RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #19 (Karl Malone)

[Clyde Frazier]

Re: Paul, getting 18 productive years out of a player is no doubt impressive. However, his durability falls well behind his longevity. In those 18 seasons:

- 70+ games played or equivalent in only 9 seasons
- 4 seasons where he failed to crack 60 games played
- Missed 2 or more playoff games each in 5 separate postseasons

In the load management era we've obviously seen relatively healthy players miss more games. However, those players tend to not miss playoff games. Given Paul's ball dominant role in offenses throughout his career, his time in street clothes is especially detrimental.

He has an argument with his statistical profile but with his shaky durability I don't think he's quite in this tier.

[ShaqAttac]

Tbh, I'm pretty impressed wit how creatively you're applying ad-populum, but I'd say there are a couple issues here.

We know the PC board tends to eschew the box score. Perhaps it gets a passing mention before we venture into "better" stats like impact metrics and WOWY or before we venture into the realm of film study and issues like leadership and winning. I mean, for goodness sake, the box score barely even accounts for defense, and it's half the game! So let's look at our project so far. All the sophisticated arguments, all the ink spilled, all the hours spent debating fellow posters. With the wisdom and varied views of basketball beyond the box score, surely the deviations from a simple box score ranking would be fairly extreme.

Issue #1. Just because you put a "the" before "box score" does not mean that there is a singular way to interpret it(or a singular set of things we can track and count as "box score" in the first place). If I replaced your simple-box with IBM's methodology, the difference increases greatly. Shaq and Drob dominate. Rodman graded out as bitw. Yet Shaq is below multiple players from that same period of time just like Drob and rodman appears to be on no one's radar.

As you are making popularity/traction the central justification, we started multiple degrees removed from what we're actually trying to assess. On top of that, this indirect means of validation requires us to subjectively define what qualifies "as the box-score". This is a lot of extra steps simply to assess "perception".

Now as it just so happens, I have a simple box score ranking. It goes from ages 22-31**, so it's only a 10 year peak measure (so no longevity considered), and it uses the BBRef "Big Three" and it's weighed 75/25 postseason to regular season (**karl malone and steve nash are 27-36 and 26-35 respectively because they have such late peaks, and I included Dr. J in the ABA). Also, note that I removed Jokic (short career), Kawhi and AD (injuries) and Dolph Schayes (era) who clearly were not going to get traction in this project up until now for reasons other than people not believing their box score numbers reflect how good they were.

Ah, but your box-score rankings were by average not career. We are adding a second subjective filter now which doesn't even line up cleanly with what you are using as a proxy. So much work just to get to "rough approximation of how people perceive things on the pc board", but we're not done...

If we include all of the current nominees plus the closest nominee from last time (Barkley), that gets us to 24 players. So how many players in the Top 24 comes from say, spots 101-200 on the box score list?

Issue #3

Here's a question that is just as epistemologically valid:

How many players in the top 2 come from spots 1-3 on the box-score list?

0

How many players in the top 2 come from spots 1-4 on the box-score list?

1

How many players in the top 5 come from spots 1-5 in the box-score list?

3

How many players in the top 10 come from spots 1-10 in the box-score list?

6

Hmm. Maybe not dead, but it doesn't look all that healthy either...

1. Downplaying the box score doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. In fact, these very rankings don't downplay it at all and hew quite closely to it.

Well, "these rankings don't downplay it at all" is just dead-wrong. It is certainly downplayed to a degree. And even if, for whatever reason, what "makes sense" should be determined by the opinions of the board(rather than the merits of what is argued regarding whoever is specifically being compared), you still need to define "hew closely" and what degree of downplaying would "not make sense" based on this super-official interpretation of board ranking-"the boxcore" correlations.

Clearly a degree of downplaying is justified. Without establishing "how much" downplaying makes sense, this intellectual endeavor of yours doesn't have much practical application. Of course, I imagine this was mostly an attempt to make your views on nash and harden seem super-justified.

A for effort?

2. James Harden has to be nominated quite soon. Can't nominate everyone who is great by the box score and just skip one guy.

The irony here is fixating on conventional box-score(which is more inclusive of scoring than creation) hard-caps Harden's ceiling. Multiple voters, myself included, have specifically advocated for Harden's behalf against a currently nominated player on the basis of playmaking. If your goal was to hype not-king James, you chose maybe the worst approach. Harden's numbers when he played the Warriors to a draw were not outstanding. Especially if you account for opposing defensive quality(2019). Harden's big point of separation from the Durants and the Kawhis is what he creates, not his scoring and PER.

And on that note...

Blah blah blah box score top 27 blah blah blah elite longevity blah blah blah didn't win a title blah blah blah actual vs expected titles blah blah blah playoff resilience blah blah blah

Imma let you finish but

1. Here's how Nash's advanced(box) creation compares to this project's #1, #4, #10, #11, and #12:

Spoiler:

2. Here's how Steve Nash's offenses compare with this project's #1, #4, #8, #10, #11, and #12:

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

3. Canada

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

/thread

doesnt canada suck at soccer

[ShaqAttac]

okay. IM GONNA VOTE

DR J
3 chips n 4 mvps. idk what his impact looked like but it was probably good. hbk also said he made 16 all stars so his longetity probably good too

Moses

won a chip and 3 mvps. lessthan made some good args about his impact too

cp3 got good rapm but he always injured.

okay i guess i go Giannis then if i cant vote moses
.
Nom:
MOSES
Also nom:

JOKIC

ran through everyone for a chip, 2 mvps like giannis

[One_and_Done]

okay. IM GONNA VOTE

DR J
3 chips n 4 mvps. idk what his impact looked like but it was probably good. hbk also said he made 16 all stars so his longetity probably good too

Moses

won a chip and 3 mvps. lessthan made some good args about his impact too

cp3 got good rapm but he always injured. Giannis might be the best but he hasnt played much. def takin him over karl or kd tho
.
Nom:
JOKIC

ran through everyone for a chip, 2 mvps like giannis

Moses isn't even nominated

[ShaqAttac]

okay. IM GONNA VOTE

DR J
3 chips n 4 mvps. idk what his impact looked like but it was probably good. hbk also said he made 16 all stars so his longetity probably good too

Moses

won a chip and 3 mvps. lessthan made some good args about his impact too

cp3 got good rapm but he always injured. Giannis might be the best but he hasnt played much. def takin him over karl or kd tho
.
Nom:
JOKIC

ran through everyone for a chip, 2 mvps like giannis

Moses isn't even nominated

my bad. changed vote

[One_and_Done]

On a different note here is some footage of prime Karl Malone in action.

https://youtu.be/Y1PQ0r9Yug8?si=WUzImbsbgKNbHuDn

It's crazy to see his mixture of strength and soft touch. He'd be incredible in today's game.

In todays league, I could see him using his combination of strength, fundamentals, and Jedi mind-tricks (eg. Pulling chairs, charge taking) to make himself the best prison athlete since Paul Crewe in The Longest Yard

Nah, modern lawyers and handlers are too good. He'd have been kept out of trouble today, or it would all have been hushed up or paid off, so we wouldn't even know about it.

[OhayoKD]

3. Canada

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

/thread

doesnt canada suck at soccer

We suck considerably less than we used to!

[trex_8063]

CP3 - One of the least efficient RS scorers in the group - only Doc is worse by career average rTS, by my count - and there are questions about how much he can be trusted to show up when it counts.

I had an immediate reaction to this idea that Chris Paul was inefficient, that he was "worse" and so forth, until my brain processed who it was who remained in the voting pool, heh.

Paul's a +3.3 rTS guy on his career. Given his size and his health issues, not so surprising. Rose again as his 3PAr came up, but he didn't have anything like the separation Durant or Malone got. Giannis is only at +3.93, so he's right in that same space on his career... But if you look at the four years prior to 2023, he's obviously gaining a different level of separation (+8.4, +4.8, +6.1, +6.7). And all of that is on top of the large differences in volume that those three managed versus what Paul was doing.

That he’s the least efficient scorer in this group (using shooting efficiency as the sole consideration) somewhat [imo] misses the point or broad picture in terms of his candidacy or competitiveness for this spot….

A) He’s not a primary scorer (the ONLY one of this group who is not); he’s first and foremost a passer/playmaker.

B) the [so] oft-forgotten other element of offensive efficiency: turnover economy. He’s the best of the bunch here (even relative to position played, and perhaps even handily so).

C) Defense. He’s arguably the second-most impactful defender (REGARDLESS of position) in this group (behind Giannis).

And his longevity/durability profile is better than KD and Giannis, at least.

[trex_8063]

On a different note here is some footage of prime Karl Malone in action.

https://youtu.be/Y1PQ0r9Yug8?si=WUzImbsbgKNbHuDn

It's crazy to see his mixture of strength and soft touch. He'd be incredible in today's game.

In todays league, I could see him using his combination of strength, fundamentals, and Jedi mind-tricks (eg. Pulling chairs, charge taking) to make himself the best prison athlete since Paul Crewe in The Longest Yard

If we were constructing a list of the 100 most decent human beings to ever grace the NBA, his reprehensible life decisions may be relevant.

If you can you provide tangible evidence that this referred to incident (which occurred in college, if I’m not mistaken) damaged the Jazz team chemistry and outcomes, it could be relevant here.

Otherwise this just seems like a derail and morally righteous potshot.

[One_and_Done]

CP3 never reached the peak KD did though, even if he has more longevity. I think CP3s playoff record holds him back a little too.

I don't want to slam Paul too much though. He belongs around here. I can only shake my head when I look at his advanced/pace adjusted numbers and see him behind the likes of Kobe, West, Oscar and Mikan.

The lack of Ortg and per 100 #s available for the old guys really sells short how much CP3 would kill these guys. Take Oscar. He was a better scorer than Paul right? Um. Well, let's see. Let's take a random year like 1964. Oscar scored 31.4ppg. Pretty impressive right? Except when you adjust per 36 minutes it was 25.1, which was basically the highest Oscar scored per 36. Then factor in pace. His team played at a 115.9 pace in 1964. In contrast CP3 had 'only' 21.4 points per 36 in 2009, but his team played at an 87.8 pace. So Paul really scored more than Oscar, and got more assists, and was more efficient, and led better offences. Why is Oscar higher again? That's before we even get to era adjustnent.

[Colbinii]

CP3 never reached the peak KD did though, even if he has more longevity. I think CP3s playoff record holds him back a little too.

I don't want to slam Paul too much though. He belongs around here. I can only shake my head when I look at his advanced/pace adjusted numbers and see him behind the likes of Kobe, West, Oscar and Mikan.

The lack of Ortg and per 100 #s available for the old guys really sells short how much CP3 would kill these guys. Take Oscar. He was a better scorer than Paul right? Um. Well, let's see. Let's take a random year like 1964. Oscar scored 31.4ppg. Pretty impressive right? Except when you adjust per 36 minutes it was 25.1, which was basically the highest Oscar scored per 36. Then factor in pace. His team played at a 115.9 pace in 1964. In contrast CP3 had 'only' 21.4 points per 36 in 2009, but his team played at an 87.8 pace. So Paul really scored more than Oscar, and got more assists, and was more efficient, and led better offences. Why is Oscar higher again? That's before we even get to era adjustnent.

Are you sure CP3 never reached Durant's Peak?

He looks better by the numbers--which I believe to be a majority of your ranking criteria.

[One_and_Done]

Firstly, numbers aren’t everything. They are certainly an important consideration though. If you post empty numbers and you’re teams losing, I could care less. The goal is to try and see how those numbers drive winning. Now, Paul inarguably did that, it’s a disgrace that guys like Oscar and Kobe are in ahead of him. But are his numbers really better than KD?

Let’s take CP3’s best period (08-18), as against KD (10-23).

CP3 RS per 100: 28.3/6.6/14.9, 124 Ortg, 589 TS%
KD RS per 100: 38.2/10/6.3, 120 Ortg, 631 TS%

CP3 PS per 100: 29.9/6.9/12.4, 119 Ortg, 581 TS%
KD PS per 100: 36.9/9.8/5.3, 115 Ortg, 598 TS%

I don’t really see the advantage for CP3. He drives better Ortg for the most part I guess, to the extent you agree that’s him, but as a scorer he’s well behind. Needless to say if I picked the best year for each in a peak to peak comp, KD is further ahead.

The playoffs have also shown how KD is a lot harder to shut down than prime KD, especially when you actually surround him with shooters. If I was trying to build a paper tiger contender around some meh players I’d definitely take CP3 over KD. If I was trying to win a championship I’d take KD.

[HeartBreakKid]

Why does being a better scorer matter if it leads to worse ortg?

I still don't think point guards get anywhere near the proper credit for offense. We keep rating point guards and using the amount of points they score, when we know their offensive contributions are not through scoring primarily.

Even going off of boxscore, it doesn't seem like Durant is ahead. If he has a big PPG advantage then CP3 has APG/TOV (or TO ratio). CP3 also lead the league in steals 6 times.


For a guy who isn't really a boxscore guy he still stuffs it up. He just isn't a PPG guy.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm considering swapping my vote of Dr.J to CP3 though I reckon that wouldn't change the votes much since Dr J isn't a leader.

[Colbinii]

Firstly, numbers aren’t everything. They are certainly an important consideration though. If you post empty numbers and you’re teams losing, I could care less. The goal is to try and see how those numbers drive winning. Now, Paul inarguably did that, it’s a disgrace that guys like Oscar and Kobe are in ahead of him. But are his numbers really better than KD?

Let’s take CP3’s best period (08-18), as against KD (10-23).

CP3 RS per 100: 28.3/6.6/14.9, 124 Ortg, 589 TS%
KD RS per 100: 38.2/10/6.3, 120 Ortg, 631 TS%

CP3 PS per 100: 29.9/6.9/12.4, 119 Ortg, 581 TS%
KD PS per 100: 36.9/9.8/5.3, 115 Ortg, 598 TS%

I don’t really see the advantage for CP3. He drives better Ortg for the most part I guess, to the extent you agree that’s him, but as a scorer he’s well behind. Needless to say if I picked the best year for each in a peak to peak comp, KD is further ahead.

The playoffs have also shown how KD is a lot harder to shut down than prime KD, especially when you actually surround him with shooters. If I was trying to build a paper tiger contender around some meh players I’d definitely take CP3 over KD. If I was trying to win a championship I’d take KD.

I think you do a great point of illustrating just how much further CP3 is ahead of Durant.

Paul for 11 years is equal [or ahead if you prefer offensive efficiency and offensive primacy] to Durant's entire Prime. CP3 also added important and valuable years [2020, 2021 and 2022] to the Mix.

[One_and_Done]

Well, the unspoken thing I didn’t mention is that Durant, while being a “worse” defender relative to his position than CP3, is a more valuable defender due to the position he plays and the versatility he offers you.

Leaving defence aside for a second, part of the issue with using Ortg, which I’ve touched on before, is that to a certain degree KDs Ortg is poisoned by the sub-optimal support casts he had around him in OKC (especially in the playoffs, when defences adjusted). His GSW years, and post GSW years, show he’d have posted better numbers in OKC with a more sensibly constructed roster. I think the quality of KDs opponents is also generally higher too. The other thing, which I’ve been consistent about throughout this, is this isn’t a mechanical process. Drtg and Ortg is noteworthy, but it’s not everything. They’re just notable data points. The team performance for CP3’s teams in the playoffs matters too. There are a number of disappointing results there, whereas as I explained I think in the circumstances you could argue KDs teams met or exceeded expectations basically every year from 10-21.

I think Paul is better and helping bad team mates play better, and helps max out their offense, which is valuable. He also is always handling the ball, so of course that’s juicing his assists, etc. KD adds a lot of his value offball, and when he does get the ball he’s often expected to shoot, so obviously assist numbers aren’t going to favour him. He’s also attempting a higher difficulty level of shot, because that’s what the team is generally asking him to do. He’s there when there are no easy shots to be had, and you still can’t stop him.

I admit it’s closer than I remember statistically, with CP3 looking even better than I remembered, but I’d still favour KD because of the higher value player type he is. For a floor raiser I agree you’d likely take Paul.

[HeartBreakKid]

Firstly, numbers aren’t everything. They are certainly an important consideration though. If you post empty numbers and you’re teams losing, I could care less. The goal is to try and see how those numbers drive winning. Now, Paul inarguably did that, it’s a disgrace that guys like Oscar and Kobe are in ahead of him. But are his numbers really better than KD?

Let’s take CP3’s best period (08-18), as against KD (10-23).

CP3 RS per 100: 28.3/6.6/14.9, 124 Ortg, 589 TS%
KD RS per 100: 38.2/10/6.3, 120 Ortg, 631 TS%

CP3 PS per 100: 29.9/6.9/12.4, 119 Ortg, 581 TS%
KD PS per 100: 36.9/9.8/5.3, 115 Ortg, 598 TS%

I don’t really see the advantage for CP3. He drives better Ortg for the most part I guess, to the extent you agree that’s him, but as a scorer he’s well behind. Needless to say if I picked the best year for each in a peak to peak comp, KD is further ahead.

The playoffs have also shown how KD is a lot harder to shut down than prime KD, especially when you actually surround him with shooters. If I was trying to build a paper tiger contender around some meh players I’d definitely take CP3 over KD. If I was trying to win a championship I’d take KD.

I think you do a great point of illustrating just how much further CP3 is ahead of Durant.

Paul for 11 years is equal [or ahead if you prefer offensive efficiency and offensive primacy] to Durant's entire Prime. CP3 also added important and valuable years [2020, 2021 and 2022] to the Mix.

Yeah, I was thinking "Doesn't CP3's numbers look a bit better?". It's not even measuring turnovers either which is a big plus for CP3 while Durant is relatively turnover prone in his younger years (especially if he's forced to create from far).

[70sFan]

Firstly, numbers aren’t everything. They are certainly an important consideration though. If you post empty numbers and you’re teams losing, I could care less. The goal is to try and see how those numbers drive winning. Now, Paul inarguably did that, it’s a disgrace that guys like Oscar and Kobe are in ahead of him. But are his numbers really better than KD?

Let’s take CP3’s best period (08-18), as against KD (10-23).

CP3 RS per 100: 28.3/6.6/14.9, 124 Ortg, 589 TS%
KD RS per 100: 38.2/10/6.3, 120 Ortg, 631 TS%

CP3 PS per 100: 29.9/6.9/12.4, 119 Ortg, 581 TS%
KD PS per 100: 36.9/9.8/5.3, 115 Ortg, 598 TS%

I don’t really see the advantage for CP3. He drives better Ortg for the most part I guess, to the extent you agree that’s him, but as a scorer he’s well behind. Needless to say if I picked the best year for each in a peak to peak comp, KD is further ahead.

The playoffs have also shown how KD is a lot harder to shut down than prime KD, especially when you actually surround him with shooters. If I was trying to build a paper tiger contender around some meh players I’d definitely take CP3 over KD. If I was trying to win a championship I’d take KD.

I think you do a great point of illustrating just how much further CP3 is ahead of Durant.

Paul for 11 years is equal [or ahead if you prefer offensive efficiency and offensive primacy] to Durant's entire Prime. CP3 also added important and valuable years [2020, 2021 and 2022] to the Mix.

Yeah, I was thinking "Doesn't CP3's numbers look a bit better?". It's not even measuring turnovers either which is a big plus for CP3 while Durant is relatively turnover prone in his younger years (especially if he's forced to create from far).

Well, for many people "numbers" basically mean scoring average.

[70sFan]

CP3 never reached the peak KD did though, even if he has more longevity. I think CP3s playoff record holds him back a little too.

I don't want to slam Paul too much though. He belongs around here. I can only shake my head when I look at his advanced/pace adjusted numbers and see him behind the likes of Kobe, West, Oscar and Mikan.

The lack of Ortg and per 100 #s available for the old guys really sells short how much CP3 would kill these guys. Take Oscar. He was a better scorer than Paul right? Um. Well, let's see. Let's take a random year like 1964. Oscar scored 31.4ppg. Pretty impressive right? Except when you adjust per 36 minutes it was 25.1, which was basically the highest Oscar scored per 36. Then factor in pace. His team played at a 115.9 pace in 1964. In contrast CP3 had 'only' 21.4 points per 36 in 2009, but his team played at an 87.8 pace. So Paul really scored more than Oscar, and got more assists, and was more efficient, and led better offences. Why is Oscar higher again? That's before we even get to era adjustnent.

It's interesting that you are willing to adjust for era differences only in some situations, but in other situations you say how it's not really a good idea.

It's also interesting how you say that numbers aren't everything and yet you ignore how Oscar, being much bigger and versatile scorer, was just harder to stop from scoring due to his immense physical advantages over Paul (you know, things you rave about when you talk about Durant).

I don't really understand your criteria to be honest. I probably miss something, but they don't seem to be consistent.

[One_and_Done]

I think your first mistake is thinking Oscar = Durant because he's big, when Oscar could only dream of pulling off the moves KD can.

I am era adjusting period. I assume your confusion here is thinking that because I don't believe we should use a 'flat TS% adjustment for era' that I'm somehow not 'era adjusting'. I couldn't disagree more. We 100% should adjust for era, that's not the way to do it though. That's a reward for playing in a league of garbage shooters, then saying 'well, because you were the least bad among this pack of bricklayers, we should assume you'd be Steph Curry today'. Teleport some role player with a good midranger into 1957 and he'd have godlike efficiency; but he's no better a player, he's just in a better situation. Unfortunately there's no formula to adjust for it, you just need to use some common sense.