Is Karl Malone massively overrated ?

[tsherkin]

I didnt know back to back finals trips against the goat is "performing so poorly".

I think it's more the -5.1%/-7 drop in TS%/ORTG when the playoffs rolled around that gets people. He was WAAAAAY worse in the playoffs. Stockton saw a really sharp and significant drop-off as well.

In 97 and 98, Malone went from 60% and 59.7% (respectively) and 118 ORTG both years to 50.1% TS/105 ORTG in 97 and 53.4% TS and 105 ORTG in 1998.

That's a HUMONGOUS drop-off in efficacy, especially considering that scoring was his primary contribution and that his volume floated the team's offense.

97 Finals: 23.8 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 3.5 apg

Pretty good, right? 48.5% TS, and that's WITH 9.7 FTA/g, partially because he shot 60.3% FT and 44.3% FG compared to his regular season 55.0% FG and 75.5% FT (on 8.4 FTA/g).

So you're seeing the roughly 12% drop in TS from RS to Finals there, right? He averaged 27.4 ppg in the 97 RS and 27.0 ppg in the 98 RS, for reference. -3 ppg, -12.5% TS, just utterly brutal. He had a 6-20 game in game 2. Had a big game 3, 15-29 for 37 points in a Utah win, then a 17/7 game in game 5 and a 7/15, 21-point game in the elimination game.

98 Finals: 25.0 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.8 apg

Much better surface stats, only -2 ppg. 50.4% FG, 78.9% FT (only 6.3 FTA/g, compared to 10.2 in the RS). 55.3% TS, still a 4.4% drop-off but not nearly as disgustingly bad as he'd been the year before. Laid a 9/25, 21-point egg in the opener, followed up with a 5/16, 16-pointer in game 2. Lucky him, they'd won the first game, so it was 1-1. 8/11 in Game 3 in that massive 96-54 blowout as the Bulls walked all over them; had 7 turnovers in 31 minutes. 10-21 for 21 points in game 4. Big game, 17/27, 39 points in Game 5. Then 11-19 for 31 in the elimination game.

Malone was a lot better the second time around, particularly after sucking ass in the first two games and coughing the ball up like a mad man in game 3, but he still had huge issues through that series. One of his issues was that Stockton was useless and horrible, though coming back from MF surgery, that wasn't a huge surprise.

In any case, he was BRUTAL in the playoffs compared to the regular season, which is what people are talking about when they say "performed poorly." He was way, way worse in the playoffs compared to the regular season.

[Carmelofan]

I didnt know back to back finals trips against the goat is "performing so poorly".

I think it's more the -5.1%/-7 drop in TS%/ORTG when the playoffs rolled around that gets people. He was WAAAAAY worse in the playoffs. Stockton saw a really sharp and significant drop-off as well.

In 97 and 98, Malone went from 60% and 59.7% (respectively) and 118 ORTG both years to 50.1% TS/105 ORTG in 97 and 53.4% TS and 105 ORTG in 1998.

That's a HUMONGOUS drop-off in efficacy, especially considering that scoring was his primary contribution and that his volume floated the team's offense.

97 Finals: 23.8 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 3.5 apg

Pretty good, right? 48.5% TS, and that's WITH 9.7 FTA/g, partially because he shot 60.3% FT and 44.3% FG compared to his regular season 55.0% FG and 75.5% FT (on 8.4 FTA/g).

So you're seeing the roughly 12% drop in TS from RS to Finals there, right? He averaged 27.4 ppg in the 97 RS and 27.0 ppg in the 98 RS, for reference. -3 ppg, -12.5% TS, just utterly brutal. He had a 6-20 game in game 2. Had a big game 3, 15-29 for 37 points in a Utah win, then a 17/7 game in game 5 and a 7/15, 21-point game in the elimination game.

98 Finals: 25.0 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.8 apg

Much better surface stats, only -2 ppg. 50.4% FG, 78.9% FT (only 6.3 FTA/g, compared to 10.2 in the RS). 55.3% TS, still a 4.4% drop-off but not nearly as disgustingly bad as he'd been the year before. Laid a 9/25, 21-point egg in the opener, followed up with a 5/16, 16-pointer in game 2. Lucky him, they'd won the first game, so it was 1-1. 8/11 in Game 3 in that massive 96-54 blowout as the Bulls walked all over them; had 7 turnovers in 31 minutes. 10-21 for 21 points in game 4. Big game, 17/27, 39 points in Game 5. Then 11-19 for 31 in the elimination game.

Malone was a lot better the second time around, particularly after sucking ass in the first two games and coughing the ball up like a mad man in game 3, but he still had huge issues through that series. One of his issues was that Stockton was useless and horrible, though coming back from MF surgery, that wasn't a huge surprise.

In any case, he was BRUTAL in the playoffs compared to the regular season, which is what people are talking about when they say "performed poorly." He was way, way worse in the playoffs compared to the regular season.

tsherkin I appreciate the amount of work you put into your posts but I was referring to the OP saying the Jazz performed so poorly in the playoffs.

Is Karl Malone massively overrated ? I'm thinkin #25 all-time or so. why is his impact in MVP years (97-99) just weak ? why does Stockton look so much better than Malone in +/- stats ? why did the Jazz perform so poorly despite combining supposed top3 PF and top5 PG on the same team ?

Sorry for the misunderstanding but yeah, malone was a choker in the playoffs. His first round loss to the rockets in 95 was an embarassment (60 win team losing to a 47 win team).

[tsherkin]

tsherkin I appreciate the amount of work you put into your posts but I was referring to the OP saying the Jazz performed so poorly in the playoffs.

Heh, well they beat up on some teams, cheated their way into the 97 Finals... and it bears mention that they made it out of the second round 5 times in the 16 years where Malone and Stockton started alongside one another (WCFs in 92, 94 and 96, Finals in 97 and 98). I think that was the big thing used to attack their playoff performance as a team.

Sorry for the misunderstanding but yeah, malone was a choker in the playoffs. His first round loss to the rockets in 95 was an embarassment (60 win team losing to a 47 win team).

Eh, was it? Hakeem put up 35 ppg on 60.6% TS, what was Malone supposed to do about that? Utah was singularly incapable of containing Olajuwon that year...

Just like everyone else. Hell, Hakeem even spotted them points by only shooting 66% from the line on over 12 attempts per game, lol. He went for 45, 27, 30, 40 and 33 in that series, and was 13/20 at the line in Game 5.

Malone himself put up 30.2 ppg and 13.2 rpg on 55.0% TS, drawing 15.6 FTA/g. He did pretty well for himself. He went for 25, 28, 32, 31 and 35 in the series, drawing 21 and 20 FTAs in Games 4 and 5.

You can't sensibly blame Malone for that loss, especially since the Rockets went all the way after going through the Jazz that season.

[rrravenred]

I think it's more the -5.1%/-7 drop in TS%/ORTG when the playoffs rolled around that gets people. He was WAAAAAY worse in the playoffs. Stockton saw a really sharp and significant drop-off as well

One of my background suspicions has been that Malone and Stockton were so finely tuned to the Sloane gameplan that they became predictably easy to counter over the course of a playoff series, that the metronomic RS excellence was especially vulnerable to the syncopations of playoff basketball...

[Woodsanity]

Overrated. Playoff choker. Terrible scoring efficiency in the playoffs. Regular season king. Not many players drop off that much come playoff times. Pretty much only one or two in the top 20 all time list.

[Regulio]

Not overrated at all.
He had bad series sure, no one is denying it. But why focus on bad things only and overlook his whole career and his many successes, insane longevity.
You know he still was more efficient and scored like 5 PPG more in PS than KG for example.
He is in my Top 20, 2nd behind TD in PF rankings.

[lukekarts]

Depends where you rate him.

Generally he's overrated IMO. His offensive efficiency in the playoffs - despite some very good and some very bad games - was below average. 52.6% TS% isn't going to be helping his team that much. I don't buy into the theory that he didn't have that much help either, he wasn't playing with a stunning supporting cast but it wasn't that bad either. I don't think the flaws in his game extend to his defensive ability or rebounding though - generally he was consistent and above average in both.

For me, he's in the debate with Barkley & Garnett as 2nd best PF (or 3rd, if you count Duncan as a PF). All three are great but flawed in one way or another.

[tsherkin]

One of my background suspicions has been that Malone and Stockton were so finely tuned to the Sloane gameplan that they became predictably easy to counter over the course of a playoff series, that the metronomic RS excellence was especially vulnerable to the syncopations of playoff basketball...

You knew what was coming, for sure. And they relied a lot upon lower-efficiency, lower-consistency shots from Malone as they got older (when they finally started to get really competitive, from about 92-98). He was moving more and more out of the post, which left them relying upon 17- to 20-footers from him, corner threes from the fill-ins and then threes and long Js from Hornacek and Stockton. When Malone was getting to the rim and/or his J was on, it was very hard to stop them, but otherwise...

Didn't help that Stockton was a lot worse in the PS as well, and that he often a little too passive and not quite good enough to get it done as a second scorer, particularly as the pace came down below the 96-100 rating it was at during his three-year scoring peak.

[kaima]

Just a quick note.

A better way to factor production -- sophistication through simplicity -- is, the more I've looked at it, Points Per Shot statistical tracking.

On that scale, Karl Malone was in the same general neighborhood in his prime as Wilt and Kareem, and not far off relative to Jordan and Hakeem (Jordan's biggest argument is volume, compared to all these guys).

Malone scored 27 PPG in the postseason over the course of 13 years, with a PPS of 1.29. That's an elite scorer historically.

Comparatively, names like Larry Bird and, yes, Kobe fair worse than Karl as far as playoff production under this directly-accurate read of efficiency matched to volume.

And, appropriately, Malone absolutely demolishes KG, who is historically a subpar first option under PPS. Interesting to note that Malone has one of the absolute greatest playoff runs in history under PPS in 92 (29 PPG on 1.63 PPS), while Garnett has perhaps the worst I've found for a star: in 00, against Portland, he managed 18.8 PPG on less than a point's worth of production. That's right, less than a point per shot.

(Malone also played against Portland in that year's playoffs, and at 36 years of age put up 23.8 PPG on 1.28 PPS)

Also, since Nash was mentioned as a capable playoff volume scorer, an interesting note: he put up 15.9 PPG on 1.23 PPS before (to be fair, I only calculated his Dallas years) he hooked up with D'Antoni and the league eliminated handchecking in '04/05, yet after he was in the SSOL "system"/in a league with no handcheck his playoff numbers ballooned to 20 PPG on 1.36 PPS. Clearly we can see just how effective Stern's rule changes were, with the added question of how effective Nash ever would have been without those changes and D'Antoni's system. Certaiunly he was a different player without these advantages.

By comparison, RealGM's favorite (much the same way Hitler is respected by Israelis), John Stockton, put up 15.6 PPG on 1.35 PPS in his prime, mostly in Sloan's guard-brutal system and in a more physical era of basketball overall.

The idea that Nash is equal to Stockton as far as worth under this rubric in an equal setting, let alone better, is rather hard to argue. But maybe it's just one more thing for RealGM's finest to selectively ignore.

Back to point, Malone was an elite playoff scorer and is becoming more and more underrated all the time, along with Stockton. These two came within 9 points in two Finals against an all-time dynasty of winning two championships in what is close to, or simply is (I haven't looked at all the population markers recently), the smallest and least desirable city (at least for free agents) in the NBA. They did this with Jeff Hornacek on one leg as their third option.

(yes, I know, I know: Hornacek>>>Stockton by RealGM "logic", much the same way Pippen>>>Jordan or Gasol>>>Kobe...oh, wait. That's pretty asinine, ain't it? More telling is how good Utah became with what was, honestly, a rather small injection of talent to go with their two stars)

What this means is that Malone's a few failures have come to define his career entirely simply because of the lack of team hardware. It's the inverse of players like Hakeem and, yes, Magic (remember "Tragic" Johnson? Of course not), who walk on water and are elevated beyond any and all talk of playoff failures (or, in Hakeem's case, arguably lost seasons and the baseline fact of missing the playoffs). More recently we saw what was a Mob of Angry Villagers transform to Proselytizers in the case of Nowitzki: before '11 he was a playoff choker and outside the Top-20 all-time, yet after he was better than Barkley and Malone, often compared favorably to Duncan, and surpassed Larry freaking Bird.

I hated both Stockton and Malone more than any other two players in the 90s. But that's because of how great they were, and how awful that fact was for my Lakers.

Put it this way, I was never all that afraid of LA playing against prime KG and Minnesota, but a few years earlier I was enraged by and terrified of Malone and Stockton. History is indeed written by the winners, and that far too often conflates with team circumstances being far more important, to the point of absurdity, than individual skillset analysis. This is why Malone and Stockton's stock will continue to drop: it's far easier to remember headlines than a guy's real worth on the floor over the course of 20 years, or to know those things in the first place.

No one will remember that Malone was widely considered the second best player of his generation before and slightly after the new millennium. Why? He's an overrated loser, idiot.

So much for a quick note.

[tsherkin]

So you're using an unqualified statement about PPS and an arbitrary portion of his career to justify this?

Then you later use a series outside of that range to make your point? Negative points for lack of consistent, man, and also for ignoring that he was regularly producing a considerably lower points per 100 possessions rating in the playoffs (and not terribly good, period) compared to his RS production at the same time?

That's kind of weak, kaima.

[Shot Clock]

Is Karl Malone massively overrated ? I'm thinkin #25 all-time or so. why is his impact in MVP years (97-99) just weak ? why does Stockton look so much better than Malone in +/- stats ? why did the Jazz perform so poorly despite combining supposed top3 PF and top5 PG on the same team ?

I guess it's Championship or bust for the Clips this year.

[kaima]

So you're using an unqualified statement about PPS

I suppose your rigorous standards in this area are why RealGM Regulars are so fair when discussing, say, Steve Nash's time with PHX and the meaning of that team's ORTG (Nash, Nash, Nash) as opposed to KG's time in Mionnesota and the meaning of that tam's DRTG (teammates, teammates, Mchale, teammates).

Qualified Statements and honest reads of numbers are a hallmark of RealGM, as we can see with the site's two favorite players.

and an arbitrary portion of his career to justify this?

I get the feeling you spend a lot of time staring into a mirror while typing. Pot, kettle and all that.

The entire point of 'prime' career data is to trace when the player was consistently at their best. That's the meaning of, you know, that word.

Or are you confused about that?

One thing, though. The rest of you are so great at using selective data or ignoring inconvenient facts. Now you're trying to -- albeit falsely -- call out other posters on this tactic? It's all Who, Whom then I take it, within and without. Lovely.

Then you later use a series outside of that range to make your point?

Yeah. You're confused.

Negative points for lack of consistent, man, and also for ignoring that he was regularly producing a considerably lower points per 100 possessions rating in the playoffs

I didn't know that it was my job to engage what ever arbitrary issue you bring to the table, preemptively no less. Nothing like self-regard, tsherkin. But it helps to live up to it.

In this case, a straw man this weak would seem to better fit the profile I've built for you rather than the one you no doubt have for yourself.

Malone was an elite playoff scorer in his prime, as the numbers show. That was my only point.

I also didn't point out that most player's PPS drops in the playoffs. Or that water is wet. I feel such shame to be busted like this.

(and not terribly good, period)

Historically, 27 PPg on 1.29/3 PPS is a highly elite scorer.

By comparison, Hakeem was at 1.34 PPS on 27 PPG in his prime. Jordan was at 1.33, and Wilt+Kareem were both at Malone's level, if memory serves. Dirk, Barkley and Shaq are probably the three best I've found as far as volume+efficiency.

Guys like Bird and Kobe put up numbers below that. Though I love one and respect the hell out of the other.

It would appear that you don't have a terribly good grasp on PPS numbers in the postseason. But, you know, par for the course: you're convinced that Steve Nash can throw one-handed bounce passes like Magic (and Stockton), and I do recall a post where you said Amare Stoudemire had Malone's postgame. So at least there's a form of consistency between myopic viewing and number crunching.

And hey, how's your thesis on Hornacek being more important than Stockton coming? Bated breath.

That's kind of weak, kaima.

Well, you know. We can't all be gifted with the transcendent logic and razor-sharp wit that you provide.

As it is, I'm going to go back and include Jordan's years in Washington when looking at his prime. Without you, it never would have occurred to me.

[Dr Pepper]

Just a quick note.

A better way to factor production -- sophistication through simplicity -- is, the more I've looked at it, Points Per Shot statistical tracking.

On that scale, Karl Malone was in the same general neighborhood in his prime as Wilt and Kareem, and not far off relative to Jordan and Hakeem (Jordan's biggest argument is volume, compared to all these guys).

Malone scored 27 PPG in the postseason over the course of 13 years, with a PPS of 1.29. That's an elite scorer historically.

Comparatively, names like Larry Bird and, yes, Kobe fair worse than Karl as far as playoff production under this directly-accurate read of efficiency matched to volume.

And, appropriately, Malone absolutely demolishes KG, who is historically a subpar first option under PPS. Interesting to note that Malone has one of the absolute greatest playoff runs in history under PPS in 92 (29 PPG on 1.63 PPS), while Garnett has perhaps the worst I've found for a star: in 00, against Portland, he managed 18.8 PPG on less than a point's worth of production. That's right, less than a point per shot.

(Malone also played against Portland in that year's playoffs, and at 36 years of age put up 23.8 PPG on 1.28 PPS)

Also, since Nash was mentioned as a capable playoff volume scorer, an interesting note: he put up 15.9 PPG on 1.23 PPS before (to be fair, I only calculated his Dallas years) he hooked up with D'Antoni and the league eliminated handchecking in '04/05, yet after he was in the SSOL "system"/in a league with no handcheck his playoff numbers ballooned to 20 PPG on 1.36 PPS. Clearly we can see just how effective Stern's rule changes were, with the added question of how effective Nash ever would have been without those changes and D'Antoni's system. Certaiunly he was a different player without these advantages.

By comparison, RealGM's favorite (much the same way Hitler is respected by Israelis), John Stockton, put up 15.6 PPG on 1.35 PPS in his prime, mostly in Sloan's guard-brutal system and in a more physical era of basketball overall.

The idea that Nash is equal to Stockton as far as worth under this rubric in an equal setting, let alone better, is rather hard to argue. But maybe it's just one more thing for RealGM's finest to selectively ignore.

Back to point, Malone was an elite playoff scorer and is becoming more and more underrated all the time, along with Stockton. These two came within 9 points in two Finals against an all-time dynasty of winning two championships in what is close to, or simply is (I haven't looked at all the population markers recently), the smallest and least desirable city (at least for free agents) in the NBA. They did this with Jeff Hornacek on one leg as their third option.

(yes, I know, I know: Hornacek>>>Stockton by RealGM "logic", much the same way Pippen>>>Jordan or Gasol>>>Kobe...oh, wait. That's pretty asinine, ain't it? More telling is how good Utah became with what was, honestly, a rather small injection of talent to go with their two stars)

What this means is that Malone's a few failures have come to define his career entirely simply because of the lack of team hardware. It's the inverse of players like Hakeem and, yes, Magic (remember "Tragic" Johnson? Of course not), who walk on water and are elevated beyond any and all talk of playoff failures (or, in Hakeem's case, arguably lost seasons and the baseline fact of missing the playoffs). More recently we saw what was a Mob of Angry Villagers transform to Proselytizers in the case of Nowitzki: before '11 he was a playoff choker and outside the Top-20 all-time, yet after he was better than Barkley and Malone, often compared favorably to Duncan, and surpassed Larry freaking Bird.

I hated both Stockton and Malone more than any other two players in the 90s. But that's because of how great they were, and how awful that fact was for my Lakers.

Put it this way, I was never all that afraid of LA playing against prime KG and Minnesota, but a few years earlier I was enraged by and terrified of Malone and Stockton. History is indeed written by the winners, and that far too often conflates with team circumstances being far more important, to the point of absurdity, than individual skillset analysis. This is why Malone and Stockton's stock will continue to drop: it's far easier to remember headlines than a guy's real worth on the floor over the course of 20 years, or to know those things in the first place.

No one will remember that Malone was widely considered the second best player of his generation before and slightly after the new millennium. Why? He's an overrated loser, idiot.

So much for a quick note.

Outstanding post like usual and gives a lot of food for thought.

[tsherkin]

You have still failed to defend PPS as a good measure of scoring efficsy when, even constrained to the period you yourself outlined, we still see loads of performances where his productivity nose-dived to below star-level in the playoffs. It wasnt from offensive rebounding or turnovers getting worse in the playoffs for him, it was the collapse of his scoring efficacy. From 85-86 through 97-98, he was a 53.2% TS scorer in the playoffs with a 108 ORTG floated mainly by his low TOV% and solid passing. That's 5% TS and 6 points of ORTG worse than his performance over the same period during the regular season. The total productivity isnt very good at that usage level and the scoring efficiency is below league average for almost the entire period as well.

PPS doesnt effectively convey that, which is why I questioned your unsupported assertion: the specific period doesnt seem to matter, though it does exclude an MVP season, as well as his last 25+ ppg season, which also happened to be a pretty impressive playoff run for Malone. Hard to call that "post prime," really.

[The Infamous1]

All NBA seasons

Malone(1988-2001)
Regular Season- 27 ppg 52.6 FG%, 58.9 TS%, 1110 games
Playoffs- 27 ppg 46.6 FG%, 53.2 TS%, 154 games

[ardee]

Regular season king.

I found it odd how you and so many other posters find this to be irrelevant or even a detriment. A team has to make the Playoffs in the first place. Performing in the regular season is extremely important.

[tsherkin]

Regular season king.

I found it odd how you and so many other posters find this to be irrelevant or even a detriment. A team has to make the Playoffs in the first place. Performing in the regular season is extremely important.

Right, which is why he is well considered to begin with, or a large part of it. But you also have to consider the massive drop-off in the playoffs, including in the most important series of the year, into your evaluation of the player. The more so when it is, as it was for Malone, a significant trend instead of iust an outlier here or there.

[NO-KG-AI]

Malone's scoring efficiency wouldn't hurt so bad if he were a dominant defender, rebounder, and/or passer.

People are making this case that his playoffs weren't that bad as if ppg and TS% are the only things that matter in the playoffs. Sorry, when the post season starts, all facets of the game still matter. Showing that he scored a few more points than someone doesn't prove they fell off as hard as he did.

[Stat Padder]

He's just an Amare Stoudamire with a bit more muscle

[Woodsanity]

Not overrated at all.
He had bad series sure, no one is denying it. But why focus on bad things only and overlook his whole career and his many successes, insane longevity.
You know he still was more efficient and scored like 5 PPG more in PS than KG for example.
He is in my Top 20, 2nd behind TD in PF rankings.

Except KG is an absolute game changer on defense and while Malone is just above average-good. Those few extra points (its 3.5 mind you) mean nothing when he scores those points on averagish efficiency. He is not as good as KG in the playoffs who isn't a particularly good PS performer himself. Nowhere near Tim Duncan, Dirk, and Barkley in the playoffs. Those three are infinitely better playoff performers.

Like I said best PF of all time, top 10 player if the only thing that mattered was regular season. Regular season king. Career playoff loser. Had a few good runs but many many bad-abysmal ones. Was a terrible playoff performer when it mattered most. Just abysmal.