Best NBA player behind Hakeem and MJ in the 1990s

[migya]

Karl Malone by a lot.

All-NBA 1st every season
2 MVPs
6 Top MVP finishes
2 NBA Finals

Robinson was almost certainly the most effective and impactful but Malone definitely performed better. You stated it well, he was always at the top every year.

[HeartBreakKid]

Don't see how it isn't Karl Malone. He beat Robinson head to head several times without HCA, He beat Shaq, Hakeem in back to back series in multiple years.

shaq beat jordan. i know you pretend it didn't happen, but just felt like bringing it up.


at least you're consistent with the jordan narratives. the whole propping up karl malone sounds about right


I somehow doubt that Shaq in 2000, which by my calculation is 1 year after the 90s went from below Karl Malone to arguably the goat peak and then by 2003 "wasn't that good anymore".


Shaq was a much better scorer than Malone, not even close and that's predominantly their main values. Most of the things that Malone is better than 90s Shaq at he is better than 00s Shaq as well but no one in their right mind thinks Malone was better than 00s Shaq.


Taking Malone over Shaq only makes sense for longevity reasons because Karl played the entirety of the 90s. Not some nonsensical "he beat Shaq" reasons. Are you not aware that Karl Malone's Jazz lost and underperformed several times also?

[PistolPeteJR]

I'm having trouble between Shaq and Robinson. That said, poll should not limit Shaq just to his Orlando days, as the thread title specifies, "in the 1990s".

[tsherkin]

Good choices here. Shaq, Robinson and Malone come to mind immediately.

Playoff stuff is there for D-Rob and Karl, but even Shaq had a pretty mortal-ish series in 97 against the Jazz. Malone had a much worse and consistent pattern of dropping off in the playoffs. The major advantage of his scoring whittled down rather considerably and outside of 1992, it really took the luster off of his volume-scoring focused game. Robinson had a similar issue after his first two seasons, big deflation of volume scoring and efficiency compared to RS. That's an area where Shaq consistently outperformed them.

On the other hand, Robinson was a lot better than Shaq ever was defensively, which is something to consider. And then if you look at durability and consider the RS as heavy weight, then Malone comes back into the fold. Orlando Shaq had one fairly injured season (28 games missed) at the end of his time there and he missed a pile of games in both of his first two LA seasons as well. Robinson was injured in 92 and 97 and very much never the same after the 96 season. Malone, of course, played 81 or 82 games in the first 13 seasons of his career, followed that with the lockout season, then played 80-82 for another four years. So durability, especially while averaging over 37 mpg, was a big-time boon for him. He also had a second peak in the late 90s, which is fairly rare stuff.

In my head, I see good arguments for any of those three. Pros and cons to each, and all three were big-time monsters. I think that, so long as you don't pointlessly exclude Shaq's 1990s years in LA, I lean towards O'neal over Robinson despite D-Rob's defensive advantage, and then I lean towards him over Karl because of the resilience in his primary attribute (Scoring) come the playoffs. But this isn't a cut-and-dried type of comparison to me.

Fun topic.

[-Sammy-]

I'm always sad to diminish a Spur, but as someone who devoured anything to do with the Spurs in the 90s, my ranking of D-Rob is heavily colored by his annual tradition of wilting in the postseason; I can't take him over guys who got it done in the PS, as good as his RS' were and as much as his prime defense separates him from most other players. I can't take Malone for the same reason.

I might go with Pippen here; does anyone on this list have a more impressive CV than being the second-best player on a champion six times?

[OhayoKD]

^ It is a lot easier to argue that 1993-95 Hakeem has a better three-year stretch than any of Jordan’s in the 1990s than it is to argue he was not at least second. Sounds like you are the one with the nuclear hot take, not OP, which makes it all the weirder to scold him for it.

It depends on how you rank postseason v. regular season. And while I agree with this particular ranking; it's just that OP has done this many many times, stating his opinions as to who the best are and asking for the next few and has been asked not to make these assumptions many times as well.

depending on what approach to measuring impact you use, hakeem can look like the most valuable regular season player of the era too.

[RoyceDa59]

Karl Malone.

[Greyhound]

Karl Malone.

Easily.

[LAL1947]

There is only one answer if the minimum bar is just 3 years... Shaq, lol. That is boring though, so I'm going to answer this question from the perspective of who did more with what they had through the whole decade instead.

1) Karl Malone
2) Patrick Ewing
3) Shaq
4) D-Rob
5) Barkley

I think some of Malone's post-season "failures" can be attributed to not having more genuine scoring options on his teams compared to those listed in this poll. Apart from him and Stockton, how many players did the Jazz have between 1990-91 and 1999-00 that were capable of averaging more than 15.0 PPG? Jeff Malone for some years? Then Jeff Hornacek later on? These two joined the Jazz when they were older guys. I think that's it?

By comparison, D-Robinson had Rod Strickland and Sean Elliott for some years. When Strickland left, Avery Johnson stepped in. Then Tim Duncan was drafted with the #1 pick. Barkley had better scorers with him at the 76ers too, Hersey Hawkins... and ironically, both Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek before they joined the Jazz. Then when Barkley went to the Suns, he had Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle, Cedric Ceballos, etc. Shaq had Penny, Horace Grant, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scot at Orlando. Then Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Rick Fox, young Horry at the Lakers... but could only win once Kobe got going.

So, if we consider quality of team-mates and then look at the number of post-season runs the Jazz went on, it's pretty incredible... more so than what Shaq, Robinson and Barkley managed at least.

I also think the Jazz generally faced a larger number of strong teams in the playoffs than the others did too (except maybe the Knicks, who lost to the Bulls a lot in the first half of that decade, which is why I'm going to show Ewing some love here and put him 2nd). There's a thread here about playoff opponent quality that seems to confirms this.

[tsherkin]

I think some of Malone's post-season "failures" can be attributed to not having more genuine scoring options on his teams compared to those listed in this poll. Apart from him and Stockton, how many players did the Jazz have between 1990-91 and 1999-00 that were capable of averaging more than 15.0 PPG? Jeff Malone for some years? Then Jeff Hornacek later on? These two joined the Jazz when they were older guys. I think that's it?

That certainly helps illustrate why they lost certain matchups, but not why his scoring lacked resilience in the playoffs. That had more to do with the HOW of his scoring profile than anything else. This is the difference between someone like Malone and someone like Dirk, if we're discussing postseason offense.

Circling back, though, the lack of a really proper second scorer who could add punch in the playoffs definitely cost the Jazz a title.

[LAL1947]

I think some of Malone's post-season "failures" can be attributed to not having more genuine scoring options on his teams compared to those listed in this poll. Apart from him and Stockton, how many players did the Jazz have between 1990-91 and 1999-00 that were capable of averaging more than 15.0 PPG? Jeff Malone for some years? Then Jeff Hornacek later on? These two joined the Jazz when they were older guys. I think that's it?

That certainly helps illustrate why they lost certain matchups, but not why his scoring lacked resilience in the playoffs. That had more to do with the HOW of his scoring profile than anything else. This is the difference between someone like Malone and someone like Dirk, if we're discussing postseason offense.

Circling back, though, the lack of a really proper second scorer who could add punch in the playoffs definitely cost the Jazz a title.

What exactly do you mean by his scoring resilience?

Anyway, I'm struggling to understand how the lack of a second scorer does not impact one's performance:

1) The defense can focus on you or stay in positions to get better coverage on you than they would have.
2) The defense can do the same to the main player who is feeding you the ball.
3) You find yourself taking shots that you wouldn't need to take as there's nobody else to.
4) #3 gets worse when your team is down.

Steph Curry is an excellent and efficient scorer. Where was his team in 2020-21, when he only had Wiggins as his 2nd scoring option? They didn't make the playoffs as they lost the play-in game to Memphis. In this 2021-22 playoffs, despite Steph's volume and efficiency, where would his team be without Klay, Wiggins and Poole providing GSW with alternative scoring options when the going got tough?

And Dirk ALWAYS had scoring options and depth on his teams. Finley + Nash + Ceballos/Antoine Walker... then later Terry + Josh Howard + Stackhouse... then Terry + Kidd + Marion + Chandler (pretty good for the 5th scoring option in a lineup), etc.

[JordansBulls]

Don't see how it isn't Karl Malone. He beat Robinson head to head several times without HCA, He beat Shaq, Hakeem in back to back series in multiple years.

shaq beat jordan. i know you pretend it didn't happen, but just felt like bringing it up.


at least you're consistent with the jordan narratives. the whole propping up karl malone sounds about right


I somehow doubt that Shaq in 2000, which by my calculation is 1 year after the 90s went from below Karl Malone to arguably the goat peak and then by 2003 "wasn't that good anymore".


Shaq was a much better scorer than Malone, not even close and that's predominantly their main values. Most of the things that Malone is better than 90s Shaq at he is better than 00s Shaq as well but no one in their right mind thinks Malone was better than 00s Shaq.


Taking Malone over Shaq only makes sense for longevity reasons because Karl played the entirety of the 90s. Not some nonsensical "he beat Shaq" reasons. Are you not aware that Karl Malone's Jazz lost and underperformed several times also?

We are talking the 90's and Malone beat Shaq in back to back years when Shaq had good teams that won 56 and 61 games. Won in 5 and swept him. Also Malone won league mvp twice and made the finals twice. Maybe 1998 Shaq vs 1998 Malone is a debate but when Malone swept him despite LA having 4 stars then not sure what case you make for Shaq in the 90's.

[tsherkin]

What exactly do you mean by his scoring resilience?

His FG% and overall efficiency tanking in the playoffs relative to the RS.

Anyway, I'm struggling to understand how the lack of a second scorer does not impact one's performance:

It does, it just speaks more poorly of him that he drops off this much compared to how others in similar circumstances don't.

Steph Curry is an excellent and efficient scorer. Where was his team in 2020-21, when he only had Wiggins as his 2nd scoring option? They didn't make the playoffs as they lost the play-in game to Memphis.

Sure, but along the way, Steph cracked out a league-high 32 ppg on 65.5% TS for his second scoring title, so that doesn't really add to your point. I already agreed that the lack of a second scorer very much affects team outcome.

Where was Shaq's scoring resilience when he "only" had Eddie Jones and Van Exel in the starting 5?

Just fine? You appear to be off on a tangent that makes it seem like you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I don't fault Malone for the Jazz not advancing every single time. I was speaking of his individual performance, which you obviously are not discussing, given your reference of Steph and Shaq, both of whom are/were consistently better individually than Malone in the playoffs as far as their play in the PS relative to the RS.

[LAL1947]

What exactly do you mean by his scoring resilience?

His FG% and overall efficiency tanking in the playoffs relative to the RS.

Okay, thanks, that's what I thought it meant.

It does, it just speaks more poorly of him that he drops off this much compared to how others in similar circumstances don't

How are you calculating the "dropped off this much" though? That's the point I'm trying to make. I mean, who are you comparing him to... i.e., how many others had to play this many playoff series without a second scorer?

Sure, but along the way, Steph cracked out a league-high 32 ppg on 65.5% TS for his second scoring title, so that doesn't really add to your point.

Steph cranked that out in the RS... while your definition of scoring resilience is for the playoffs, i.e., when the going gets tough. So I think it does add to my point. And did Steph's FG% not drop when he didn't have Klay? That too, in a single play-in against Memphis... not a 7-game series.

In any case, why are you giving Malone such a hard time over resilience if Steph couldn't even make the playoffs while Malone was making deep runs in them? See what I mean?

Just fine? You appear to be off on a tangent that makes it seem like you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I don't fault Malone for the Jazz not advancing every single time. I was speaking of his individual performance, which you obviously are not discussing, given your reference of Steph and Shaq, both of whom are/were consistently better individually than Malone in the playoffs as far as their play in the PS relative to the RS.

I read what you said. I brought up Steph to emphasize how even he needs a 2nd scorer despite being an excellent and efficient scorer who is playing in an easier era to score. I've brought up Shaq to lead on to my next point. Despite Shaq having the better "scoring resilience"... and having the better team (IMO atleast)... he still lost to Karl Malone's Jazz twice in a row! The Lakers lost 1-4 in 1996-97 and got swept 0-4 in 1997-98. Surely that has to count for something.

[tsherkin]

I read what you said... and I've brought up Shaq there to lead on to my next point. Despite Shaq having the better "scoring resilience"... and having the better team (IMO atleast)... he still lost to Karl Malone's Jazz twice in a row! The Lakers lost 1-4 in 1996-97 and got swept 0-4 in 1997-98. Surely that has to count for something.

No, it doesn't really count for anything. The Jazz were obviously the better team, and individual ability matters only so much to team success. This much is staggeringly obvious, and a lesson repeatedly handed down decade after decade.

Malone was a good player, and in fact an ATG player. But his style of play (particularly later in his career) created some specific challenges. He was heavily jumper-reliant after the early 90s, which didn't help him, and he was not an especially remarkable isolation player. He was very good off-ball, and he had some decent bully ball in him, but by and large, he lost a significant amount of effect come the playoffs. He started from such a high beginning point that a lot of the time, he was still at least league-average in efficiency, and even then, there's some value to what he was doing bootstrapping their offense with inefficient scoring without much in the way of scoring help around him, for sure. But like David Robinson, you could almost count on him to look nothing like his RS self once the playoffs got under way, and that's a problem, particularly in a comparison with players filling a similar role for whom that was not true (like Shaq and Dream).

[LAL1947]

I read what you said... and I've brought up Shaq there to lead on to my next point. Despite Shaq having the better "scoring resilience"... and having the better team (IMO atleast)... he still lost to Karl Malone's Jazz twice in a row! The Lakers lost 1-4 in 1996-97 and got swept 0-4 in 1997-98. Surely that has to count for something.

No, it doesn't really count for anything. The Jazz were obviously the better team, and individual ability matters only so much to team success. This much is staggeringly obvious, and a lesson repeatedly handed down decade after decade.

Malone was a good player, and in fact an ATG player. But his style of play (particularly later in his career) created some specific challenges. He was heavily jumper-reliant after the early 90s, which didn't help him, and he was not an especially remarkable isolation player. He was very good off-ball, and he had some decent bully ball in him, but by and large, he lost a significant amount of effect come the playoffs. He started from such a high beginning point that a lot of the time, he was still at least league-average in efficiency, and even then, there's some value to what he was doing bootstrapping their offense with inefficient scoring without much in the way of scoring help around him, for sure. But like David Robinson, you could almost count on him to look nothing like his RS self once the playoffs got under way, and that's a problem, particularly in a comparison with players filling a similar role for whom that was not true (like Shaq and Dream).

I agree with some of the things you're saying about Malone's playing style. Yet don't you think you're being too harsh on him by saying, "you could almost count on him to look nothing like his RS self once the playoffs got under way"?

Even in 1997-98, when Malone was age 34yo...

- RS Averages: 27.0 PPG, 53.0 FG%, 59.7 TS%
- Playoffs vs Lakers: 30.0 PPG, 50.6 FG%, 59.3 TS%

More points, similar TS%, slightly lower FG%.

Utah starting 5: Stockton (35), Hornacek (34), Byron Russell (27), Malone (34), Greg Foster (29)
Lakers starting 5: Fisher (23), Eddie Jones (26), Rick Fox (28), Horry (27), Shaq (25)

That team swept the Lakers 0-4... and it wasn't that bad of a team to lose in that manner. Everyone except maybe Fisher was in prime physical condition, and Fisher split minutes with Van Exel (26yo). This was prime Horry and Fox, not the hobbling versions from 2002-03. In another thread that I found today, the PC Board voted Eddie Jones as the 6th best defensive SG of all-time while leaving Kobe off that Top 10. So Eddie must've been pretty good to earn that praise, lol.

Anyway, I'm not saying he was a better player than Hakeem or Shaq... just saying that I feel Malone performed the best with what he had during the whole 1990s, i.e., after MJ and Hakeem. The two wins over Shaq's Lakers seals the deal for me against Shaq.

[Proxy]

I wouldn't limit this to Orlando Shaq, I think 1998 Shaq is the best non MJ/Hakeem season of the 90s on a per possession basis. After Shaq my answer is Drob ig because Magic lacks a full 3rd season. I'd take 1990 Magic over any version of David tho

[tsherkin]

I agree with some of the things you're saying about Malone's playing style. Yet don't you think you're being too harsh on him by saying, "you could almost count on him to look nothing like his RS self once the playoffs got under way"?

No, because it's there in the facts of his actual performance. His scoring average, FG% and efficiency all tanked on the regular during the playoffs. It has been a major criticism of him as a player since he was still active, and that hasn't gone away now that he dwells in the mists of nostalgia and retirement. Again, he's still a very good player, he still was central to a rather lengthy period of noteworthy success for Utah. And there is still some element of understanding to be acknowledged that his performance is impacted by him being surrounded by relatively unathletic shooters in a system-driven offense. I'm gonna eat that "relatively unathletic" comment from someone shortly, so I probably should phrase that as "non-elite athletes" or somesuch to be more precise. But you take my point.



You can clearly see his efficiency tanking. In a couple seasons, he was still around a league-average scorer, which gets back to him still providing value to his team and the drop in his raw efficiency not painting the full picture as to what was happening, of course. THat's where we get into "this is what happens when you run out there with a PG hesitant to score, a no-offense center and nothing else of consequence out there but some dude named Jeff," right? We both agree that this was definitely a factor for Malone's specific level of performance. But relative to his peers among ATG scorers, that profile is really, really bad, so he suffers for it in comparison, even though we all know he was still doing work helping Utah be very successful for most of two decades.

Anyway, I'm not saying he was a better player than Hakeem or Shaq... just saying that I feel Malone performed the best with what he had during the whole 1990s, i.e., after MJ and Hakeem. The two wins over Shaq's Lakers seals the deal for me against Shaq.

And that's your prerogative. I'm not really trying to change your mind, since you're emphasizing team success and none of the time you've been responding to me has that been a point I was making. There are arguments to be made for Malone based on defense and passing and how his style of offense was easier to work around with a broader selection of players and stars, for durability and longevity, for loyalty, for not causing a giant stir with his co-star... Lots of reasons you might elect to build with him over Diesel, especially in the given period. Shaq was a superior scorer and playoff performer than Malone, but that doesn't mean there's NO argument for the Mailman over him, to be sure.