RealGM

Modernism is all the craze on the board nowadays. This isn’t strictly a 50s-60s issue, but is now touching later decades.

It feels like the top stars from the era really are posed with a sink-or-swim moment in the early 00s. A guy like Karl Malone, a complete stud of a player in the 80s and 90s, retires. Players like Boozer, Aldridge, and Randle emerge, but none of them are ever really even top 15 players in the league.

Malone gives way to Duncan who gives way to Giannis. Not sure what you mean here.

Malone would be great today. He's just not as good as some others.

The ability to facilitate and pass is required for this archetype [Bam, Towns to a degree].

ceiling raiser wrote:Modernism is all the craze on the board nowadays. This isn’t strictly a 50s-60s issue, but is now touching later decades.

It feels like the top stars from the era really are posed with a sink-or-swim moment in the early 00s. A guy like Karl Malone, a complete stud of a player in the 80s and 90s, retires. Players like Boozer, Aldridge, and Randle emerge, but none of them are ever really even top 15 players in the league.

2018 Aldridge flirts with that, and I think he is a step or two down from Malone as an offensive player while not making up that gap defensively. Tough to see Malone being top three over the past several years, but I could see him consistently hovering around top ten.

penbeast0 wrote:Malone gives way to Duncan who gives way to Giannis. Not sure what you mean here.

I mean those guys have pretty massive defensive advantages right?

I'm trying to get an idea of what the OP is asking. Is he asking if the league passed by bigs, if the stars of the 80s/90s retired with no real superstars replacing them, what? I just have no real idea what question he is asking.

If he is asking if the league passed by bigs or primarily post players, what about Shaq, Duncan, then Giannis, Embiid, etc.? I think you might be able to make this argument in the 2010s at some point where the post game was to a large extent bypassed for bigs with 3 point shots or slashers like Giannis. I don't think it's value as early as he is positing.

penbeast0 wrote:I'm trying to get an idea of what the OP is asking. Is he asking if the league passed by bigs, if the stars of the 80s/90s retired with no real superstars replacing them, what? I just have no real idea what question he is asking.

I think it could be interpreted as bigs who

-> struggle to gain seperation against trees
and
-> do not have all-time defense to fall back on

It would obviously be wrong if it was a shot at bigs in general.

OhayoKD wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:I'm trying to get an idea of what the OP is asking. Is he asking if the league passed by bigs, if the stars of the 80s/90s retired with no real superstars replacing them, what? I just have no real idea what question he is asking.

I think it could be interpreted as bigs who

-> struggle to gain seperation against trees
and
-> do not have all-time defense to fall back on

It would obviously be wrong if it was a shot at bigs in general.

I don't think Karl Malone had real struggles against superbigs, his fall back was one of the most extreme separation post shots I've ever seen, he would jump back almost a body length at time. If you are saying bigs without all-time defense are no longer valuable, what about Shaq, Dirk, Amare (okay, maybe Amare isn't that valuable)? Shaq and Dirk are probably top 10 and top 20 guys all-time and neither gave you all-time great defense.

penbeast0 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:I'm trying to get an idea of what the OP is asking. Is he asking if the league passed by bigs, if the stars of the 80s/90s retired with no real superstars replacing them, what? I just have no real idea what question he is asking.

I think it could be interpreted as bigs who

-> struggle to gain seperation against trees
and
-> do not have all-time defense to fall back on

It would obviously be wrong if it was a shot at bigs in general.

I don't think Karl Malone had real struggles against superbigs, his fall back was one of the most extreme separation post shots I've ever seen, he would jump back almost a body length at time. If you are saying bigs without all-time defense are no longer valuable, what about Shaq, Dirk, Amare (okay, maybe Amare isn't that valuable)? Shaq and Dirk are probably top 10 and top 20 guys all-time and neither gave you all-time great defense.

I
i mean that was to a degree a means to compensate for difficulties gaining vertical seperation(and thus easy shots). This ended up showing up in the playoffs(i think this in part contributed to the jazz's overreliance on stockton-malone pnr(something the phil, scottie(with strong help from rodman, jordan, and harper) exploited ruthlessly in 1998))

Malone would thrive in today's league. And I think one part of his game that is overlooked is his ability to handle the ball in transition, even with all those muscles.

Malone would do fine today cuz he had a good midrange, passing, and underrated defense. Tough and fast too. And I can definitely see him taking advantage of current refereeing to go to the line as a 9 FTA player in Utah.

It's the more generic nameless "all I do is rebound and post up" 6'9" role player power forwards who can't shoot that the league passed by, often in favour of switchable defenders who can shoot better (but rim protector centers can still get by). Malone at least had a lot of other skills. I doubt he'd be knocking down 3s a lot in the current era but I could at least see him learning to pop to the corner and drill down corner 3s or taking occasional wide open ones.

I will say Malone also thrived in an era a bit low on all-star level talent for the PF position (compared to say the 2000s), which probably made him look a bit better relative to the competition. Sort of like the SG position today.

I think Karl Malone would have a three-point shot if he played today. He was really good at long twos. In the data we have, he made about 50% of his long twos from 1996-1997 to 1999-2000, and it was over 53% for the first two years of that time period. And they were also a pretty big percent of his shots. It’s hard to imagine that someone with those numbers wouldn’t be able to make the three part of their game if it was emphasized like it is now.

I don’t see why Karl Malone wouldn’t be able to be great in today’s game. I think he’d just be like a way better Julius Randle.

Blake Griffin was born a decade too late. He entered his prime as scoring PF's like himself became less useful.

SHAQ32 wrote:Malone would thrive in today's league. And I think one part of his game that is overlooked is his ability to handle the ball in transition, even with all those muscles.

He had good handles and good vision. He'd probably be a free throw machine on today's game.

lessthanjake wrote:I think Karl Malone would have a three-point shot if he played today. He was really good at long twos. In the data we have, he made about 50% of his long twos from 1996-1997 to 1999-2000,

53.6, 52.8, 44.4, 46.0 in that stretch. And on 26.2, 33.8, 35.0 and 30.2% of his shots, so 5.03, 6.16, 5.7 and 5.4 FGA/g.

and it was over 53% for the first two years of that time period.

Almost, but not quite.

Malone was a violently efficient player in his own day. His impact wouldn't be the same unless he developed a 3pt shot, but 89-98, he was a 59.4% TS player, which is like +1.3% rTS compared to 2023 league average. So even without adjustment of any kind, he's still at least KIND of efficient. Struggled in the playoffs, kinda like D-Rob, but still.

tsherkin wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think Karl Malone would have a three-point shot if he played today. He was really good at long twos. In the data we have, he made about 50% of his long twos from 1996-1997 to 1999-2000,

53.6, 52.8, 44.4, 46.0 in that stretch. And on 26.2, 33.8, 35.0 and 30.2% of his shots, so 5.03, 6.16, 5.7 and 5.4 FGA/g.

and it was over 53% for the first two years of that time period.

Almost, but not quite.

Malone was a violently efficient player in his own day. His impact wouldn't be the same unless he developed a 3pt shot, but 89-98, he was a 59.4% TS player, which is like +1.3% rTS compared to 2023 league average. So even without adjustment of any kind, he's still at least KIND of efficient. Struggled in the playoffs, kinda like D-Rob, but still.

What I meant was over 53% in those two years combined. It was just below 53% one of the two years, but combined it was 53.2%.

lessthanjake wrote:What I meant was over 53% in those two years combined. It was just below 53% one of the two years, but combined it was 53.2%.

Impressive, regardless.

Malone would be a superstar in any era and his skillset would translate well to modern league.

Colbinii wrote:The ability to facilitate and pass is required for this archetype [Bam, Towns to a degree].

Malone had that for sure, he was an excellent passer and solid ball-handler. He was used in a different way of course back then, but he had all the tools to run playmaking big role today.

While he probably wouldn't have been much of a 3-point threat he would have remained very effective scoring midrange and in. With the added spacing (ideally with a stretch-5 next to him rather than Eaton or Ostertag) he would have gotten even more shots at the rim (and drawn at least as many fouls) allowing his offensive efficiency to rise along with the league average improvement. He'd also probably get more minutes as a small-ball center (which he did at times in the 90's so would easily do today).

The archtype that has been passed by is the role player version of Malone. A 4th or 5th option PF who's a good but not elite defender and doesn't have 3 point range. In general you want your role players to keep the center of the court free for your stars to attack. It's not as important for your stars to hit catch and shoot 3's as they generally aren't taking them (outside of the Klay/Reggie type who create offense through off the ball movement). 1st options like Malone are the guys creating the catch and shoot 3's for role players.