Okay so now you've got a system whereby a consensus MVP is worth three seasons of the (consensus) 2nd best player. Or with a unanimously ordered top 5, your weighting prefers having guy number 1 to having all of 2-5. Together. All of them. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no season in NBA history where I would rather have the top player than all of the next four, not one.
If you go by trade value, then many seasons you would trade the 1 player for the 2 and maybe 10 or 15. So is that the right value for 1?
When picking someone has best players over 64 seasons, a top 5 season is only in the top 320- doesn't carry a real lot of weight in picking a number 16.
If you take mvp seasons and add rpoy where they differ you get probably less than 100. Moses has 3 of these
Jim Naismith wrote:What if we weighted the votes in a 6 : 2 : 1 : 0.6 : 0.4 ratio instead?
Okay so now you've got a system whereby a consensus MVP is worth three seasons of the (consensus) 2nd best player. Or with a unanimously ordered top 5, your weighting prefers having guy number 1 to having all of 2-5. Together. All of them. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no season in NBA history where I would rather have the top player than all of the next four, not one.
I don't think the system is meant for you to aggregate across multiple players, just multiple years.
Old system says: 7 years of peak Jordan = 10 years of peak Malone
New system says: 1 year of peak Jordan = 3 years of peak Malone
I was working on a marathon post, but realistically there's no way I'm going to finish it today so I'll just cut this piece off and throw it to the room. My question is, stylistically, what was the difference between Malone and Robinson on offense? Skill-set wise, what advantages did one have vs. the other?
It occurred to me while watching some old Malone video, how much of his offensive game was predicated on his awesome physical ability. He was 6-9, built like a brick house, fast, and had excellent hands. Early in his career, that alone was worth 20+ points on fast breaks, finishes off the catch in traffic, put-backs and pick-and-roll finishes. His passing ability and mid-range jumper developed more over time, but early in his career he did a lot of his scoring just by being a beast. He had a few low-post moves, but nothing very advanced and most relied on either out-strengthing or out-quicking his opponent off of 1-or-2 dribbles.
Robinson was a 7-1 athletic freak. He wasn't quite as strong as the Mailman, but he was longer, faster, and still ripped. He, too, had great hands and touch around the rim. He also had more ability to play above the rim. His post-game wasn't overly refined either, but I think he had at least as many (maybe a few more) post moves than Malone, even if they were a bit mechanical. He also relied on out-quicking his opponents off the dribble, and IMO had a better first step than Malone. And while he didn't over-power opponents down low, his length let him finish over people better than Malone.
Here are their actual offensive numbers again from their primes, but what I'm looking for is a sense for what one could do that the other couldn't and vice versa. Both early in their careers, and later on. Anyone who remembers watching them and/or folks that've been scouting videos have any insights on this?
Box Score stats: Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 5 ast, 4 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 4 ast, 3.9 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO
batmana wrote:I am still undecided here and I'm starting to consider George Mikan already. Am I the first/only one?
Out of the rest, I am having a hard time separating Karl Malone, Dirk and Moses and I'll probably go with one of these three or Mikan. The thing that I am trying to stay consistent with is not punishing players for playing in a different era. I'll try not to bring portability since it's a moot point and all speculation anyway. But still there is the question of whether Mikan was truly dominant or simply outmatched his opponents, almost like playing against high-school kids or something. I'll have to read a bit more about this early era before deciding how to handle this.
I don't think I start even looking at Mikan until Moses is in. Moses was the dominant player in the league for about 3 years (not as dominant as Mikan but in a tougher league) and they played a similar style dependant on brute strength and athleticism. Then I could see comparing Mikan to Ewing, Howard, or Gilmore who are my next three centers after the Admiral and Moses.
Yup. There have been some people within this project railing on the 60's as a "soft" era (which I don't entirely agree with). But where the BAA days and early 50's are concerned, I think there can be little doubt that it was a relatively soft era (tbh, quite dramatically so compared to anything from the late 80's on). **So that's a definite strike against Mikan for me. And then there's his longevity (which admittedly is very circumstantial, so actually I don't hold that too much against him).
**NOTE: It wouldn't be too much of a strike against him if I thought his dominance could easily translate across eras. But the fact is, I'm highly skeptical of that. I do think he could play in any era, and even be a legit All-Star in multiple eras.....but I question if he could be a true franchise player in a modern context (or perhaps even any context outside of the late 40's/early 50's).
Speaking for myself, Mikan doesn't really come into the conversation until we're getting at least somewhat close to #30 (like penbeast said: in the vicinity of Ewing and Gilmore for me).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Jim Naismith wrote:What if we weighted the votes in a 6 : 2 : 1 : 0.6 : 0.4 ratio instead?
Okay so now you've got a system whereby a consensus MVP is worth three seasons of the (consensus) 2nd best player. Or with a unanimously ordered top 5, your weighting prefers having guy number 1 to having all of 2-5. Together. All of them. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no season in NBA history where I would rather have the top player than all of the next four, not one.
I don't think the system is meant for you to aggregate across multiple players, just multiple years.
Old system says: 7 years of peak Jordan = 10 years of peak Malone
New system says: 1 year of peak Jordan = 3 years of peak Malone
Which do you prefer?
In as much as it represents any relative value (i.e. would anyone trade...) it should be valid by any measure. And if it doesn't compare across multiple players, why are you using it to compare players. So far as I can tell, the original measure wasn't meant to be used as either. I think it was meant (a) like this project to discuss and inform and (b) to rate the players in their specific years. The cumulative shares thing seems to be an afterthought, and like any accolade is dependent upon context (see: Moses' near unanimous PotY's weren't over any greats at their peaks). If it were meant to be comparable over different years than it would have been the rate the peaks project, except instead of peaks it would have been player-seasons (i.e. not just one year eligible for each player).
But you explicitly speak of it as a bartering system whereby equivalence of value should be found. I don't think there is a universal (across time) ideal set of weights for that and I'm not sure it would be fruitful exercise trying to find one. But given you are expressly speak of exchanging you're talking about them as units of value and if they are that, then they should work just as well with multiple players in one season.
So actual system doesn't say any season is worth any amounts of seasons from another player (though for what it's worth Jordan more than doubles Malone's career PotY shares). But yours does seem to suggest Moses is worth roughly 2.5x David Robinson, or Robinson and Dirk together. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's a sensible method of player comparison.
I was working on a marathon post, but realistically there's no way I'm going to finish it today so I'll just cut this piece off and throw it to the room. My question is, stylistically, what was the difference between Malone and Robinson on offense? Skill-set wise, what advantages did one have vs. the other?
It occurred to me while watching some old Malone video, how much of his offensive game was predicated on his awesome physical ability. He was 6-9, built like a brick house, fast, and had excellent hands. Early in his career, that alone was worth 20+ points on fast breaks, finishes off the catch in traffic, put-backs and pick-and-roll finishes. His passing ability and mid-range jumper developed more over time, but early in his career he did a lot of his scoring just by being a beast. He had a few low-post moves, but nothing very advanced and most relied on either out-strengthing or out-quicking his opponent off of 1-or-2 dribbles.
Robinson was a 7-1 athletic freak. He wasn't quite as strong as the Mailman, but he was longer, faster, and still ripped. He, too, had great hands and touch around the rim. He also had more ability to play above the rim. His post-game wasn't overly refined either, but I think he had at least as many (maybe a few more) post moves than Malone, even if they were a bit mechanical. He also relied on out-quicking his opponents off the dribble, and IMO had a better first step than Malone. And while he didn't over-power opponents down low, his length let him finish over people better than Malone.
Here are their actual offensive numbers again from their primes, but what I'm looking for is a sense for what one could do that the other couldn't and vice versa. Both early in their careers, and later on. Anyone who remembers watching them and/or folks that've been scouting videos have any insights on this?
Box Score stats: Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 5 ast, 4 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 4 ast, 3.9 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO
Karl's style of play (I believe what you refer to as skill-set) made his offense appreciably more valuable (even in his younger days when his jumper wasn't what it was later in his career). His go-to moves were more efficient and his more varied style of scoring made the times when defenses keyed on/studied him (ie playoffs) less of a factor (you see this with the bigger drop-off in volume/efficiency for D-Rob relative to Karl). He's clearly a better passer/playmaker, and he drew a lot more double teams. With David, typically your guards had to be the ones to at least get the defense to start shifting before he's able to get a good look or a foul. Karl was just as capable as his guards in initiating productive offensive sequences. That's why, even when neither guy is shooting particularly well, Karl was able to achieve more "global lift" in relation to his team's offense.
I wouldn't say one was really a better transition player than the other, the gap between David and other centers isn't materially smaller than the gap between Karl and his PF contemporaries. Honestly, David might actually have the slightly bigger edge there (transition offense though, is the least important facet of a guy's efficacy, they're kind of random and the "reproducibility" of those opportunities aren't really tied to a player's individual offensive ability).
Honestly, these relative flaws are born out pretty clearly in their head-to-head matchups (where Karl slaughtered David) if you wanted to pull up some game-tape before casting a definitive vote.
David's case is defensive anchor-age and strictly that. Karl's edge on the offensive end is sizable.
I was working on a marathon post, but realistically there's no way I'm going to finish it today so I'll just cut this piece off and throw it to the room. My question is, stylistically, what was the difference between Malone and Robinson on offense? Skill-set wise, what advantages did one have vs. the other?
It occurred to me while watching some old Malone video, how much of his offensive game was predicated on his awesome physical ability. He was 6-9, built like a brick house, fast, and had excellent hands. Early in his career, that alone was worth 20+ points on fast breaks, finishes off the catch in traffic, put-backs and pick-and-roll finishes. His passing ability and mid-range jumper developed more over time, but early in his career he did a lot of his scoring just by being a beast. He had a few low-post moves, but nothing very advanced and most relied on either out-strengthing or out-quicking his opponent off of 1-or-2 dribbles.
Robinson was a 7-1 athletic freak. He wasn't quite as strong as the Mailman, but he was longer, faster, and still ripped. He, too, had great hands and touch around the rim. He also had more ability to play above the rim. His post-game wasn't overly refined either, but I think he had at least as many (maybe a few more) post moves than Malone, even if they were a bit mechanical. He also relied on out-quicking his opponents off the dribble, and IMO had a better first step than Malone. And while he didn't over-power opponents down low, his length let him finish over people better than Malone.
Here are their actual offensive numbers again from their primes, but what I'm looking for is a sense for what one could do that the other couldn't and vice versa. Both early in their careers, and later on. Anyone who remembers watching them and/or folks that've been scouting videos have any insights on this?
Nice break-down of what they were good at.
Agree Robinson had a better first step for taking players off the dribble. I remember him having a monster face-up game in that regard. Though I guess I wonder if part of that is simply perception as Robinson was generally being guarded by centers (who--with the exception of Hakeem and maybe Dikembe---might be marginally less mobile than the PF's guarding Malone).
In that video clip from '01 WC1stRd All-90's Decade posted, there's one clip of nearly-38-year-old Karl Malone blowing by 22-year-old Dirk Nowitzki on the baseline. Not that Dirk's overly quick, but nor was he slow for a PF at 22. By the mid-90's at least I also feel Malone had become very savvy about facing up and getting people to bite just a little on a shot-fake, and using that to get around them. Overall, though, I still probably rate DRob's first step a hair better.
By the second half of his career, I'd definitely have to rate Malone's mid-range game better than Robinson's. My recollection is also that Malone was a little better at bullying his way into deep low-post position for the entry pass. There's a few instances in that same video from '01 WC1stRd, where he (seemingly easily) just bulls Calvin Booth out of the way to catch the entry pass literally right underneath the hoop---with Booth halfway sealed away from the basket (i.e. not even between Malone and the hoop).
I know Robinson was able to do similar as well; just not sure I remember it happening quite as often.
By late in his career I recall Malone having a little bit more of an arsenal of weapons, particularly the little jump-hook or floater in the middle of the lane and the turnaround J being two shots that I don't remember Robinson developing to a very significant degree.
I'd rate Malone as having the better vision and passing, too.
The things I'd rate Robinson significantly better at were offensive rebounding and---as you noted---playing above the rim (which probably makes him the better finisher overall).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Okay so now you've got a system whereby a consensus MVP is worth three seasons of the (consensus) 2nd best player. Or with a unanimously ordered top 5, your weighting prefers having guy number 1 to having all of 2-5. Together. All of them. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no season in NBA history where I would rather have the top player than all of the next four, not one.
If you go by trade value, then many seasons you would trade the 1 player for the 2 and maybe 10 or 15. So is that the right value for 1?
When picking someone has best players over 64 seasons, a top 5 season is only in the top 320- doesn't carry a real lot of weight in picking a number 16.
If you take mvp seasons and add rpoy where they differ you get probably less than 100. Moses has 3 of these
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
"a top 5 season is only in the top 320" A top 5 season is only in the top 320 what? Player seasons? Assuming all years neatly split the top player seasons with 5 in each. You can't create a sensible comparable value based PotY, it wasn't meant to compare across eras, that's why it's a player of the year. You look at each year in context. Which is why, as I've already explained it's a poor comparative measure to start off with because you're using it for something it wasn't meant for (at most it's an interesting, possibly supportive reference).
For what it's worth, a top 5 season (Do you mean 5th place? Because 1st is a top 5 season?) can be of great value. Hence by previous point, any team would much rather have 2-5 over just 1. But are you saying 5th place seasons are of very little value? That they are overvalued by the present weights? As I have noted I don't think these are meant for cross era comparisons or equal value based comparisons. And I don't think they are. But even if I did and meant to diminish those finishing 5th as one among 320, that's not what Jim's system does.
Actual PotY Project Weights (as a proportion of "One Whole" given out each year). 0.384615385; 0.269230769; 0.192307692; 0.115384615; 0.038461538 0.6; 0.2; 0.1; 0.06; 0.04 and the difference between them .... 0.215384615 -0.069230769 -0.092307692 -0.055384615 0.001538462
A fifth place vote getter gets very marginally more of the "available points" by this system. It just slashes away at the value of being second (or one among 128, with a large chunk of that 128 already given the number of 1st and 2nd place finishers already gone) and third best and to a lesser degree fourth, to give to first.
Moses has a case around here based on how he played. But this is an absurd charade using arbitrary linear weights on what are already opinions (and ranking opinions, which in this format couldn't offer any nuance so even if you think a margin is tiny, all you get from it is 1st, 2nd) and shifting them about to a favoured candidates best advantage.
batmana wrote:I am still undecided here and I'm starting to consider George Mikan already. Am I the first/only one?
Out of the rest, I am having a hard time separating Karl Malone, Dirk and Moses and I'll probably go with one of these three or Mikan. The thing that I am trying to stay consistent with is not punishing players for playing in a different era. I'll try not to bring portability since it's a moot point and all speculation anyway. But still there is the question of whether Mikan was truly dominant or simply outmatched his opponents, almost like playing against high-school kids or something. I'll have to read a bit more about this early era before deciding how to handle this.
I don't think I start even looking at Mikan until Moses is in. Moses was the dominant player in the league for about 3 years (not as dominant as Mikan but in a tougher league) and they played a similar style dependant on brute strength and athleticism. Then I could see comparing Mikan to Ewing, Howard, or Gilmore who are my next three centers after the Admiral and Moses.
Yup. There have been some people within this project railing on the 60's as a "soft" era (which I don't entirely agree with). But where the BAA days and early 50's are concerned, I think there can be little doubt that it was a relatively soft era (tbh, quite dramatically so compared to anything from the late 80's on). **So that's a definite strike against Mikan for me. And then there's his longevity (which admittedly is very circumstantial, so actually I don't hold that too much against him).
**NOTE: It wouldn't be too much of a strike against him if I thought his dominance could easily translate across eras. But the fact is, I'm highly skeptical of that. I do think he could play in any era, and even be a legit All-Star in multiple eras.....but I question if he could be a true franchise player in a modern context (or perhaps even any context outside of the late 40's/early 50's).
Speaking for myself, Mikan doesn't really come into the conversation until we're getting at least somewhat close to #30 (like penbeast said: in the vicinity of Ewing and Gilmore for me).
Curious on how you think mikan would do in each decade from the 60's and on
Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
Dirk outplayed Malone? Malone had bad FG% but Dirk had same problems (40%FG) Malone was better scoring, rebounding, passing and stealing. In the 5th game Dirk was horrible, even Nash. Finley was the man. And the last shot was scored by Calvin Booth...
Dirk outplayed Malone? Malone had bad FG% but Dirk had same problems (40%FG) Malone was better scoring, rebounding, passing and stealing. In the 5th game Dirk was horrible, even Nash. Finley was the man. And the last shot was scored by Calvin Booth...
Malone had amazing numbers for being 37, you could even use this comparison as a point in his favor.
They both had .8 blks per game. I don't consider the steals a big advantage, but Malone was slightly better I agree.
Why I thought Dirk outplayed him was how efficiently Dirk got his points despite both having bad FG%.
Malone: .484 TS% 16.2 GmSc 97 Ortg 107 Drtg 3.8 Turnovers per game Dirk: .588 TS% 16.3 GmSc 121 Ortg 105 Drtg 1.6 Turnovers per game
Dirk was more efficient with less turnovers, with better team ratings in the game. You could argue those O and Drtgs are team influenced with other Mavericks playing well, or that Dirk was more impactful that series.
It's debatable (I'm missing game film from the entire series so I could definitely be wrong here), but I think Dirk was better right now and had a stronger team impact with his presence. (again Karl was 37 though, but Dirk was also 22)
Wow, great game. Thanks for posting. I kept expecting the Sixers to give that game away, they were trying so hard to lose for those last 6 minutes. Hersey Hawkins looks like he was really good. Seems strange that he was traded so many times. Was that an outlier good game for him?
Some things that jumped out to me about Barkley: I haven't heard of him having a reputation as a great passer, but he had some really nice assists in that game. There were a couple plays where he had some impressive two-man work with Gminski, and he found open shooters extremely quickly after snagging offensive rebounds. And wow, those rebounds . I didn't notice him as a huge liability on defense, and he at least gave a few hard "no-layups" fouls. He also had some very boneheaded turnovers when pressured. Of course, I'm not going to draw any real conclusions from a single game.
Do we have more evidence that Barkley is a significantly better shot-creator than Dirk? I think that Dirk's assist numbers underrate his ability to create for his teammates. Barkley looks better in the assist column - can we say there is a gap there? He also averages about 1 more TO per game than Dirk over their careers. Perhaps his shot creation came with a trade-off in dangerous passes.
Yeah I stumbled upon that game and I'm glad I did and could share, it was great.
Hawkins was a nice player, when he changed teams his role changed and it reduced his offense in deference for Larry Johnson and Alonzo as a Charlotte Hornet. But he looks like a very good offensive player and great floor spacer for a good passer like Barkley.
Barkley looks like a great passer and the best in the group we're discussing. I personally think with passing, offensive rebounding and better efficiency, Barkley was a better offensive player than Dirk.
But it's been the toughest comparison for me right now, as Barkley doesn't look worse than Dirk defensively from what I've seen. He blocks shots slightly below Dirk despite his size and his a better stealer and Def. rebounder. Dirk usually guarded the lowest offensive threat at his postion, I dont' know if Barkley got hidden as much on defense.
I think Dirk's offense can't fully be captured in stats since he is a huge mismatch. Even at 22, other team's PFs couldn't guard him because he brings your 4 so far out of the basket or blows by him. If you put a smaller wing player on him they can't even contest his shot due to being 7ft with that fadeaway. I think he warps the defense more than Barkely at the moment, but it seems Barkley creates better.
I don't know. The more I see Dirk, his combined offense & defense might have been more impactful than Malone's defensive advantage since Malone wasn't a true def. anchor and Dirk had such an effect on teams.
But Barkley's def might be comparable vs Dirk because Dirk was often surrounded by defensive players and as far as I can tell Barkley was around more offensive oriented teams. He would also guard guys like Karl Malone, while Dirk wouldn't.
Barkley also has the best DRB% of the group, including over David Robinson and Moses Malone.
What is this "Dirk was usually on the floor with a great defensive unit" stuff I keep reading? Is it like a running joke I'm unaware of?
Most of the players on the Nash/Finley/Dirk Mavericks (2001-2004) couldn't guard a chair, Dirk actually looks to be one of the best defenders on that team (literally watching game 5 of the 2001 WCSF right now -- as an unrelated side note it's pretty trippy how similarly Pop uses Matt Bonner now compared to how he used Danny Ferry back then). In his MVP contention years (2005-2007) he had Marquis Daniels, Josh Howard, and Eric Dampier. This is what could be construed as above average defensive support, even bordering on pretty good, but it doesn't come close to a "great defensive unit."
It's like people are taking the 2011 Mavericks and extrapolating this over the course of his entire career. Is the collective memory that short-term? Do you guys see Eric Dampier and Shawn Bradley (lol) as DPOY-caliber players or something? What gives?
Most of Charles' defensive issues were regular season issues. He's still clearly a worse defender than Dirk in the playoffs but when the games mattered he put the effort in on that end.
D Nice wrote:What is this "Dirk was usually on the floor with a great defensive unit" stuff I keep reading? Is it like a running joke I'm unaware of?
Most of the players on the Nash/Finley/Dirk Mavericks (2001-2004) couldn't guard a chair, Dirk actually looks to be one of the best defenders on that team (literally watching game 5 of the 2001 WCSF right now -- as an unrelated side note it's pretty trippy how similarly Pop uses Matt Bonner now compared to how he used Danny Ferry back then). In his MVP contention years (2005-2007) he had Marquis Daniels, Josh Howard, and Eric Dampier. This is what could be construed as above average defensive support, even bordering on pretty good, but it doesn't come close to a "great defensive unit."
It's like people are taking the 2011 Mavericks and extrapolating this over the course of his entire career. Is the collective memory that short-term? Do you guys see Eric Dampier and Shawn Bradley (lol) as DPOY-caliber players or something? What gives?
Most of Charles' defensive issues were regular season issues. He's still clearly a worse defender than Dirk in the playoffs but when the games mattered he put the effort in on that end.
Can you show some evidence when Dirk was a good defensive player against a significant offensive player?
Bradley did provide rim protection and I may be wrong, but I think other players guarded tough defensive assignments for Dirk.
If you can show a series or some games where he wasn't hidden and impacted the game defensively I might legitimately vote for him (in a runoff if we have one).
I don't like posting footage of an individual game and acting like that speaks to macro trends (it's lazy), but if all you're looking for is some kind of anecdotal evidence watch the game I'm watching. He's not being "hidden," he's clearly having the highest impact of any Dallas defender on the floor with his mobility, height, and length (in a way Barkley never really does). His top-tier defensive rebounding skills are on display too. Sometimes he's switched to avoid getting into serious foul trouble, but that's not something unique to Nowitski, it's called (intelligent) game management (and it's mostly when Nelson is playing that obnoxious big lineup with Howard, Dirk, and Bradley all out there simultaneously).
I just caution you to avert your eyes any time Michael Finley touches the ball. It's ugly. Considering the stakes, probably the worst game of his career.
And, uh, Shawn Bradley was really tall. Shawn Bradley also had trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. When Shawn Bradley plays, it looks like one of the players has cement in his socks. That's not an impact defender.
For the '05-'07 teams, Damp, eh, you've got something there. Probably a top 8-10 defensive center in his prime. Diop was one hell of a defensive backup too. 0 Argument for him having any kind of defensive support on the '01-'04 squads though.
I was working on a marathon post, but realistically there's no way I'm going to finish it today so I'll just cut this piece off and throw it to the room. My question is, stylistically, what was the difference between Malone and Robinson on offense? Skill-set wise, what advantages did one have vs. the other?
It occurred to me while watching some old Malone video, how much of his offensive game was predicated on his awesome physical ability. He was 6-9, built like a brick house, fast, and had excellent hands. Early in his career, that alone was worth 20+ points on fast breaks, finishes off the catch in traffic, put-backs and pick-and-roll finishes. His passing ability and mid-range jumper developed more over time, but early in his career he did a lot of his scoring just by being a beast. He had a few low-post moves, but nothing very advanced and most relied on either out-strengthing or out-quicking his opponent off of 1-or-2 dribbles.
Robinson was a 7-1 athletic freak. He wasn't quite as strong as the Mailman, but he was longer, faster, and still ripped. He, too, had great hands and touch around the rim. He also had more ability to play above the rim. His post-game wasn't overly refined either, but I think he had at least as many (maybe a few more) post moves than Malone, even if they were a bit mechanical. He also relied on out-quicking his opponents off the dribble, and IMO had a better first step than Malone. And while he didn't over-power opponents down low, his length let him finish over people better than Malone.
Here are their actual offensive numbers again from their primes, but what I'm looking for is a sense for what one could do that the other couldn't and vice versa. Both early in their careers, and later on. Anyone who remembers watching them and/or folks that've been scouting videos have any insights on this?
Box Score stats: Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 5 ast, 4 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 4 ast, 3.9 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO
Karl's style of play (I believe what you refer to as skill-set) made his offense appreciably more valuable (even in his younger days when his jumper wasn't what it was later in his career). His go-to moves were more efficient and his more varied style of scoring made the times when defenses keyed on/studied him (ie playoffs) less of a factor (you see this with the bigger drop-off in volume/efficiency for D-Rob relative to Karl). He's clearly a better passer/playmaker, and he drew a lot more double teams. With David, typically your guards had to be the ones to at least get the defense to start shifting before he's able to get a good look or a foul. Karl was just as capable as his guards in initiating productive offensive sequences. That's why, even when neither guy is shooting particularly well, Karl was able to achieve more "global lift" in relation to his team's offense.
I wouldn't say one was really a better transition player than the other, the gap between David and other centers isn't materially smaller than the gap between Karl and his PF contemporaries. Honestly, David might actually have the slightly bigger edge there (transition offense though, is the least important facet of a guy's efficacy, they're kind of random and the "reproducibility" of those opportunities aren't really tied to a player's individual offensive ability).
Honestly, these relative flaws are born out pretty clearly in their head-to-head matchups (where Karl slaughtered David) if you wanted to pull up some game-tape before casting a definitive vote.
David's case is defensive anchor-age and strictly that. Karl's edge on the offensive end is sizable.
Interesting. My recollection doesn't seem to match yours, especially for their early careers. By the mid-late 90s Malone had developed his jumper and improved his passing, so I could see him creating added value there. But before that, I don't at all remember a decisive advantage for Malone as far as efficiency or varied styles of scoring. That, in fact, was one of the things that I always felt was a weakness about Karl's game...his LACK of varied scoring. Karl had a variety of ways to get open in the paint while moving without the ball. Of course there was the roll after a pick; he was also good at cutting without the ball; he was excellent at using his body to bully his man into disadvantageous positions, and he had great hands. So I remember an awful lot of Malone's buckets coming from him getting into the paint, receiving a good entry pass, and him finishing strong.
What I remember a lot less of is the ball coming to Malone in any kind of iso, with him then making a move to either create an easy shot for himself or his team. Obviously it happened sometimes, but the ratio of times that happened vs times he was finishing off a set-up in the paint is very low in my memory. I did a bit of You-tubing after reading your message, and (in my brief perusal) I didn't see much that deviates from my memory. I watched a Malone highlight video from (I believe) game 4 of the '94 series with the Spurs, and what I saw from Malone's scoring was a lot of what I described above. The main difference was that he had developed his jumper by then, and he had a few set-shot jumpers from the mid-range out to the 3-point line and he hit one turnaround as well. Other than that, though, I was primarily seeing hiim get good position on Rodman, receive a pass and finish.
That recollection is actually what sparked me to bring this up, because before Malone built up that jumper, it seems to me that Robinson's offensive attack looked a lot like Malone's. The difference being, as I mentioned, that Robinson was finishing vertically while Malone was powering through. I also did a short bit of You-tubing on Robinson, and if anything I had forgotten a bit just how explosive of a leaper he was when it came time to finish. I was watching a highlite tape so there were a lot of dunks (which isn't really what I wanted to see), but the sequence of dunks did bring home the fact that if Robinson got the ball anywhere from the block in and there wasn't a defender with his body on him in good position, it was a dunk. Period. Also, while he didn't have Malone's girth to bully his way to the rim as much, he was great at circling around from the back on the weakside of the rim and finding soft spots in the paint where he could out-leap his defender to catch and/or finish.
You mentioned Robinson having a larger postseason drop-off in volume and scoring efficiency than Malone, but I don't see that at all. I've been posting their per-100 scoring and efficiency over their prime years, and their drop-offs were actually very similar. To whit:
Box Score stats: Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 5 ast, 4 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 4 ast, 3.9 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO
Also, ElGee and (I believe) AcrossTheCourt both did pretty detailed breakdowns of great players (including Malone and Robinson) against difficult defenses and/or against postseason defenses, and again the findings weren't to Malone's advantage when it comes to Robinson. Either they were both similar, or in some ways Malone's drop-off was bigger.
So as yet, I'm not feeling your conclusion that Robinson's only argument over Malone is defense. In fact, I'm seeing almost the exact opposite. Malone's argument over Robinson is purely longevity, and also he can hang his hat on their head-to-head postseason match-ups in 94 and 96 in particular. But in general I think that Robinson was very similar to Malone as an offensive player, but dramatically better as a defender. And I'm actually hoping that a more involved conversation about their offensive skills might tease out whether my thought process/memory is on track or not.
Moses is in the runoff; there is a tie for second between Karl Malone and Dirk Nowitzki. Each has good arguments; Karl Malone is the greatest of the traditional PF with post scoring, rebounding, and man defense combined with GOAT level durability. Dirk is the best of the new age stretch 4's with great size and outside shooting plus superior playoff runs. I came in ready to vote for Karl Malone but I am surprised to find that the posts I have read seem more convincing that Dirk is actually the greater player. To a large part, for me the deciding factor is winner's bias; I think Dirk's playoff scoring which seems relatively unaffected by the quality of defense he faced gives you a better chance at rings that Karl's great consistency. I cast my vote for Dirk Nowitzki; if I missed any votes, please let me know.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Good cases can be made for Malone having early (90-93) and late (97-98) peaks.
90- 93 Malone was a more physically imposing force and was scoring at all-time great efficiency (.544 eFG%, .608 TS%)
90-93 K. Malone RS Per 100: 37.5 PTS, 14.8 TRB, 4.2 AST, 2.9 STL+BLK 90-93 K. Malone RS: 25.9 PER, .544 eFG%, .608 TS%, .565 FTr, .236 WS/48
92 stands out as Malone’s early 90s peak due to his stellar 92 playoffs:
92 K. Malone PS Per 100: 36.1 PTS, 14.0 TRB, 3.3 AST, 3.2 STL+BLK 92 K. Malone PS: 25.0 PER, .521 eFG%, .618 TS%, .739 FTr, .220 WS/48
97-98 Malone was less physically impressive, but had a more diverse offensive skillset than early 90s Malone.
97-98 K. Malone RS Per 100: 39.5 PTS, 14.6 TRB, 6.1 AST, 2.9 STL+BLK 97-98 K. Malone RS: 28.4 PER, .541 eFG%, .598 TS%, .498 FTr, 3.4 STL+BLK, .263 WS/48
That it’s even debatable whether Malone peaked in the early or late 90s speaks to his amazing longevity and durability.
Even though Dirk is the superior offensive anchor and playoff performer, I’m giving the overall edge to Malone for his longevity, iron man durability, impressive peak(s), rebounding and clearly superior defense.
Runoff Vote: <Dirk Nowitzki> with Karl Malone in the runoff, I am still counting this vote for him
Shaq-like warping of a defense in the mid-range. The greatest big man shooter of all-time. Elite defensive rebounding in the playoffs, especially for a high-minutes, high-USG guy who is capable of functioning as a stretch-4 (of course he's much more than that). This is truly amazing.
And he's been great for a while. He was a unique player in his early years, using the 3-point line in a way no volume-scoring big man ever had before.
Then those 3's started coming down a bit and his all-around game started to flourish. He took decent teams to great heights in the REG SEA with his peak energy and near peak skillset.
Then he became a truly unstoppable offensive force. Arguably the GOAT mid-range game. Used the threat of his shooting to open things up for teammates. And while he used it less often, his 3-point shooting still allowed him to receive the positive impacts and opportunities created by teammates.
Now he's older. It's almost like he's come full circle. He's shooting 3's like he was back in his younger days. He's still one of the best at his position. Smarter than ever. Still going strong.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Moses is in the runoff; there is a tie for second between Karl Malone and Dirk Nowitzki. Each has good arguments; Karl Malone is the greatest of the traditional PF with post scoring, rebounding, and man defense combined with GOAT level durability. Dirk is the best of the new age stretch 4's with great size and outside shooting plus superior playoff runs. I came in ready to vote for Karl Malone but I am surprised to find that the posts I have read seem more convincing that Dirk is actually the greater player. To a large part, for me the deciding factor is winner's bias; I think Dirk's playoff scoring which seems relatively unaffected by the quality of defense he faced gives you a better chance at rings that Karl's great consistency. I cast my vote for Dirk Nowitzki; if I missed any votes, please let me know.
I voted for Karl Malone about the same time as this post. Just checking to see if we're still in a run-off between Moses and Dirk.
)
. I didn't notice him as a huge liability on defense, and he at least gave a few hard "no-layups" fouls. He also had some very boneheaded turnovers when pressured. Of course, I'm not going to draw any real conclusions from a single game. 
