Ryoga Hibiki wrote:I have a serious problem with people voting Karl Malone over Dirk.
Unless you really value a lot longevity and RS play, Dirk has so much better as a playoff performer consistently in his career that the case shouldn't be there.
To me better playoff performer => better player and better career, great RS stats is a nice to have but that's not what top15 players are made of.
Counter arguments would be that playoff stats are more influenced by luck (smaller samples, luck of the matchups you happen to face, luck of injuries, whether your opponents happen to be hot or cold) and other factors out of a players control (if you're a singular focus of your teams offense you're easier to defend in the playoffs; quality of coaching; opposing team quality).
Through his prime Malone's playoff stats are solid by most standards, albeit below what you'd expect for a player at this point in this list (89-00 PER: 23.2 ; WS/48: .166; Isiah who made his name in the playoffs, if you cut off poor seasons at just 29 and 30 - and he didn't make the playoffs in his poorest years as rookie and his final 2 seasons - has 20.9 PER and .161 and the majority of his win shares came on the defensive end where he was over credited for the Piston's elite D and his gambling based D resulting in boxscore stats). Okay part of the above is Isiah is overrated. But there is a point in judging players playoffs by absolute standards not whether they rise or fall. Dirk's do rise (or did until last year hacked away at his career playoff numbers, now they're closer to even which in any case means a real terms improvement given the tougher competition) and there is a gap in playoff production (01-12 PER: 24.7 ; WS/48 .205). But Karl is a better defender which isn't necessarily showing up in these boxscore metrics (though I suppose nor is Dirk's spacing). I'd just suggest that all put together with the substantial longevity edge (not that Nowitzki is any kind of a slacker in this regard, Malone just has 12000 regular season minutes on Dirk (plus about 2500) playoff minutes) and I don't see why people wouldn't think this was close.
I get that your championship chances were somewhat limited with Malone in the role he took - in terms of a limited offensive upside if his shooting was only average which typically it was (though as noted before '98 Finals, G6 a couple of dubious shot clock calls being reversed would have had G7 in Utah with Utah now having the momentum, and MJ facing his first 7 game finals, not that I don't think Jordan could take it, just it changes the complexion of things) and we don't have proof as to whether he could have traded a bit of volume for efficiency (either with a more conventional 25+ usage second scoring option or just non near replacement level guys (or worse) at SF and C). I just think it's entirely pluasible, reasonable to have Malone here and I think it would be easy to put the point the other way round (e.g. "Unless you really value a lot the small sample size, luck affected playoffs, I don't see how you can put Nowitzki over a better defender, a guy with better per minute metrics AND substantially better longevity. He's better in the boxscore and the non-boxscore and does so for more minutes. And the gulf in accolades only confirms this.").
I think there's a lot of viable candidates here Mikan is the most dominant guy available (and combined with team success); David Robinson gives an epic peak and incredible defense later; Karl Malone offers huge longevity; Jerry West was a superb all-round two-way player with excellent WOWY and playoff numbers; Bob Pettit was a two time MVP (good candidate from '56 to '61). Then theres Nowitzki, Erving, Barkley, Moses, Stockton etc.
I just don't get why anyone would think it's cut and dried easy to pick a guy here.
My inclination is to vote
Robinson again, I'm not convinced he dropped off on D in the playoffs (though this is probably something we should revisit); his offense was still pretty good in absolute terms (and he was the sole focus of defenses); his D went on past his prime; his first two seasons with Duncan are IMO underrated and he was a monster at his peak (boxscore, WOWY or even rookie impact). That said I think I could be persuaded for West, K Malone, Nowitzki and maybe Mikan, maybe Erving (I'm just not certain about his D, particularly non-ABA and those first three NBA years, rationalised though they may be by fit and nagging injuries, take away a lot of productivity from what should be his prime/peak; and he doesn't have any exceptional NBA playoffs, so quite a bit hinges on weighing up the ABA where obviously he has a couple of huge playoffs).
DQuinn1575 wrote:Baller2014 wrote:The teams who made the finals prior to 1997 were better than the teams he played for. I don't think that's entirely on Karl Malone, or rather it's no more on Karl Malone than it is on West for some of the years the Lakers got eliminated early (or arguably with a better team). West generally had better team mates, and so his team generally had better chances to make the finals.
Malone played alongside Stockton, who was ranked #31 last time - let's call him top 40.
Can you break down the teams he lost to, other than the Lakers, to show why the team lost and why none of this should be on Karl?
If all those teams up to 1996 were better than Malone's teams, which included another top 40 player, then some of that is on Karl -
The only teams I would consider giving a pass to are the teams that won, which I think is one Laker team, and two Hakeem teams.
Not to enter the "who it is more "on" conversation but ...
Yes Malone was fortunate enough to play with Stockton, but you still need three other players on the court. People get caught up in players above a certain threshold (often all-star; as though Marcus Camby, Rod Strickland, Andre Miller, Jason Terry, Lamar Odom, Cedric Maxwell et al were indistinct from the worst players in the NBA).
Once Stockton and Malone got going (i.e. not saying Dantley) who were their best teammates? Hornacek (okay genuinely a good player), Jeff Malone (main skill was the long-ish 2, he probably about an average SG, maybe worse for a starter, and then he fell off a bit), Ty Corbin (a really nice role-player, good attitude, hustle and D, shot well enough, solid all-round player but his numbers fell off a cliff in '94), Eaton (awesome defender, awful offensive player, unclear net impact), Thurl Bailey (average-ish starter for a couple of years, then fell off).
And that's not all at any one time. The point is, evaluate the team not the second best individual.
Not that I'm sure blame for a loss is helpful way of looking at things (how does it work, are you to blame if you're worse than your RS self even if that's still very good? If you look to assign blame on defeats does that mean how you play in victory doesn't matter: were '58, '72 and '83 the best (NBA) playoffs of Pettit, West and Erving). I mean I get if people want to say "that wasn't elite performance (in real terms) which you might expect of players in this tier". But a often it's looking too closely at a tiny sample or looking at the names of players (say for instance Shaq's teammates in the late 90s or even versus Houston, and saying "He lost with the better team." As though it doesn't matter that that "better team" on paper didn't perform like that in the series or that his outstanding RS play was the reason that the team was considered better). This isn't at anyone, just the notion of blame was used this thread of the discussion and I'm not sure it's a productive way of looking at things, for me at least.
Love insight from people who watched these greats.
