Peaks Project #25

[bastillon]

Eh i don't feel Duncan 21/21/2/4 on 541 ts is really not a huge shut down the other game more so but Duncans team was not doing anything and he was still scoring 20 points with Ts that was not horrid with Shaq being back up for Malone. The spurs team was weaker big time outside of Duncan i mean Manu was the only other guy doing ok. At the same time he could only play 28 mins which is not that much playing time in ps games when everything is on the line i think getting shut down is kinda overstatement.

The last you could do is watch the video. Duncan scored like 3 buckets on Malone those two games. He was absolutely horrendous in isolations vs Malone. Duncan was only scoring when he was open because someone else broke down the defense or when he was playing vs Shaq. Duncan did absolutely nothing against Malone in those games.

[bballexpert]

Eh i don't feel Duncan 21/21/2/4 on 541 ts is really not a huge shut down the other game more so but Duncans team was not doing anything and he was still scoring 20 points with Ts that was not horrid with Shaq being back up for Malone. The spurs team was weaker big time outside of Duncan i mean Manu was the only other guy doing ok. At the same time he could only play 28 mins which is not that much playing time in ps games when everything is on the line i think getting shut down is kinda overstatement.

The last you could do is watch the video. Duncan scored like 3 buckets on Malone those two games. He was absolutely horrendous in isolations vs Malone. Duncan was only scoring when he was open because someone else broke down the defense or when he was playing vs Shaq. Duncan did absolutely nothing against Malone in those games.

So with Malone not scoring at all so no work on the offensive end and then he Manged to stop some of Ducans 33 attempts in those games posted. Duncan who was downing the boards and having to play Offense and Defense against a team way more stacked then his I would stick to Malones prime its better then stopping a few possesion on Duncan having to do everything.

[bastillon]

Eh i don't feel Duncan 21/21/2/4 on 541 ts is really not a huge shut down the other game more so but Duncans team was not doing anything and he was still scoring 20 points with Ts that was not horrid with Shaq being back up for Malone. The spurs team was weaker big time outside of Duncan i mean Manu was the only other guy doing ok. At the same time he could only play 28 mins which is not that much playing time in ps games when everything is on the line i think getting shut down is kinda overstatement.

The last you could do is watch the video. Duncan scored like 3 buckets on Malone those two games. He was absolutely horrendous in isolations vs Malone. Duncan was only scoring when he was open because someone else broke down the defense or when he was playing vs Shaq. Duncan did absolutely nothing against Malone in those games.

So with Malone not scoring at all so no work on the offensive end and then he Manged to stop some of Ducans 33 attempts in those games posted. Duncan who was downing the boards and having to play Offense and Defense against a team way more stacked then his I would stick to Malones prime its better then stopping a few possesion on Duncan having to do everything.

You are missing the point. The point is this: Karl Malone was one of the best post defenders of all-time. He has proven that time and time again. Those games against Duncan are just a cherry on top of the cake, because he was doing this at 40 years of age. In his prime Karl Malone also had excellent defensive performances for example vs D-Rob, Shaq, Webber/Divac etc.

Here you are: entire playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl0ny9_3DLnH4DJ4URH6MqOtbVnzmU6kv

[trex_8063]

1st ballot: Chris Paul '15
Went thru Paul a bit in post 15 of the #19 thread, in comparing to Nash. Basically he's someone I don't put too far behind Nash as an offensive engine, while being obviously better defensively (a clear net positive defensively by all available impact indicators, who also received All-D 1st team this year, fwiw). Am waffling a little wrt what year to call his peak ('08 is obviously phenomenal, too). Impact appears so massive in '15, though, where he logged the highest offensive on/off on record (even over '83 Moses), and the 2nd highest total on/off (behind---barely---only '09 Lebron). There's line-up noise to this, obv, but even via recently released RAPM he came up 5th in league in ORAPM and 3rd in overall RAPM (behind only Lebron and barely behind the peak we voted in at #17--->'15 Curry).
And fwiw, I think '15 Paul is capable of larger volume numbers (to create larger PER, BPM, etc) if he were on a less talented squad; in a circumstance where, for instance, there was not an offensive talent as big as Blake Griffin. '15 version doesn't have the same explosiveness/athleticism as '08 version, but is a better shooter from basically everywhere on the floor, is a better defender; and though it may be situational, '15 Paul seems to have found better synergy with his team (toward positive impact) than '08 version.


2nd ballot: Moses Malone '83
Been putting Moses off for awhile, largely out of concerns that he was a "one-trick pony" (offensive rebounding). But he was so much better than nearly everyone else at that, that he was able to exert a fairly large offensive impact (second highest offensive on/off we have record of, though line-up noise caused by his weak replacement contributes to this). He dominated many of his H2H match-ups against other elite centers, and had a great foul-draw rate; was a 76.1% FT-shooter this year (pretty elite for a center).
And as noted a thread or two ago, I've perhaps been under-crediting his defense in '83: he was All-Def 1st team (for what that's worth), was indeed a good man defender, and managed 2.5 blk/100 possessions while still being elite on the defensive glass.


3rd ballot: Karl Malone '97
As I'd stated in a prior thread, wherever Barkley is for peak, Malone (at the very least) should not be far behind. As myself and Dipper had gone over previously, peak Barkley (I went w/ '90, btw) was one of the most dominant/reliable post scorers of all-time, far more devastating in this aspect than Karl. He was also hyper-elite on the offensive glass, and fantastic in transition (and unlike Malone, could also be the guy LEADING the break). As Charles was often the guy leading the break, he was definitely a better transition passer than Karl.......but '97 Karl was better at basically better at everything else: he was better in the mid-range, better FT-shooter, better half-court passer, better defensive rebounder, better defender (though I think the gap there has been overstated itt).
Although Barkley's gap as a scorer/offensive rebounder is significant, Karl's edge in nearly everything else brings them very close again; and I could be convinced to shift Karl ahead of the other Malone, actually.

[trex_8063]

Ugh. Computer just ate my post. Don't have the energy to re-type everything at the moment, so just going to vote:

1) Karl Malone 98
2) Moses Malone 83
3) Scottie Pippen 95

btw--I thought you were a big proponent of Steve Nash (or am I mis-remembering?); curious you're not giving him a ballot.

[bastillon]

3rd ballot: Karl Malone '97
As I'd stated in a prior thread, wherever Barkley is for peak, Malone (at the very least) should not be far behind. As myself and Dipper had gone over previously, peak Barkley (I went w/ '90, btw) was one of the most dominant/reliable post scorers of all-time, far more devastating in this aspect than Karl. He was also hyper-elite on the offensive glass, and fantastic in transition (and unlike Malone, could also be the guy LEADING the break). As Charles was often the guy leading the break, he was definitely a better transition passer than Karl.......but '97 Karl was better at basically better at everything else: he was better in the mid-range, better FT-shooter, better half-court passer, better defensive rebounder, better defender (though I think the gap there has been overstated itt).
Although Barkley's gap as a scorer/offensive rebounder is significant, Karl's edge in nearly everything else brings them very close again; and I could be convinced to shift Karl ahead of the other Malone, actually.

Any reason for 97 Malone over 94 or 95? 94 Malone had far better postseason performance against three top-5 defenders of all-time... 94 Malone was a better defender, had more stamina, and was just as polished as he was in 97. I really don't know why late 90s Malone is considered his peak. That makes no sense. Malone is a player whose primary asset was his insane athleticism/durability, and mid 90s Malone was around the age of 30... Why would you want the same version of player but worse athletically?

[Narigo]

1. 1997 Karl Malone
Karl Malone is one of the greatest off ball big man ever. Excellent roll man and hes really good at getting in position to score. Great finsiher. Pretty good spot up shooter. He improved as a playmaker post 96.

2. 1983 Moses Malone
Pretty good low post player who likes to post up on the left block. He gets alot of defensive attention in the post area which frees up his teammates. One of the best rebounders on the offensive glass. In 1983, he was an above average defender

3. 2008 Chris Paul

No he didn't. There is no data that would support this. He improved as a passer in the mid 90s and since then averaged about 4 assists till 00s. In terms of actual playmaking he regressed significantly because he wasn't driving at his defender as much as he did in the mid 90s. Lost a lot of speed and quickness. Not to mention, Malone lost a lot of stamina. In the mid 90s Malone was playing pretty much 46 mpg when it was required. That never happened in the late 90s.

Karl Malone improved as a passer in the late 90s. His Ast% never hit 20% until the 1996 season. The reason why it seems like he didnt improve as a passer as much in the late 90s is because his playing time was reduced a bit. In 1997, Karl Malone Ast% is the same as 2004 KG(who averaged 5 ast per game that season.)

[theonlyclutch]

I believe Steve Nash should be getting some traction now, as something that is often overlooked is his ability to take and make the toughest shots in basketball: The unassisted midrange jumper.

Much has been said about Nash's legendary playmaking ability, but there have often been doubts about his scoring ability, much of it due to a comparative lack of volume, which would somehow penalize his efficiency in some way. But Nash's effect can be clearly demonstrated with a shot chart here:


In 2015, unassisted midrange shots league wide yielded 0.68 points per shot, i.e this is not a efficient shot for most offenses to take, and defenses would gladly give it up, but here's Steve Nash's shot chart from 3-<3 in '07:

3-10 ft - 55.4%
10-16 ft - 50.0%
16-<3 ft - 52.2%

Comprising around 45% FGA and at 10% Asst/d rates.

Essentially, what Nash is doing is taking an inefficient offensive "space" and making it very efficient (esp. in half court), this means the defense have to account for more things and make them choose between tougher options, the main reason Nash doesn't take more is that this is still "inefficient" from Nash's PoV, esp if it comes in expense of open 3s or at rim shots, for himself or others, but it can be seen how, instead of flashing more individual volume, the actualization of turning an inefficient offensive space efficient can be beneficial to the team as a whole.

[bastillon]

1. 1997 Karl Malone
Karl Malone is one of the greatest off ball big man ever. Excellent roll man and hes really good at getting in position to score. Great finsiher. Pretty good spot up shooter. He improved as a playmaker post 96.

2. 1983 Moses Malone
Pretty good low post player who likes to post up on the left block. He gets alot of defensive attention in the post area which frees up his teammates. One of the best rebounders on the offensive glass. In 1983, he was an above average defender

3. 2008 Chris Paul

No he didn't. There is no data that would support this. He improved as a passer in the mid 90s and since then averaged about 4 assists till 00s. In terms of actual playmaking he regressed significantly because he wasn't driving at his defender as much as he did in the mid 90s. Lost a lot of speed and quickness. Not to mention, Malone lost a lot of stamina. In the mid 90s Malone was playing pretty much 46 mpg when it was required. That never happened in the late 90s.

Karl Malone improved as a passer in the late 90s. His Ast% never hit 20% until the 1996 season. The reason why it seems like he didnt improve as a passer as much in the late 90s is because his playing time was reduced a bit. In 1997, Karl Malone Ast% is the same as 2004 KG(who averaged 5 ast per game that season.)

Ast% is a really poor statistic because it doesn't show how many assists a player gets but rather how many he gets within his team. That stat is basically useless. The stat you wanna use is assists per 100 possessions. Indeed, you do have a point that Malone's assists went up a bit but this is due to other factors rather than Malone's improvement.

93-95: 4.9 assists per 100 possessions
96-98: 6.0 assists per 100 possessions

That is not a significant difference. Plus, you need to take into account that:
1) Malone was unable to sustain the same amount of mins so in real life he didn't get many more assists
2) The higher assists numbers were directly linked to Jazz running more sets through Malone due to the fact that Stockton regressed a lot and wasn't able to be the same playmaker. Malone's assists are correlated with Stockton's lesser role on the team.

Now, late 90s Malone regressed a lot athletically and could not play the same amount of mins in the PS. Look at Malone's mins during 94 PS. That could not happen during late 90s. During that time he had the stamina to actually play those mins effectively, it was not a case of him just being on the floor.

Compare Malone's performance vs Rodman in 94 and vs Rodman in 97. This is a night and day difference we're talking about. You can clearly see that his diminished athleticism had severe impact on his performance. To me 94 Malone clearly had his best PS ever. Faced insanely tough frontcourts (Rodman/Robinson, Ellis/Mutombo, Thorpe/Hakeem) and delivered in every series. On top of that he had some of his best playoff games ever, like G1 vs Spurs, G7 vs Nuggets. Karl Malone 97 would not be able to replicate this because he was simply too old. Just comparing his efficiency vs strong playoff defenses in 97-98, you can easily see that Malone was not the same anymore.

In any case, if Malone's passing was to be the distinctive indicator, then 97-98 Malone averaged 3.1 assists/2.9 tov in the playoffs, compared to 3.5 assists/2.5 tov in 94-95. Either way, mid 90s Malone was better.

But the big difference was playoff efficiency:
94-95 - 53.6% TS, 113 ORtg
97-98 - 51.7% TS, 105 ORtg

The gap in TS% was not as big but when you combine it with higher turnover ratio, it becomes significant which is reflected in much lower ORtg. That doesn't even take into account that Malone faced far better competition in 94-95 (2x Hakeem, Mutombo, Robinson at their best).

When you look at Malone's playoff performances there is just no argument for late 90s Malone. Mid 90s Malone was his peak. IMO 94 was his best playoff run overall. Great combination of scoring passing and defense. A little underwhelming RS but at this level who cares if you're a little bit worse in the RS.

Surely there is not one series when late 90s Malone played as well as he did vs Robinson or vs Mutombo in 94 playoffs.

[RSCD3_]

Ugh. Computer just ate my post. Don't have the energy to re-type everything at the moment, so just going to vote:

1) Karl Malone 98
2) Moses Malone 83
3) Scottie Pippen 95

Karl Malone over Chris Paul?

I'm a bit confused why, seeing as how Paul is a better playoff performer in general and both make most of their money on offense.

There would have to be a real large gap in RS IMO to have Malone fall off and still surpass Paul's level of play.

Or are you just really high on malone's defense?

[trex_8063]

Inwardly I'm thinking "why bother?", but here goes.....

1. 1997 Karl Malone
Karl Malone is one of the greatest off ball big man ever. Excellent roll man and hes really good at getting in position to score. Great finsiher. Pretty good spot up shooter. He improved as a playmaker post 96.

No he didn't. There is no data that would support this. He improved as a passer in the mid 90s and since then averaged about 4 assists till 00s. In terms of actual playmaking he regressed significantly because he wasn't driving at his defender as much as he did in the mid 90s. Lost a lot of speed and quickness. Not to mention, Malone lost a lot of stamina. In the mid 90s Malone was playing pretty much 46 mpg when it was required. That never happened in the late 90s.

If we altered Narigo's statement just slightly to "improved as playmaker post-95", the statement would basically be true (thus, this general argument of late-90's Malone vs. early-mid 90's Malone would still stand). And the data would do little else but support this......

Malone's five best seasons by Ast/100 possessions: ‘03 (6.9), ‘01 (6.7), ‘97 (6.5), ‘04 (6.2), ‘99 (6.1)--->all five occurred post-'96.
Avg of ‘94-’95: 4.9. Avg of ‘96-’04: 6.2; or avg of '96-'98: 6.0
**also: I like how you call a jump from 4.9 to 6.0 (increase of 22.5%) "not significant"......but the 7.0-7.6% jump in playoff mpg (the difference between '94 and '97 or '99) is apparently hugely significant.

Malone's five best seasons by AST%: ‘97 (24.5%), ‘01 (24.1%), ‘99 (23.0%), ‘02 (21.8%), and ‘98/’00 (20.9%)--->all six of these occurred post-'96 (and '96 would be 7th, btw).
Avg of ‘94-’95: 16.8%. Avg of '96-'98: 22.0%. Avg of ‘96-’04: 22.3%.

Malone's five best seasons by AST%:TOV% ratio: ‘97 (2.207), ‘96 (2.102), ‘03 (2.068), ‘01 (1.868), and ‘00 (1.833).
Avg of ‘94-’95: 1.500. Avg of '96-'98: 2.018. Avg of ‘96-’04: 1.843.


And btw, your assertion that any statistical indicators of improvement in playmaking are all associated with Stockton's reduced role appear undermined by the fact that Stockton saw no such reduction in minutes or role until '98 (two years AFTER we see an apparent improvement in all of Malone's passing/playmaking stats). And arguably his BEST statistical year for playmaking ('97) is a year before Stockton's reduced role.

This is probably the point in the conversation where you switch gears from the "there is no data to support this", to something in the "if you just watch the tape...." personal-eye-test-and-I-won't-have-anyone-tell-me-different vein.


wrt your position that '94 Malone is much better defensively than late-90's Malone......
While I agree with your sentiment pertaining to Malone being an under-appreciated defender, I disagree with the notion that he was better in '94 than he was in the late 90's. Take note of the content in the videos you've provided as evidence of his defensive prowess: in the "Karl Malone - Defense" video, I count 26 clips, and ALL of them are from post-'96; otherwise you have one video from '99, and the rest showing his defense in '04. Your assertion being that he was just as good (only more athletic) when he was younger. As someone who watched Malone a fair bit throughout the 90's and '00's, I simply do not agree.
Personally, I feel he was much more shrewd and cunning a defender late in his career; by the late 90's he had just sort of figured out all the tricks to make the most of his defensive abilities (like the "pulling the chair", which he did better than anyone in history imo).
And fwiw:
'94 and '95-->no All-Def honors either year.
'97-'99--->All-Defensive 1st Team all three years.


Anyway.....Sure, Malone of '94 or '95 had a little more motor (though Malone at 34 still had more motor than most players in their 20's), was a touch more explosive; I won't deny those things. But late-90's Malone was (imo) at least a touch better at all the skill components of the game: better in the mid-range (that's my eye-test, I cannot substantiate that with data), marginally better FT-shooter (data supports this; your arguments would suggest fatigue is a larger factor for late-90's version, so if anything his FT% should be worse if all other things equal), better passer (eye-test, but data above supports this, too, even prior to reduced Stockton role), better defender (eye-test, accolades, visual evidence which you yourself provided all support this).

It's not a big margin, and it's not like I don't see the case for an earlier version of Malone; but that's why most of us are going with the later version.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #31:

Moses Malone - 20
Chris Paul - 14
Karl Malone - 13
Steve Nash - 2
Bob McAdoo/Rick Barry/Scottie Pippen/Walt Frazier/Dwight Howard - 1 each

Plan on calling a winner in about 6 hours. Get your ballots/comments in by then.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[theonlyclutch]

My Final Ballot:

1st Ballot - 2015 Chris Paul

2nd Ballot - 2007 Steve Nash

3rd Ballot - 2011 Dwight Howard

[RSCD3_]

Final Ballot

1. 08 Chris Paul

Has the best combination of passing and efficient scoring ( at a moderately high volume 22-24 PPG level. His added speed is more dangerous to opposing defenses because he can drive to the rim with a lot more ease and the added space he got from defenders sagging helped his playmaking ability be at near the same level back then even though his technical passing ability has probably increased by a decent margin.

2008 RS 29.9 PP100 on 57.6 TS% ( +3.6 RelTS% ), 5.7 RP100, 16.4 AP100 on 4.31 AST%/TOV% Ratio, 0.284 WS/48,116/97 RTG
2008 PS 32.9 PP100 on 56.5 TS% ( +2.5 RelTS% ), 6.7 RP100, 15.4 AP100 on 6.34 AST%/TOV% Ratio, 0.289 WS/48, 126/107 RTG

2. Moses Malone 1983

A great offensive player who put up high volume on very nice efficiency. He had great offensive rebounding ability. What held him back from going long ago was him being merely average as a passer. He was a strong defender in Philly and probably the best one on the team in 83.

83 RS 30.5 PP100 on 57.8 TS% ( +4.7 RelTS% ) 19.1 RP100, 1.6 AP100 on 0.37 AST%/TOV% Ratio, 0.248 WS/48, 116/97 RTG
83 PS 31.9 PP100 on 58.7 TS% ( +5.6 RelTS% ) 19.4 RP100, 1.9 AP100 on 0.50 AST%/TOV% Ratio, 0.260 WS/48, 118/96 RTG

One of the few two way bigs left. And that's leads me to

3. Dwight Howard 2009. A great defensive presence and he was disciplined offensively causing him to yield his highest offensive impact. Was a huge part of the magics upset over the Cavs. Poor ending series but I cut a little slack as he wasn't even supposed to be there.

2009 RS 28.2 PP100 on 61.9 TS% ( +8.5 RelTS% ) 19.3 RP100, 1.8 AP100 on 0.38 AST%/TOV% Ratio, 0.200 WS/48, 113/99 RTG
2009 PS 24.8 PP100 on 58.9 TS% ( +5.5 RelTS% ) 20.4 RP100, 1.2 AP100 on 0.23 AST%/TOV% Ratio, 0.172 WS/48, 113/102 RTG

[theonlyclutch]

For those who voted Moses, what separates him from 2015 Davis?

MM 1983 - 30.4/19.1/1.6 (4.2 TOV)/1.4/2.5, 25.1 PER, 57.8% TS, 116 ORTG
AD 2015 - 35.4/14.9/3.2 (2.0 TOV)/2.1/4.3, 30.8 PER, 59.1% TS, 122 ORTG

Davis is floating more volume at better per-posession efficiency, he's getting his hands on more blocks and steals (for whatever that's worth), I find it very difficult to justify Moses offensive impact as being better than Davis, and if that proposition is true, is there a good argument for Moses actually being superior to Davis (on D) that year?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #35:

Moses Malone - 22
Chris Paul - 20
Karl Malone - 13
Steve Nash - 4
Dwight Howard - 3
Bob McAdoo/Rick Barry/Scottie Pippen/Walt Frazier - 1 each

Kinda want to go to bed, but with the vote this close, I'll leave it open another 45-60 minutes to see if anything changes. Then I'm calling it.

[trex_8063]

OK, calling it for Moses. Will have #26 up shortly.

[bastillon]

If we altered Narigo's statement just slightly to "improved as playmaker post-95", the statement would basically be true (thus, this general argument of late-90's Malone vs. early-mid 90's Malone would still stand). And the data would do little else but support this......

Malone's five best seasons by Ast/100 possessions: ‘03 (6.9), ‘01 (6.7), ‘97 (6.5), ‘04 (6.2), ‘99 (6.1)--->all five occurred post-'96.
Avg of ‘94-’95: 4.9. Avg of ‘96-’04: 6.2; or avg of '96-'98: 6.0
**also: I like how you call a jump from 4.9 to 6.0 (increase of 22.5%) "not significant"......but the 7.0-7.6% jump in playoff mpg (the difference between '94 and '97 or '99) is apparently hugely significant.

Malone's five best seasons by AST%: ‘97 (24.5%), ‘01 (24.1%), ‘99 (23.0%), ‘02 (21.8%), and ‘98/’00 (20.9%)--->all six of these occurred post-'96 (and '96 would be 7th, btw).
Avg of ‘94-’95: 16.8%. Avg of '96-'98: 22.0%. Avg of ‘96-’04: 22.3%.

Malone's five best seasons by AST%:TOV% ratio: ‘97 (2.207), ‘96 (2.102), ‘03 (2.068), ‘01 (1.868), and ‘00 (1.833).
Avg of ‘94-’95: 1.500. Avg of '96-'98: 2.018. Avg of ‘96-’04: 1.843.


And btw, your assertion that any statistical indicators of improvement in playmaking are all associated with Stockton's reduced role appear undermined by the fact that Stockton saw no such reduction in minutes or role until '98 (two years AFTER we see an apparent improvement in all of Malone's passing/playmaking stats). And arguably his BEST statistical year for playmaking ('97) is a year before Stockton's reduced role.

This is probably the point in the conversation where you switch gears from the "there is no data to support this", to something in the "if you just watch the tape...." personal-eye-test-and-I-won't-have-anyone-tell-me-different vein.


wrt your position that '94 Malone is much better defensively than late-90's Malone......
While I agree with your sentiment pertaining to Malone being an under-appreciated defender, I disagree with the notion that he was better in '94 than he was in the late 90's. Take note of the content in the videos you've provided as evidence of his defensive prowess: in the "Karl Malone - Defense" video, I count 26 clips, and ALL of them are from post-'96; otherwise you have one video from '99, and the rest showing his defense in '04. Your assertion being that he was just as good (only more athletic) when he was younger. As someone who watched Malone a fair bit throughout the 90's and '00's, I simply do not agree.
Personally, I feel he was much more shrewd and cunning a defender late in his career; by the late 90's he had just sort of figured out all the tricks to make the most of his defensive abilities (like the "pulling the chair", which he did better than anyone in history imo).
And fwiw:
'94 and '95-->no All-Def honors either year.
'97-'99--->All-Defensive 1st Team all three years.


Anyway.....Sure, Malone of '94 or '95 had a little more motor (though Malone at 34 still had more motor than most players in their 20's), was a touch more explosive; I won't deny those things. But late-90's Malone was at least a touch better at all the skill components of the game: better in the mid-range (that's my eye-test, I cannot substantiate that with data), marginally better FT-shooter (data supports this; your arguments would suggest fatigue is a larger factor for late-90's version, so if anything his FT% should be worse if all other things equal), better passer (eye-test, but data above supports this, too, even prior to reduced Stockton role), better defender (eye-test, accolades, visual evidence which you yourself provided all support this).

It's not a big margin, and it's not like I don't see the case for an earlier version of Malone; but that's why most of us are going with the later version.

First of all, you would benefit a lot from keeping an open mind. You are blindly arguing that 30 year old Karl Malone was worse than 33-34 year old. Even at first glance it makes no sense. TL; DR after the spoiler tag.

Spoiler:

You are misusing the stats. I already responded to that ast% argument. That stat is useless to what you are trying to show. Just because Malone had more assists within his team does not mean that he improved as a playmaker. Since you are unwilling to understand this simple argument, let me give an example:

Player A gets 10 assists a game. His team gets 20 assists a game. His ast% is 50%.
Then, player A gets 12 assists a game, but his team gets 24 assists a game and his ast%, despite averaging more assists, stays the same.
Then, player A drops to 8 assists a game. At the same time, his team completely collapses and averages only 15 assists a game. Player A is now over 50% in ast%. But there is no doubt that he regressed significantly.

Conclusion: ast% is a useless stat in judging individual performance. That is not the point of this statistic. It shows player's contribution to team's assists, not his individual performance as such.

The stat you wanna be using is ast per 100 possessions. It makes no sense to compare player's assists to what his team was doing. Malone did slightly improve in that regard ~5 to ~6 assists per 100 possessions. But like I said, it was due to the fact that his role was bigger in those years. This is what ast% (and usg%) specifically shows.

Let's look at Stockton's role within the team. Now using ast% and usg% makes sense because it shows % relative to his entire team, in other words, describes Stockton's role within the team. I will use 96-97 as a point of comparison since you seem to be contesting that Stockton's role within his team changed in any way:

90-95: 20% usage%, 54% assists%
96-97: 18.5% usage%, 47.5% assists%.

That looks like a pretty significant difference to me. At the same time Malone's assists% and usage% suddenly skyrocketed to career highs... hm wonder why that is. Stockton is not the only one whose role was lesser. Also Hornacek was less used after about 95.

Honestly the concept that a player like Malone would become a better "playmaker" at the age of 33 is laughable to me. Stockton's lesser role in late 90s and Malone carrying more burden are widely known and has been repeated on realGM many many times in the past. I should not repeat them once again. Regrettably, given your arguments, I had to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, back to the argument on Malone's allegedly better playmaking. The stat I will use is assists per 100 possessions, because that is what measures individual performance. Malone averaged 1 assist more per 100 possessions... but he also played less mins which somewhat diminishes that gap. But most importantly, that was in the RS.

What happened in the PS:
94-95: AST/100 4.4, TOV/100 2.9, AST/game 3.5, TOV/game 2.4
96-98: AST/100 4.9, TOV/100 3.8, AST/game 3.5, TOV/game 2.7

Any way you look at it, no improvement. The paradox of your argument is that you are voting for 97 when Malone had one of his career lows in playoff assists (2.9 assists per game, 2.7 tov). So if better playmaking was the distinctive indicator, then you are contradicting yourself.

----------------------------------------------------------

As for Malone's defense, those clips mainly come from early 00s because probably that is what the author had available. In case you didn't know, early/mid 90s Jazz games are not exactly everywhere. Malone may have been a great defender even well into 00s (heck he destroyed Duncan at 40 years old), but still he was not as good as in the mid 90s. 94 Malone's defense on D-Rob was probably the best he ever played. But yes, you do need to watch the tape to know this.

Just looking at raw stats you can see that Malone was better in the mid 90s:

RS:
94-95: 8.7 DRB, 1.5 STL, 1.3 BLK
96-98: 7.7 DRB, 1.4 STL, 0.6 BLK

PS:
94-95: 9.4 DRB, 1.4 STL, 0.7 BLK
96-98: 8.2 DRB, 1.4 STL, 0.8 BLK
In the playoffs he was facing far superior competition in 94-95 (Hakeem-Thorpe, Robinson-Rodman, Mutombo-Ellis, Hakeem-Brown).

Now if you look at performance of his opponents in the mid 90s, and the same players in the late 90s, you will see that he played better defense in the mid 90s. I don't have the time to dig into those stats, unfortunately.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest difference between mid 90s Malone and late 90s Malone was playoff efficiency. In short, mid 90s Malone faced far superior players and still delivered 53-54% TS and 113 ORtg, meanwhile late 90s Malone, while facing inferior opponents delivered 51-52% TS and 105 ORtg.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall 94 Malone vs 97 Malone in the PS:
94 Malone - 27 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.4 apg, 2.1 tov, 1.4 stl, 0.8 blk, 53.1% TS, 113 ORtg, 24.6 PER, 0.209 WS48
vs. Robinson/Rodman, Mutombo/Ellis, Hakeem/Thorpe

97 Malone - 26 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 2.9 apg, 2.7 tov, 1.4 stl, 0.8 blk, 50.1% TS, 105 ORtg, 22.2 PER, 0.127 WS48
vs. Lorenzen Wright/Loy Vaught, Shaq/Campbell, Hakeem/Barkley, Rodman/Longley

Those PS performances really show just how much Malone regressed. Despite playing much inferior opponents, Malone performed significantly worse. That is the combined effect of lower stamina, regressed athleticism and being too heavily reliant on a jumpshot.

[Owly]

First of all, you would benefit a lot from keeping an open mind. You are blindly arguing that 30 year old Karl Malone was worse than 33-34 year old. Even at first glance it makes no sense. TL; DR after the spoiler tag.

[spoiler]You are misusing the stats. I already responded to that ast% argument. That stat is useless to what you are trying to show. Just because Malone had more assists within his team does not mean that he improved as a playmaker. Since you are unwilling to understand this simple argument, let me give an example:

Player A gets 10 assists a game. His team gets 20 assists a game. His ast% is 50%.
Then, player A gets 12 assists a game, but his team gets 24 assists a game and his ast%, despite averaging more assists, stays the same.
Then, player A drops to 8 assists a game. At the same time, his team completely collapses and averages only 15 assists a game. Player A is now over 50% in ast%. But there is no doubt that he regressed significantly.

Conclusion: ast% is a useless stat in judging individual performance. That is not the point of this statistic. It shows player's contribution to team's assists, not his individual performance as such.

Just from this initial part of the posting.

1) Telling those who disagree that they're "blindly arguing" and implying they have a closed mind neither makes you more correct nor endears you to those who you would have listen to your arguments.

2) After telling people that they are "misusing the stats" it's best if you understand the stats yourself. Assist percentage isn't percentage of team assists, it's "an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on the floor" (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html) which in no way involves team assists (the formula is in with link).

For what it's worth you could present a similar argument to the one used substituting in team fg(m), but it would benefit such an argument to acknowledge that it would be harder to assist baskets in team which isn't scoring and thus at very least assist% has value as a complement to assists/36.

[bastillon]

My bad on team assists - I was going off my memory. But this is just semantics; the point still stands. Ast% is still connected to team performance, and shows your role within the team, not invididual performance.

Example:
Scenario #1: player A gets 10 assists. Team gets 20 FGs during that period. Ast% is 50%.
Scenario #2: player A gets 8 assist. Team gets 15 FGs during that period. Ast% is over 50% despite having less assists.

Either way, ast% does not show your individual performance. It shows your role within the team. The fact that Malone's ast% jumped is because he had a bigger role on the team. So if ast% jumped up, "an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on the floor", then it means that you had a bigger role on your team compared to previously. This is what I've been saying mid 90s Malone was less involved in running the offense. As Stockton's role decreased (and Hornacek's), Malone was more and more involved. That does not mean that he improved as a playmaker.

Most importantly, I would like someone to respond to the decrease in Malone's playoff efficiency after mid 90s. In comparison to 94-95 specifically, this decrease was substantial.