RealGM

Following the Jokic in the 90s discussion - assuming MJ and Hakeem are the two best players, who is the 3rd best player of the era?

Pretty easily David Robinson.

In terms of accrued value throughout the decade , probably David Robinson is the safe bet.

Though, in terms of best peak, 98 Shaq was better than Peak Robinson, Peak Barkley, etc.

I think I agree with LukaTheGOAT - Robinson was the most consistent overall (unless you want to hold his 1997 season heavily against him), Malone would be a close 4th choice to me.

If we're talking about peaks, then it's a bit fuzzier - we have 1998 Shaq, 1990 Magic and even 1999 Duncan could be in conversation.

uberhikari wrote:Pretty easily David Robinson.

Really? What are your thoughts on what happened when the Malone-led Jazz played the Robinson-led Spurs?

Regular season is Robinson but in the playoffs give me Barkley.

I have to take it as a bit of a peak/prime/greatness question, as on more of a career value axis I don't think MJ/Hakeem are a given over Robinson/Malone/Stockton/Pippen/Miller, basically guys who played the whole decade well vs taking years off and fading hard.

I suppose I still wind up going with Robinson, with that '94-'96 run standing out a bit over everyone else. I'm not that wowed by Shaqs '98, he was kinda perpetually a problem on D vs the Jazz. Barkley another strong contender. Malone I have a half step behind Robinson, though very impressive throughout the decade, and possibly a slight advantage in the head to head.

Pippen/Drexler/Stockton/Miller/Ewing I generally have another half step behind the above.

Doctor MJ wrote:

uberhikari wrote:Pretty easily David Robinson.

Really? What are your thoughts on what happened when the Malone-led Jazz played the Robinson-led Spurs?

The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

Malone for consistency

Two of my favorites were Barkley and Payton in the 90s.

But it's between Robinson and Malone.

uberhikari wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

uberhikari wrote:Pretty easily David Robinson.

Really? What are your thoughts on what happened when the Malone-led Jazz played the Robinson-led Spurs?

The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

To be fair, Malone outplayed Robinson all three times when they clashed in the playoffs.

70sFan wrote:

uberhikari wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Really? What are your thoughts on what happened when the Malone-led Jazz played the Robinson-led Spurs?

The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

To be fair, Malone outplayed Robinson all three times when they clashed in the playoffs.

I'm not sure that this is true.

I've only looked at 1998 because it was the one I had significant doubt in ...
Robinson has a better BPM by every measure I can see (raw cumulative addition, BPM multiplied by minutes or even a binary game-by-game "win-loss" in terms of better BPM). These are narrow but suggest a Robinson advantage by the boxscore - granting that people have different preferred metrics and as ever am happy to discuss which metric is best at a game or small sample level.

Then too on the impact-y side. Despite the Spurs suffering a 4-1 loss, and being outscored (by one point) the Spurs are plus 11 with Robinson on. Jazz are +3 with Malone on. Robinson is in the positive in plus minus in four games, his number is superior to Malone's in 3. By my reckoning (could be errors here, a lot of calculations here and getting tired) Robinson's on-off is 14.73431164 per 48 to Malone's 2.991240241. Certainly the impact side tilts heavily for Robinson.

Whilst these are small samples and there are a variety of possible evaluation methods I don't see that it should be a given that this, if it is to b seen as a clash of the two players, is a victory for Malone, if one had to, I would suggest it goes in the other direction given the evidence above.

uberhikari wrote:Pretty easily David Robinson.

Malone had some crazy on/off numbers in 96-00 period (+22, +17, +13, +14), had +17, +14, +10 in 94-96 according to raw estimations, so there's no reason to believe he wasn't that impactful in 90-93 period as well.

Imagine 10y period with 27-11-4 averages with two games missed on ~ +13-15 on/off on a team of +5.3 SRS on average in this span, with 9x 1st All-NBA Team and one 2nd, two MVPs and two trips to the finals.

It's like you can't have realistically a better individual and team level resume without a championship

Obviously, Robinson was God-level performer in this on/off data (what completely fits in line with general opinion about Spurs/Robinson in that period) and it's fair to have him higher, but I don't think his peak was high enough to have him clearly as a better player, especially considering even in his peak period, Malone was better in these series between Jazz and Spurs (at least in 94 or 95).

Even in accumulated VORP in RS (I don't like these metrics, but should favor D-Rob since he was a king in those boxscore metrics) they're basically the same level in 91-00 period (Robinson would've been better, but he missed the whole season).

The Master wrote:

uberhikari wrote:Pretty easily David Robinson.

Malone had some crazy on/off numbers in 96-00 period (+22, +17, +13, +14), had +17, +14, +10 in 94-96 according to raw estimations, so there's no reason to believe he wasn't that impactful in 90-93 period as well.

Imagine 10y period with 27-11-4 averages with two games missed on ~ +13-15 on/off on a team of +5.3 SRS on average in this span, with 9x 1st All-NBA Team and one 2nd, two MVPs and two trips to the finals.

It's like you can't have realistically a better individual and team level resume without a championship

Obviously, Robinson was God-level performer in this on/off data (what completely fits in line with general opinion about Spurs/Robinson in that period) and it's fair to have him higher, but I don't think his peak was high enough to have him clearly as a better player, especially considering even in his peak period, Malone was better in these series between Jazz and Spurs (at least in 94 or 95).

Even in accumulated VORP in RS (I don't like these metrics, but should favor D-Rob since he was a king in those boxscore metrics) they're basically the same level in 91-00 period (Robinson would've been better, but he missed the whole season).

Not sure on that "should favor Robinson" angle as alluded to above if either I'd say his impact side would be the strong side to his metrics, especially post injury. Plus VORP sets "replacement level" as the baseline thereby giving Malone an advantage from his minutes and especially that extra season. And even then it's a narrow win for Robinson even without curving towards the higher end years having exponentially greater value. So I do think that's just another thing with the result (but not the approach, to my mind) tilting in Robinson's favor. Fwiw I've gone 90-99 seasons as the 90s decade. Understand that 91-00 would narrow that small VORP advantage even more.

Not to take a strong stance on the overall argument, which very much depends what you mean (personally I might not be committed to Olajuwon at two). Nor to support an "easily" case for the same reason.


Finally +13 to 15 initially sounded bullish on Malone. The 94-96 sample is 11.96130391, the much smaller versus 76ers rookie to 93 sample is 5.049434187. Cumulatively he's 11.56766594 (and that's minute weighted so no extrapolation that the earlier seasons may be weaker from the 76ers sample, fwiw eyeballing it he does look stronger on the 90s end of the 76ers sample). Personally I'd set something like that (circa 11.6) as a middle ground expectation (maybe regress back in general? don't know) rather than 14 for the remainder. But I suppose if he's circa 18 in the last 3 years and circa 12 94-96 then roughly 15 for those 6 years, then even at 11.5 for the first 4 years he's at circa 13.6 for the decade (these very rough approximates) so fitting within your range. It's a noisy measure, per above don't know what to do with versus 76ers (much weaker than Stockton here) and whether you regress back in general but whilst there's a lot of range and I'd tilt towards the lower end, off the estimate above the numbers don't seem unreasonable. And if you're using 2000 then you're locking in another +14.4 season and taking more uncertainty off the table.

70sFan wrote:

uberhikari wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Really? What are your thoughts on what happened when the Malone-led Jazz played the Robinson-led Spurs?

The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

To be fair, Malone outplayed Robinson all three times when they clashed in the playoffs.

I don't care. The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

Do you believe Malone was better than Robinson?

Probably Shaq. I dunnno why people talk like Shaq's 2000 career was so much better, he probably had more prime years in the 90s than in the 00s.

uberhikari wrote:

70sFan wrote:

uberhikari wrote:
The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

To be fair, Malone outplayed Robinson all three times when they clashed in the playoffs.

I don't care. The question isn't who had a better team. The question is who was a better player.

Do you believe Malone was better than Robinson?

Malone played better individually than Robinson in these series. That's my point, not that Malone won and Robinson lost.

No, I don't believe that Malone was better than Robinson, although he was better in some seasons and has one additional MVP level season in 1997. If you are high on H2H matchups, then Malone is a reasonable choice.

HeartBreakKid wrote:Probably Shaq. I dunnno why people talk like Shaq's 2000 career was so much better, he probably had more prime years in the 90s than in the 00s.

I don't get it either, people act like Shaq was GOAT level peak in 2000, but that he wasn't even Robinson level during the 1990s. Maybe someone can explain what makes 2000 Shaq so much better than 1998 Shaq for example, but I don't see it.

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Probably Shaq. I dunnno why people talk like Shaq's 2000 career was so much better, he probably had more prime years in the 90s than in the 00s.

I don't get it either, people act like Shaq was GOAT level peak in 2000, but that he wasn't even Robinson level during the 1990s. Maybe someone can explain what makes 2000 Shaq so much better than 1998 Shaq for example, but I don't see it.

From the tape I saw. He looked a bit more aggressive offensively and more engaged defensively. I’m just talking about the 2000 season.

1993Playoffs wrote:

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Probably Shaq. I dunnno why people talk like Shaq's 2000 career was so much better, he probably had more prime years in the 90s than in the 00s.

I don't get it either, people act like Shaq was GOAT level peak in 2000, but that he wasn't even Robinson level during the 1990s. Maybe someone can explain what makes 2000 Shaq so much better than 1998 Shaq for example, but I don't see it.

From the tape I saw. He looked a bit more aggressive offensively and more engaged defensively. I’m just talking about the 2000 season.

Do these subtle differences turn him into GOAT conversation from around top~20 peak? It doesn't make any sense...

I agree that Shaq peaked in 2000, I generally like early 2000s Shaq more (especially on offense). It doesn't mean that 1998 or 1999 Shaq was far from his peak though.