#18 Highest Peak of All Time (Dirk '11 wins)

[therealbig3]

A couple of thoughts:

-I'm a little disappointed that people are overlooking T-Mac without really giving a convincing explanation as to why he should be seen a clear tier below Wade and Kobe. Statistically speaking, I haven't seen anything that should drop him below them. I know T-Mac generally played further below his standard against good teams than Kobe or Wade did, but A. his standard was higher than Kobe's, so even though his play fell off more, he was still at the same level against good teams, B. Wade was better than either of them against good teams...barely, C. Supporting cast influences production. Personally, I think T-Mac had some pretty poor offensive support in Orlando, and I know Wade and Kobe had seasons where they played with crap too, but T-Mac had it worse imo. It's debatable, but at absolute worst, there's still a negligible difference between the three from what I see, and D. It's one metric, using GameScore.

Now, this doesn't really prove anything, but the general consensus on these boards for a while has been that all three of them are practically equal peak for peak, and T-Mac was usually the one coming out on top. Again, general consensus doesn't really prove anything, but it's weird to all of a sudden see people not even consider him for the next few votes, when Wade and Kobe were so easily voted in. He's clearly a little bit ahead of either of them offensively as far as I'm concerned. The defense is what makes the debate super-close, but again, considering we're assuming these guys are on contenders, T-Mac would focus more on defense, and he was a very good defender when he had the ability to expend more energy on that end.

-Holy cow at Moses Malone. Can I see some legit breakdown of why his peak should go now from his voters? The articles are great, but articles have a way of making whoever they're talking about seem god-like. It's good to see what contemporary opinion was, but the statistical argument for Moses isn't very strong. What's his case over Dirk, T-Mac, West, K. Malone, Barkley, Nash, or Paul?

[Doctor MJ]

EDIT: Josephpaul was waived...should his vote still count?

Well, if you get waived you're out of the project clearly.

How about we give him a half vote this time which will make a tie caused by him impossible, but could also let him go out having made the difference for his guy. Any objections?

[therealbig3]

For the 11 Dirk voters:

The only case I can see for 11 Dirk over 06 Dirk is the offensive skillset...you can point out how 06 Dirk struggled against Miami (and GS the next year), and most of that was probably due to not having developed his mid-post game as of yet. Ok, cool.

But in that case, why 11 Dirk over 08-10 Dirk? Dirk worked on and incorporated his mid-post game after the GS series, and became a deadly offensive weapon from 08 onwards. What was 11 Dirk doing that 08-10 Dirk wasn't? It seems to me that 08-10 Dirk was comparable offensively and better defensively. I'm personally still going with 09 Dirk as his peak, but I could be swayed to 06. As of right now though, can't really understand why 11 over 08-10.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't personally have an issue with someone siding with a year like Dirk '11 simply because they think he was roughly on par that year as he'd ever been, and it was the year he contributed most value.

I think people should really think about the nature of that value, and not overrate how good a guy was simply because a team got built well around him, but as a tiebreaker it seems plenty reasonable.

I also think we're at a stage where it makes sense to be talking about Dirk period despite the fact he doesn't have my vote here.

[therealbig3]

Compare 08-10 Dirk vs 11 Dirk in the playoffs:

08 Dirk per 75 possessions (5 games, vs -1.8 defense):
26.3 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.0 TOpg, 58.8% TS (+4.8%), 118 ORating

09 Dirk per 75 possessions (10 games, vs -2.7 defense):
27.2 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.3 TOpg, 63.5% TS (+9.1%), 126 ORating

10 Dirk per 75 possessions (6 games, vs -3.1 defense):
28.0 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 3.1 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 64.3% TS (+10.0%), 130 ORating

11 Dirk per 75 possessions (21 games, vs -1.7 defense):
29.3 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 2.6 apg, 3.3 TOpg, 60.9% TS (+6.8%), 115 ORating


If you combine his playoff runs from 08-10 (which would be the same amount of games as he played overall in 11), you're getting better offensive production (by quite a bit) against better defenses (by quite a bit), and with better defense and rebounding from Dirk.

[ElGee]

Well Doc, if I need a defense rep on realgm I know where to turn now. While I'm here, thoughts on some of the nice posts on this page:

realbig3, I hear your frustration on T-Mac. To me, part of this is that short peak. It creates less confidence in the player, even in a peaks project like this, and in a project like this, that means they are identical "tiers" really but still can be 5 or 6 spots apart.

fatal said it best about Moses Malone -- if you just look at his box numbers, you won't understand him. This was a very good player -- even the best in the game for a short while arguably -- but he was a strange player. Huge offensive value coming from offensive rebounding, which only served to weaken his marginal defense. And this is not an-time impact offensive player, despite those scoring numbers, because the value from offensive rebounding we see is fairly constant (eg Rodman, Chandler) but it doesn't make others better.

Moses didn't have a game that made others better -- he had a decent little faceup from mid range and he used his body well near the baseline for brut moves. I think I"m being generous by calling him a black hole on offense. (He'd have about one game a year with more than 5 ast.)

The real issue with Moses, which I'd like people to consider/discuss/research, is the same pro I see for Karl Malone that drza mentioned: defense. I actually consider Moses a positive impact defender because I don't think he's really "bad" there as some make him out to be. He managed to make the 83 all-D teams without being much a shot blocker for a reason...but I actually consider Karl's defense to be better and this is sort of the crux of Karl to me for this project.

Malone's really a pain in the ass man defender. A good, but not excellent team defender. And a good defensive rebounder. Generated steals and used his strength to match up well with certain players. But the thing that has me thinking is what happened in LA when he could focus on it more. He's such a SMART player on both ends (fatal's comment about him finding open space on offense was brilliant). We know he's an unbelievably conditioned athlete...so if he's on a more balanced offensive team, doesn't he have more burn for the defensive end making him an even better defender? (And no, he's not the iso scorer Hakeem, Kareem, etc. are...but don't overrate the importance of that -- very few contending teams will built around 1 scorer.*)

*To wit, consider how good teams have balanced attacks anyway. Then, on teams that relied more heavily on one player, there will be a series of possessions where that player need to iso score, whether the strategy is good or not. If Malone's jumper is a 40% proposition, and Hakeem's post mastery is a 55% proposition, and they were called on for 5 isolation possessions every close PS game, Dream's team would have 1.5 extra points a game. On average, such a scenario would change the outcome of 1 in every 13 playoff games.

This is the same line of thought I used for peak Wade, Kobe and T-Mac...and I think Malone comes out looking really good to me here when you also consider how good his defensive teams were. I mean, Corbin and Russell (and even Stock) were solid defenders, but I think Utah's defensive core was Malone+defensive big...and the results were awesome with Eaton and then excellent with guys like Spencer and Ostertag. In other words, he's a big part of the reason they were a ~7 SRS team in the RS AND the PS for Malone's best years, and it extends beyond offensive contribution.

drza, that was the best post on Dirk in this project. To me, his peak has always been 2006. We know Nash and Paul are there. We know Pippen and maybe Ewing/Howard need a place soon, and then it makes sense to compare Dirk to the other guys on our big board (where is Rick Barry btw??)...and if you liked Dirk in 03 and 06 and 07, then I think it makes a lot of sense to size him up next to these guys.

[thizznation]

I agree with '06 Dirk over '11. I wouldn't throw a fit if '11 got voted in over '06 but I still think the '11 guys should take a look at the compiled stats from post the post and regular season from both years. '06 has an advantage in almost all categories except TS% and that difference is minuscule.

If we try to take away our winning bias, the only place '11 Dirk is head and shoulders above '06 Dirk is RAPM. Would the difference in how the team was constructed around him in '11 change his RAPM that drastically? Or was his play just that much better to give him greater impact compared to that of all his other seasons?

[kaima]

Another quick visual anecdote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsuLF0DqzU[/youtube]

Great performance but this shows exactly what people already criticize about Malone's game. Too many jumpers! In a game he was "on", he's going to look amazing, but he didn't mix it up in these years, his iso-scoring is too dependent on them.

To be honest, I agree that Malone's game became jumper-happy later on. But also to be clear, the clip's an outlier on that scale: he shot no FTs in that game (and he averaged about ten per that year) and simply decimated the Spurs with jumpers, after realizing early on that the officials weren't going to give him calls on deep posts or drives that night. A highlight clip is a highlight clip, of course, but that clip was also about Malone's ability (often ignored) to step up in crucial playoff matchups and just break an opponent. He did that a number of times in 98, yet many think he had a bad playoff run.

The thing that bothers me is that I believe he had the talent and body to score in so many more different ways, but he just fell in love with that jumper.

I think a lot of that had to do with Utah's sets and spacing, perhaps from Sloan's gameplanning and playcalling.

Yet, yes, he did "settle" too often, whereas a younger Malone would often brutalize the opponent out of the post.

An example of Malone following Sloan's orders in gameplanning, to me, is the 98 Finals. The spacing in that series is very suspect and is arguably a zone off Chi's side. This decimated Utah's UCLA/Flex sets, yet as it was happening Malone tried to stay in the offense rather than going iso. Big mistake, and Malone deserves blame for it. Yet I don't see it as a skillset issue: when Malone starts demanding the ball in iso situations in game 5, the Bulls have no answer. And yet again, outside the strip, the Bulls were without an answer in game 6. In those games Malone's ability from low, mid and high was on full display, and it didn't show a player with anything close to a limited skillset value. His ability to score throughout the post was highly developed by his late prime/peak.

It's a non-attacking shot which bails out defenses, it kept him from utilizing all of his skills, it was an inefficient shot against playoff defenses in isolation and it's why he couldn't pace his scoring like truly great scorers who know they can get theirs in a variety of ways whenever they want at any point of the game.

Malone obviously went to a number jumpers later. The fade and the turnaround were often on display.

But he his brutal style was still in evidence at least through 99, and that, honestly, also drove his % down: sometimes he wouldn't get the call he wanted at the rim or elsewhere when the game turned physical. Yet this was Utah's gameplan, a strength for them and even, often, Malone.

Malone forced shots from outside. But he also did that inside.

It often worked, with Malone having a good or even great game with some pedestrian % on FGs and TS.

I already know Karl can shoot a jumper for me on command, but your jumper can't be on every game (especially if you're not a pure shooter) so what then can Malone do for me when I need him to score on isos?

Outside a very few bigs, even amongst all-time greats, doesn't end-of-game scoring remain a problem, so far as the defense's ability to load up on post positions? The problem often becomes getting the ball to the guy in the right spot.

Malone's offense was never that limited in this same standardization relatively. He often made big shots from the field, he simply couldn't be trusted from the line. Ironically this aspect is quite similar to Tim Duncan's late game woes (his achiles has also, generally, been late-game FTs).

As an example, though the outcome is not good for Utah, often Malone would post relatively deep late in the game, as seen with the closing moments of game 6 in 98 against Chicago; the contradiction, of course, is that Utah would have been in far better position with Malone in the same spot but with less off-ball movement. The spacing kills the play rather than any deficit in Malone's game. To me that sums up what undid Utah in that Finals.

It's not an efficient shot in isos especially when it's your only real "go to" move. In the game before that one he shot 6/21, in the game after he shot 7/21.

But those two stats are what's at issue with Malone; in game 3 the box score tells the tale, in that he sucked. In game 5? Malone was the best player on the floor, in an ugly playoff slugfest of a game. Watching the two games communicates this, whereas the box scores may lose the distance and variance in quality between the two performances. This is not an isolated example for Malone's career, but is rather closer to the norm.

In this sense -- box score/advanced box versus gametape -- Malone has a lot in common with another player I respect the hell out of: Kobe.

Malone's ability was often drawn from shooting 6/20 from the field, while going 14-16 at the line. Which is why his scoring is not all that dissimilar from Hakeem's through 97/98 when looking at PPG matched to number of FGAs; in that context, their production is pretty close.

Malone's game is not going to look good by some metrics, advanced or mundane, I agree. But I don't think that is where the story ends on him. At all.

I agree with '06 Dirk over '11. I wouldn't throw a fit if '11 got voted in over '06 but I still think the '11 guys should take a look at the compiled stats from post the post and regular season from both years. '06 has an advantage in almost all categories except TS% and that difference is minuscule.

Frankly, I think Dirk's run may be more impressive, too, based on playoff opponents. Rather, opponent. Toppling the defending champs from SA was a more impressive series outcome than anything from 11 in my opinion. Though one could point to Duncan';s ailment I still would say the Spurs were better than any opponent from 11. I wasn't really surprised by the Lakers losing. A Phil team being swept bummed and shocked me, but the history favored the Mavericks heavily against LA (a team coming in off of three straight Finals appearances, with modern history telling us that no Western Conference contender copes well in the fourth year of such a standard; losing in the second round is, in fact, the standard).

If we try to take away our winning bias, the only place '11 Dirk is head and shoulders above '06 Dirk is RAPM. Would the difference in how the team was constructed around him in '11 change his RAPM that drastically? Or was his play just that much better to give him greater impact compared to that of all his other seasons?

Dirk's Finals was seen as weak in 06, and arguably was. People always remember your last game when you lose and don't perform well, even if the prior 20 provided ample examples of a player stepping up. That is, as long as you don't have a title.

It's always the Olajuwon Hypothetical for me: if the Sonics face the Rockets in eitehr 94 or 95, or both years, presumptively winning, does this make Hakeem less of a player? Is he less of a player with a performance similar to what he managed against Big Smooth/Kemp/Karl's traps in 96?

This is why analyzing game tape, often by possession and coming to overall understandings as to a peak players skillset values, matters far more to me than who wins.

You are so adamant about sample size and variance, but now 4 games or even part of one game is enough?

I can't speak for El Gee, but from my perspective what could make four games very telling is, um, watching them. Possession by possession.

The 92 WCF is a very telling series as far as Malone's abilities. But that's only of you watch it, and truly analzye what he's bringing on skillset value, with or without Stockton. From what I've sen, the 92 Malone was an absolute terror with or without the game's best passer.

The Stockton meme is an empty one against Malone, and vice versa. What tape tells me is that their synergy elevated lousy Utah rosters rather than covering for one another.

it's about like screaming that Jordan couldn't win championships without Pippen. This is meant to degrade Jordan, but it deals with nothing as far as his skillsets as an individual presence. The Stockton-made-Malone argument is ten times worse and more ridiculous, but at it's center is...close to nothing on substance.

It's of the same substance, I suppose, as saying Dirk Nowitzki was an all-time choker, then, discovered how to be a "winner" in 2011 playoffs and, in so doing, became one of the greatest playoff and clutch performers of all time. Jordan would have been ****, man!!!

I wish people would actually bother to watch plays unfold and the key players in those sets, rather than pretending they''re reading the New York Times in 1918.

[C-izMe]

This article sounds a bit biased. He really makes the jump to thinking CP3 would be Lebron like in his departure but he really handled it well. Definetly handled it better than Melo, Bosh, Lebron, etc. His team is now in a hood sutures ruin to thrive and no one really holds it against him. A lot of this is him jumping out to conclusions on his the situation would play out but now that we know how it played out he handled it well.

Okay, so when I do provide an example of what you've never seen, you jump straight into defending your previous opinion. Y'know I'm not promoting the guy who wrote this article, I'm just re-iterating stuff that was said about Paul not too long ago.

Your defense itself seems funny to me. You jump straight into saying "Well Paul wasn't as bad as these other guys who screwed their franchise" as if that would make him a great leader. But more glaringly:

You're not denying or discussing that Paul demanded a trade in 2010 only 1 season after signing a new contract. This fact was a HUGE deal to people, and it's like you never seemed noteworthy to you. Suffice to say, it was a far worse case of jumping ship than we saw from any of the other guys you mentioned, and beyond that it just made Paul look like an idiot for apparently signing a deal without putting any insight into how the team was going to be in years to come.

Now, with that said, none of that is really about Paul being a follower. Paul being influenced by LeBron seems pretty clear, but it's not like he's following LeBron around during the NBA season. I understand if you object to that characterization.

I'm not trying to say the article is terrible or that his argument holds no ground. It's clear he probably wouldn't have left if not for the decision and leaving right after signing a contract is pretty bad. I'm just saying its not as bad as the article makes it seem. I can definetly see where your coming from now but on court CP3 is still one of the few leaders left.

[colts18]

vote Dirk 11

I can't see anyone else with an argument. He beat 3 7+ SRS teams in a row and beat 2 of them without HCA which is critical in the playoffs.

[drza]

Great, great breakdown fatal.

+1

I can definitely see how Karl Malone having an over-reliance on lower percentage shots (jumpers), easy-but-take-away-able shots (hustle run-outs or system/Stockton related chippies) or out-muscling folks without consistent post moves (also take-away-able) could cause a playoffs dip. But on the other hand, I maintain that said dip would be much smaller on teams with more offensive pieces, which will generally be the case with contenders. I liked ElGee's numerical breakdown of how many points Malone's lower efficiency shooting might really be worth in the playoffs, as I think sometimes people look at true shooting percentage and extrapolate it beyond its actual value. It's important, bu in the context of a multi-faceted superstars complete impact, I find scoring efficiency alone to have gotten greatly overrated in the rise of the advanced box score stats. A TS% drop may be enough to lower a PER by 25% or cut win shares more than in half...but that doesn't really mean that the player's actual impact and effectiveness dropped to that extent, if it even dropped at all.

[lorak]

- In an iso situation, pretty much the only shot prime Malone was shooting was a 12-15 foot fallaway over a defender. He could mix it up over the course of a game, give you a little jump hook sometimes, face you up and drive, but 9 times out of 10, if you give him the ball and get out of his way, it's going to be that fallaway. I hate that shot, well not the shot itself but how many times he shot it. That sort of somewhat one dimensional iso-scoring is the reason he couldn't come through as a scorer in the playoffs at the rate you'd expect from someone with his averages. It's why when his jumper is on, he'll look unstoppable, shoot like 15/26 in one game but be 9/24 and 6/19 in the next two while taking the exact same shots. His consistency as an iso-scorer is just not where you'd like it to be.

- In general he got more easy baskets than any 25+ ppg guy I've consistently seen. Combination of playing with the best PG at delivering the ball, the offensive system Utah ran which creates lots of easy baskets off cuts and backscreens and to Malone's credit, him having a scorer's nose for where to be on the floor. Those easy baskets aren't quite as readily avaliable in the playoffs with better defensive teams so that contributes to decline in his playoff scoring as well.

And that's very big issue here, because Malone's biggest strength was scoring. Unfortunately, many people don't see that, because they are looking on PPG and longevity.

[ardee]

Changed my vote to '68 West... Not as down on Moses as others, but I believe West was clearly better, and ElGee illustrated how ridiculous his efficiency as well as global offensive impact was in '68.

[C-izMe]

I can't vote for Dirk 06 because of his one fatal flaw - short, quick, forwards defending him. Some would say its a small weakness but in this league you'll meet one every year (there's no way you go through 4 teams without meeting one nowadays). TMac, Haslem, Harrington and in 11 alone possibly Wallace, Artest, KD, Collison, Haslem, and Lebron. No doubt in my mind that 11 Dirk could make (and probably win) the 06 Finals. 06 Dirk in 11 wouldn't make it to the Finals.

Now the 09 v 11 argument basically comes down to how I felt about both years at the time. In 09 he was worse than Paul, Lebron, Wade, and Kobe IMO. In 11 he was the best in the game.

[bastillon]

re:Moses. people who voted for him only did so because of ppg/rpg numbers. I've already commented on this but nobody responded: how did Moses do aside from his scoring/offensive rebounding ? let's face it, his game was very one-dimensional, he was the best ever at scoring off putbacks but could do little else. you couldn't run the offense through him. his offensive game was anti-defensive efficiency. extremely empty defensive rebounding which led to mediocre/bad team DRB% (didn't boxout well, stole rebounds from his teammates, as it seems). he was a blackhole level passer and I agree with ElGee that blackhole is still being generous. aside from scoring tons of garbage pts off putbacks I don't see Moses being good at anything really. mediocre iso scorer, terrible playmaker/passer, bad defender, mediocre leader, overrated defensive rebounder. Moses seems to me like an anti-Walton in that his intangibles are quite probably the lowest of every top player ever.

also it's being very understated how good Sixers were before he joined the team. between 77-82 they lost almost every year to a tim that went on to win a title, while making 3 finals and couple ECFs. they were regularly posting high SRS, especially after Erving's knees got healthy in the 80. Moses joined a stacked team and yes, made a big impact, but that impact is getting very overrated by proponents of shallow boxscore analysis of ppg/rpg/wins combo.

re: Karl Malone. [fatal's breakdown] this is exactly what I talked about calling him "fundamentally flawed offensive player". he wasn't a guy who you could really run your offense through vs tough playoff defenses. ElGee's postseason stats are misleading. first of all, you have to look more closely at Malone's performances vs tough playoff defenses because he was overperforming vs bad teams and underperforming vs good teams. Malone struggled quite bad in many playoff series. 27 ppg @ 53% TS is not what you should expect from peak Malone vs strong opposing defense.

second, your team offense stats are completely ignoring the guy impact that Utah's backcourt had on their offensive performance. note that Jazz struggled offensively before Hornacek joined the team and they struggled as well without Stockton on the floor, as Colts pointed out. but that didn't coincide with Malone really changing his performance. that's worrying me - it means Malone was extremely dependent on Hornacek/Stockton shooting/passing combo to make the offense elite. otherwise he struggled as an offensive anchor, not even so much in the context of struggling individually (his playoff numbers were better when he was younger and didn't shoot so many jumpers) but as a guy who was making the team better. I really have a hard time giving much credit to 93-98 Malone for those offenses seeing how crucial role Hornacek/Stockton played in making that offense elite.

edit:
as for Malone's defense, I agree he was elite post defender. not a shotblocker but he could protect the paint vs any post player. people forget he was capable of guarding Shaq over the course of entire games (something Duncan could never do, for example). shut down D-Rob several times (more than freakin Hakeem!), limited Kemp, made Duncan look hopelessly etc. truly one of the greats in that regard, no doubt about it. his defense vs Hakeem always impressed me as well, I was actually surprised why he didn't guard him more as he seems to have some success vs Olajuwon (relative success, Hakeem was still burning, but vs Jazz Cs he went mad-man mode). his defensive rebounding is also impressive, not only in the sheer numbers, but I consider Malone a very good boxout player.

but that ends right here. there is little Karl Malone could provide little else aside from elite man defense and very good defensive rebounding. he wasn't a shotblocker. his help defense was actually pretty poor. he wasn't quick enough to stay with players on the perimeter. he didn't act quickly enough when Jazz players got beat. I don't like him as my rim protector. he doesn't make his teammates better defensively. what Garnett/Walton/Russell excelled at defensively the most - activity/helpD/contesting shots and passing lanes everywhere on the floor - this is area where Karl Malone is lacking.

and those Jazz teams get underrated defensively. there's a reason why they are criticized for lacking a 2nd option scorer - their roster was consisting of multitude of defense-first role players who were known for their hard work, energy and being Sloan's soldiers. Karl Malone doesn't deserve that much credit for playing on stacked defensive teams. let's not forget Eaton was probably top5 defender ever (quite easily better than Mutombo, Wilt or Rodman for example). Ostertag while horrid offensively was playing excellent defense (look at his blk%... insane), generally Malone's centers were crap offensively and the only reason why they were even playing in the NBA was defense. more generally that was a theme for many of Jazz players - didn't have a lot of scoring talent but were scrappy, hard-nosed and defensive minded.

re: Dirk. personally when I'm confused about player's peak I give the benefit of the doubt to the older version. experience matters, players learn from their mistakes, they change their playing style, they learn how to adapt to the changing environment. in Dirk's case he was more versatile offensively, more playoff oriented. his midpost/low post game was visually much better, teams were putting more pressure to stop him from scoring. it's not even his individual numbers that show this but how Mavs other players were playing better with Dirk on the floor. it's not because of his all time great passing but how much defensive attention he needed. reminds me a lot of Kobe at his best. offensively it's pretty safe to say for me Dirk was a superior player.

that improved offensive game allowed the Mavs to play with very defensively oriented lineups in their title run. they were dominant with Dirk on the court because their defense-first lineups could work well only with such a dominant offensive anchor. his individual defense also improved. I don't remember Dirk playing lockdown defense in 05-07 but as he aged he was stronger in the post, learned how to use his hands to slap the ball, play defense without fouling, contest shots, rotate etc. a quite large share of his defensive improvement was because of his offensive improvement and ability to maintain his value as an offensive anchor with less capable offensive players, but his defense improved individually as well.

re: TMac. the thing that really worries me about him is how he reacted to pressure situations, with his season on the line, when it became apparent that Magic can advance or go home depending on his performance. it's been brought up how he choked away a very winnable 02 series because of 4th quarter meltdowns... but he also played 3 of his worst playoff games in 03, 05 and 07 G7s. I know TMac was generally a great playoff performer but the fact that he didn't get out of the first round (and he could've, if he only stepped up a bit more in that one more game) makes him kind of unproven. great skillset, great player, but understandably concerning how he's handled the big pressure and how that could impact your title chances. much better player as an underdog. I don't think his production was quite comparable when he was leading/tied in a series. really really worrying.

I really can't see TMac/Malones over Dirk.

[MisterWestside]

Funny how some of the same people who decry the use of box score numbers ppg/efficiency are using it against Karl Malone.

[lorak]

Changed my vote to '68 West... Not as down on Moses as others

But what about Dirk, who was better offensive and defensive player than West?

[ElGee]

ElGee's postseason stats are misleading. first of all, you have to look more closely at Malone's performances vs tough playoff defenses because he was overperforming vs bad teams and underperforming vs good teams. Malone struggled quite bad in many playoff series. 27 ppg @ 53% TS is not what you should expect from peak Malone vs strong opposing defense.

It's interesting you mention this, because I've done similar research and that's not entirely what I found. Here are some PS correlations around peaks years -- using 94-98 for Malone (79g), 93-97 for Hakeem (81g)

Correlation Coefficients to Opp Rel DRtg:

Malone to OBEV: 0.13
Hakeem to OBEV: 0.11

Malone to TS%: 0.19
Hakeem to TS%: 0.03

Malone to eFG%: 0.03
Hakeem to eFG%: 0.11

Malone to FTA/36: 0.22
Hakeem to FTA/36: 0.01

So it looks like the overall offensive play, if we include turnovers, doesn't change much based on opp DRtg. Malone's ability to get to the FT line does blip on this radar: is he failing to do so against better defenses? Digging deeper:

Olajuwon's average PS opposing defense in this time was 105.1
Malone's average PS opposing defense in this time was 103.4

What happens if we break it down by defensive strata?

Malone v < 102 DRtg (16g): 1.5 OBEV, 25.2 ppg 51% TS 6.9 FTA/36
Malone v 102-105 DRtg (50g): 2.1 OBEV, 26.6 ppg 51% TS 8.6 FTA/36
Malone v > 105 DRtg (13g): 3.0 OBEV, 28.9 ppg 55% TS 10.7 FTA/36

Hakeem v < 102 DRtg (7g): 2.0 OBEV, 26.7 ppg 56% TS 5.1 FTA/36
Hakeem v 102-105 DRtg (29g): 3.2 BEV, 23.8 ppg 59% TS 5.8 FTA/36
Hakeem v > 105 DRtg (45g): 4.1 OBEV, 30.4 ppg 57% TS 5.8 FTA/36

So it looks like Malone's not getting to the line the same way against elite defenses (2 series from 98 against SAS and Chi and a 1994 series v Hou)...of course he got to the line 11/game in 94 v the Rockets, so it's possible this is small sampled, it's also possible that at the end of 98 Malone simply went to his jumper too much. The game kaima posted against SAS (17-28 shooting) is one of two PS games here he didn't shoot a FTA...the other was in 96 against the Spurs.

You should also note that Hakeem has a similar decline against better teams. He's just BETTER, period, but I wouldn't entire agree with what bastillon said...most players have curves like this against better defenses. Let's widen it and see what it looks like:

Malone 103 (36g): 2.0 OBEV, 25.6 ppg 51% TS 7.4 FTA/36
Malone 106 (30g): 1.9 OBEV, 27.0 ppg 52% TS 9.2 FTA/36
Malone 106+ (13g) 3.0 OBEV, 28.9 ppg 55% TS 10.7 FTA/36

Hakeem 103 (18g): 2.5 OBEV, 22.9 ppg 57% TS 5.0 FTA/36
Hakeem 106 (33g): 4.1 OBEV, 29.9 ppg 59% TS 6.9 FTA/36
Hakeem 106+ (30g): 3.8 OBEV, 28.2 ppg 56% TS 4.9 FTA/36

Clearly Malone's FT trend is still there. Clearly Hakeem's just better by the offensive box stats. But what would you say about their "curves" scaling to better defenses as bastillon claimed? Is he a flatter curved player than Olajuwon, who looks similar against "bad" defenses and decent ones but has a big(ger) drop off against "elite" defenses?? Or is it Malone, who does well against bad defenses but similarly against all the rest (and note that that comprises nearly all of his PS games in this stretch)?

My original research was opponent specific. The idea that there are many players/teams who can be a kryptonite to someone IS really important for championship...it's the inverse of what I demonstrated with Hakeem's teams, where being steady against everyone is better than destroying most and struggling against a few. (Aside, I don't think Dirk was vulnerable to this against small players as others have suggested.) During these 5-year periods, each guy played 14 teams more than 10 times in the RS.

Hakeem OBEV v opponent's, RS 1993-1997

Code: Select all

Team   OBEV   ppg   TS%
GSW   5.2   29.2   60.2%
LAC   4.2   27.3   59.8%
MIN   4.0   26.5   58.7%
PHO   3.9   27.8   56.6%
LAL   3.6   25.9   57.6%
SAC   3.5   29.2   59.3%
UTA   3.4   29.9   58.3%
DEN   3.3   29.9   55.0%
SEA   2.8   21.9   57.6%
SAS   2.6   27.4   53.2%
POR   2.5   29.3   56.6%
ORL   2.4   27.4   51.7%
DAL   2.3   25.2   55.2%
NYK   2.2   26.4   55.2%


Malone's OBEV v opponent's, RS 1994-1998

Code: Select all

Team   OBEV   ppg   TS%
MIN   5.3   30.3   61.7%
GSW   5.3   29.5   59.6%
LAC   4.9   27.5   59.3%
SAC   4.4   25.2   59.2%
VAN   4.2   24.3   59.8%
LAL   4.0   27.9   57.7%
DEN   3.8   25.8   56.3%
CHI   3.5   25.9   55.1%
HOU   3.4   25.9   54.8%
SEA   3.2   25.9   54.9%
DAL   3.2   26.4   57.8%
POR   2.6   26.6   55.4%
SAS   2.1   26.0   53.7%
PHO   2.0   24.5   56.4%


I remember when I did this just thinking that table is fascinating (probably why I never published). For Hakeem, look at Seattle (as fatal has mentioned). But also note he typically struggled against Orlando and San Antonio and is most famous for ripping them in the 95 PS. On the other side, Malone seems to struggle most against the Spurs, Portland and Phoenix...and again these aren't exactly PS series he is being condemned for.

So is it easier to shut down Malone with the structured game-planning of a 7-game series? Of course, that's why we all agree is better. But to what degree? Because I'm alleging that is was also easier to shut down Malone's teammates and place more emphasis on him. I'll also add, as Kaima mentioned, that Malone seems to be one of the best "bounce back" or "back against the wall players" in history. Make of that what you will.

[thizznation]

how did Moses do aside from his scoring/offensive rebounding ? let's face it, his game was very one-dimensional, he was the best ever at scoring off putbacks but could do little else. you couldn't run the offense through him.

I don't understand this. We can do this for almost any player. "What did shaq really do for his team aside from his scoring / rebouding." "What did Ray Allen do for anyone besides spacing the floor with 3's?" "What did kobe do for his team without volume scoring and limited minutes of exertion on defense?"

extremely empty defensive rebounding which led to mediocre/bad team DRB% (didn't boxout well, stole rebounds from his teammates, as it seems). he was a blackhole level passer and I agree with ElGee that blackhole is still being generous. aside from scoring tons of garbage pts off putbacks I don't see Moses being good at anything really. mediocre iso scorer, terrible playmaker/passer, bad defender, mediocre leader, overrated defensive rebounder. Moses seems to me like an anti-Walton in that his intangibles are quite probably the lowest of every top player ever.

I don't see how you can spin that the team's DRB% was all on Moses Malone. How many other strong rebounders do you see on that 83' Sixer team? Malone was bruising the boards single handedly, not stealing defensive rebounds from a strong rebounding team, sabotaging the team's %DRB in the process. That's absurd.

[ElGee]

second, your team offense stats are completely ignoring the guy impact that Utah's backcourt had on their offensive performance. note that Jazz struggled offensively before Hornacek joined the team and they struggled as well without Stockton on the floor, as Colts pointed out. but that didn't coincide with Malone really changing his performance. that's worrying me - it means Malone was extremely dependent on Hornacek/Stockton shooting/passing combo to make the offense elite. otherwise he struggled as an offensive anchor, not even so much in the context of struggling individually (his playoff numbers were better when he was younger and didn't shoot so many jumpers) but as a guy who was making the team better. I really have a hard time giving much credit to 93-98 Malone for those offenses seeing how crucial role Hornacek/Stockton played in making that offense elite.

No, I've noted the importance of that. But we need a HOLISTIC view of the team and Malone here. It makes no sense to say

"Malone's defense doesn't impress me that much because they surrounded him with defensive role players"

and then say

"I'm not really impressed with Malone's offenses"

while ignoring that he's being surrounded by defensive players. Of course Horny was a huge addition to the team -- I've noted that over the years repeatedly. He's a good passer, and a great shooter/spacer. But you still have siguations in the PS where Horny and or Stockton are struggling MIGHTILY and the offense is humming along. The constant is Malone's load. His responsibilities were even increasing, which obviously isn't ideal. I care about putting my players in at least a moderately decent position.

I'm never team-building with Karl Malone, as fantastic as he is on offense, having to go unipolar. I wouldn't even want to that for Shaq, although he's more equipped to handle it if you lend him some shooters. The whole idea that he's not one of the 10-best unipolar offensive players of all-time has such a SMALL bearing on how good he will be in ALL situations (or all realistic ones we can GM ourselves into). I'm not calling Malone Kareem, I'm just saying this needs to be kept in perspective when people try and go overboard with his TS% in the playoffs.

And as I've alleged many times, I believe Malone WAS asked to do more in the PS. Again, there is basically no correlation between Stockton's statistical performance and Utah's offensive results, and there is a massive (0.77) one between Malone's and their results. What is that telling you?