seem to forget that, prior to 2011, he was regarded as a bad playoff performer. I don’t know that that reputation was truly deserved, but the notion that he’s a “playoff monster” was essentially built upon one playoff run. And it’s a playoff run that I think Malone’s Jazz would’ve stood a good shot at making too, given how great they played in the playoffs in the late-90’s (the two best three-year playoff rNetRTG’s in history for a non-champion). Of course, I’ve long said we can’t judge players based on hypotheticals, so the reality is that Dirk won a title as the #1 guy and Karl Malone did not. And that weighs significantly. It also weighs significantly that, at least in box terms (but IMO not really team success terms), Malone dropped more in the playoffs than Dirk even when we leave aside 2011. But all I’m saying is that there really is a significant RS gap for Dirk to make up. Is the aforementioned stuff enough for Dirk to make up that gap? Not for me, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable if it does for someone else.

Perception doesn't equal reality. The first round exit in his MVP season gave people fuel to push the very weak "soft euro choker" label. Even that first round exit typically lacks context when talked about. Nelson being the former mavs coach knew Avery's gameplan as well as dirk's current weaknesses better than anyone. The warriors were a bad matchup on top of that for them and did go on to win 48 games the following season with a similar roster.

When you actually look at dirk's playoff performances over the course of his career he was very good. Especially in the 3 postseasons leading up to 2011 where his teammates had some truly awful shooting performances. Dirk played great and lost to better teams as a result.

[Joao Saraiva]

I find this kind of vote to be problematic. If Mailman and Stockton were round top 16 and top 22 of all-time, then why didn't they accomplish more? For many years they were kicked out of the playoffs by very meh teams. I say that as someone who has been supporting Malone. It's Stockton who I have problem with. His case is based on overemphasis on advanced stats IMO. The MVP voting during his career does not suggest n MVP type of rating, and that's the sort of players we should be considering here.

There's more than two players on a team.

That's the main point and what I've have to say doesn't directly address the second question (and perhaps not the bigger picture). It doesn't alter Stockton or Malone's performance levels, either.
However as T-Rex has noted '98 Finals G6 features two objectively wrong clock calls that - if one holds all else equal - would swing the game and give the Jazz a fair chance to claim the title (Scottie's back isn't looking in a good way, it's on the Jazz home court). Obviously this doesn't mean it's a sure thing. One ring may or may not alter perceptions. For the narrative driven "through MJ" might help quite a lot.

I don't want to talk about the 5 point swing, as it obviously "hurts" as a Jazz fan.

To sum it up:
- Stockton and Malone didn't peak at the same time. Stockton was at his best in the late 80s and early 90s while Malone developed into a more reliable #1 option later in the 90s;

- Utah didn't have good depth for most of the time, and casts that were kind of meh. Yes we added Horny at some point and it helped but things didn't go right ultimately in the two finals we got into;

- Stockton and Malone had success. The continuos good/great RS runs along with some deep playoff runs fall a bit short on what the Spurs did, but it's not a lot diferent overall when he think of a team being consistently good. Ultimately we didn't win a ring, and sometimes I can fault Malone for that or Stockton, but in other runs they displayed at all time level. It's not like it was a James Harden type of collapse every time;

- We ran into better teams and we still provided a great fight. Took LA to 7 in 88 and Stockton actually outplayed Magic Johnson. We lost some competitive series years later and ultimately we did lose against one of the best teams ever in the 97 Bulls - altough I can fault Malone for that one. In 98 we could have won but G6 just didn't go our way for a lot of reasons.

I wonder what diferent type of perception we would have on Malone and Stockton if MJ's shot didn't go in and we eventually beat them in G7 or something.

I believe Stockton and Maloen were great for a long long time, unfortunately the apex was not a ring for several reasons that I don't think fall into them completely.

But feel free to vote otherwise.

[Joao Saraiva]

Spoiler:

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

I wouldn’t really call Dirk a “playoff monster.” People seem to forget that, prior to 2011, he was regarded as a bad playoff performer. I don’t know that that reputation was truly deserved, but the notion that he’s a “playoff monster” was essentially built upon one playoff run. And it’s a playoff run that I think Malone’s Jazz would’ve stood a good shot at making too, given how great they played in the playoffs in the late-90’s (the two best three-year playoff rNetRTG’s in history for a non-champion). Of course, I’ve long said we can’t judge players based on hypotheticals, so the reality is that Dirk won a title as the #1 guy and Karl Malone did not. And that weighs significantly. It also weighs significantly that, at least in box terms (but IMO not really team success terms), Malone dropped more in the playoffs than Dirk even when we leave aside 2011. But all I’m saying is that there really is a significant RS gap for Dirk to make up. Is the aforementioned stuff enough for Dirk to make up that gap? Not for me, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable if it does for someone else.

Perception doesn't equal reality. The first round exit in his MVP season gave people fuel to push the very weak "soft euro choker" label. Even that first round exit typically lacks context when talked about. Nelson being the former mavs coach knew Avery's gameplan as well as dirk's current weaknesses better than anyone. The warriors were a bad matchup on top of that for them and did go on to win 48 games the following season with a similar roster.

Idk how it compares against others but I think Dirk is actually one of the guys that did rise his game in the playoffs, both scoring and rebounding wise. That 1st round loss really gave him an unfair reputation, and it's funny how people hang on to one series. It's kind of the opposite of Iverson who seems like a god because of a good 2001 campaign while never being relevant again in his career in the playoffs.

When you actually look at dirk's playoff performances over the course of his career he was very good. Especially in the 3 postseasons leading up to 2011 where his teammates had some truly awful shooting performances. Dirk played great and lost to better teams as a result.

[Joao Saraiva]

What a mess with quoting but oh well