Draymond Malone vs Steph Curry

[KobesScarf]

Lol so basically Karl Malone but with more technical fouls?

And he becomes an ATG defender and better playmaking/passer aside from passing out of the post.

Draymond wouldn't be an ATG defender in Karl Malones era.

[oaktownwarriors87]

And he becomes an ATG defender and better playmaking/passer aside from passing out of the post.

Is Draymond actually a better passer than Malone? Draymond stands wide open and makes passes to players that do work off the ball. He's also a turnover machine. If he were actually a threat to score (like Malone) he wouldn't have so many easy passes.

Yeah, Draymond is a better ball-handler and passer outside of the paint.

As a Warriors fan in Utah I whole heartedly disagree. Draymond is not a good ball handler. He can run in a straight line with the ball, but he has poor body control and fumbles the ball under pressure.

Just last season of the top 40 assist leaders he ranked 36th in assist/bad pass. Cade Cunningham, Khris Middleton, Trae Young and Russell Westbrook were the only ones that were worse. Factor in the defensive pressure they face and scoring load and you can make an argument for Draymond being the worst of them.

Defensive pressure and a scoring load would nearly eliminate Draymond passing. I could never say he was a better passer than Malone, who was able to balance his scoring and passing with actual defensive pressure.

[parsnips33]

Is Draymond actually a better passer than Malone? Draymond stands wide open and makes passes to players that do work off the ball. He's also a turnover machine. If he were actually a threat to score (like Malone) he wouldn't have so many easy passes.

Yeah, Draymond is a better ball-handler and passer outside of the paint.

As a Warriors fan in Utah I whole heartedly disagree. Draymond is not a good ball handler. He can run in a straight line with the ball, but he has poor body control and fumbles the ball under pressure.

Just last season of the top 40 assist leaders he ranked 36th in assist/bad pass. Cade Cunningham, Khris Middleton, Trae Young and Russell Westbrook were the only ones that were worse. Factor in the defensive pressure they face and scoring load and you can make an argument for Draymond being the worst of them.

Defensive pressure and a scoring load would nearly eliminate Draymond passing. I could never say he was a better passer than Malone, who was able to balance his scoring and passing with actual defensive pressure.

Are you saying that being a better scorer makes you a worse passer?

[penbeast0]

Well, if you are getting the ball the same number of times, the more you shoot the less you pass. The thing is that this isn't static. If you are LeBron as a scorer and a passer, you are going to get the ball a lot more than someone who has only one of those two skills at an elite level.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Yeah, Draymond is a better ball-handler and passer outside of the paint.

As a Warriors fan in Utah I whole heartedly disagree. Draymond is not a good ball handler. He can run in a straight line with the ball, but he has poor body control and fumbles the ball under pressure.

Just last season of the top 40 assist leaders he ranked 36th in assist/bad pass. Cade Cunningham, Khris Middleton, Trae Young and Russell Westbrook were the only ones that were worse. Factor in the defensive pressure they face and scoring load and you can make an argument for Draymond being the worst of them.

Defensive pressure and a scoring load would nearly eliminate Draymond passing. I could never say he was a better passer than Malone, who was able to balance his scoring and passing with actual defensive pressure.

Are you saying that being a better scorer makes you a worse passer?

No. I'm saying being an offensive threat brings more defensive attention which makes scoring and passing more difficult.

Draymond is also in a passing mindset. Having to balance scoring and passing is EXTREMELY difficult. You're essentially doubling your mental workload. You can visibly see how difficult it is for Draymond to mentally switch from passing to scoring, and it leads to a lot of awkward shots.

TL;DR Processing more information with more pressure is more difficult than processing less information with less pressure.

[euroleague]

So many people talk about Karl Malone "struggling in the playoffs", it seems like they never watched him play. Guy was dominating in the playoffs in single coverage, and often was scoring through double coverage. The second best scorer on his team was Jeff Hornacek, and he made 2 straight Finals. He was lights out against Dennis Rodman and Scottie Pippen in 98, and had some nerves in 97.

For example, the must-win game 5 victory at Chicago in 1998, where Karl Malone outscored MJ, and scored half his team's points on 66% TS?

Malone's main struggles came from having no teammates who could score, so other teams keyed on in the PnR really hard.

Uh huh. And what about Game 2, where the Jazz lost a close game while Malone went 5 for 16? What about the next year, where he lost the closeout Game 6 against the Blazers while shooting 3 for 16? He “had some nerves” in 1997, but Stockton did not, so did he have enough help then? What about 1996 when he went 8 for 22 in a winner-take-all game while Stockton matched or out-produced him across the board?

Did you watch him play, or did you just focus on the games he won while scoring well?

99 was no longer his prime, as he was quite old... so it's irrelevant.

Stockton was not enough help as a scorer, yes. Teams keyed in on Malone, not on Stockton. This allowed Stockton more opportunities.

Malone was double teamed and focused on so hard by opposing coaches and defenses that his teammates could reap the reward. His scoring won't be efficient if he's double teamed - that doesn't mean he chokes.

I don't know why all these people who never watched the games cherry pick stats and then act like he wasn't an elite scorer. He was a perennial MVP level player in his prime. Scoring doesn't "disappear" in the playoffs - opposing teams game-plan for it. I never understood this narrative of players magically getting worse in the playoffs, with arguments ignoring opposing teams' gameplans and adaptations to focus on those players.

[AEnigma]

So many people talk about Karl Malone "struggling in the playoffs", it seems like they never watched him play. Guy was dominating in the playoffs in single coverage, and often was scoring through double coverage. The second best scorer on his team was Jeff Hornacek, and he made 2 straight Finals. He was lights out against Dennis Rodman and Scottie Pippen in 98, and had some nerves in 97.

For example, the must-win game 5 victory at Chicago in 1998, where Karl Malone outscored MJ, and scored half his team's points on 66% TS?

Malone's main struggles came from having no teammates who could score, so other teams keyed on in the PnR really hard.

Uh huh. And what about Game 2, where the Jazz lost a close game while Malone went 5 for 16? What about the next year, where he lost the closeout Game 6 against the Blazers while shooting 3 for 16? He “had some nerves” in 1997, but Stockton did not, so did he have enough help then? What about 1996 when he went 8 for 22 in a winner-take-all game while Stockton matched or out-produced him across the board?

Did you watch him play, or did you just focus on the games he won while scoring well?

99 was no longer his prime, as he was quite old... so it's irrelevant.

… He won MVP and was one year removed from a postseason you were just now celebrating. It is just inconvenient to this picture you want to paint.

Stockton was not enough help as a scorer, yes. Teams keyed in on Malone, not on Stockton. This allowed Stockton more opportunities.

Malone was double teamed and focused on so hard by opposing coaches and defenses that his teammates could reap the reward. His scoring won't be efficient if he's double teamed - that doesn't mean he chokes.

I don't know why all these people who never watched the games cherry pick stats and then act like he wasn't an elite scorer. He was a perennial MVP level player in his prime. Scoring doesn't "disappear" in the playoffs - opposing teams game-plan for it. I never understood this narrative of players magically getting worse in the playoffs, with arguments ignoring opposing teams' gameplans and adaptations to focus on those players.

Oh wow what brilliant insight, teams keyed in on the best scorer. That explains why he dropped his scoring efficiency worse than nearly any other all-time scorer at that level. All those other guys just simply did not have the special attention afforded Malone. Wow, good thing you oh so clearly watched those games; how else could you clarify the situation for everyone here who definitely did not ever have the opportunity to watch some of the most famous series of the era.

Carp about cherrypicked stats while talking about one game where he scored at 66% efficiency, you are something else.

[homecourtloss]

I thought it's Moses Dray hybrid, that one would be insane.

Yes—way more exciting prospect than Karl + Draymond, which I’m not really enthusiastic about, though I’m not sure if that energy on both ends is possible, i.e., offensive rebounding + defensive rotations and defensive quarterbacking. Moses with Draymond’s defense and passing though…

[tsherkin]

I don't know why all these people who never watched the games cherry pick stats and then act like he wasn't an elite scorer. He was a perennial MVP level player in his prime. Scoring doesn't "disappear" in the playoffs - opposing teams game-plan for it. I never understood this narrative of players magically getting worse in the playoffs, with arguments ignoring opposing teams' gameplans and adaptations to focus on those players.

Probably because some people manage the defensive uptick well and some, like Malone, did not. There is a pattern across his postseason career of noteworthy drop-offs in efficacy, larger than his peers.

Also, 98 was the best season of his career; the idea that 99 was somehow out of prime is a little off-kilter to me. The narrative doesn't come out of nowhere.

It's true that Utah had a pretty system-reliant offense. Bigger, athletic guards overwhelmed the underwhelming scoring prowess of its guards. Stockton and Jeff Malone/Darrell Griffith/Jeff Hornacek, none of those guys were really compelling as scorers. Stockton was a small guy, and while he was quick, he was no KJ. He didn't really have it in him to be a 20+ ppg complement to Malone, and that's really what the Mailman needed against Chicago.

But yeah. He was a big. He relied on the PnR, particularly later in his career, and with it, his jumper. He didn't have the same kind of mobility as a wing scorer. There were only so many spots where he was reliable. It isn't surprising that teams were able to overwhelm him. Malone, along with David Robinson and Patrick Ewing, were really good examples of why unipolar offenses mostly don't work, particularly when your core scorer isn't a high-end playmaker (Malone's passing numbers in Utah's system notwithstanding, as his APG had more in common with Durant than with Stockton in terms of creation value).

So yeah, it isn't about ignoring the opposition gameplan, it's acknowledging that Malone was worse than many of his elite peers at dealing with playoff pressure from defenses and what-not, though also that Utah did not have what it took to handle Chicago in particular.

[euroleague]

I don't know why all these people who never watched the games cherry pick stats and then act like he wasn't an elite scorer. He was a perennial MVP level player in his prime. Scoring doesn't "disappear" in the playoffs - opposing teams game-plan for it. I never understood this narrative of players magically getting worse in the playoffs, with arguments ignoring opposing teams' gameplans and adaptations to focus on those players.

Probably because some people manage the defensive uptick well and some, like Malone, did not. There is a pattern across his postseason career of noteworthy drop-offs in efficacy, larger than his peers.

Also, 98 was the best season of his career; the idea that 99 was somehow out of prime is a little off-kilter to me. The narrative doesn't come out of nowhere.

It's true that Utah had a pretty system-reliant offense. Bigger, athletic guards overwhelmed the underwhelming scoring prowess of its guards. Stockton and Jeff Malone/Darrell Griffith/Jeff Hornacek, none of those guys were really compelling as scorers. Stockton was a small guy, and while he was quick, he was no KJ. He didn't really have it in him to be a 20+ ppg complement to Malone, and that's really what the Mailman needed against Chicago.

But yeah. He was a big. He relied on the PnR, particularly later in his career, and with it, his jumper. He didn't have the same kind of mobility as a wing scorer. There were only so many spots where he was reliable. It isn't surprising that teams were able to overwhelm him. Malone, along with David Robinson and Patrick Ewing, were really good examples of why unipolar offenses mostly don't work, particularly when your core scorer isn't a high-end playmaker (Malone's passing numbers in Utah's system notwithstanding, as his APG had more in common with Durant than with Stockton in terms of creation value).

So yeah, it isn't about ignoring the opposition gameplan, it's acknowledging that Malone was worse than many of his elite peers at dealing with playoff pressure from defenses and what-not, though also that Utah did not have what it took to handle Chicago in particular.

Again with this silly narrative, that just comes from ppg and FG% dropping....

Look at other elite teams at the time:
Drexler/Hakeem
David Robinson/x?
Charles Barkley/KJ/Majerle
MJ/Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman
Payton/Kemp/Schrempf
Ewing/Starks
Drexler/Porter
Price/Daugherty/Nance

The teams that had less talent - DRob/Ewing - had their stars suffer more in the playoffs because teams focused on them. That's not a fault of those stars being worse at "dealing with playoff pressure from defenses" and not being able to "manage the defensive uptick well"..... the other teams had ways of relieving pressure from defenses that focused on one point of attack. The Jazz/Spurs didn't. Hakeem in 94 managed to win because of the "ahead of it's time" system he played in that surrounded him with a stretch 4 (robert horry) and shooters, then let him go to work in the paint. David Robinson, Karl Malone, etc. didn't have that sort of spacing.

Lebron and his teams become weak offensively when the spacing isn't there. Look at the Cavs in 07 in the playoffs - terrible offensively.. LBJ averaged 36% FG in the entire finals.Against Boston in 08, he averaged 35%FG for the series. Everyone talks about Lebron becoming amazing offensively when he arrived in Cleveland - that isn't what happened. His spacing, with Irving and KLove, became amazing... Bosh/Wade didn't provide any perimeter threats.

Giannis couldn't cut it in the playoffs when Brook Lopez wasn't there stretching the floor. The Bucks became amazing when they adopted the "hakeem" system of 4-shooters. He dominated the regular season, and got keyed in on in the playoffs.

I could go on, but, in fact, Malone is different than Giannis/Lebron. Malone didn't want to be a unipolar offense. He raised the ceiling on the 04 Lakers by a huge amount - the Lakers dominated with him playing, and sucked without him, even though his USG was low. Malone wasn't a guy who needed the ball in his hands.

Malone just played in a system that didn't have other options, and he still dominated most of the time. His jumper/ pick and pop was elite from near 3 point range, and he provided unbelievable spacing for his guards as an MVP level shooting big. He often demanded double teams at the top of the key. Comparing his playmaking to KD is inaccurate, as Malone actually looked to make plays with cutters, while KD just passes if he thinks there's an opening.

Malone was an all-time great ceiling raiser as a PF scorer, because of his shooting ability. 55% from 16ft + during 97, for example, in a league that averaged 49% eFG. He could dominate against ANY defender, and it took entire teams keying onto him in order to slow him down. Most under-rated player offensively in the modern era.

[tsherkin]

The teams that had less talent - DRob/Ewing - had their stars suffer more in the playoffs because teams focused on them. That's not a fault of those stars being worse at "dealing with playoff pressure from defenses" and not being able to "manage the defensive uptick well"..... the other teams had ways of relieving pressure from defenses that focused on one point of attack. The Jazz/Spurs didn't. Hakeem in 94 managed to win because of the "ahead of it's time" system he played in that surrounded him with a stretch 4 (robert horry) and shooters, then let him go to work in the paint. David Robinson, Karl Malone, etc. didn't have that sort of spacing.

Again, though, that has more specific effect on bigs who don't have the mobility or other tools to go after a defense. Wing guys have less of this issue that guys like Robinson or Malone... and both Malone and David Robinson had good teams.

Lebron and his teams become weak offensively when the spacing isn't there. Look at the Cavs in 07 in the playoffs - terrible offensively.. LBJ averaged 36% FG in the entire finals.Against Boston in 08, he averaged 35%FG for the series. Everyone talks about Lebron becoming amazing offensively when he arrived in Cleveland - that isn't what happened. His spacing, with Irving and KLove, became amazing... Bosh/Wade didn't provide any perimeter threats.

Boston specifically had one of the greatest defenses in league history, yes. It was a problem. And Lebron's jumper was still shaky that early in his career. Spacing surely mattered, I won't argue the point, but 5th year Lebron had some pieces missing in his game that have long been a part of his narrative. Post game, shooting ability, these were not strengths for him in 08.

I could go on, but, in fact, Malone is different than Giannis/Lebron. Malone didn't want to be a unipolar offense. He raised the ceiling on the 04 Lakers by a huge amount - the Lakers dominated with him playing, and sucked without him, even though his USG was low. Malone wasn't a guy who needed the ball in his hands.

On the 04 Lakers, Malone's post defense was quite valuable, and his absent need to be a focal point of the offense was useful, for sure. Because he was old, and trying to fit in to win a title. For sure. But he was also 40 and had twenty years of career behind him, so it was a bit different than earlier in his career. In Utah, he had all the support he needed to dominate the West, he just struggled against good defenses when they keyed in on him because his game had some specific flaws.

Comparing his playmaking to KD is inaccurate, as Malone actually looked to make plays with cutters, while KD just passes if he thinks there's an opening.

Malone passed well within the system, yes. There was more specific structure to Utah's offense than anywhere KD has played, so that's not really a pro-Malone argument there. He certainly wasn't just the system, but he wasn't a creator, was my point. He didn't pressure a defense and open up opportunities for others in the way a dynamic perimeter guy can do, that's just sort of the way it is.

He could dominate against ANY defender,

Well, that was demonstrably untrue.

and it took entire teams keying onto him in order to slow him down. Most under-rated player offensively in the modern era.

That is also not true. He was very good, but yeah, there were guys who could defend him (like Rodman) as much as any single player can ever be guarded when they have a quality jumper. And if you made him lean on his jumper long enough, he'd eventually crumble.

[rand]

As a Warriors fan in Utah I whole heartedly disagree. Draymond is not a good ball handler. He can run in a straight line with the ball, but he has poor body control and fumbles the ball under pressure.

Just last season of the top 40 assist leaders he ranked 36th in assist/bad pass. Cade Cunningham, Khris Middleton, Trae Young and Russell Westbrook were the only ones that were worse. Factor in the defensive pressure they face and scoring load and you can make an argument for Draymond being the worst of them.

Defensive pressure and a scoring load would nearly eliminate Draymond passing. I could never say he was a better passer than Malone, who was able to balance his scoring and passing with actual defensive pressure.

Are you saying that being a better scorer makes you a worse passer?

No. I'm saying being an offensive threat brings more defensive attention which makes scoring and passing more difficult.

Draymond is also in a passing mindset. Having to balance scoring and passing is EXTREMELY difficult. You're essentially doubling your mental workload. You can visibly see how difficult it is for Draymond to mentally switch from passing to scoring, and it leads to a lot of awkward shots.

TL;DR Processing more information with more pressure is more difficult than processing less information with less pressure.

Increased pressure will absolutely make scoring more difficult because the scorer gets no compensation for the increased pressure. Passing is different because unlike scoring the passer goes get something in exchange for the increased pressure, which is more opportunities in the form of uncovered targets. It takes talent (and generally an effectively operating team) to access the increased opportunities but they are there.

If pressure brought through additional defensive attention would categorically make the player with the ball less effective at both scoring and passing then the optimal strategy would be to always send extra defenders at whoever has the ball because no matter what they choose to do -- try to score or move the ball -- they will be worse off than if defended straight-up.

Does Draymond have the requisite ability to handle the extra attention and the psychological pressure it brings? I think so. If teams start systematically doubling Draymond he will learn to see it before it happens and be prepared to make the winning pass at the right moment. This would be especially true in the context of a playoff series where Draymond and the coaches would be able to analyze the defense schematically between games and devise counters.

Shaq's career provides a nice demonstration of the relationship between additional defensive attention and playmaking opportunities. During his prime from 1995-2004 Shaq maintained a marginally positive AST/TO ratio of 1.07/1 while being one of the most double/triple teamed players in NBA history. But when Shaq passed his prime defenses switched to primarily single coverage. If the reduced defensive attention should aid Shaq's passing then his AST/TO ratio should improve but it actually degraded. With Miami in 2005-2007 it slipped to 0.85/1, then slipped again in 2008-2010 on Miami then Phoenix then Cleveland to 0.67/1. During Shaq's final 2011 season with Boston his AST/TO ratio hit a new career low, 0.47/1, beating the previous low set in his rookie season.

Did Shaq get less accurate in his ability to throw the ball at a teammate? Did he get worse at processing defenses and handling game pressure at the stage of his career when he had the most experience doing these things? No, his passing opportunities just got a lot worse since his teammate's defenders weren't as focused on him anymore.

Funny thing is Shaq is frequently praised for his passing ability but with as many touches per game as he got and with as much defensive attention he got on each touch, he should have been averaging a lot more assist per game than he was. Imagine if Jokic were doubled on the low block as frequently as Shaq. He might break Magic's APG record.

[McBubbles]

Lol so basically Karl Malone but with more technical fouls?

And he becomes an ATG defender and better playmaking/passer aside from passing out of the post.

Is Draymond actually a better passer than Malone? Draymond stands wide open and makes passes to players that do work off the ball. He's also a turnover machine. If he were actually a threat to score (like Malone) he wouldn't have so many easy passes.

Passing becomes a lot harder when you also have to score and teams actually defend you.

I swear Draymond usually has a very respectable AST / TO ratio and TO%?

Edit - Huh, his AST / TO ratio is usually a standard 2/1, but his TO% is actually very high, been 28%-30% the last few years.

[Owly]

The teams that had less talent - DRob/Ewing - had their stars suffer more in the playoffs because teams focused on them. That's not a fault of those stars being worse at "dealing with playoff pressure from defenses" and not being able to "manage the defensive uptick well"..... the other teams had ways of relieving pressure from defenses that focused on one point of attack. The Jazz/Spurs didn't. Hakeem in 94 managed to win because of the "ahead of it's time" system he played in that surrounded him with a stretch 4 (robert horry) and shooters, then let him go to work in the paint. David Robinson, Karl Malone, etc. didn't have that sort of spacing.

Again, though, that has more specific effect on bigs who don't have the mobility or other tools to go after a defense. Wing guys have less of this issue that guys like Robinson or Malone... and both Malone and David Robinson had good teams.

I think there is evidence that up to the point of Duncan's arrival the San Antonio Spurs were a very poor team when Robinson was not on the floor.

They were poor prior to his arrival though with significant turnover. They were very poor whenever he went off the floor via plus minus stats. When he was injured they were awful though with some elements other injury misfortune/tanking.

One could get into the individual pieces
Eliott: 2nd option, what he did elsewhere
Johnson: how he was regarded (often, of backup quality)
Rodman: great ... if he's available, has his head in the game, not in open revolt, not ignoring coaching requests, not ignoring shooters, prioritizing only rebounds ... (or indeed, shooting 3s)

And one could mitigate the implied criticisms above (Detroit lliott had injuries, some suggestions that Thomas sabotaged him - Johnson had quickness, passing and leadership, perhaps that mitigates the lack of shooting, finishing, scoring, defense).

I think it's clear that in the most criticized playoff Robinson years they were pretty bad in general without him and that there's a plausible argument that absence of a reliable second offensive star meant opponents could cover Robinson aggressively (it has been noted that the '95 Rockets actually did so much more than vice-versa for Olajuwon, who had credible spacers and a strong, efficient second option) which, if true, probably hurt his box outlook.

[tsherkin]

I think it's clear that in the most criticized playoff Robinson years they were pretty bad in general without him and that there's a plausible argument that absence of a reliable second offensive star meant opponents could cover Robinson aggressively (it has been noted that the '95 Rockets actually did so much more than vice-versa for Olajuwon, who had credible spacers and a strong, efficient second option) which, if true, probably hurt his box outlook.

I think that Robinson's issues do get sometimes overstated. And that in some cases, so do Malone's. But it is also true that their style of offense, and similarly so with Ewing, is more prone to falling apart against better D with weaker spacing than the higher-end, volume scoring wings, which was sort of my point. Discussing how their individual FG% fell in the playoffs a lot isn't inappropriate or a mirage, as euroleague was suggesting. Using that drop to completely assassinate their value is another story, of course.