What went wrong: Jazz from 88-95

[Double Clutch]

Stockton OTOH, as others have pointed out, was routinely getting outplayed by opposing PGs

Routinely?! For god sake, Stockton outplayed peak Magic (of course they didn't guard each other), or at least played as good as Johnson in that series. (Really, how many PG played as good as peak Magic?). Once was outplayed by KJ, but on next occasion he outplayed Kevin. And so on. No to mention basketball isn't 1on1 game and looking at this only that way ("X outplayed Y in h2h matchup) is silly.

The truth is:
- Malone is overrated, he failed many times, because his style of play wasn't suited well for playoffs (jump shooting big man, weak post up game) and that's why he became so unefficent player in post season. And Jazz relied heavily on him, so no wonder they lost, when he wasn't able to deliver on normal rate.

- Jazz supporting cast was really weak. Even Eaton (no doubt he was all time great defender) wasn't helping much., because what he gained on defense, he lost on offense (and vs some teams he was almost useless even on D, for example vs GSW).

- Sloan made Jazz offensive system too predictable, in some way he cut down Stockton. It's not coincidence Stockton's was so good in 1988 playoffs - last Lyaden's postseason in Utah.

KJ was injured in the 1991 playoffs so it shouldn't shock you Stockton was able to win the match up. I agree with your point in that basketball isn't a one on one game and purely basing an opinion on head to head numbers is a very misguided approach to analyzing match ups since there's a lot variables that come into play. For example, based on numbers, Terry Porter clearly won the match up with Stockton in the 1992 series but when considering roles, it's hard to say who outplayed the other since his role is also different than Stockton's. I would still say Porter was the best PG on the floor but there's certain factors that allowed him to impact the game more than Stockton did.

Regarding the point about Sloan reducing Stockton's impact, that's a double edged sword which comes back to Stockton actually. When Deron played for Utah, Sloan actually applauded Williams for calling plays and initiating on his own so this isn't something I'd use in defense of him. Sloan has said in the past Stockton was free to make his own decisions.

Utah Jazz: Sloan likes Williams calling plays

By Tim Buckley, Deseret News
Published: Friday, March 14 2008 12:34 a.m. MDT

BOSTON — He is no John Stockton.

Jazz coach Jerry Sloan makes that point over and over, continuously mentioning — whenever someone tries linking the two — that Basketball Hall of Fame-bound Stockton played 19 NBA seasons and apparent superstar-in-the-making Deron Williams is in just his third.

But there's something beyond mere longevity separating the two, and that's this: Williams loves to shout out plays on his own accord, and Sloan readily permits it; Stockton, even late in his career, didn't do that much at all, typically preferring to look back at his coach for the call.

"He's done a good job of running plays, executing for us, getting us into stuff we need to run," Sloan said of Williams, who actually started calling more and more on his own during last season's second half.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6952 ... tml?pg=all

A guy that always sticks to the system even when things aren't flowing smoothly isn't necessarily beneficial to the team especially when there's examples of the team benefiting from Stockton abandoning any set plays and taking games over simply looking for his own shot. Individual shot creation is something you're going to need when facing great defensive teams that excel at taking away your best option (in this case: Karl Malone) and are able to disrupt your overall offensive execution as a team such as Utah's reliance on PnR, their motion offense etc.

There's no better example of Stockton asserting himself than game 6 of the 1997 Jazz vs Rockets series where he saw a mismatch he could exploit and damn near single handily won the game for Utah down the stretch (11 straight pts to win it).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-EEL7FfQM[/youtube]

A few other examples of Stockton either taking a bigger scoring role in the playoffs or being more aggressive than he usually is and unsurprisingly, all are games where the Jazz won and Stockton's play was noted as a difference maker. An excerpt from the 2000 Jazz vs Blazer series.

Stockton said he didn't come out necessarily looking to score more and certainly didn't come out looking shoot more.

Yet, more is precisely what Utah got from Stockton in an 88-85 victory, its first in the best-of-seven series and one that forces Tuesday's Game 5 at Portland.

In Games 1-3, Stockton averaged 7.7 points per game and never took more than eight shots from the field in any one game. His highest point total was in Game 1, when he scored 10.

Game 4 was another story.

Stockton shot 6-of-12 from the floor, scoring a personal series-high 18 points — one of the biggest differences between winning and losing for the Jazz.

"I think he was more aggressive, down 3-0," Portland guard Steve Smith said. "He came out and took some shots that he usually passes up, and he hit those. Once you hit two or three, you get a lot more confident, and he got a little bit more aggressive than he has been in the past."

Again, Stockton insisted that is something that simply happened — and not something he set out to do.
"I never go in with a different mindset at all," he said. "I go in and play."

Still, even Jazz coach Jerry Sloan said it was up to Stockton to step up like he did.

"I never told him not to shoot," Sloan said of the NBA's all-time assists leader. "We've been accused of not wanting him to shoot, but John Stockton makes his own decisions there.

"He's always been a very good shooter (ranked 14th in the NBA in field-goal percentage at .501 this season), and the more shots he takes is fine with us. But it's his decision."

Stockton's mindset as a true point guard, Sloan suggested, is what keeps his shot totals down, as was the case in Games 1-3.

"He's trying to help his teammates do the right thing," Sloan said of Stockton, who is participating in the NBA playoffs for a record 16th-straight season. "I think there are times when he realizes he has to take on that responsibility. That's just part of what he's always been about for all these years."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8150 ... tml?pg=all

Game 1 of the 1995 series vs the Rockets which I mentioned in my post earlier:

Sloan could say the same of Stockton, who seemed determined to compel the Jazz to win.
Sometimes criticized - gently, of course - for not shooting enough, the prototypical point guard fired up 19 shots, hitting 12, for 28 points.

"He had to take more shots for us," said Jazz guard Jeff Hornacek, who was held to a 2-for-10 shooting effort.

Stockton demonstrated early that he planned to be more than just a passer. He also seemed committed to making sure the Jazz didn't get off to any deadly slow starts. He scored Utah's first six points of the game, its first 10 points of the second quarter and eight of the first 10 points in the fourth quarter.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/4177 ... tml?pg=all

Sloan talks about how Stockton can be reluctant to shoot coming off the PnR during the 1994 series vs the Nuggets:

Jazz 111, Nuggets 109

The pick-and-roll is one of basketball's most basic plays, and the Utah Jazz took the Denver Nuggets to school with it.

Jeff Hornacek and John Stockton hit crucial overtime baskets off that play as the visiting Jazz outlasted the Nuggets, 111-109, yesterday to take a 3-0 lead in their four-of-seven-game Western Conference semifinal series.
Hornacek finished with 27 points and Stockton with 24.

Game 4 is set for tonight in Denver. A fifth game, if necessary, would be played Tuesday night in Salt Lake City.
Karl Malone added 26 points and 13 rebounds for Utah, which extended its playoff winning streak to a club-record six games.

"All of a sudden our guards took over for us," Malone said. "I tell you what, when Hornacek and Stockton catch fire, we're awfully tough to beat. I just try to do the little things like set picks, and those guys hit some huge shots."

Stockton said the pick-and-roll -- in which a forward or center sets a screen near the key to free a guard to roll to an open area if the defense doesn't switch assignments -- "obviously is a tough play to guard. Fortunately, the shots fell for us on those plays. A lot of attention was being paid to Karl, and that left somebody open. It happened to be Jeff, and it happened to be me."

Utah Coach Jerry Sloan said his team "had to go to the pick-and-roll when we couldn't get the ball inside. Sometimes John is reluctant to shoot it on a pick-and-roll. I think he knew he had to take those shots today."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/15/sport ... d=2&src=pm

I think some people feel Stockton didn't have the ability to score but to me, it was more of a mindset thing for him although I'm sure some of his lesser attributes like his athleticism would be magnified further vs elite defenses but to me, his mindset was a bigger factor. I will say he isn't as unathletic as some people make him out to be especially in his prime years. He isn't KJ with the first step or Rose with the acceleration and end to end speed or anything like that but he had quickness to get into the middle of the lane which causes defensive breakdowns (opening up multiple opportunities to kick-out to corner shooters or dump-offs inside, opening up OREB opportunities as defense scrambles and bigs leave to help out ect) and good body control which is evident in his floaters/teardrops especially on the adjustment. He's clearly a very good shooter albeit he doesn't do it on a high volume and had a fairly conservative shot selection which can really help your "efficiency" stats. I remember a lot of times he'd shoot, it would be bailout shot as he was practically forced to shoot with the clock ticking down. This unselfishness and passiveness is something that he can be held accountable for and if you look at the elite PGs of the Stockton era, they all had more of an assertive mindset than Stockton did. It's one of the reasons coaches thought KJ was better than Stockton in 1991 (he won the poll 16-5) when they were both in their prime. If he's looking for his shot more often thus putting pressure on the defense either opening up more opportunities for himself (by forcing defenses to stay home on everyone else) or for the rest of the team (by collapsing on his penetration), that would've helped the team. That's the classic case of a forcing a team to pick their poison.

[lorak]

KJ was injured in the 1991 playoffs so it shouldn't shock you Stockton was able to win the match up.

What kind of injury was that? Could you provide links to articles about that?

And BTW, it was said Stockton was routinely outplayed by opposing PGs, while in reality is it really true? 1988 - better than Magic, 1990 KJ's TS% was as bad as Stockton's, 1991 JS was better than KJ but maybe because of injury and so on. Basically the only series from 1988 to 1995 when Stockton was really outplayed is 1992 vs Porter, but it's also not so easy to judge. From what I remember Terry was simply on fire (imagine this year Stephen Curry in 3rd quarters, only better ) and despite Stockton's good defense he was hitting tough shot after tough shot.

therealbig3,
Elgee's opinion isn't proof. watch the games, look on whom opposing defenses were focused. even in 1996, when Sonics had DPOTY on perimeter, they focused on Stockton, double teamed, trapped him often, while Malone was basically covered one on one. And that was basically the same during late 80s and first half of 90s. Opposing coaches rather designed their defenses to limit Stockton's playmaking than Malone's scoring, because whole Jazz system was run by Stockton (Sloan). Sure, Malone was more important to scoring execution, but that execution couldn't work so well without that playmaking (partly because Malone was so limited as scorer - weak post game, too much jump shooting). And here's where Sloan's blame was the biggest - he never really adjust to that, he trusted his offensive structure too much and wasn't able to make adjustments which would free Stockton. And John, with his nice and quite personality wasn't the guy, who would do anything against his coach.

I think some people feel Stockton didn't have the ability to score but to me, it was more of a mindset thing for him although I'm sure some of his lesser attributes like his athleticism would be magnified further vs elite defenses but to me, his mindset was a bigger factor. I will say he isn't as unathletic as some people make him out to be especially in his prime years. He isn't KJ with the first step or Rose with the acceleration and end to end speed or anything like that but he had quickness to get into the middle of the lane which causes defensive breakdowns (opening up multiple opportunities to kick-out to corner shooters or dump-offs inside, opening up OREB opportunities as defense scrambles and bigs leave to help out ect) and good body control which is evident in his floaters/teardrops especially on the adjustment. He's clearly a very good shooter albeit he doesn't do it on a high volume and had a fairly conservative shot selection which can really help your "efficiency" stats. I remember a lot of times he'd shoot, it would be bailout shot where and he was forced to shoot with the clock ticking down. This unselfishness and passiveness is something that he can be held accountable for and if you look at the elite PGs of the Stockton era, they all had more of an assertive mindset than Stockton did. It's one of the reasons coaches thought KJ was better than Stockton in 1991 (he won the poll 16-5) when they were both in their prime. If he's looking for his shot more often thus putting pressure on the defense either opening up more opportunities for himself (by forcing defenses to stay home on everyone else) or for the rest of the team (by collapsing on his penetration), that would've helped the team. That's the classic case of a forcing a team to pick their poison.

I agree with that. Mentality was Stockton's biggest flaw. (on the other hand the same unselfish, do as coach told me, mentality is the reason why many people think Stockton is the best ever "classic/ideal" PG.)

However I think it wasn't the main reason why Jazz were relatively so bad from 1988 to 1995.

[Double Clutch]

KJ was injured in the 1991 playoffs so it shouldn't shock you Stockton was able to win the match up.

What kind of injury was that? Could you provide links to articles about that?

And BTW, it was said Stockton was routinely outplayed by opposing PGs, while in reality is it really true? 1988 - better than Magic, 1990 KJ's TS% was as bad as Stockton's, 1991 JS was better than KJ but maybe because of injury and so on. Basically the only series from 1988 to 1995 when Stockton was really outplayed is 1992 vs Porter, but it's also not so easy to judge. From what I remember Terry was simply on fire (imagine this year Stephen Curry in 3rd quarters, only better ) and despite Stockton's good defense he was hitting tough shot after tough shot.

therealbig3,
Elgee's opinion isn't proof. watch the games, look on whom opposing defenses were focused. even in 1996, when Sonics had DPOTY on perimeter, they focused on Stockton, double teamed, trapped him often, while Malone was basically covered one on one. And that was basically the same during late 80s and first half of 90s. Opposing coaches rather designed their defenses to limit Stockton's playmaking than Malone's scoring, because whole Jazz system was run by Stockton (Sloan). Sure, Malone was more important to scoring execution, but that execution couldn't work so well without that playmaking (partly because Malone was so limited as scorer - weak post game, too much jump shooting). And here's where Sloan's blame was the biggest - he never really adjust to that, he trusted his offensive structure too much and wasn't able to make adjustments which would free Stockton. And John, with his nice and quite personality wasn't the guy, who would do anything against his coach.

I think some people feel Stockton didn't have the ability to score but to me, it was more of a mindset thing for him although I'm sure some of his lesser attributes like his athleticism would be magnified further vs elite defenses but to me, his mindset was a bigger factor. I will say he isn't as unathletic as some people make him out to be especially in his prime years. He isn't KJ with the first step or Rose with the acceleration and end to end speed or anything like that but he had quickness to get into the middle of the lane which causes defensive breakdowns (opening up multiple opportunities to kick-out to corner shooters or dump-offs inside, opening up OREB opportunities as defense scrambles and bigs leave to help out ect) and good body control which is evident in his floaters/teardrops especially on the adjustment. He's clearly a very good shooter albeit he doesn't do it on a high volume and had a fairly conservative shot selection which can really help your "efficiency" stats. I remember a lot of times he'd shoot, it would be bailout shot where and he was forced to shoot with the clock ticking down. This unselfishness and passiveness is something that he can be held accountable for and if you look at the elite PGs of the Stockton era, they all had more of an assertive mindset than Stockton did. It's one of the reasons coaches thought KJ was better than Stockton in 1991 (he won the poll 16-5) when they were both in their prime. If he's looking for his shot more often thus putting pressure on the defense either opening up more opportunities for himself (by forcing defenses to stay home on everyone else) or for the rest of the team (by collapsing on his penetration), that would've helped the team. That's the classic case of a forcing a team to pick their poison.

I agree with that. Mentality was Stockton's biggest flaw. (on the other hand the same unselfish, do as coach told me, mentality is the reason why many people think Stockton is the best ever "classic/ideal" PG.)

However I think it wasn't the main reason why Jazz were relatively so bad from 1988 to 1995.

KJ was suffering from allergies and nursing a sore hamstring (PHX had some other injury issues too).

Dangerous as the Suns are, they are just coming off a series of injuries earlier this month. Johnson missed Monday's workouts due to allergies and a continued sore hamstring. Dan Majerle missed Tuesday's practice due to a sore right thigh. Tom Chambers has a bad back but has been playing.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/158714/JAZZ-OPEN-IN-VALLEY-OF-SUN---HEY-ITS-NOT-DEATH-VALLEY.html

As for the rest, I agree, there isn't much to disagree with. You're right about Porter, he had a hot shooting streak in those playoffs. I talked about it in my initial post that Porter scored in multiple ways by spotting up in transition, coming off screens and use his size and body to penetrate and create space against Stockton but that's understandable since Stockton was a smaller player. Stockton also had a tendency (some of it was by design as it was Utah's strategy on defense) to roam around and help out on the post-players so Porter could burn him for doing that.

Good point about Seattle's defensive strategy in 1996. I think this was an adjustment they made from the 1992 and 1993 series vs Utah where they did primarily double team Malone as well. Stockton was also playing injured in this series so it gave Seattle more incentive to trap him since they knew he wasn't going to be aggressive against the the traps. Trapping Stockton also meant they could force the ball out of Stockton hands which was important for 2 reasons. 1) Utah couldn't run their most effective play: the Stockton to Malone pick and roll. 2) Somebody else besides Stockton had to get the ball to Malone which was a factor as Stockton was the best entry passer and it would also take more time off the clock. In a way, I think this also shows that Malone could play well despite Stockton being relatively limited which is often cited as a flaw by his critics. He did have some questionable moments in that series IIRC especially in the games @ Seattle where the crowd would count up to 10 on his FT shooting routine. He seemed a bit flustered by that.

I think Seattle was the only team that did that though, most of the other teams like Portland, Houston, Denver ect primarily game planned around Malone.

EDIT: Seems like Chicago was more concerned with Stockton on the pick and roll as well and were content on giving Malone open jumpers in the first 2 games of the 1998 finals, at least.

In Game 1, the Jazz ran the two-man play 25 times for 41 points, including springing Stockton for the game-clinching layup in the final minute. In Game 2, however, the Bulls forced Stockton to the baseline and tried to trap him. The ploy jostled the Jazz from its usual patience, limiting them to 14 plays for 17 points.

"They've given us different looks and had some success forcing us out of what we want to do," Stockton said. "But . . . we can run it a lot smoother and better than we have."

.......

The Bulls have chosen to let Stockton dribble off the pick, forced him toward the baseline and brought Pippen for a double-team trap. The move has often left Malone with open jumpers, but the Mailman has been way off his route. In the Finals, he has missed 22 of 26 shots outside 12 feet.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6342 ... tml?pg=all

Have not seen the two Jazz vs Bulls series in awhile, will try to really see their defensive game plan. One thing I remember from this series about Malone's play was how much he struggled against Rodman. I think NBC had a graphic that broke down his shooting percentage against each defender and IIRC, it was in the low 50s against Longley and high 30s against Dennis.

[colts18]

Great analysis nugzheat. I'd be interested in hearing your take on the 97 and 98 finals and why the jazz failed in them

[Double Clutch]

Great analysis nugzheat. I'd be interested in hearing your take on the 97 and 98 finals and why the jazz failed in them

Heh, I just mentioned I needed to re-watch those series in the post above. I will try to see if I can download them off the net as I'm curious to go back and check them out once DavidStern brought up the point about defensive strategies employed against Malone/Stockton. Might bump this once I do so....

[Ryoga Hibiki]

2. No real athletic 2-way player on the perimeter that can be a shot creator/playmaker like a Kobe Bryant, Ginobili, Pippen, etc. Stockton/Malone is great but they could have used at least a fringe-star player that could make something-out-of-a-nothing possession. Having this kind of option would probably help Malone and Stockton's game improve in the playoffs too.

if you need an All NBA guy type as your third best player to be really contending then I'm afraid your top two are not as good as advertised and he's probably the #1 or #2 in the team

3. Better 2-way 7'0"+ center. Now I'm just typing out of my ass but IIRC the Jazz could have used a better 2-way big in that arguable golden era of bigs

sure they could, but having one of the best power forwards in history should allow you to have a (cheaper) role player at center. If need more the value of Malone mustbe more deeply discussed.

[colts18]

Heh, I just mentioned I needed to re-watch those series in the post above. I will try to see if I can download them off the net as I'm curious to go back and check them out once DavidStern brought up the point about defensive strategies employed against Malone/Stockton. Might bump this once I do so....

Looking forward to it! I remember watching the intro to one of the games of the 97 finals (I think game 1) and they mentioned that Longley would be the primary man on Rodman. I remembered Rodman guarding Malone mostly, but Longley never got the credit for Malone's bad 97 finals. IIRC Rodman guarded him more in 98, a finals where he played better.

[The Infamous1]

Neither stockton nor malone were good number one options and they couldn't be relied to create their own shot/score in tough situations.

Malone wasnt a give him the ball get out of his way type offensive player. He was like amare In Pheonix where the majority of his baskets were assisted and he scored pretty much exclusively on dunks,layups,transition buckets, and overpowering smaller defenders in one on one situations. The problem with this is in the playoffs you don't get the same number of easy baskets especially in the 4th quarter.

He was a classic case of a guys PPG overrating his scoring ability

[ElGee]

I made this thread a few years ago so if the mods lock it I understand. I would like to know what happened to the Jazz from 88-95.

The general opinion of most people is that a team with one ATG (Top 25) will usually be pretty good unless the supporting cast is quite bad and management is incompetent to do anything about it. If you pair two players in this range with a good coach you should have a perpetual front-line contender that regularly turns in dominant RS performances. If the two players in question have games that are perfect fits for each other and never suffer injury than you should expect regular deep runs in the post-season.

The 88-95 Jazz had these ingredients but the results didn't come close to expectations.

First the facts:

I. Cumulative Regular-Season Performance

2nd Best RS WP%
4th Best RS SRS

II. Individual RS Performance

1 season that ranks in the top 25 for wins over these 8 years
1 season that ranks in the top 25 for SRS over these 8 years

III. Post-Season performance

Code: Select all

W   L      MOV  SRS of opponent
33  37   -.09   3.96

4 1st Round exits in 8 years.

The 88-95 Jazz were consistently good from 88-95 but almost never great. While they turned in one dominant RS in most years they were a secondary contender.

In the PS, their performance was quite average. In half the seasons they didn't even get out of the first round and never made it to the finals. Only twice did they reach the conference finals.

The accepted wisdom is that Stockton and Malone were both in their prime during these years and that the former was at his peak. They were never hurt during the RS or PS. Jerry Sloan is assumed to be a good coach. At various times they had impact players on the defensive and offensive end of the court.

__________________________________________________________________

So the question is what explains the Jazz overall level of performance from 88-95. What were they missing in the supporting cast that prevented them from achieving greatness instead of just being good? Is everyone as good as their reps?

I have no real issues with the Jazz performance from 96-98. Please bring up the 96-98 Jazz to explain what the issues were with the 88-95 Jazz but I am not interested in comments like "jordan" to explain the Jazz overall level of performance from 88-95.

I don't agree with the bolded note about expectations. I also think we do a disservice to our selves when we seek out "good" or "bad" instead of just looking at the totality of a team. Focusing on one or the other is the vehicle that creates biases. I can write a convincing dissertation on how much the 96 Chicago Bulls failed if you payed me to. Trust me, there'd be an entire chapter on the April 20 loss to the Pacers and some of the nonsense that occurred at the end of that game.

In Utah, I think the issue most people have is Losing Bias. They are looking for why the loser lost instead of noticing all the winning the "loser" did. Utah was never in a position to challenge the top teams from 1988-1994 for a title; That would have been an extraordinary overachievement. Simply put, I've yet to find a person who holds BOTH Stockton and Malone as MVP-level players, which was the framing the OP implied when talking about creating a top-line team by pairing 2 stars. Stock is not a high-peak player and was NEVER regarded as one.

In the early part of this period, they were a team with absolutely no depth, and the quality of their supporting players wasn't enough to bridge gaps with teams like LA, Detroit and Chicago. In the west, they were in a pack of teams trying to show, not win, until they (a) traded for Jeff Hornacek and (b) added size next to Malone once Eaton aged.

That finally put Utah in a position as a title contender, and they clearly were a top-line team from 1995-1998. As an aside, Bill Simmons always quips that the Jazz didn't get better in this period, other teams just got old. Well, they did get better, and they better in critical areas (see spoilers section below), and that's exactly why they jumped a line from 88-94 to 95-98. This was a team without ANY big FA landings or draft picks, and that extra player (and roster solidification) did not come until 1995...and it made a clear difference.

Based on the OP's POV of Malone, Stockton and Sloan, here's their expectations scoreboard with the cards they were dealt:

1988 Strongly Overachieved
1989 Underachieved (bad matchup)
1990 Mildly Overachieved
1991 Mildly Overachieved
1992 Neutral/Mildly Overachieved
1993 Neutral
1994 Mildly Overachieved
1995 Neutral/underachieved

In 8 years, Utah was upset twice. They lost the two 5-game coin-flip series they were in. They also sprang 3 upsets and took the champs to the brink in 1988 and 1995. They lost to a third title-winner in 1994 against Houston.

Details...

Spoiler:

In 1988, they overachieved.
In 1989, they were the 6th-best team in the league by SRS, which is certainly expected if one compares the rosters of the 5 other teams (Finalists Pistons and Lakers, plus Hawks, loaded Cavs team and offensive juggernaut Phoenix) which means we'd expect them to reach the second round. They were upset in the first by Golden State, a team that they matched up poorly with. In the 4 RS games, Utah split and was pounded in Oakland, losing by 18.5 ppg.

The 89 Utah team had no depth, or as it's called today, Went D'Antoni, basically running 6 guys. Which means of the 4 teammates you are questioning -- Eaton, a statue, Bob Hansen, Bailey and Griffith -- they did not have the capability to provide perimeter defense to slow down Richmond and Mullin, who scored 71 points in G1. Teagle even through in 14 off the bench. That was a very close loss. In G2, Malone had his usual bounce-back game (Malone is like GOAT-level off of losses or in bad situations) with 37 and 22, but the scoring cornerstones of Utah's 6-man rotation, Griffith and Bailey, combined for 13 points on 6-17 shooting. Stockton was 6-18. In G3, Mullin, Teagle and Richmond scored 85 points on 66% TS. The supporting cast was ill-equipped for such a blitz.

So did they shore up the bench in 1990? Did they add key parts, or draft a budding star? Not really, unless you are a big Blue Edwards fan (I happened to actually be a big Blue Edwards fan). This was basically the same team, in the same league, plus Blue Edwards. The SRS stretched up to 5 this year, 5th in the league, but because of Phoenix underperforming their SRS the Jazz played the best team in the league by SRS in the first-round. They lost in 5 in a nail-bitingly close series. This seems like a strong achievement and a nod to the principles involved, Malone, Stockton and Sloan.

1991 brought a 2nd-scoring option type from the wing, the savior Jeff Malone. So this Jazz team could go 7 deep! This time, in the first round Utah upset the 6.5 SRS Suns in 4, including a 39-point road win in G1, although injuries to Pho might have turned the affair. Still, looking at Stockton and Malone's roster and comparing it to Drexler-Porter or Pippen-Jordan and it's no wonder those two were climbing up hill in 1991. They were able to play the Blazers next, losing in 5 to a vastly superior team. They played the Blazers 9 times in 1991 and won twice -- an upset there was unlikely.

By 1992 the Jazz have improved depth and finish 3rd in SRS (4th in record). Nonetheless, they lose in the CF's to a superior Portland team in 6 grueling games, most notably barely losing a pivotal G5 in Portland in OT in one of Malone's greatest PS games while Stockton was in the locker room most of the game and Delaney Rudd was trying to hang with Terry Porter. This, again, feels like an overachievement, if anything.

The 93 Jazz were weak in protecting the paint, with Eaton turning 85 and Malone not providing shot-blocking. They lacked size and had too much Jay Humphries. The team was bounced by the 7 SRS Sonics, a team that would have been challenging to overcome for Stockton and Malone even with good pieces around them.

The 94 team was right back on the 4 SRS line, although the league structure was slightly weaker. They brought in Felton Spencer in the middle, and an old Tom Chambers, giving them an 8-man rotation in the PS. And remember how they never drafted that budding star or landed a key FA? In 94 they nabbed Jeff Hornacek, giving them another creator and a great shooter next to Stockton. Perhaps not coincidentally, they reached the WCF that year, losing to Houston in a series where Hakeem was able to give the Jazz's best player, Malone, major fits. Utah "upset" SA on the first round on their way there.

In 1995, with a full season of Horny and some beef in the middle -- Spencer, Antoine Carr and even Donaldson -- the Jazz won 60 and posted an 8 SRS. But in the same year, the Spurs won 62 games, bumping Utah down to the 3rd-seed because of the NBA's archaic seeding structure. There, the Jazz met the defending champ (and eventual) champ Rockets, playing a coin-flip kind of series that they endured in 1990 against Phoenix.

[islamovic]

gotta go with what some have already said. john stockton getting outplayed by other teams pgs. particularly focusing on 94 n 95 playoff runs where kenny smith outplays him.

in 94 kenny puts up 15 ppg on 51% (53% 3s) to stocktons 14 ppg on 42%

in 95 kenny puts up 17 ppg on 57% (63% 3s) to stocktons 18 ppg on 46%

now i dont need to tell you that kennys rs n po numbers those years are nowhere to these vs stockton.

if stockton was truly all nba 1st team type of player n all nba defender hew wouldnt let a player like kenny smith have a career series.

[lorak]

gotta go with what some have already said. john stockton getting outplayed by other teams pgs. particularly focusing on 94 n 95 playoff runs where kenny smith outplays him.

in 94 kenny puts up 15 ppg on 51% (53% 3s) to stocktons 14 ppg on 42%

in 95 kenny puts up 17 ppg on 57% (63% 3s) to stocktons 18 ppg on 46%

now i dont need to tell you that kennys rs n po numbers those years are nowhere to these vs stockton.

if stockton was truly all nba 1st team type of player n all nba defender hew wouldnt let a player like kenny smith have a career series.

1. You shouldn't judge players only by ppg and FG%
2. If you would actually watch these games, you would know that Stockton was Jazz most active help defender - and it wasn't by his choice, but that how Sloan's defensive system worked. So when Stockton was helping on Hakeem it opened spots for guys like Kenny. But it's not Stockton's fault and it's not prove that he was outplayed by Kenny.

[colts18]

gotta go with what some have already said. john stockton getting outplayed by other teams pgs. particularly focusing on 94 n 95 playoff runs where kenny smith outplays him.

in 94 kenny puts up 15 ppg on 51% (53% 3s) to stocktons 14 ppg on 42%

in 95 kenny puts up 17 ppg on 57% (63% 3s) to stocktons 18 ppg on 46%

now i dont need to tell you that kennys rs n po numbers those years are nowhere to these vs stockton.

if stockton was truly all nba 1st team type of player n all nba defender hew wouldnt let a player like kenny smith have a career series.

No ones defense is bad enough to allow 63 3P%. Thats a lot of luck involved.