RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #12

[andrewww]

Using tiers in a ranking scheme is a first-pass method only. If it a defense of an argument relies on the assumption that it can be ignored with a wave of the hand, it implicitly damns the argument it seeks to defend.

Re: defender. I mean, KG was the most effective defender in the league for a number of years, Malone was not. Do you disagree with this consensus agreement entirely? If so, speak to that.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Nope, KG was definitely superior defensively. The question is, how much? And from my understanding, Mailman's defense was above Dirk's as well.

[therealbig3]

How much of the "Malone is obviously a better defender than Dirk" opinion is because of the fact that Dirk is perceived as unathletic and slow and Malone was not? Because you see it happen all the time, athletic players are automatically assumed to be better defenders...how many people assumed that Rondo and Westbrook were among the best defensive PGs in the league, while absolutely trashing guys like Nash and Curry, when in reality, there was never much of a difference between ANY of them defensively? Even with Dirk, he still gets called a crap defender by some people, even though he's clearly not. Rubio and Conley are never mentioned by the media as two of the best defensive PGs in the league, while John Wall is, even though the numbers say the complete opposite is true.

I don't think Malone or Dirk are legit game changers on defense, I think both of them are non-anchors that can be useful parts of a good overall defensive concept. Malone gets praise for his hands and his strong post defense...but people forget that Dirk was really good at those things too, definitely comparable to Malone.

[penbeast0]

What's funny to me is that, sometime around the 40s i'd say, hopefully every inarguable all-time great will be up there and at that point, it becomes a subjective free-for-all where you can vote for just about anybody. I'm exaggerating, but you could argue for any all-league selection, any DPOY, any multi-season statistical leader, Rasheed Wallace, anybody. As i've stated before, my own personal thing will be to promote the inclusion of every NBA and ABA MVP, with the possible exception of Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood.

Why those two and not, say, Derrick Rose? Particularly for Haywood who was an ALL-NBA player 4 more years after jumping to the NBA? I'm not defending Haywood that high, there are more than 50 players I will probably vote for ahead of him but he's a legit top 100 threat . . . Derrick Rose is not.

[mtron929]

It remains difficult to convince me that:

A)
This player:
Garnett: 25626pts 14201reb 5306ast 18.6pts 10.3reb 3.9ast .546TS% 22.7PER 191.4WS .185WS/48 9xAllNBA 1xMVP

Is greater than this player:
Mailman: 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast .577TS% 23.9PER 234.6WS .205WS/48 14xAllNBA 2xMVP

VERY difficult. You have to believe in an almost magical level of defense with a fervor rarely seen.

It's not even like KG can cleanly play the playoffs card to make up the gap:

Garnett: 18.2pts 10.7reb 3.2ast .525TS% 21.1PER 16.4WS .149WS/48
Mailman: 24.7pts 10.7reb 3.2ast .526TS% 21.1PER 23.0WS .140WS/48

You can find a stat here or a stat there, but without becoming intentionally myopic you have to really bear down in the face of one of the truly massive careers the NBA has produced. Saying a PF is better than Karl "Mailman" Malone, Dream Teamer, 2nd leading scorer and 7th leading rebounder in NBA history, one half of the most famous pick and roll combination in league history, and a player nearly universally considered the greatest of all time at his position before Tim Duncan, who was half a center anyway, came along....well making that statement should require more than finding this statistical corner or that, especially in the face of a massive productivity gap. Mailman was a very important figure, and would likely have appeared even moreso had he not played in the era of Jordan (for instance 5 times he was the scoring champion runnerup to Jordan, he finished 2nd to him in MVP voting in Jordan's final year, and twice he made the Finals, and lost both times to MJ).

Hmm, so some things:

1) You're using career totals to argue for Malone at spot #12. If this is how you think of the game, he should be MUCH higher than this.

I'm not even saying it's crazy to think like that. People in baseball take career totals very, very seriously. I won't claim the reasons for that are a mystery, but sufficed to say, there's plenty of precedent for using a career-total. And if you evaluate career favoring longevity to the point that you give no extra weight for prime arc, and view accomplishment largely through production stats, then I certainly expect you to have Malone over Garnett, along with most of the guys already voted in.

2) Magical level of defense. I mean, it's half the game, and Garnett is obviously on a completely different tier from Malone there. It should be no mystery why that would let one somewhat weaker scorer with plenty of other offensive advantages surpass the other guy.

3) Your last paragraph. It's beautifully written, and I mean that sincerely.

But as an argument grounded in nostalgia conjuring romance in an analytical exercise, and an argument that piggy backed off of base level stats more typically discussed in earlier eras, it to me explains our differences in opinions based on you letting certain emotions guide your reasoning more than I do.

I apologize if that's offensive. I could certainly be wrong, and even if I"m right, I don't think it's much of a sin to have basketball in your heart.

I agree a lot with what you have said here, but I think saying that defense is half the game is misleading in this context. When comparing superstar players (at least the modern ones), the impact at the offensive end is much greater than that of the defensive end. We see this being played in important playoff games where the superstars have primary control over how a possession will be played out whereas on the defensive end, they can just be bystanders if the play does not happen to go through their way. I do acknowledge that for role players, they become secondary controls in both the offensive and the defensive ends, given that there is somewhat of a randomized chance that the play will be dictated by them in both ends and thus the weights become more 50/50.

However, when comparing superstar players, perhaps it should be more tilted around 70/30 to 80/20 in importance of offense over defense.

[wojoaderge]

What's funny to me is that, sometime around the 40s i'd say, hopefully every inarguable all-time great will be up there and at that point, it becomes a subjective free-for-all where you can vote for just about anybody. I'm exaggerating, but you could argue for any all-league selection, any DPOY, any multi-season statistical leader, Rasheed Wallace, anybody. As i've stated before, my own personal thing will be to promote the inclusion of every NBA and ABA MVP, with the possible exception of Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood.

Why those two and not, say, Derrick Rose? Particularly for Haywood who was an ALL-NBA player 4 more years after jumping to the NBA? I'm not defending Haywood that high, there are more than 50 players I will probably vote for ahead of him but he's a legit top 100 threat . . . Derrick Rose is not.

I believe that the ABA was not up to stuff until probably 1971-72. Haywood quite possibly will make my list, Hawkins probably not. I still say yes to Rose

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote: Karl Malone

According to my formula, Karl Malone is a legit all time top 10 player. I didn't vote for him until now but I feel like it's time for him to get in.

Karl Malone's career totals speak for themselves. And they're just not empty totals: this guy was a #1 option for arguably 17 seasons. I mean, we've seen great longevity from Duncan or KAJ, but none of them lead their squads for such an extended period of time.

Now the reasons that usually go against Karl Malone...

Ringless: yes he never won. We all know that. It happened, I think, for some reasons:
- The Utah Jazz had Malone and Stockton early in their careers. And that's when they played together at their best, since Stockton was in his prime and Karl Malone too. But the rest of the roster was actually not that capable.

Utah had a great defensive presence in Eaton, but despite all his benefits in that regard, Eaton was a really negative player on the other side of the court. He lacked off ball movement, was not a good finisher, lacked PnR play as a roll player. So that put a lot of pressure on the Jazz duo to carry a big big load.

The rest of the team was usually filled up with scorers. But scorers that were not that great. They usually lacked spacing abilities, and their efficiency was questionable. A good example of that is Jeff Malone.


Later in his career, the Jazz made a great move and acquired Jeff Hornacek. It worked out really well with Malone and Stockton. Russell also became an interesting player in the 97 season. The bench wasn't great, but the Jazz had some impact there too. However, they failed to win the title because of:
- Bad matchup vs the Bulls. Bulls guards were really big, and the Jazz were just outmatched by them. Stockton and Horny were not big enough to handle MJ or Pippen, and the Jazz could only hide one of them in Ron Harper;
- Dennis Rodman proved to be a great guy to defend Malone. I think in 97 Rodman really got in his head.

In 98 Malone actually had a great finals performance. Games 5 and 6 were amazing, and even game 3 (yes the one we lost by 40 points) was not a bad game from Malone. If you rewatch it, he actually had a very good start, but no one else came to play.

From 96 to 98 the Jazz had a great squad. But even in 98 Stockton was already showing us he was old. Not that he still wasn't great, but definitely not the guy with the same impact that we saw in the ate 80s or early 90s.

So in the end all the factors did not come along for Karl Malone to win a ring as the man. And even with the Lakers he didn't have the best of luck, since he got caught in the middle of the Shaq vs Kobe feud that destroyed the team chemistry.


After saying all this, I want to talk about the other negative I see on him. Malone usually dropped his efficiency in playoff time.

Sure he has a fair share of series where he deserves the blame... but at least he brought the volume scoring. It's not that easy when the team just goes arround what he can produce. He couldn't hide on bad games because he and Stockton were the only legit shot creators for most of the time (at least before Hornacek joined).

Malone has some great deep playoff runs like in 92, 94 or 98. He has a ton of regular seasons at very high level, with 97 probably being his best.




After all this I'd just like to add that Malone was a guy who could do a ton of things. He was a great fastbreak player, and for a PF that's something really great.
He could score from the low post (really strong) and high post (mostly when he was older and became more consistent with his shot).
He was a fantastic off-ball player, and a fantastic roll player in PnR situations. Great catcher, great shooter.
Very good rebounder, good passer and solid defender. Doesn't have the same impact from all time big defenders, but he still was a very good man to man defender in the post. He also had fast hands and could come up with a lot of steals.

On top of that, this guy was extremely dedicated and durable. He was always in shape, played most of his games and his effort was there every night!

In the end, I think he could be useful as a #1 (I think he proved that) but he also could be fantastic in other roles.

I don't want to make the post too long, so for now that's all I write.

2nd vote - Dirk Nowitzki

[Purch]

How much of the "Malone is obviously a better defender than Dirk" opinion is because of the fact that Dirk is perceived as unathletic and slow and Malone was not? Because you see it happen all the time, athletic players are automatically assumed to be better defenders...how many people assumed that Rondo and Westbrook were among the best defensive PGs in the league, while absolutely trashing guys like Nash and Curry, when in reality, there was never much of a difference between ANY of them defensively? Even with Dirk, he still gets called a crap defender by some people, even though he's clearly not. Rubio and Conley are never mentioned by the media as two of the best defensive PGs in the league, while John Wall is, even though the numbers say the complete opposite is true.

I don't think Malone or Dirk are legit game changers on defense, I think both of them are non-anchors that can be useful parts of a good overall defensive concept. Malone gets praise for his hands and his strong post defense...but people forget that Dirk was really good at those things too, definitely comparable to Malone.

Then how are you explaining the huge gap in their defensive ratings, defensive win shares as well as steals

[Doctor MJ]

It remains difficult to convince me that:

A)
This player:
Garnett: 25626pts 14201reb 5306ast 18.6pts 10.3reb 3.9ast .546TS% 22.7PER 191.4WS .185WS/48 9xAllNBA 1xMVP

Is greater than this player:
Mailman: 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast .577TS% 23.9PER 234.6WS .205WS/48 14xAllNBA 2xMVP

VERY difficult. You have to believe in an almost magical level of defense with a fervor rarely seen.

It's not even like KG can cleanly play the playoffs card to make up the gap:

Garnett: 18.2pts 10.7reb 3.2ast .525TS% 21.1PER 16.4WS .149WS/48
Mailman: 24.7pts 10.7reb 3.2ast .526TS% 21.1PER 23.0WS .140WS/48

You can find a stat here or a stat there, but without becoming intentionally myopic you have to really bear down in the face of one of the truly massive careers the NBA has produced. Saying a PF is better than Karl "Mailman" Malone, Dream Teamer, 2nd leading scorer and 7th leading rebounder in NBA history, one half of the most famous pick and roll combination in league history, and a player nearly universally considered the greatest of all time at his position before Tim Duncan, who was half a center anyway, came along....well making that statement should require more than finding this statistical corner or that, especially in the face of a massive productivity gap. Mailman was a very important figure, and would likely have appeared even moreso had he not played in the era of Jordan (for instance 5 times he was the scoring champion runnerup to Jordan, he finished 2nd to him in MVP voting in Jordan's final year, and twice he made the Finals, and lost both times to MJ).

Hmm, so some things:

1) You're using career totals to argue for Malone at spot #12. If this is how you think of the game, he should be MUCH higher than this.

I'm not even saying it's crazy to think like that. People in baseball take career totals very, very seriously. I won't claim the reasons for that are a mystery, but sufficed to say, there's plenty of precedent for using a career-total. And if you evaluate career favoring longevity to the point that you give no extra weight for prime arc, and view accomplishment largely through production stats, then I certainly expect you to have Malone over Garnett, along with most of the guys already voted in.

2) Magical level of defense. I mean, it's half the game, and Garnett is obviously on a completely different tier from Malone there. It should be no mystery why that would let one somewhat weaker scorer with plenty of other offensive advantages surpass the other guy.

3) Your last paragraph. It's beautifully written, and I mean that sincerely.

But as an argument grounded in nostalgia conjuring romance in an analytical exercise, and an argument that piggy backed off of base level stats more typically discussed in earlier eras, it to me explains our differences in opinions based on you letting certain emotions guide your reasoning more than I do.

I apologize if that's offensive. I could certainly be wrong, and even if I"m right, I don't think it's much of a sin to have basketball in your heart.

I agree a lot with what you have said here, but I think saying that defense is half the game is misleading in this context. When comparing superstar players (at least the modern ones), the impact at the offensive end is much greater than that of the defensive end. We see this being played in important playoff games where the superstars have primary control over how a possession will be played out whereas on the defensive end, they can just be bystanders if the play does not happen to go through their way. I do acknowledge that for role players, they become secondary controls in both the offensive and the defensive ends, given that there is somewhat of a randomized chance that the play will be dictated by them in both ends and thus the weights become more 50/50.

However, when comparing superstar players, perhaps it should be more tilted around 70/30 to 80/20 in importance of offense over defense.

I like this weighting scheme idea, but let me suggest a few improvements:

For each player it's different of course, since different players put more energy on different sides of the court, and different players play different roles which are easier or harder to replace.

So we're going to need a scheme that somehow continually records events that are influenced by the offensive and defensive impacts of each player, and then in large enough sample size the noise falls away and will have a proper amount of impact each player actually has.

If only we had something like that to indicate that Garnett's defensive impact is large enough to make his overall impact offensive-oriented superstars like Malone, then we could finally begin to do some serious analysis, eh?

[Jaivl]

Then how are you explaining the huge gap in their defensive ratings, defensive win shares as well as steals

Boxscore is useless at evaluating defense.

[Purch]

Then how are you explaining the huge gap in their defensive ratings, defensive win shares as well as steals

Boxscore is useless at evaluating defense.

It depends, I think the most efficent way to know how a player plays defense is simply to watch it. However, if you're gonna make the asinine claim that Dirk was an equal defender to Malone, you need to explain why everything points towards the opposite.

[Joao Saraiva]

Then how are you explaining the huge gap in their defensive ratings, defensive win shares as well as steals

Boxscore is useless at evaluating defense.

It depends, I think the most efficent way to know how a player plays defense is simply to watch it. However, if you're gonna make the asinine claim that Dirk was an equal defender to Malone, you need to explain why everything points towards the opposite.

Dirk wasn't. I think people are selling Malone short.

Malone had faster hands, was a very good one on one defender in the post. Could keep position against the strongest players in the league (it's not like O'Neal would get an easy time backing down Malone), had very fast hands and he was smart as hell. If someone would try to use too much body contact against Malone, he would often move his feet and let the other player go down for a travel.

Those are things Dirk didn't bring.

[Senior]

I'm going to post an analysis of the 90-95 Jazz (again not by me, by the amazing Double Clutch) here

Spoiler:

Here's an year by year analysis of what I remember of the Jazz playoff performance during those years (excluding 1988 and 1989 as I wasn't watching then). Bear in mind, I'm relying quite a bit on memory and memories, at times, have a strong tendency to play mind games with you....

1990 - I remember PHX just being a more talented, deeper squad overall and really hurting Utah in transition. I thought KJ played great (even though he played with the flu) and outplayed Stockton, Eddie Johnson who was the notorious Jazz killer had a solid series and came up big especially in final two games and Chambers, while struggling for the vast majority of the series came up huge in the 4th quarter of the deciding game 5. I thought Malone had an OK series, some good defense played against Chambers especially in game 4 where his swipe was able to force a number of turnovers against him. I also thought Malone deserved quite a bit of flack for game 5 though. I wouldn't necessarily say he choked though his FT shooting was below average (shot 6/12) but he did make a few errors such as the fact that he picked up a silly reach in on Chambers in the 3rd (got in foul trouble as a result) which forced somebody else to guard Tom in the 4th and Chambers was able to feast on the line and scored 11 or 12 points (might've been consecutive). Offensively, his play was a bit suspect in the 4th as he bailed the defense out by settling for turnaround jumpers. He tried to post up deep with Majerle guarding him but the double team came really quick and he wasn't able to draw the foul and I remember thinking he seemed confused and thus quickly forced a few jumpers. Mark West did guard him on a couple of possessions too and had some success negating the deep position Malone was getting and was able to bother his shot. I think he only had 2 points in the 4th off a pick and pop with Stockton which tied the game until KJ hit the GW. He did create a few indirect opportunities for the rest of the team which was usually the case on the early 90s Jazz as the teams would try to pack the lane, double team Malone and guys like Edwards and Bailey could benefit off of them. In general, Malone was As for their support, I think it was solid but PHX definitely had the edge in this regard despite their duo of KJ and Chambers not being as good overall. That said, it was a winnable series despite PHX being a better team in general.

1991 - They once again fall to a more talented, deeper squad in Portland who many believe was actually better than the 1990 and 1992 teams that made the finals. I don't have any game by game memory of this series but I've looked at the game reports and glanced over the stats, it seems that their talent, balance and depth was able to overcome Utah. Another thing that also stands out is Drexler's all around numbers which are tremendous (19.8 ppg/10 rpg/9.6 apg) which tells me he was really able to get some easy buckets on the offensive glass which he was notorious for and also ignite the break with his defensive rebounding and get Portland's transition game going, something else he generally excelled at. Portland had shooters and elite athletes + finishers so they were an absolute KILLER team in the open court. I notice Porter had a good scoring series (his 1992 series is even better) so that's an indication that he was able to spot up in transition, benefit from the fact that Stockton could get burned from roaming, use his size to shoot over and create against the smaller Stockton as well as come off screens to catch and shoot. I say this because these were all factors in the 1992 series which I'm very familiar with. Mark Eaton's mobility was also a bit suspect at this point so he couldn't be the intimidating presence as he was in the past and combined with Kevin Duckworth's ability to spread the floor up to 15 feet or so, that could pull Eaton away from the basket and weaken Utah's interior defense as well as open up room for dribble penetration.

I will also say as a general standpoint that Utah had some issues on offense in the playoffs in the early 90s due to the lack of spacing and 3 pt threats on the team. This is why I consider Jeff Hornacek a really valuable and immense upgrade over Jeff Malone who had a great mid range game but wasn't able to alleviate teams from packing the lane against Utah. Hornacek was also a superior passer and a playmaker. The Jazz bench during the early 90s was fairly mediocre especially in contrast to the teams they lost lost to (PHX, Portland, Seattle) so we have to keep that mind as well. Portland had talent such as Danny Ainge (tough, hard nosed, good shooter, experienced) and Cliff Robinson (athletic, talented, versatile) coming off the bench, PHX had Eddie Johnson (elite shooter, crafty scorer for scoring punches) and Dan Majerle (good shooter, solid perimeter defender), Seattle had Eddie Johnson (see above), Nate McMillan (great perimeter defender, good passer, made smart plays, leader), Michael Cage (banger, could provide good minutes against opposing bigs), Dana Barros (another perimeter shooter) while Utah's bench players really paled in comparison despite the fact that rotations are usually shortened come playoff time so this was also a factor.

1992 - Some of this I touched on earlier. First of all, let me say, I was really impressed by Karl Malone's playoff run in general especially the Seattle and Portland series. In game one vs Seattle, he had 16 of his 30 in the 4th and they mentioned Utah brought him up high and he made great decisions from there. To close Seattle, he had 15 of his 37 in the 4th and Eaton fed off the attention he drew late in the quarter. He also played some good positional defense on Shawn Kemp who hadn't learned to protect the ball from Malone's swipe just yet and Malone was also able to limit his shot attempts though Kemp was in foul trouble as well which limited his minutes. While I'd say early 90s Malone was more reliant on being set up (after they beat Seattle, George Karl actually gave a lot of credit to Stockton for getting the ball to Malone at great angles), Stockton did get an eye injury at the half in game 5 @ Portland and Malone would actually have a monster second half scoring 28 points. Throughout the Portland series, he was posting up deep on Buck Williams, drawing a lot of fouls, putting the ball on the floor, setting up on the left block and rolling across the lane for a little hook. His jumper did not have quite the same range and he also didn't go to it as much but he was still effective on the face up and turnaround and his passing was getting better though not on the level as it was in mid-late 90s. I do think Malone put far more pressure (more aggressive, set up deeper on the block) on the defense in the early 90s than the late 90s where had a tendency to settle more often which I'd say did help extend his career a bit.

The only relatively weak game Malone had in this series was game 1 which was a blowout so it's hard to pin this loss on him and while game 6 vs Portland doesn't stand out, they were really concerned with him, doubling him hard and made guys like Tyrone Corbin and Edwards beat them. Ty had a good game but the Jazz offense stunk in the second half since they were able to limit Malone and Stockton was terrible from the perimeter (eye injury played a part perhaps). Utah had no spacing and perimeter shooting whatsoever to keep the Portland defense honest. That's an issue with guys like Jeff Malone as I mentioned earlier, Tyrone Corbin (solid defense and rebounding though), David Benoit (not a 3 pt shooter but ran the floor well as he was athletic) and Blue Edwards (not much 3 pt range, not much of a shot creator but athletic and did well in the open court but Utah wasn't the type that liked pushing the ball a lot so this attribute was minimized). This, of course, is just their offensive woes. Portland is still the same type of team as they were in 1991 (very athletic, talented, deep, flourished in transition) and they were able to capitalize on these attributes. Terry Porter's play in this series was exceptional and I'd say he was the best Blazer in this series. His shooting was terrific (spotting up in transition, coming off screens, pulling up off the dribble, driving on Stockton using his body to create space ect) and I thought defensively, he did a solid job too though I remember one of the pre-game shows where Steve Jones talked about how he should pressure Stockton on the entry pass more often to deny getting the ball to Malone. Drexler had a good series, Duckworth played really well in 3 of the 4 Portland wins and if you watch the series, you'll notice how he was able to draw Eaton away from the basket due to his shooting ability (nice one hand shooting stroke). I'd also say the fact that Eaton's mobility was questionable at this point could hurt Utah's transition defense especially against a team that thrived in the open court like Portland. Portland also got really solid contribution from Jerome Kersey and some bench production from Ainge and Robinson.

1993 - This was the season coming off the Dream Team and it should be noted that Malone and Stockton did wear out especially over the course of the season. This is something Sloan talked about and Malone himself said it was a factor. Seattle was really good at pressuring the ball, trapping guards (known for their SOS pressure defense) as well as double teaming low-post players and quickly rotating back to the shooters. This is something very evident in this series and was able to impact Utah's offense quite a bit. They'd often pressure and double team Stockton forcing him to give the ball up and what this would do is also limit Malone's touches since Stockton was so good at getting the ball to him. Malone, once he would receive the ball, would get swarmed and as I said earlier, Utah's perimeter shooting wouldn't be able to keep the defense honest so this gave even more incentive to Seattle to pack the lane in this series. Malone didn't particularly play well (perhaps fatigue was a factor) and Stockton had a relatively average series for his standards but when you factor in Seattle's defensive strategy and the fact that they both did well moving the ball around creating for their teammates, I thought they did their job. Malone did struggle against Seattle's double teams a bit especially passing out of the low-post as he hadn't quite developed into a great passer yet (would happen in a couple of years) so Seattle was able to force some turnovers. I'd say Kemp was also improving in this time period and was able to hold his own vs Malone especially the first one where he actually outplayed him. Although, Malone did bounce back right after in game 2 especially in the 4th quarter where he was playing with 5 fouls yet had 12 of his 26 points including the GW jumper. Seattle made a mistake in this game by not going to Kemp in the 4th to try and foul Malone out although the report did state Kemp was being double teamed with Eaton and it wasn't the best decision to force the action in that situation. Utah was also rotating Malone at times depending on which Seattle front-court player had it going offensively so Malone was matched up with Kemp, Perkins and McKey at times.

I thought Karl outcoached Sloan in this series with the type of adjustments he made although he also had more depth as well as a greater variety of players with differentiating skill-sets to take more risks and switch schemes and strategies. For example, down 2-1 heading into game 4, Karl made Derrick McKey the point-forward to stop Stockton from roaming around on defense. In this game, Eddie Johnson also stepped up big in the 4th quarter once again being a pain in Utah's rear scoring 13 of his 24 pts. They also didn't trap Malone and Stockton as much as they did in the first three games which worked fine as Malone had a subpar game and Stockton didn't have a great game either and as a result they were able to limit Utah's offense. Another adjustment Seattle did in this series was to limit Eaton's defensive impact which was evident in the pivotal game 5. In the two Utah wins, Eaton was able to clog the middle and prevent any easy baskets around the rim but in game 5, especially in the third quarter, Sam Perkins (a center to stretch the floor) made a number of threes because Eaton either couldn't guard him outside or he was helping out and got burned for it. This was the turning point of that game as that really got that Seattle crowd going, the team's energy really picked up after a terrible first half and they had momentum on their side which won them the game. You'll notice the perimeter play of the Jazz was again suspect as they didn't shoot well to alleviate the pressure off of Malone and Stockton. Jeff Malone, Jay Humphries, David Benoit and Tyrone Corbin were again guilty of this, perhaps Sloan as well.

1994 - I thought the Jazz really improved this year due to the addition of Jeff Hornacek giving them a great 3 pt shooter, a playmaker and somebody who could actually space the floor effectively (difference between spacing and shooting), the addition of Tom Chambers, Felton Spencer gave them a good defensive center to guard some of the bigger bodies in the West like David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon and I'd say Malone improved as well because he was gradually getting better built for playoff play. His stats decline but I'd take Karl Malone in 1994 over Karl Malone in 1990 which is something stats won't necessarily show. It was sort of a transition year for Malone as he expanded his game by adding more range on his jumper to extend his game further and becoming a better passer out of the low-post especially on those over the shoulder feeds to cutters and these are two aspects of the game that I think helped him deal better with superior playoff defenses. This is important when you consider he's playing in a conference with great defensive bigs like Robinson, Dikembe and Hakeem since they'd bother his inside game and playing outside, he could negate their presence or forcing them to guard him and come outside limiting their defensive impact thus helping the rest of the team.

In the first round of the playoffs, he took it to the Rodman/Robinson front-line and completely shut Robinson down. His swipe bother Robinson anytime he faced up, he made Robinson pass up shots and look tentative by really playing a physical brand of basketball. Stockton played some good help-defense as well, to his credit. In game 4, Malone hit a go-ahead jumpshot with about 40 seconds left to close the Spurs out.

Against Denver, he didn't post as much because Dikembe was a huge presence in the lane and Mutombo guarded him for a good chunk of the series too but his perimeter game was on point and this would also pull Dikembe out of the lane opening up the middle for the rest of his teammates thus limiting Mutombo's defensive impact to some extent. Bear in mind, Mutombo had an excellent defensive series against Seattle in the first round and did a great job limiting Kemp's production. He saved Utah the embarrassment by not losing game 7 after losing a 3-0 lead with a huge first half, most of his points essentially coming on jumpshots. In game three, Denver was so concerned with Malone on the pick and roll, that they were allowing Stock and Hornacek good looks and they did convert them but Sloan afterwards said, "that was good to see because Stock doesn't usually take those shots" which is a sign that Stockton wasn't usually as aggressive in looking for his shot as he should be (paraphrased). That said, he did have a questionable first half in game 5 of this series though he bounced back really well in the second half. Larry Miller (owner of the Jazz) had called him out and requested Sloan to take him out of the game due to a lack of effort. He was missing some easy shots, seemed hesitant in terms of his decision making and was also bothered a bit by Mutombo's presence. Perhaps, it might've been a "statement" game because there was definitely talk about Malone's future around this time, the relative lack of help and their championship window closing.

Against Houston, they were on the road in the first game and came out flat perhaps due to a grueling 7 game series. Doug Collins was the color guy for this game and he also talked about how fatigue was a factor here. Hakeem had a tremendous all-around series (not surprising as he was far and away the best in the league that year) and Utah's defense was also really concerned with him which opened up 3 pt shooting for the rest of the team especially Kenny Smith. Malone did ok when you consider he's going up against a great defensive frontline in Thorpe/Hakeem and Malone also had food poisoning which definitely effected him after game two. Hakeem also switched onto Malone at times when Thorpe was in foul trouble and really bothered him (game 4). This is another series where I think Stockton should have been more aggressive and taken advantage of Houston's awful PG defense (something he'd finally do in 1997). I've never seen a championship winning team with a worse defensive PG rotation as those back-to-back Rocket teams. Houston couldn't guard PGs to save their lives and that was a glaring weakness on that squad. Look up some of the stats of the opposing PGs against the Rockets in the playoffs. The Suns had KJ nearly single handily beat Houston in some of those games because he was easily able to get to the middle and cause defensive breakdowns. Rod Strickland had the series of his career against the 1994 Rockets as he, like KJ, was really able to get to the middle and cause defensive breakdowns as the Rockets' PGs offered little to no resistance. Penny Hardaway didn't assert himself as much as he should've in the 1995 finals but he was able to have his way with Sam and Kenny whenever he wanted to. Payton would have some big games against Houston too (good penetrator and post-up threat), to the point where they'd have to switch Mario Elie or Clyde Drexler onto him like they did in the 1996 WCSF. You could criticize Stockton for his unwillingness to exploit this match up, the lack of scoring punch from Utah's bench such as Corbin and Chambers or a starter like David Benoit who could be double teamed off of since he had no shooting range. So while I did comment on Utah's improvement this year, they still had some weaknesses as a team that were noticeable in this series. You also have to consider how Hakeem was wrecking havoc all over the place and there wasn't much they could do against him even when they figured to slow him down a bit offensive production in the last three games because he was still drawing a lot of attention and Houston had a variety of people step up on a game by game basis to make Utah pay for that strategy.

1995 - Utah should've probably beat Houston this year. They had a 60 W team + home court but the series came down to Hakeem being flat-out unstoppable, outplaying Malone as the primary option and Drexler outplayed Stockton in the secondary role. I think the stars decided that series and Houston's stars shined a bit brighter. Both teams had weaknesses they could exploit in the other team. Utah lacked an adequate C to guard Hakeem with Spencer going down and Drexler was a mismatch for their guards on the block and played magnificent in the open court as usual. On the other hand, Houston had no PF either after Thorpe got traded and their back up PF Herrera got injured late in the season and he perhaps could've done a better defensive job on Malone than Chilcutt and Brown did or at least given them big to use up fouls with. PnR defense and especially PG defense, like I mentioned earlier, was a weakness for the Rockets this year which would be magnified going up against Stockton.

The 4th quarter of game 5 in this series is pretty telling. Malone had 9 pts and 3 rebounds including a desperation 3 in Hakeem's grill. Stockton had 1 pt, 0 assists and 4 missed shots. Hakeem had 12 pts, 5 rebounds (made a insane turnaround shot off the edge of the glass and dunked on the entire state of Utah on a lob pass) but Hakeem also had Drexler scoring 8 points, grabbing 3 boards and dishing out 2 assists as well. Hakeem was the best player on the floor but he also had more help with Drexler actually proving to be a great secondary threat. Stockton did not do this for the Jazz. I did think some of that is due to Utah's strategy (memory may be off) because Utah got off to a 7 pt lead midway in the 4th and IIRC, they tried running the clock down on a couple of possessions and feeding it to Karl which backfired against them because they were unable to score. I remember Utah running plays for Malone in the low-post quite a bit but Horry would drop-down for a quick double team from the weakside, Malone would feed Benoit and he'd clank the open jumpshot. I do think Malone could've been more assertive against the double teams and this is partly an issue in his skill-set since he couldn't really evade or split double teams and was a relatively limited iso scorer once you took his face up or turnaround jumper away but in theory, he's making the right play since he's drawing the double team and finding the opening in the defense.

Stockton had a a couple of great games, especially game one where I'd say Utah was able to control the tempo and he was the primary reason they won. He also had the GW lay-up as he was able to use Malone's pick to get to the lane since Hakeem laid back and sort of shaded Stockton's drive and Stockton was able to finish over a myriad of defenders challenging his shot. The main thing is he was aggressive and attacked the defense, got to the middle and made things happen. If Stockton played with a more assertive mindset the entire series like he did game one (Houston's PG defense was bad and their PnR wasn't anything special), I think they could've won. Of course, you have David Benoit's play in game 5 that can be attributed to the loss as well since he couldn't make Houston pay for double teaming Malone. I thought the rest of the team did fine and like I said, you have to account for the opposition as well since Hakeem and Drexler were unstoppable this series.

Filling in a little bit:

88 Jazz did a fantastic job facing off against the champion Lakers. Stockton was getting huge praise as even outplaying Magic, Malone tore up LA's weak PFs, and IIRC Jazz did an excellent job defensively, no surprise as they were the best in the league on that end along with the Pistons. Malone's activity and physicality really gave LA trouble as he matched up well against LA's frontline. Magic felt that they hadn't given the Jazz enough respect. Mark Eaton was a game changer this series because he shut down the middle and Kareem.

89 Jazz got swept by the Warriors - despite Stock/Malone's amazing box-scores, they kinda got shredded on the perimeter by Mullin/Richmond/Terry Teagle. Jazz weak depth hurts them here as they couldn't match up with the Warriors. Malone took a little bit of flak for a subpar Game 1, but other than that he did fine. Warriors going super small took Eaton out of the game, and they were also able to exploit the Jazz lack of shooting by packing the lane. They did something similar to the Spurs with D-Rob a few years later.

Moving on to 96...

Malone had a great series against SA. As with his 94 series he matched up well against D-Rob and played a big part in crippling his offensive output. Jazz took them out in 6 and their wins were blowouts.

Stockton had a brutal elbow injury against the Sonics. He probably shouldn't have even been playing - and against a guy like Glove, it's gonna be a long series. Malone was actually having an okay series against Seattle until Game 7, and that can be a little concerning given how the Seattle crowd seemed to affect him mentally. Still, he was doing okay against a superior opponent, even if his efficiency was dropping against a quality defense. I wouldn't say he outperformed expectations, although that Game 7 really stings.

[rebirthoftheM]

How much of the "Malone is obviously a better defender than Dirk" opinion is because of the fact that Dirk is perceived as unathletic and slow and Malone was not? Because you see it happen all the time, athletic players are automatically assumed to be better defenders...how many people assumed that Rondo and Westbrook were among the best defensive PGs in the league, while absolutely trashing guys like Nash and Curry, when in reality, there was never much of a difference between ANY of them defensively? Even with Dirk, he still gets called a crap defender by some people, even though he's clearly not. Rubio and Conley are never mentioned by the media as two of the best defensive PGs in the league, while John Wall is, even though the numbers say the complete opposite is true.

I don't think Malone or Dirk are legit game changers on defense, I think both of them are non-anchors that can be useful parts of a good overall defensive concept. Malone gets praise for his hands and his strong post defense...but people forget that Dirk was really good at those things too, definitely comparable to Malone.

I do agree with you that Dirk gets a bad rap for no real reason... Him being a 7 foot jump-shooter, as well as general perception of white boys as average defenders (note: i am not being inflammatory but I defs think this is a factor in why some people get lambasted) IMO also informs this perception.

Comparable in post defense tho? With all due respect, if we are speaking about their abilities as players, then I can't accept this. What Karl did v TD and KG in 04 is something that i highly doubt Dirk could ever match, even if he put his mind on it. Dirk had the chance to show us these abilities v KG in 2002 and multiple times against TD in the playoffs but he didn't touch Malone in this respect.

Malone and Dirk's physical tools were simply night and day, and as a result, Malone was putting up one of the most impressive individual defensive playoff performances (read individual aka man top man D) in 04 before his body fell apart. And his team D was also excellent. Of course, Malone by this stage was not expected to shoulder the offense, but it isn't like Dirk is putting up high volumes these days, yet I haven't heard anyone gushing about his man to man D.

But going back to Utah Malone. If one is going to make definite claims about X player's defense over their careers, then we need references to scouting reports, game-tape analysis, commentary from back in the day etc. When it comes to defense, nothing else will suffice.

1st vote: Karl Malone

According to my formula, Karl Malone is a legit all time top 10 player. I didn't vote for him until now but I feel like it's time for him to get in.

What's your view on Karl Malone's defense in his Jazz days, stretching from his youth to his prime/peak. What were his strengths? weaknesses? What kind of impact was he having on the team? And given that you voted for Dirk as an Alt, how would you rate him against Dirk?

[mtron929]

Hmm, so some things:

1) You're using career totals to argue for Malone at spot #12. If this is how you think of the game, he should be MUCH higher than this.

I'm not even saying it's crazy to think like that. People in baseball take career totals very, very seriously. I won't claim the reasons for that are a mystery, but sufficed to say, there's plenty of precedent for using a career-total. And if you evaluate career favoring longevity to the point that you give no extra weight for prime arc, and view accomplishment largely through production stats, then I certainly expect you to have Malone over Garnett, along with most of the guys already voted in.

2) Magical level of defense. I mean, it's half the game, and Garnett is obviously on a completely different tier from Malone there. It should be no mystery why that would let one somewhat weaker scorer with plenty of other offensive advantages surpass the other guy.

3) Your last paragraph. It's beautifully written, and I mean that sincerely.

But as an argument grounded in nostalgia conjuring romance in an analytical exercise, and an argument that piggy backed off of base level stats more typically discussed in earlier eras, it to me explains our differences in opinions based on you letting certain emotions guide your reasoning more than I do.

I apologize if that's offensive. I could certainly be wrong, and even if I"m right, I don't think it's much of a sin to have basketball in your heart.

I agree a lot with what you have said here, but I think saying that defense is half the game is misleading in this context. When comparing superstar players (at least the modern ones), the impact at the offensive end is much greater than that of the defensive end. We see this being played in important playoff games where the superstars have primary control over how a possession will be played out whereas on the defensive end, they can just be bystanders if the play does not happen to go through their way. I do acknowledge that for role players, they become secondary controls in both the offensive and the defensive ends, given that there is somewhat of a randomized chance that the play will be dictated by them in both ends and thus the weights become more 50/50.

However, when comparing superstar players, perhaps it should be more tilted around 70/30 to 80/20 in importance of offense over defense.

I like this weighting scheme idea, but let me suggest a few improvements:

For each player it's different of course, since different players put more energy on different sides of the court, and different players play different roles which are easier or harder to replace.

So we're going to need a scheme that somehow continually records events that are influenced by the offensive and defensive impacts of each player, and then in large enough sample size the noise falls away and will have a proper amount of impact each player actually has.

If only we had something like that to indicate that Garnett's defensive impact is large enough to make his overall impact offensive-oriented superstars like Malone, then we could finally begin to do some serious analysis, eh?

Point taken.

[penbeast0]

What's funny to me is that, sometime around the 40s i'd say, hopefully every inarguable all-time great will be up there and at that point, it becomes a subjective free-for-all where you can vote for just about anybody. I'm exaggerating, but you could argue for any all-league selection, any DPOY, any multi-season statistical leader, Rasheed Wallace, anybody. As i've stated before, my own personal thing will be to promote the inclusion of every NBA and ABA MVP, with the possible exception of Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood.

Why those two and not, say, Derrick Rose? Particularly for Haywood who was an ALL-NBA player 4 more years after jumping to the NBA? I'm not defending Haywood that high, there are more than 50 players I will probably vote for ahead of him but he's a legit top 100 threat . . . Derrick Rose is not.

I believe that the ABA was not up to stuff until probably 1971-72. Haywood quite possibly will make my list, Hawkins probably not. I still say yes to Rose

Even if the ABA was not up to snuff in it's first year (and it wasn't), Hawkins was 1st team All-NBA as soon as he jumped, and even with his second serious knee injury taking away his athleticism, he was still a better player than Derrick Rose has been so far in his career.

[Joao Saraiva]

How much of the "Malone is obviously a better defender than Dirk" opinion is because of the fact that Dirk is perceived as unathletic and slow and Malone was not? Because you see it happen all the time, athletic players are automatically assumed to be better defenders...how many people assumed that Rondo and Westbrook were among the best defensive PGs in the league, while absolutely trashing guys like Nash and Curry, when in reality, there was never much of a difference between ANY of them defensively? Even with Dirk, he still gets called a crap defender by some people, even though he's clearly not. Rubio and Conley are never mentioned by the media as two of the best defensive PGs in the league, while John Wall is, even though the numbers say the complete opposite is true.

I don't think Malone or Dirk are legit game changers on defense, I think both of them are non-anchors that can be useful parts of a good overall defensive concept. Malone gets praise for his hands and his strong post defense...but people forget that Dirk was really good at those things too, definitely comparable to Malone.

I do agree with you that Dirk gets a bad rap for no real reason... Him being a 7 foot jump-shooter, as well as general perception of white boys as average defenders (note: i am not being inflammatory but I defs think this is a factor in why some people get lambasted) IMO also informs this perception.

Comparable in post defense tho? With all due respect, if we are speaking about their abilities as players, then I can't accept this. What Karl did v TD and KG in 04 is something that i highly doubt Dirk could ever match, even if he put his mind on it. Dirk had the chance to show us these abilities v KG in 2002 and multiple times against TD in the playoffs but he didn't touch Malone in this respect.

Malone and Dirk's physical tools were simply night and day, and as a result, Malone was putting up one of the most impressive individual defensive playoff performances (read individual aka man top man D) in 04 before his body fell apart. And his team D was also excellent. Of course, Malone by this stage was not expected to shoulder the offense, but it isn't like Dirk is putting up high volumes these days, yet I haven't heard anyone gushing about his man to man D.

But going back to Utah Malone. If one is going to make definite claims about X player's defense over their careers, then we need references to scouting reports, game-tape analysis, commentary from back in the day etc. When it comes to defense, nothing else will suffice.

1st vote: Karl Malone

According to my formula, Karl Malone is a legit all time top 10 player. I didn't vote for him until now but I feel like it's time for him to get in.

What's your view on Karl Malone's defense in his Jazz days, stretching from his youth to his prime/peak. What were his strengths? weaknesses? What kind of impact was he having on the team? And given that you voted for Dirk as an Alt, how would you rate him against Dirk?

I've expressed that in my previous post

I think Malone's defense has become underrated. He wasn't anywhere near Hakeem... but saying he was at Dirk's level... oh well.

Not that I think Dirk is bad (I think he's average, slight positive) but Malone was definitely some tiers above that.

I think Malone got better as he got older. In his 1st years he was very physical, but not quite as smart drawing charges, making other guys travel... I think arround 92-93 was when he started playing at a really good level on defense.

His help D was not fantastic, and that's what I think separates him from the best defenders of all time. But man to man and PnR was generally really good.

[Sublime187]

All I can say is some of the smartest people on this board that I know of (Doc MJ, Drza) are petitioning for KG and providing great evidence. I don't know how some people can just brush it off without even doing extensive research into maybe why KG is being viewed so highly by these extremely smart posters...

[drza]

(Current note: Still traveling. Still not much time to post, let alone research. But, I see that a lot of the next-tier big men are getting traction here. So, here's a re-post of a group analysis of them from thread 16 of the last project (thus, look more at the data and analysis, and ignore if there are references to conversations that were on-going at the time)).

Robinson, Dirk, Karl and Moses have been the discussion so far. Looking at that list, it just seems only right that Charles Barkley should be the 5th under consideration, right? He's the other PF that joins Dirk and Karl in the modern top-5 PFs list; he came into the league on a team starring Moses (who he calls his daddy), and he was a peer that had multiple battles with Robinson. Plus, I'm not really convinced that Barkley wasn't better than at least some of these folks. So, I'm adding him to my list to discuss.

Box Score stats:

Moses Malone (1979 - 88): 31.5 pts (57.2% TS), 17.4 reb, 2 asts, 4.4 TO
Charles Barkley (1987 - 1996): 32.4 pts (62.2% TS), 15.5 reb, 5.5 asts, 4.3 TO
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 14.5 reb, 5 ast, 4 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 15.9 reb, 4 ast, 3.9 TO
Dirk Nowitzki (2002 - 2011): 34.5 pts (58.4% TS), 12.3 reb, 4 ast, 2.8 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Moses Malone (1979 - 88): 28.9 pts (54.5%), 16.8 reb, 2 asts, 3.4 TO
Charles Barkley (1987 - 1996): 32 pts (58.2%), 16.3 reb, 5.3 asts, 3.3 TO
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 15 reb, 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO
Dirk Nowitzki (2002 - 2011): 33.4 pts (58.5%), 13.5 reb, 3.5 ast, 3.0 TO

Some thoughts. Barkley's the new guy on this list, but his stats absolutely fit right in and might even shoot to the front of the class. Offensively, Chuck is the deal. He's right there in scoring volume, but his scoring efficiency is nuts in the regular season and only challenged by Dirk in the postseason. Not only that, but he also averages more assists than any of the other competitors which reflects how his ball-handling and passing skills allowed him to initiate his team's offense. Offensively, which is primarily what is measured by the box scores, Barkley is very likely the best player on this list across both the regular and postseason with Dirk as his only real competition.

Stylistics

Again, the style makes the fight. I feel that of the five, Moses has the most limited skill set. This isn't the worst sin, but unlike Shaq, Moses' limited skillset wasn't demonstrably more dominant than the others under consideration here. I start off this thread with Moses still at the bottom among those under consideration.

If I'm looking at offense, as mentioned above, I feel like this is a two-horse race between Barkley and Dirk. Similar scoring volumes, and while Barkley has the efficiency advantage in the regular season Dirk matches him their in the postseason. Barkley's game evolved over time. In his "Round Mound of Rebound" youth, Barkley was this unlikely athletic beast on the blocks. He looked fat, but he could get position and finish on anyone. He also could get out and run, sometimes as a one-man fast-break, handling the ball coast-to-coast for the finish. As he got older, Barkley was still strong in the post but he also developed a stronger face-up game with shooting range out to the 3-point line. He could run an offense, not just from the high-post, but really almost like a wing from the perimeter. Barkley's added range and initiation abilities seemingly play very well in two of the areas that generally lead to great non-boxscore impacts on offense. Put that with his video game box score stats, and Barkley is on the short list of GOAT offensive players.

Dirk's case over Barkley offensively would focus around him matching his volume and efficiency in the postseason, while being able to operate even more-so as a perimeter finisher and mid-post threat. Also...for some reason I don't remember a lot of pick-and-roll/pop from Barkley. This could be oversight on my part, and if so withdraw this section, but I know Dirk is absolutely deadly at the perimeter pick-and-roll/pop game since the defense can never afford to give him an inch from that range. This is a scoring approach that works even in the postseason, and this contributed to a lot of open shots for teammates like Jason Terry. It would seem like Barkley and KJ should have been good pick partners, so maybe this isn't something exclusive to Dirk. But I think his jumper makes him the best at it of this list.

On the other side of the ball, of course, on the other side of the ball, Robinson is clearly the man by a huge margin over any of the others under consideration. Moses, Dirk and Karl all fall on a continuum from about average to above average but not dominant on defense. And of course, defense is likely Barkley's biggest weakness here. His lack of height was already a natural barrier to his defensive upside, but his self-stated lack of interest in that side of the ball made it worse. Barkley had the athleticism to be a defensive pest, especially as a thief, but on the whole this is the part of his game where he gives back some of his offensive gains.

Non-box-score individual quantification (Barkley added to what was written previously)

We only have full databall data for (just about) the complete career of Dirk. We have +/- data from 1998 on for Robinson, Barkley and Karl. For the older players we have WOWY data and/or team transition data. Because of the different scales, we can only get so quantitative with the comparisons of this data. But a few notes:

*Moses' WOWY and junction numbers weren't very impressive. Mainly from memory from previous projects, but I recall Moses' non-boxscore estimated impacts to be far more pedestrian than the other players on this list and not very impressive for a super-duper star.

*Dirk measured out as elite in the +/- studies. In Doc MJ's 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet, he was essentially tied with Tim Duncan for the 4th/5th slots in both 3-year (+10.2) and 5-year (+9.1) peak behind Shaq/LeBron/KG. And Dirk's prime was very long. As I pointed out in the Dirk vs Kobe post, he was posting high +/- scores on pretty much a yearly basis from 2003 on.

*I'll post the Karl and Robinson +/- section from the comparison post I did on them, and add Barkley:

Malone
98: 9.0 (+8.8 ORAPM; 0.2 DRAPM)
99: 5.8 (+6.4 ORAPM; -.6 DRAPM)
00: 5.5 (+6.9 ORAPM; -1.4 DRAPM)

Robinson
98:7.4 (+1.2 ORAPM; +6.2 DRAPM)
99: 8.9 (+2.3 ORAPM; +6.6 DRAPM)
00: 8.3 (+2.7 ORAPM; +5.6 DRAPM)

Barkley
98 5.7 (+8.7 ORAPM; -3.0 DRAPM)
99: 4.5 (+7.8 ORAPM; -3.4 DRAPM)
00: 3.6 (+5.9 ORAPM; -2.3 DRAPM)

For those that don't know, this data came from Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM spreadsheet from 1998 - 2012. I only did 1998 - 2000 for all three players, because we don't have +/- data in 2001 and only partial for 2002, and by 2003 all were either done or on their last legs. I found these numbers revealing for a few reasons. Malone's value in these years was almost all offense, while Robinson's value was primarily defense. Barkley's value was mega on offense, but hugely negative on defense.

*For those that believe 1998 to be in Karl's peak, it is interesting that his +9.0 normalized RAPM score from 1998 is almost exactly the same as Dirk's 5-year peak (+9.1) but noticeably lower than Dirk's 3-year (+10.2) and single-season (+11.5) peaks.

*Similarly, '98 Karl and '99 Robinson both had almost the exact same overall normalized RAPM score, though as mentioned Karl's was almost all offensive and Robinson's was primarily defensive.

*These seasons marked the end of the road for Barkley, when injuries had sapped him of much of his athleticism and kept him off the court for major swatches of games. That said, his offensive impact was still remarkable and as good or better per ORAPM as anything we ever saw from Shaq (best ORAPM +8.6), Kobe (+7.9), or Dirk (+7.8). In fact, Barkley's ORAPM in 1998 and 1999 was almost a carbon-copy to what we saw from Karl Malone in those same years. The difference came on defense, where late 90s Malone measured out to a net neutral on defense, while Barkley measured out as a huge defensive negative. As I said, some of that is likely due to injuries weakening him so I wouldn't project those numbers backwards for Barkley. That said, the expectation even in his healthy youth was that defense was a negative for him.

[wojoaderge]

Even if the ABA was not up to snuff in it's first year (and it wasn't), Hawkins was 1st team All-NBA as soon as he jumped, and even with his second serious knee injury taking away his athleticism, he was still a better player than Derrick Rose has been so far in his career.

Rose also suffered a significant injury. I watched a lot of his games during his MVP season and I that's what i'm going by.

[Jaivl]

It depends, I think the most efficent way to know how a player plays defense is simply to watch it. However, if you're gonna make the asinine claim that Dirk was an equal defender to Malone, you need to explain why everything points towards the opposite.

I'm not saying that I would agree with it, but it's certainly not an asisine claim. It's not like he's comparing Dirk's defense to Russell's. Malone was no defensive anchor by any means. The +/- that we have on him (late prime) paints him as a mediocre to good defender depending on the year. Dirk is painted as a good defender overall. Of course one would expect Malone's defense to be better in earlier years, but by how much? Every great defender we have data for is posting great +/- scores even past their primes (Garnett, Duncan, Mutombo, Robinson, Wallace...); prime Malone seems to me more like the "notable, not elite defender" mold (LMA, Odom).

I thought most people would come into this project with an open mind, but I think that ship has already sailed.