Baller2014 wrote:It's easy to find series where a player seemed to slightly underperform their usual standards, whether we're looking at K.Malone or Kobe.
Except, the finals runs are Malone's equivalent of Kobe's rings, and could you imagine if Kobe was winning his rings with a 50 TS%? And Stockton outplaying Malone like that would have been the equivalent of Gasol outplaying Kobe for a playoff run from '08-'10.
Malone did have the help necessary for most to win a title as evidenced by the fact that he had such a subpar run and still made the finals in '97. And it's not just '97. Look at '99 when he averaged 21.8 ppg on 41.7% shooting in the playoffs and 49.2 TS% including 20.2 ppg on 43 FG% and 49.6 TS% in the WCSF when Utah lost to Portland.
Or '96 when Utah nearly got to another finals losing in game 7 to a great Sonics team in the conference finals despite Malone's TS% being a paltry 49.8% for the 18 game playoff run.
It's weak to talk about help when Malone was right there contending with such underwhelming play in the playoffs as he showed in '96 and '97.
It's also easy in Karl Malone's case to find series where he put up 30-12 on 482 FG% and almost knocked out the showtime Lakers
Malone's TS% was also 53.7% that run while league average was 53.8%, and this is what you're using to prop up Malone? He wasn't facing the '94 Knicks by any stretch either. The Blazers he faced were 10th with a 107.4 defensive rating while the Lakers were 9th with a 107.3 defensive rating.
The equivalent would be if I just used Kobe's first 2 series from 2008 vs Denver and Utah. You want to see Kobe's stats in those 10 playoff games? 33.3 ppg, 6.3 rpg and 6.8 apg on 49.5 FG% and 61.4 TS%. Plus, those 2 teams still had a better defensive rating than Karl's opponents in the '88 playoffs.
And that's the run you're hyping up in a comparison to Kobe? Shows how weak Karl's case vs Kobe really is. And it also shows that despite Karl's unusually long prime, it's still relatively difficult to find impressive playoff performances.
or his monster 1992 campaign.
Yeah, this was a great run. I've never disputed that, but Kobe had 4 great runs('01, '08-'10) and a 5th run in 2002 that was better than Malone's '97 finals run.
Maybe if Malone had the luxury of the quality of team mates Kobe had in the years he won titles, he could have had the odd bad game or series like Kobe did.
Karl Malone at age 35 losing to the Jordan Bulls seems like a ridiculous thing to hold against him. Kobe wasn't doing any of that at age 35.
Actually, I'm holding Malone at 33(nearly 34) losing to the Bulls against him because he simply didn't play well in the '97 playoffs. And it's irrelevant what Malone did at that particular age because Malone, by his own admission, was playing better than ever at that age.
A much fairer comparison would be Karl's physical, statistical and actual best years, from 88-93, when he was 25-30 years old.
Except those weren't Karl's best years. Not unless you ignore that Malone was a considerably better shooter, post defender and passer from '94 on. Here's what Karl had to say in '98.
"I'm doing more things defensively. This has definitely been my best year. I've scored more points, gotten more rebounds this year, but I'm a smarter player, a more patient player." He said a similar thing in '97 as well. Karl himself shares the opinion of most observers, which is that he peaked later than most.
He looks like the better playoff performer than Kobe those years, especially once we factor in D, even when we look at this selective 06-10 stretch after they changed the rules to help Kobe.
No, he still doesn't look like the better playoff performer. Kobe is superior in the playoffs no matter what stretch you use, especially since Malone's numbers benefited from the much faster pace in those early years. And even though Kobe didn't have Malone's freakish longevity.
It's especially funny because you keep bringing up defense when it was the post-'93 version of Malone that was the very good post defender, and because Malone was more of an individual post defender than an anchor, the fact that he's a power forward greatly limits the advantage of his defense over a guard like Kobe.
Then add in Karl being better in the regular season always, more longevity, no negatives, etc, I'm kind of baffled about what Kobe's argument is.
Yeah, and how much good did those regular season numbers do in April, May and June when Malone's shooting percentage plummeted and Karl continually got sent home?
Kobe's case is simple. Better basketball player and vastly superior postseason performer.
And if you're going to continue to overstate Kobe's negatives, lets not act like Malone has none. yes, Malone was a hard worker and a team guy, but the fact that he was a superstar expected to shoulder the load whose play consistently declined in the playoffs is a negative. And if we're talking off the court, well, I think hitting on your teammates wife is a negative as well.
Karl Malone could
still be playing for all I care and it wouldn't make him a better basketball player than Kobe was, and he probably still wouldn't have approached him in rings either.
). And I understand that some are questioning if just because West posted incredible steal/block numbers in his last year, they are unwilling to accept that West would post even higher numbers in his physical peak. I saw a lot of West, both in person when the Lakers came to town as well as on TV. I can say that I have never seen any player, in any era, who stole the ball more than West. He also blocked a lot of shots, primarily against people driving to the basket. West's 6-9 wingspan, along with his jumping ability, caught a lot of shooters off guard.
)
