Karl Malone with 2 rings where would he rank?

[D.Brasco]

Adding 2 rings and presumably 2 FMVP's to these accolades, where would you rank Malone?

14x All-NBA
14x All-Star
2x MVP
2nd all-time leading scorer
7th all-time leading rebounder
10th all-time leading steals

12 seasons of 25+ ppg on 49.7%FG or higher.

[jaypo]

Higher than Akeem.

[THKNKG]

What years does he win?

[penbeast0]

What years does he win?

Does he beat Jordan twice? Please?

[JordansBulls]

Well 1995 they should never had lost to the Rockets. They had the final game at home and were up most of it. Then got outscored by 11 in the 4th to lose by 4.

[ThaRegul8r]

8. Rings. Rings are only relevant so far as the player’s contribution to his team winning the title that year. Mitch Richmond won an NBA championship as a member of the Los Angeles Lakers in 2002, but played all of four minutes that postseason. Thus, the ring that he won is as irrelevant as he was to the Lakers that year. He gets no boost against a ringless player. Neither does a player who bandwagons his way to a ring.

9. Individual Contribution. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly. When used to evaluate a losing player's performance, this is the Jerry West or Karl Malone "Mr. Clutch" or "Failed Delivery" Determinant.

I hate handwave scenarios because they're all about skipping a player's actual contribution to a championship. No one has any idea how a player played in these hypotheticals, yet the fact that some have no problem ranking a player anyway is a bit concerning.

[THKNKG]

What years does he win?

Does he beat Jordan twice? Please?

Ha well I was thinking, any year beyond that Laker year and someone else takes a big legacy hit, whether Hakeem or MJ.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Quotatious]

Well 1995 they should never had lost to the Rockets. They had the final game at home and were up most of it. Then got outscored by 11 in the 4th to lose by 4.

Rockets were the defending champions and when the playoffs began, they were much better than their 47-35 regular season record suggests - I mean, not only did they beat the Jazz, but also the Suns, Spurs and Magic - those teams all won about 60 games in RS, too. Jazz should absolutely not feel ashamed about losing that series against Houston in 1995, considering they lost in 5 games, so they pushed the Rockets to the limit, and Karl individually was terrfic in that series, Hakeem was just even better (and Drexler outplayed Stockton if we compare their second options - Clyde was phenomenal offensively in that series - I mean 25/7/5 is a great statline on its own, but he also shot 72% TS, which is just absurd...).

[D.Brasco]

If beating the Bulls twice is too much to assume possible. I'm thinking one ring against a non-Bulls team and the other coming in either '97 or '98?

[Quotatious]

If beating the Bulls twice is too much to assume possible. I'm thinking one ring against a non-Bulls team and the other coming in either '97 or '98?

I don't think it's too much to assume as possible, because if you watch 1997 and 1998 finals, it often looked like the Jazz had a very real chance of winning both times, they just couldn't close out some of those games in the final minutes. Game 1 of 1997 finals is a perfect example of that, with Karl missing free throws and Jordan making the game winning jumpshot. Then the infamous Malone turnover late in game 6 of 1998 series (which was a poor pass by Stockton at least as much as it was Malone's mistake). As much as people like to think of MJ's last jumper in that game as a game winner, there were still 5 seconds left for Utah to win that game, Stockton just missed his last shot. Jordan's made jumper was nothing conclusive, the Jazz still had a lot of time to turn things around after that, I mean it was not a buzzer beater with no time left on the clock. Those losses were easily preventable with a bit more luck.

I think a one ring against a non-Bulls team is less likely, because they didn't make finals other than '97 and '98, and it's not like Chicago eliminated them in their own conference in any other year.

[mischievous]

Well to those who say "rings don't matter", which is probably over half the pc board, his ranking should be the same.

[D.Brasco]

Well to those who say "rings don't matter", which is probably over half the pc board, his ranking should be the same.

Is that accurate?

I think rings on already accomplished players do matter, maybe not so much on role players though.

I think the legacy and perception of guys like Barkley and Malone would improve here had they been champions at least once.

[magicmerl]

Well to those who say "rings don't matter", which is probably over half the pc board, his ranking should be the same.

They shouldn't matter as much as they do, but the fact remains that by being in the finals you are accumulating playoff stats and also presumably had to play well to get there.

I think Malone would be up there around 10-12 in the KG/Kobe territory with a couple of rings. Assuming that one of his rings came in 1995 Hakeem probably falls from 8th to about 15th.

[Senior]

If beating the Bulls twice is too much to assume possible. I'm thinking one ring against a non-Bulls team and the other coming in either '97 or '98?

I don't think it's too much to assume as possible, because if you watch 1997 and 1998 finals, it often looked like the Jazz had a very real chance of winning both times, they just couldn't close out some of those games in the final minutes. Game 1 of 1997 finals is a perfect example of that, with Karl missing free throws and Jordan making the game winning jumpshot. Then the infamous Malone turnover late in game 6 of 1998 series (which was a poor pass by Stockton at least as much as it was Malone's mistake). As much as people like to think of MJ's last jumper in that game as a game winner, there were still 5 seconds left for Utah to win that game, Stockton just missed his last shot. Jordan's made jumper was nothing conclusive, the Jazz still had a lot of time to turn things around after that, I mean it was not a buzzer beater with no time left on the clock. Those losses were easily preventable with a bit more luck.

I think a one ring against a non-Bulls team is less likely, because they didn't make finals other than '97 and '98, and it's not like Chicago eliminated them in their own conference in any other year.

Honestly, it's not just those two games that Malone underperformed in.
97
Game 2 Malone went 6/20 and the Jazz went down 0-2.

Flu Game Malone had 1 point in the last 15 minutes as the Jazz blew an 8 point lead in the 4th. 2 point loss to go down 3-2.

Game 6 Malone missed 8 FTs in the Steve Kerr game and IIRC the Jazz were leading most of the game until the middle of the 4th.

98
Game 1 he shot 9/25 in an OT win where Stockton had all but 2 points in OT.

Game 2 he shot 5/16 as Utah lost by 5.

Game 3 Utah had the worst performance in Finals history. game was over in the 2nd quarter.

Game 4 Malone had 2 points in the 4th as the Jazz lost by 5.

I mean, Malone definitely had some moments, and the Jazz were in a lot of close games. But this pattern of consistently failing to close out games wasn't luck, especially when you consider Malone's playoff track record prior to these Finals (and even after, he wasn't great against the 99 Blazers). What's lucky about MJ rising to the occasion and Malone failing to do the same for the Jazz? One guy performed like an MVP should. The other did not.

[Clyde Frazier]

Well to those who say "rings don't matter", which is probably over half the pc board, his ranking should be the same.

That blanket statement doesn't really reflect what people mean when they say that. It has more to do with whether or not they were in a position to win a championship, and what their contributions were in trying to get there, positive or negative. Or simply, what was the context that led to these all time greats winning a championship or falling short.

[mischievous]

Well to those who say "rings don't matter", which is probably over half the pc board, his ranking should be the same.

That blanket statement doesn't really reflect what people mean when they say that. It has more to do with whether or not they were in a position to win a championship, and what their contributions were in trying to get there, positive or negative. Or simply, what was the context that led to these all time greats winning a championship or falling short.

I know what they mean.

Those people care about performance, and if Malone's performances were the same then his rank shouldn't have been different.

[Winsome Gerbil]

It would smooth over a wart, but the thing is that I think it only makes a huge difference if you are underrating him. I've seen people try to push the #2 scorer of all time back towards #20 in the rankings, and I generally think those people deserve a giant Mailman on the break knee to the chest to snap them out of it. Nonetheless, if you ARE one of those people, that sort of ranking becomes increasingly untenable if the guy has multiple ringzzz to prove the greatness that should be obvious anyway. It should get him past the Dirks and KGs in those rankings.

In my particular case I pretty much already have him camped just outside the Top 10, right behind guys like Hakeem and Duncan and maybe Oscar, so a couple of rings or not it's tough sledding to move him up much more against guys who have those rings too.

[AdagioPace]

yeah let's add .100 in his playoff TS%...

like saying, let's give Shaq a 3 pointer, basically.

[LakerLegend]

With his numbers he'd be a top 10 lock.

[penbeast0]

Well to those who say "rings don't matter", which is probably over half the pc board, his ranking should be the same.

OP didn't just say 2 rings, he also said presumably 2 finals MVPs. That's a big legacy boost. If he plays poorly and Stockton goes off for 30 a game in two seasons, two rings might actually hurt his standing as people will say Stockton was more responsible for their success. Context does matter.