Why did the Jazz accomplish so little from 88-95?

[pancakes3]

Well... let's see. you ranked malone 15th and stockton 27th. the other pairing of top 30 players are exclusively a top 10 and a top 30. thus clearly stockton/malone isn't as good as the other duos, which has been pointed out. Also, during the stockton/malone era you see Jordan/Pippen accounting for 5 rings, Hakeem/Drexler accounting for 1 ring, and Duncan/Robinson (incorrectly) accounting for 1 ring. Isiah and a GOAT ensemble chipped in 2 more rings. The point is, that while a fantastic pairing, Stockton/Malone never peaked as the best player in the league. Combine their plateued peaks with Jordan collecting 6 rings, hakeem getting his 2, and the bad boys repeating, and the emergence of the TD/Shaqobe era, there just weren't enough rings to go around.

[farzi]

Because at different points in time the Blazers, Lakers, Sonics, and Rockets were all better teams.

[carrottop12]

The Jazz had one of the best lineups 1-2, but 3-12 they were consistently one of the worst.

Really no need for explanation beyond that.

[drza]

As for the specific example of the Warriors in 1989, yes, Malone and Stockton still have to be held accountable because, again, there are TWO of them. And for franchise level players, let alone top-30 of all time players, they have more responsibilities than just scoring + 1 other category. Part of their greatness is that they are considered to be great on both sides of the ball...I've read several times in this and other thread that their defense is underrated, and both were All Defense in that time period (Malone in '88, Stockton in '89). So for the Warriors to just torch the Jazz defense in that series, both Stockton and Malone have to partially answer for that.

The Warriors were a terrible matchup for the Jazz that year, similar to the Warriors against the Mavericks a couple of years ago. Coincidentally the coach was Don Nelson both times. The Warriors used Manute Bol, a nonfactor on offense who was hanging out in the perimeter, to pull Eaton out of the middle, negating Eaton's defensive effectiveness. There was no zone defense at that time. The Warriors used their speed, quickness, and outside shooting to beat Utah's size. Chris Mullin killed the Jazz with his outside shooting and nobody on the Jazz could slow him down. Bailey couldn't keep up with him. Besides Stockton the Jazz lacked ball handlers and guards who could create their own shots.

I agree with your assessment of that series, as that was my memory as well. Which was actually one of the hidden points of my post: Malone and Stockton were IMO too limited to be considered among the best-of-the-best All-Time. On offense they were stupidly ridiculous at the pick-and-roll and also very good at some other things, but as a duo they weren't able to either volume-score or facillitate enough team offense to outgun the best opponents. And on defense, while they were good at their particular skill sets (i.e. 1-on-1 D against a good big man, annoying perimeter D for Stockton) they weren't difference makers at that end of the court.

So what you were left with was 2 players that put up outstanding numbers over the course of their long and illustrious careers but could only be difference-makers in certain, specific ways. If the opponent didn't cooperate and play the game in a way that fit their skill sets (which the very best opponents tended not to), they couldn't win.

And again, this criticism likely comes out harsher than I intend, but the fact that there were TWO of them is what sways me. One All-time great player, by himself, is generally able to put a stamp on his team barring a perfect storm epic-failure to put anything around him. So if you have TWO of those players, in a stable environment for a decade-plus, I just can't buy the "there wasn't enough support" argument.

If Malone is a top-15 of All-time player, he should only have required a modicum of help to get his team to at least 50 wins on the regular. Any more than a "modicum" of help should have been a legit contender. There shouldn't be a whole lot of holes in his game that couldn't be covered by reasonable teammates. A great player with him should lead to at least one ring.

But if you go beyond even "great player" and put a TOP-30 PLAYER OF ALL-TIME with him, one that happens to be great in areas where Malone wasn't perfect (playmaking, clutch scoring), if both are REALLY that impactful as players, then that should lead to titles (plural) over 15 years. Luxuries like a DPoY, a great coach, a 6th man of the year candidate...those should just be piling on, taking an already championship caliber core to dynasty-level status. And the fact that it WASN'T...that they needed all of this extra support and still rarely even got to the big stage and never won...that is telling to me. It tells me that they aren't quite as impactful as their "All Time Rankings" suggest they should be.

[drza]

The reason why I used the 1988-1995 window is that this is the time period Stockton fans were pointing to when many of us criticized his peak and his dominance. During these years he was playing with Karl Malone who was playing at a top 20 all time level. Their peaks nearly perfectly overlapped. While Malone was slightly more dominant in the late 90s he was still playing at an elite level

If Stockton really was a top 30 player all time the Jazz should have accomplished a lot more. Here are the Jazz stats from this era.

53 wins per season
4 First round exits
2 Semi-finals exits
2 conference final appearances.

I’m going to use the realgm top 100 list (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=830301&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) to prove my point about what typically happens when two top 30 players play together. I’m going to ignore seasons when one of the player was clearly past his peak (I’ll use MVP voting, All NBA teams as criteria here). To qualify both players must have made the top 30.

The beginning season will be when both players either made an all/NBA team or received MVP votes. The end of their run together will be considered the last season for one player to receive MVP votes or All-NBA selections.

I will not address injuries in this comparison or seasons when an all time great player returns to the NBA after playing minor league baseball out of grief for his father‘s death or because David Stern secretly suspended that player for gambling. I also will treat seasons were the top 30 player was acquired in a trade as if the top 30 player played there for the entire season. This actually favors the Jazz because many of these players had seasons were 1 player was injured during the playoffs.

I’ll also try to identify seasons in which their was three or more top 30 players on the roster based on the above criteria. Also seasons are identified by the final year. Example 1985/1986 will be called the 1986 season. I round up or down on the win total. For the lockout season I will project out the won-loss total to an 82 game schedule.

The criteria above is not perfect obviously but it does make the comparison objective.

1. Michael Jordan played with one player ranked in the top 30, Scottie Pippen based on All-NBA teams and MVP voting for 6 seasons. During those years the bulls won 5 championships. The Bulls won an average of 62 games.

2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He played with two top 25 players when he was still at or near his peak: a post-prime Oscar Robertson and a pre-prime/prime Magic Johnson. His teams won 4 championships. The Bucks during the one season Oscar made an All-NBA team or received MVP votes won 66 games and a title.

From 1981-1986 he played with Magic. 1981 was the beginning run for them as that was the first year Magic received MVP votes and 1986 was the last year Kareem ever made an All-NBA team or received MVP votes. The Lakers won 2 Championships and made the finals two other times. LA won an average of just under 58 wins a season.

3. Bill Russell played with two top 30 player all time. Bob Cousy for 7 full seasons and John Havlicek for seven full seasons.

The beginning season of the Russell Cousy combo was 1957 and ended after 1962 with the arrival of Havlicek. The Celtics won 5 championships in 6 years and an average of 54 games.

The Russell/Cousy/Havlicek trio won a championship and 58 games.

The beginning season of Russell/Havlicek was 1964 when Cousy left and the ending season was 1969 when Russell retired. The Celtics won 6 championships and an average of 56 games.

4. Wilt Chamberlain played with two top 30 players: Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. In 1969 both West and Baylor were top 30 players all time. From 1970 to 1973 he played with Jerry West.

The Chamberlain/West/Baylor trio played for a Laker team in 1969 that won 55 games and lost in the finals.

The Lakers averaged 56 wins over the 4 seasons of the West/Chamberlain combination. They won 1 championship and made the finals three time

5. Magic Johnson (discussed in the Jabbar paragraph)

6. Larry Bird never played with a player in the top 30.

7. Hakeem Olajuwon had two teammate in the top 30: Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley. The 1995 season was the last year Clyde won make an All-NBA team/receive MVP votes. The rockets won 47 games and an NBA championship

Olajuwon and Barkley played 1 season together when Barkley was a top 30 player all time. The rockets won 57 games and were eliminated in the WCF.

8. Shaquille O’Neal played with one top 30 teammate: pre-prime Kobe Bryant. They won three
championships and made the finals 4 times together during the 6 seasons they spent together. The lakers won an average of 56 wins.

9. Tim Duncan played with one top 30 player: David Robinson. They played together from 1998-2001. 2001 was the last season the admiral made an all-NBA team/received MVP votes. They won one championship and averaged 57 wins a season

10. Julius Erving during his NBA career played with one top 30 player, Moses Malone. They played together as top 30 players from 1983 which was when Malone was acquired to 1985 which was the last season Erving received MVP votes. They won 1 championship and averaged 58 wins.

11. Jerry West played with two top 30 players Wilt Chamberlain and Elgin Baylor. The Chamberlain combination is discussed in the Chamberlain paragraph. West and Baylor played eight seasons together from 1961 to 1968. The lakers averaged 46 wins. The Lakers made the finals 5 times.

12. Oscar Robertson played a total of one season when he still received mvp votes or made an all nba team. The Bucks that year won the title and 66 games.

13. Moses Malone played with two top 30 players: Julius Erving and Charles Barkley. Erving is discussed in the Malone section. In 1986 Barkley made his first All-NBA team. The 76ers won 54 games.

14. John Havlicek is discussed in Russell paragraph

15. Karl Malone (Discussed above)

16. Bob Pettit did not play with a top 30 player.

17. David Robinson is discussed in the Tim Duncan section.

18. Kobe Bryant is discussed in the Shaq section.

19. Walt Frazier did not play with a top 30 player.

20. Kevin Garnett did not play with a top 30 player.

21. Elgin Baylor is discussed in the Chamberlain and West paragraphs.

22. George Mikan did not play with a top 30 player.

23. Charles Barkley is discussed in the Erving Malone sections.

24. Rick Barry did not play with a top 30 player.

25. Isiah Thomas did not play with a top 30 player.

26. Scottie Pippen is discussed in the Jordan section.

27. John Stockton is discussed above.

28. Patrick Ewing did not play with a top 30 player.

29. Bob Cousy is discussed in the Russell section.

30. Clyde Drexler is discussed in the Olajuwon section.

TOP 30 Combinations
1. Jordan/Pippen: 5 Championships in 6 seasons. Average win total 62
2. Jabbar/Robertson: 1 Championship in 1 season. Average win total: 66 wins
3. Jabbar/Magic: 2 Championships and 4 final appearances in 6 seasons. Average win total: 58 wins
4. Russell/Cousy: 5 championships and 6 final appearances in 6 seasons. Average win total: 54 wins
5. Russell/Cousy/Havlicek : 1 championship in 1 season. Win total: 58
6. Russell/Havlicek: 5 Championships in 6 seasons. Average win total 56 wins
7. Chamberlain/West/Baylor: 1 final appearance in 1 season. Average win total: 55 wins
8. Chamberlain/West: 1 Championship and 3 final appearances in 4 seasons. Average win total: 56 wins
9. Olajuwon/Drexler 1 Championship in 1 season. 47 Wins
10. Olajuwon/Barkley: No final appearances in 1 season. 57 Wins
11. O’Neal/Bryant: 3 Championships and 4 final appearances in 6 seasons. Average win total: 56 wins
12. Duncan/Robinson: 1 Championship in 4 seasons. Average win total: 57 wins
13. West/Baylor: 5 final appearances in 8 seasons. Average win total: 46 wins
14. Erving/M. Malone: 1 championship in 3 seasons. Average win total: 58 wins
15. M. Malone/Barkley: No final appearances in 1 season. Win total 54

Look at the result. There have been 15 different combinations of top 30 players. 11 of those teams won championships. The West Baylor combo made the finals 5 times. The Chamberlain/West/Baylor made the finals and lost in a seventh game. Olajuwon/Barkley and M. Malone/Barkley only had one season to work together.

The vast majority of these combinations had a much smaller window of opportunity than the Jazz did during Stockton’s peak. Furthermore, a lot of these players had peaks that did not overlap nearly as well as Malone/Stockton.

In short, Stockton fans should stop trying to claim he was a dominate player and screaming about his stats from the late 80s to early 90s. The Jazz success rate during the time period when Stockton was allegedly at his peak is far short of the results you typically see when two top 30 players are playing together.

Excellent post. The same point that I was just trying to capture, but with a lot more meat and time put into it.

[carrottop12]

Malone and Stockton were IMO too limited to be considered among the best-of-the-best All-Time. On offense they were stupidly ridiculous at the pick-and-roll and also very good at some other things, but as a duo they weren't able to either volume-score or facillitate enough team offense to outgun the best opponents. And on defense, while they were good at their particular skill sets (i.e. 1-on-1 D against a good big man, annoying perimeter D for Stockton) they weren't difference makers at that end of the court.

Wrong.

[TrueLAfan]

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

I think the Jazz had pretty good supporting pieces for Stockton and Malone. Their #2 scorers tended to be quite good. Thurl Bailey, Jeff Malone, and Jeff Hornacek averaged 17.8 ppg with the Jazz between 1988 and 1995. How much offensive firepower besides that, Stockton, and Malone do you need? They had slow but effective low post D and platooned people on both ends very well. They had balance--a nice combination of perimeter play, interior scoring and low post D. (This is in direct contrast to, say, the the pre-Wilt 60s Lakers, who had West and Elgin and a bunch of chum in the frontcourt.)

I don't think the Jazz necessarily underperformed...or to be more accurate, don't think they underperformed substantially. They started out the listed period in the tail end of the Showtime Lakers, and had the Adelman Blazers come up after that. Barkley's Suns teams were terrific. George Karl's Sonics teams were good; so were some of Hakeem's teams. (And, yes, Hakeem struggled to elevate his teams, some of which were decent, despite impressive individual numbers from about 1987 to 1992.)

I'm in agreement to some degree about Sloan. I think Sloan is one of those coaches who has a great system, but can't adjust beyond that system too well. In terms of Stockton and Malone, the system was individual bonus. So if you ding Sloan a bit for not being able to match up as successfully as he should against coaches like Nellie and Adelman, you have to say that Stockton and Malone, as products of the system bear less blame...but rthat also means they would have been slightly less impressive in another system. Either Stockton and Malone were great despite Sloan's system...which means they are more accountable for the team letdowns and disappointments, or Sloan's system elevated Stockton and Malone a bit, in which case it's more on Sloan for not adjusting the system. Can't have it both ways.

[tha_rock220]

The Jazz had one of the best lineups 1-2, but 3-12 they were consistently one of the worst.

Really no need for explanation beyond that.

Lol, you think the Jazz were the 1st team built on two great players but weak everywhere else??? Look at the Lakers back in 02. Their 4th thru 6th leading scorers had a combined fg% of 41%. I've seen titles won with less than the Jazz had so that excuse doesn't really work.


The truth is Stockton and Malone turned into little flaccid penises once the playoffs came. Not only that, but they were too predictable. In the regular season teams might give their coaches video and spend a few hours checking out your team, but in the playoffs when teams have an entire staff working all day, every day scouting you it doesn't help when you lighten their load when you have multiple more games to play that team.

[FJS]

Somebody can explain how the multitalented Sacramento Kings from 99-05 (Divac, Webber, Stojakovic, Crhistie, J.Williams/M.Bibby) acomplish less than Jazz from 88 to 95???
They exited 3 times in first round (99, 00 and 05) and only went to WCF in 02.

Altough they fall in 93 and 95, from 92 to 98 Utah jazz made 5 WCF and two finals.

I am not sure why you keep using the Kings as an example. No one considers any of their players as an all time great, even on peak play Webber is equal or worse than Stockton depending on your perspective. Kings best year was really from 01-03 when Peja started playing like an allstar and before Webber blew his knees. In 01, they lost to the Lakers who had one of the most dominant playoff run in history. In 02, well, that opens a can of worms when anyone mentions game 6, but ignore the possibility that the game was rigged, the Kings lost because they couldn't close out during clutch time. In 03, they lost against a Mavs team with a Dirk, Nash, Finley, and Van Exel. It was also that series where Webber blew his knees.

The Jazz had a HOF coach in Sloan, a top 15-20 player in Malone, and a top 30-40 player in Stockton. Yet, in that decade and a half where both players are at their peak, they only managed their first Finals appearance after 10 years. Something doesn't add up, to be able to work together for so long with no injury to either player and they still come up short. Either way, someone is being overrated here.

Because they were a stacked team that everybody here claim as one of the greatest (if not the greatest team that never won a ring) and they did less than Utah Jazz in 88-95.

In eight years with Adelman they have 5 seasons with 50+ wins (4 of 55+ wins) and they only were in one time in WCF.

Every team has his time to grow, and I repeat, from 91-92 to 97-98 Utah Jazz were 5 times in WCF in 7 seasons.

[Dr Positivity]

I think the obvious answer to this thread's question is that the Jazz weren't good enough. That sounds like drivel but hey, it's true. So let's figure out why. First off here's their season offensive/defensive rankings (a tool I love)

88 - 16th offensively, 1st defensively
89 - 17th offensively, 1st defensively
90 - 10th offensively, 5th defensively
91 - 11th offensively, 6th defensively
92 - 4th offensively, 7th defensively
93 - 7th offensively, 13th defensively
94 - 7th offensively, 7th defensively
95 - 4th offensively, 8th defensively
96 - 2nd offensively, 8th defensively
97 - 2nd offensively, 9th defensively
98 - 1st offensively, 17th defensively
99 - 3rd offensively, 9th defensively

From 88-90 when Eaton was still good they had an elite defensive team, thus indicating if they were as good offensively as they were in the late 90s, they'd have either won the title or came damn close. Surely it'd be easy to build a top 5 offensive team around Stockton and Malone, just surround them with shooters like Nash and Amare right? So what's the difference between the late 80s and late 90s Jazz teams? Wasn't Stockton actually past his prime in the late 90s? I don't believe in just looking at how many ppg guys each team had. Let's look at these teams using bball-reference's Offense 4 Factors

88 -
.eFG - 4th.
TOs - 19th
ORB - 20th
FT/FGA - 11th, FT% - 18th

(23 teams in the league)

89
eFG% - 11th
TOs - 22nd
ORB - 16th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 12th

(25 teams in the league)

90 -
eFG% - 1st
TOs - 24th
ORB - 22nd
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 18th

(27 teams in the league)

91 -
eFG% - 7th
TOs - 22nd
ORB - 27th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 7th

92 -
eFG% - 6th
TOs - 15th
ORBs - 12th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 5th

93 -
eFG% - 11th
TOs - 11th
ORBs - 19th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 8th

94 -
eFG% - 10th
TOs - 5th
ORBs - 17th
FT/FGA - 4th, FT% - 14th

95 -
eFG% - 2nd
TOs - 17th
ORBS - 22nd
(FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 1st)

96 -
eFG% - 4th
TOs - 9th
ORBs - 10th
FT/FGA - 5th, FT% - 4th

(29 teams in league)

97 -
eFG% - 1st
TOs - 13th
ORBs - 20th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 3rd

(note: FT/FGA - Finished at .299, next closest were .270, .269, .259, .258

98 -
eFG% - 3rd
TOs - 18th
ORBs - 9th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 1st

(DOMINATED the FT/FGA - .334, next closest were .285, .275, .271, .267)

99 -
eFG% - 7th
TOs - 28th
ORBs - 18th
FT/FGA - 1st, FT% - 3rd

(FT/FGA - Utah first at .320, next closest - .285, .278, .278, .276)

So this works out well because the eFG, TOs, and Orbs were similar early and late in Stockton/Malone's career. The difference is the free throws. In the late 90s the Jazz started dominating the line unlike any team in history and making them at a league best rate too.

However that's not to say TOs and Orebs aren't mega important in diagnosing the Jazz downfull. The Jazz needed this FT line dominance to become great offensively BECAUSE they were bad turning the ball over and on the offensive glass. Take a look at '90 again. Tops in eFG AND FT/FGA. So how the hell did they finish 10th? It's not the weak FT% because hitting FTs at 75% is still better than any shot you can take from the field. Has to be the TOs and Orebs then, no? 1990 was a HUGE oppurtunity for the Jazz. They still had a good Eaton that year and a top 5 defense, so you could've presumed a top 3-5 offense if they had TO rates like the late 90s. And no Jordan in the finals yet to stop them. And yet they lose in Round 1 to the KJ led Suns

In 89 they were the 11th most efficient team with 1st FT line boost. Thus you'd think they'd make top 8. Whoops, 17th. Huge damage from TOs and ORebs there clearly. In 91 they dropped from 7th in efficiency to 11th overall despite again getting tops FT line. In 92 they pick up on the TOs and Off. boards and jump up to 4th offensively. This is their 1st year where they're great offensively and defensively and the results show it. They win 55, make the WCF and lose a tough 6 game series to an excellent Portland team.

In 93 the Jazz are average defensively and they lose quite easily in Round 1 to the Sonics

From 94 on the Jazz start putting up consistently elite two way years. They make the WCF in 94, in 95 they win 60 games and get the worst 1st round matchup of all time - the Rockets. The Jazz go up 2-1 and eventually blow game 5 in Salt Lake City despite dominating for most of the game and having a big lead in game 5. Even though they lost in Round 1, this was one of Stockton/Malone's best chances to win the title.. This year should not count as less than the WCF years, they could've easily played the Rockets in the WCF if matchups were different

In 96 they are even better, and make the WCF and lose to a really freakin good Sonics team in 7. Malone gets a lot of criticism for Game 7 of this series

In 97 and 98 of course they make the finals

In 99 they lose in Round 2 to a really good Portland team.

So in recap, the Jazz didn't win as much as they should've in 88-91 because of their massive TO and ORB problem which severly handicaps their offense. From 92 on they clean that up and show much more success, making the WCF in 92, 94, 96 and having a 1st round loss in 95 that's worth as much as a WCF appearance, then making the Finals in 97 and 98. Stockton and Malone from 92-98 were very succesful overall, they just didn't get over the hump. In 94 Houston who finished with a similar regular season SRS, just outclassed them. In 95 they HAD Houston in their grips and let it slip. They had their shot against the Bulls and couldn't do it. And in 99 they probably could've put up a better fight. This is where you can maybe get on Malone for not coming through in the playoffs

What could the Jazz have done to play better from 88-98? From 88-91 it's hard to help the Orebs without the right personnel, but yes they could've turned the ball over a hell lot less. Check out these TO rankings by year

88 - Malone 1st, Stockton 7th
89 - Stockton 3rd, Malone 5th
90 - Malone 3rd, Stockton 7th
91 - Stockton 2nd, Malone 12th
92 - Stockton 1st, Malone 8th
93 - Stockton 5th, Malone 12th
94 - Stockton 4th, Malone 15th
95 - Stockton 3rd, Malone 13th
96 - Stockton 12th, Malone out of the top 20
97 - Stockton 13th, Malone 17th
98 - Malone 12th, Stockton out of the top 20
99 - Malone 5th, Stockton out of the top 20

Unsurprisingly once they cleaned up their TOs is when their overall offense started to get better. With that said they still remained top 20ish most of their careers which in turn led to 4th-7th type offenses instead of 1-2s, and WCF losses (or a faux WCF loss in the case of 95) instead of Finals appearances. Maybe they have HCA against Houston in 94 and put up a great fight if not win. As for 95, that's just a matter of not having it in the playoffs. When you have HCA against a team who was much worse than you in the regular season and still unconfident going into the playoffs, you should beat them

Malone and Stockton's lack of success particularly in 88-95 can probably be attributed to the offense not being as good as it should've been. They certainly created a dominant scoring by eFG and FT line trips, but their TOs and Off. Rebs were too weak. I suppose that's the problem when you run your offense so much through 2 guys. It makes it easier for the defense to read what's coming next and pick you off

[dalekjazz]

I've mentioned Sloan is somewhat overrated. During 1988-1995 the two playoff loses being mentioned are the Jazz being swept by GS in 1989 and the Jazz losing to Houston in 1995. In 1989 the Jazz were the second seed while the Warriors were the seventh seed. During the last game of the regular season the Jazz played the Warriors. Sloan plays every game to win and is slow to adjust. That is his weakness. One of Nelson's strengths is exploiting mismatches. He probably used the last regular season game to find mismatches which GS could use against Utah in the playoffs, while Sloan was playing the game to win.

Similarly in 1995 the Jazz played Houston during the last game in the regular season, and in fact played Houston two out of the last three regular season games. Sloan plays to win while Tomjamovich used to games to develop a game plan against the Jazz for the playoffs.

[lorak]

88 - Malone 1st, Stockton 7th
89 - Stockton 3rd, Malone 5th
90 - Malone 3rd, Stockton 7th
91 - Stockton 2nd, Malone 12th
92 - Stockton 1st, Malone 8th
93 - Stockton 5th, Malone 12th
94 - Stockton 4th, Malone 15th
95 - Stockton 3rd, Malone 13th
96 - Stockton 12th, Malone out of the top 20
97 - Stockton 13th, Malone 17th
98 - Malone 12th, Stockton out of the top 20
99 - Malone 5th, Stockton out of the top 20

Unsurprisingly once they cleaned up their TOs is when their overall offense started to get better. With that said they still remained top 20ish most of their careers which in turn led to 4th-7th type offenses instead of 1-2s, and WCF losses (or a faux WCF loss in the case of 95) instead of Finals appearances. Maybe they have HCA against Houston in 94 and put up a great fight if not win. As for 95, that's just a matter of not having it in the playoffs. When you have HCA against a team who was much worse than you in the regular season and still unconfident going into the playoffs, you should beat them

Malone and Stockton's lack of success particularly in 88-95 can probably be attributed to the offense not being as good as it should've been. They certainly created a dominant scoring by eFG and FT line trips, but their TOs and Off. Rebs were too weak. I suppose that's the problem when you run your offense so much through 2 guys. It makes it easier for the defense to read what's coming next and pick you off

Very interesting post Dr Mufasa.
However I want to point out that great point guards usually are among leaders in turnovers, for example:

Nash
2005 - 7th
2006 - 2nd
2007 - 3rd
2008 - 1st
2009 - 3rd
2010 - 2nd

Magic
1980 - 3rd
1982 - 6th
1983 - 4th
1984 - 3rd
1985 - 3rd
1986 - 9th
1987 - 4th
1988 - 5th
1989 - 2nd
1990 - 4th
1991 – 1st

So of course it’s not Stockton’s fault that Jazz were weak on offensive glass. But it’s his fault that Jazz turns over the ball so much?

[Dr Positivity]

You know what's underrated about the 90s Bulls? Their turnover rate. In 92, 93, 96, and 97 they were 1st overall. They were 3rd in 91 and 4th in 98. They were also a phenomenal oreb game (5th in 91 and 92, 1st in 93, 96, 2nd in 97, 98). They were on the other end of the Jazz. Don't give away possesions and take them from the other team rather than the other way around, and it'll make a huge difference

[Dr Positivity]

88 - Malone 1st, Stockton 7th
89 - Stockton 3rd, Malone 5th
90 - Malone 3rd, Stockton 7th
91 - Stockton 2nd, Malone 12th
92 - Stockton 1st, Malone 8th
93 - Stockton 5th, Malone 12th
94 - Stockton 4th, Malone 15th
95 - Stockton 3rd, Malone 13th
96 - Stockton 12th, Malone out of the top 20
97 - Stockton 13th, Malone 17th
98 - Malone 12th, Stockton out of the top 20
99 - Malone 5th, Stockton out of the top 20

Unsurprisingly once they cleaned up their TOs is when their overall offense started to get better. With that said they still remained top 20ish most of their careers which in turn led to 4th-7th type offenses instead of 1-2s, and WCF losses (or a faux WCF loss in the case of 95) instead of Finals appearances. Maybe they have HCA against Houston in 94 and put up a great fight if not win. As for 95, that's just a matter of not having it in the playoffs. When you have HCA against a team who was much worse than you in the regular season and still unconfident going into the playoffs, you should beat them

Malone and Stockton's lack of success particularly in 88-95 can probably be attributed to the offense not being as good as it should've been. They certainly created a dominant scoring by eFG and FT line trips, but their TOs and Off. Rebs were too weak. I suppose that's the problem when you run your offense so much through 2 guys. It makes it easier for the defense to read what's coming next and pick you off

Very interesting post Dr Mufasa.
However I want to point out that great point guards usually are among leaders in turnovers, for example:

Nash
2005 - 7th
2006 - 2nd
2007 - 3rd
2008 - 1st
2009 - 3rd
2010 - 2nd

Magic
1980 - 3rd
1982 - 6th
1983 - 4th
1984 - 3rd
1985 - 3rd
1986 - 9th
1987 - 4th
1988 - 5th
1989 - 2nd
1990 - 4th
1991 – 1st

So of course it’s not Stockton’s fault that Jazz were weak on offensive glass. But it’s his fault that Jazz turns over the ball so much?

One thing, remember the Jazz were an average to slow paced team. Nash and Magic played on the fastest teams in the league. Furthermore on the Jazz half the time the ball would be run through Malone, whereas with a guy like Nash it's ok if he turns the ball over a bit if nobody else handles it. You can get away with one of Stockton and Malone being a 3.5 TOs guy, when you have both at once it's a major problem

The Suns were actually one of the least turnover prone teams in the league before they got Shaq. Top 3-5 their prime years

Lakers were middle ground for TOs. Didn't matter, their offense was easily #1 every year. Difference between Lakers and Jazz was Lakers scoring was SO amazing that it overshadowed it. Jazz scoring was great but not Lakers great.

[erudite23]

Here's the problem with the rationale by the antagonists in this thread: you're trying to differentiate between Stockton's ability in 88/95 from his ability during 96-98.

Now, superficially, this is being done because those were Stockton's "peak" years. The problem with that thesis is in the assumption that (peak performance in an All-Timer) + (the presence of another All-Timer at or close to his peak) = (Championships or Finals appearances). If this were true, and it clearly isn't, then we would have seen Duncan and Robinson win it all much more than once in 5 years (and even that was a weird strike shortened season), or the Dirk/Nash combo at least make it to the Finals, or the Nash/Amare combo make it to a Finals, or the....need I go on?


The real problem with what you're trying to do is the circular logic of using MVP votes along with subjective All-Time Players lists and then correlating them with championship success. Your using a premise to prove a premise. Its ridiculous.

If the problem that kept the Jazz from having a lot of success during 88-95 was that Stockton (and, as some say, Malone) weren't good enough offensively despite their rep as all time greats, then WHY WASN'T THAT THE CASE DURING 97-98? It has been stated by men who are a lot smarter and more informed about the NBA and its history than 98% of RealGM posters that the 97 and 98 Jazz are probably the best team to never win a championship. In fact, its fairly clear that they were better than many of the teams who actually did win it all. Had we made it to the finals and ended up facing the 04 Pistons, the 06 Heat, the 79 Sonics or such, there's a great chance the Jazz would be looked at entirely differently. Instead, we faced the greatest team of all time with the greatest player of all time and the greatest duo of all time, and made them fight for every square inch, losing on a pair of last second shots each year.

So, for all the "Stockton wasn't that great" zombies out there, please explain how it was Stockton's limitations and "overratedness" during the stretch we're talking about that made the Jazz fall short, and that a team that was built around Stockton and Malone, only now Stockton wasn't playing nearly the minutes or piling up quite the numbers, rose up to become one of the best teams in NBA history? How can you say that it was Stockton and his inability to effect games that held the early teams back, and yet that same flaw clearly did not hold the 96-98 teams back?


The answer is clear. First of all, the Jazz didn't have the types of players that scored, not in volume and DEFINITELY not in efficiency.

Take the 89-90 season, which has been used as an example. Thurl Bailey. Good player, right? As a role guy, certainly, right? 14.2 ppg. 48% FGs. 78% FTs. And, yeah, sure 5rpg is a little low for a big guy, but he was a role player, right? Not bad at all.

Well, then we look at PER...and we see that he posted a 13.4. Yes, 13.4 from the 3rd best guy on the team. Take a look at other teams being mentioned. 91-93 Bulls? 3rd best PERs of 17.6 (Horace Grant), 20.6 (Grant) and 17.5 (Grant). Not just that, but they also sported multiple guys in the 14.0-15.5 range each year. Duncan/Robinson of 99? 19.7 from Malik Rose. Hakeem and Clyde? They had a 16.2 (Kenny) and 15.9 (Cassell)...and that went up to 17.8 and 16.3 (from Cassell and Horry) once the playoffs came.


The Jazz in 89-90 had a horrifically bad supporting cast, and looking at raw numbers does not bear that out at all. Though Bailey scored a seemingly nice 14ppg and shot a borderline respectable 48% from the field, he was not a good offensive player. How can that be? The reason lies in his FT rate. Despite being 7 ft tall having a nice frame, he only managed to generated 3.5 FTA per game while shooting 11.5 FGs. Combined with his already iffy FG%, you have a startlingly low 52.7% TS. Ouch. Now consider that his 5rpg came in over 31mpg, and you start to see how its possible that he could have such a low PER despite putting up seemingly good stats. Griffith, meanwhile, was a low usage, low efficiency wing who shot middling from the field (46%), decently from 3 (37%, barely making 1.0 per game) and did not get to the FT line (1.0 att/g) or make them once he got there (66%). Blue Edwards was a TO prone wing who could finish, but couldn't create a shot, shoot from range and had a startlingly high TO rate for a guy who did so little with the ball. And then there was Eaton. He of the 10.3 PER. A dominating defensive player, but a guy who was so bad offensively he could make Ben Wallace look like Rasheed Wallace. Despite never taking a shot outside of 4 feet, he only posted a 52.7% FG. When you consider that the vast majority of his shots were wide open dunks or layups on feeds from Stockton, that is remarkable indeed. Also, an underrated aspect of Eaton as our C was that he didn't contribute much in the rebounding department, either. This was not a Ben Wallace or Mutombo player who dominated defense and rebounding. He was purely a defensive threat. As a rebounder he was comparable to Mehmet Okur.


If I need to I can go further. But when you look at the composition of the roster, its clear that, both in terms of fit and in actual quality of players, the Jazz did not have the type of roster from 3-10 that a championship caliber outfit would normally boast. When they DID obtain that, they began to seriously contend for championships. If we want to talk about why they didn't successfully attain those, then we can. But in both cases, it wasn't for lack of greatness on Stockton's part.

[JordansBulls]

I've enjoyed reading this thread.

[Dr Positivity]

Here's the problem with the rationale by the antagonists in this thread: you're trying to differentiate between Stockton's ability in 88/95 from his ability during 96-98.

Now, superficially, this is being done because those were Stockton's "peak" years. The problem with that thesis is in the assumption that (peak performance in an All-Timer) + (the presence of another All-Timer at or close to his peak) = (Championships or Finals appearances). If this were true, and it clearly isn't, then we would have seen Duncan and Robinson win it all much more than once in 5 years (and even that was a weird strike shortened season), or the Dirk/Nash combo at least make it to the Finals, or the Nash/Amare combo make it to a Finals, or the....need I go on?


The real problem with what you're trying to do is the circular logic of using MVP votes along with subjective All-Time Players lists and then correlating them with championship success. Your using a premise to prove a premise. Its ridiculous.

If the problem that kept the Jazz from having a lot of success during 88-95 was that Stockton (and, as some say, Malone) weren't good enough offensively despite their rep as all time greats, then WHY WASN'T THAT THE CASE DURING 97-98? It has been stated by men who are a lot smarter and more informed about the NBA and its history than 98% of RealGM posters that the 97 and 98 Jazz are probably the best team to never win a championship. In fact, its fairly clear that they were better than many of the teams who actually did win it all. Had we made it to the finals and ended up facing the 04 Pistons, the 06 Heat, the 79 Sonics or such, there's a great chance the Jazz would be looked at entirely differently. Instead, we faced the greatest team of all time with the greatest player of all time and the greatest duo of all time, and made them fight for every square inch, losing on a pair of last second shots each year.

So, for all the "Stockton wasn't that great" zombies out there, please explain how it was Stockton's limitations and "overratedness" during the stretch we're talking about that made the Jazz fall short, and that a team that was built around Stockton and Malone, only now Stockton wasn't playing nearly the minutes or piling up quite the numbers, rose up to become one of the best teams in NBA history? How can you say that it was Stockton and his inability to effect games that held the early teams back, and yet that same flaw clearly did not hold the 96-98 teams back?


The answer is clear. First of all, the Jazz didn't have the types of players that scored, not in volume and DEFINITELY not in efficiency.

Take the 89-90 season, which has been used as an example. Thurl Bailey. Good player, right? As a role guy, certainly, right? 14.2 ppg. 48% FGs. 78% FTs. And, yeah, sure 5rpg is a little low for a big guy, but he was a role player, right? Not bad at all.

Well, then we look at PER...and we see that he posted a 13.4. Yes, 13.4 from the 3rd best guy on the team. Take a look at other teams being mentioned. 91-93 Bulls? 3rd best PERs of 17.6 (Horace Grant), 20.6 (Grant) and 17.5 (Grant). Not just that, but they also sported multiple guys in the 14.0-15.5 range each year. Duncan/Robinson of 99? 19.7 from Malik Rose. Hakeem and Clyde? They had a 16.2 (Kenny) and 15.9 (Cassell)...and that went up to 17.8 and 16.3 (from Cassell and Horry) once the playoffs came.


The Jazz in 89-90 had a horrifically bad supporting cast, and looking at raw numbers does not bear that out at all. Though Bailey scored a seemingly nice 14ppg and shot a borderline respectable 48% from the field, he was not a good offensive player. How can that be? The reason lies in his FT rate. Despite being 7 ft tall having a nice frame, he only managed to generated 3.5 FTA per game while shooting 11.5 FGs. Combined with his already iffy FG%, you have a startlingly low 52.7% TS. Ouch. Now consider that his 5rpg came in over 31mpg, and you start to see how its possible that he could have such a low PER despite putting up seemingly good stats. Griffith, meanwhile, was a low usage, low efficiency wing who shot middling from the field (46%), decently from 3 (37%, barely making 1.0 per game) and did not get to the FT line (1.0 att/g) or make them once he got there (66%). Blue Edwards was a TO prone wing who could finish, but couldn't create a shot, shoot from range and had a startlingly high TO rate for a guy who did so little with the ball. And then there was Eaton. He of the 10.3 PER. A dominating defensive player, but a guy who was so bad offensively he could make Ben Wallace look like Rasheed Wallace. Despite never taking a shot outside of 4 feet, he only posted a 52.7% FG. When you consider that the vast majority of his shots were wide open dunks or layups on feeds from Stockton, that is remarkable indeed. Also, an underrated aspect of Eaton as our C was that he didn't contribute much in the rebounding department, either. This was not a Ben Wallace or Mutombo player who dominated defense and rebounding. He was purely a defensive threat. As a rebounder he was comparable to Mehmet Okur.


If I need to I can go further. But when you look at the composition of the roster, its clear that, both in terms of fit and in actual quality of players, the Jazz did not have the type of roster from 3-10 that a championship caliber outfit would normally boast. When they DID obtain that, they began to seriously contend for championships. If we want to talk about why they didn't successfully attain those, then we can. But in both cases, it wasn't for lack of greatness on Stockton's part.

Actually the 97-98 Jazz are nowhere near the best teams to never win a title. I'm actually going through a process of sorting out all the SRS (adjusted point differential) for every great team and was planning to make a thread after I'm done. So far I'm up to all the 8+ teams.. Here they are:

Teams over 11.0 SRS:
71 Bucks 11.91 - Won title (4-1, 4-1, 4-0)
96 Bulls 11.80 - Won title (3-0, 4-0, 4-0, 4-2)
72 Lakers 11.65 - Won title(4-0, 4-2 vs 72 Bucks, 4-1)

Teams over 10.0
72 Bucks 10.70 - Lost to 72 Lakers (11.65)
97 Bulls - 10.70 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-1, 4-2)
92 Bulls - 10.07 - Won title (3-0, 4-3, 4-2, 4-2)

Teams over 9.0
08 Celtics - 9.31 - Won title (4-3, 4-3, 4-2, 4-2)
86 Celtics - 9.06 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-0, 4-2)

So of the 8 highest teams ever, 7 won the title and the 72 Bucks are probably the unluckiest team ever by getting that high and actually playing a team who ranks better than them. The discussion for best team to not win the title ends with the 72 Bucks. They are over 2 points better than the next highest team

Teams over 8.0
86 Bucks - 8.69 - Lost to 86 Celtics (9.06)
09 Cavs - 8.68 - Lost to 09 Magic (6.49)
94 Sonics - 8.68 - Lost to 94 Nuggets (1.54)
67 Sixers - 8.50 - Won title (3-1, 4-1, 4-2)
91 Bulls - 8.57 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-0, 4-1)
91 Blazers - 8.47 - Lost to 91 Bulls (8.57)
70 Knicks - 8.42 - Won title (4-3, 4-1, 4-3)
00 Lakers - 8.41 - Won title (3-2, 4-1, 4-3, 4-2)
07 Spurs - 8.35 - Won title (4-1, 4-2, 4-1, 4-0)
87 Lakers - 8.32 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-0, 4-2)
62 Celtics - 8.25 - Won title (4-3, 4-3)
73 Lakers - 8.18 - Lost vs 73 Knicks (6.07)

Jazz rankings during their preak:
95 Jazz - 7.75
96 Jazz - 6.24
97 Jazz - 7.97
98 Jazz - 5.73

In the 97 playoffs the Jazz beat the Rockets (3.85), Lakers (3.66), and Clippers (-2.66). In 98 they beat the Lakers (6.88), Spurs (3.30), and Rockets (-1.22)

So no, there is absolutely ZERO indication either from the Jazz themselves or their opponents that they are one of the best teams of all time. They were in line with the 90s Blazers, Sonics, Suns, Spurs, Heat. or Pacers... they just peaked at the right time when the West sucked and didn't have to play anyone good except for Shaq once. When Stockton and Malone played actual good teams like the Rockets, Suns, Sonics earlier in the decade, they lost

[drza]

Here's the problem with the rationale by the antagonists in this thread: you're trying to differentiate between Stockton's ability in 88/95 from his ability during 96-98.

Now, superficially, this is being done because those were Stockton's "peak" years. The problem with that thesis is in the assumption that (peak performance in an All-Timer) + (the presence of another All-Timer at or close to his peak) = (Championships or Finals appearances). If this were true, and it clearly isn't, then we would have seen Duncan and Robinson win it all much more than once in 5 years (and even that was a weird strike shortened season), or the Dirk/Nash combo at least make it to the Finals, or the Nash/Amare combo make it to a Finals, or the....need I go on?

Dr. Mufasa's excellent post above addressed the second part of this post extremely well, but I would point out that these examples don't really help your case much that I can see. Duncan and Robinson won it in '99, Duncan was injured in 2000, and in the following two seasons they lost to the eventual champion Lakers who sported a better closer-to-peak duo. Then when one of the top-15 guys peaked, he was able to win another title even with the other one starting to slide.

None of your other combos feature any player considered top-15 of All-time, and I don't even think you'd find many arguing that any of those players currently are top-30. Perhaps Dirk when all is said and done, but he's still not supposedly as good as Malone. Essentially, my feeling is that Malone/Stockton were similar to a peak Nash/Stoudemire that never got injured and held that peak for 15 years. So if you are using Nash and Stoudemire's failures to justify Malone's and Stockton's, then perhaps our evaluations aren't so far off from each other.

[erudite23]

The problem with your thesis there is that these arbitrary rankings that you are coming up with are almost entirely based on accomplishment. If Dirk and Co won in 2006, when they were the best team in the league, and again in 2007, when again, they were the best team in the league, then Dirk would probably be ranked top 15. People are using rankings to prove championships when championships are based on rankings. Circular logic at its best.

[erudite23]

Actually the 97-98 Jazz are nowhere near the best teams to never win a title. I'm actually going through a process of sorting out all the SRS (adjusted point differential) for every great team and was planning to make a thread after I'm done. So far I'm up to all the 8+ teams.. Here they are:

Teams over 11.0 SRS:
71 Bucks 11.91 - Won title (4-1, 4-1, 4-0)
96 Bulls 11.80 - Won title (3-0, 4-0, 4-0, 4-2)
72 Lakers 11.65 - Won title(4-0, 4-2 vs 72 Bucks, 4-1)

Teams over 10.0
72 Bucks 10.70 - Lost to 72 Lakers (11.65)
97 Bulls - 10.70 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-1, 4-2)
92 Bulls - 10.07 - Won title (3-0, 4-3, 4-2, 4-2)

Teams over 9.0
08 Celtics - 9.31 - Won title (4-3, 4-3, 4-2, 4-2)
86 Celtics - 9.06 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-0, 4-2)

So of the 8 highest teams ever, 7 won the title and the 72 Bucks are probably the unluckiest team ever by getting that high and actually playing a team who ranks better than them. The discussion for best team to not win the title ends with the 72 Bucks. They are over 2 points better than the next highest team

Teams over 8.0
86 Bucks - 8.69 - Lost to 86 Celtics (9.06)
09 Cavs - 8.68 - Lost to 09 Magic (6.49)
94 Sonics - 8.68 - Lost to 94 Nuggets (1.54)
67 Sixers - 8.50 - Won title (3-1, 4-1, 4-2)
91 Bulls - 8.57 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-0, 4-1)
91 Blazers - 8.47 - Lost to 91 Bulls (8.57)
70 Knicks - 8.42 - Won title (4-3, 4-1, 4-3)
00 Lakers - 8.41 - Won title (3-2, 4-1, 4-3, 4-2)
07 Spurs - 8.35 - Won title (4-1, 4-2, 4-1, 4-0)
87 Lakers - 8.32 - Won title (3-0, 4-1, 4-0, 4-2)
62 Celtics - 8.25 - Won title (4-3, 4-3)
73 Lakers - 8.18 - Lost vs 73 Knicks (6.07)

Jazz rankings during their preak:
95 Jazz - 7.75
96 Jazz - 6.24
97 Jazz - 7.97
98 Jazz - 5.73

In the 97 playoffs the Jazz beat the Rockets (3.85), Lakers (3.66), and Clippers (-2.66). In 98 they beat the Lakers (6.88), Spurs (3.30), and Rockets (-1.22)

So no, there is absolutely ZERO indication either from the Jazz themselves or their opponents that they are one of the best teams of all time. They were in line with the 90s Blazers, Sonics, Suns, Spurs, Heat. or Pacers... they just peaked at the right time when the West sucked and didn't have to play anyone good except for Shaq once. When Stockton and Malone played actual good teams like the Rockets, Suns, Sonics earlier in the decade, they lost

Right, because SRS all by itself can tell us how good a team was, in the context of the moment, the quality of play across the entire NBA and every intangible element in basketball. Sorry, but that post was so pathetic it made me want to scratch my own eyes out.

How about we go with Hollinger, the god father of advanced NBA statistics and one of the giants in the field on this one:

27. 1997 UTAH JAZZ ......SCORE: 220.7
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 64-18
Postseason record: 13-7
Avg. scoring margin: +8.8
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +3.3
Finals result: Lost to Chicago, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Karl Malone, 27.4 ppg
Rebounds: Karl Malone, 9.9 rpg
Assists: John Stockton, 10.5 apg
Coach: Jerry Sloan
If you're looking for the honorary "best team never to win a title," I'll go with the Stockton-to-Malone Jazz. This unit was their best team, winning 64 games by going 41-6 over its final 47 regular-season games, then knocking out the Barkley-Olajuwon-Drexler Rockets in six games in the conference finals.

Unfortunately, their opponent in the Finals was a 69-win Bulls team with Michael Jordan. Despite that, the Jazz played them incredibly tough -- they were outscored by a mere four points over the course of the series, and two of their four losses were on last-second shots.

I like SRS, I think its a good barometer for how well a team played during the regular season, and I think that its an excellent means of separating random chance over an 82 game schedule from actual performance. But it doesn't tell the tale of how good a team is. This is ESPECIALLY true of veteran NBA teams who have already "conquered" the NBA regular season and are saving themselves for the playoffs.


Its posts like the above, who do nothing but look at raw statistics and then make judgments without the help of context or the human element that give stat heads a bad name.