No-more-rings wrote:I find the Stockton votes this high sort of dubious. Like what good explanations is there for a top 25 player of all time to play 18 years(!) with a guy who was just voted the 16th best player of all time and not only never won a single ring, but only made 2 finals appearances in 18 years? He's a very fine player, but at some point longevity has diminishing returns when you accomplished less in more time than others.
Stockton in a vacuum simply doesn't give you a better chance at championships than Curry, Wade, and Durant. Cp3's still a question mark for me since he doesn't have proof he can stay healthy for long playoff runs, so i don't know how to compare him with Stockton. Colts makes a good case for Stockton over Nash, though i think if he plays his whole career with Malone i don't see how he doesn't win at least one title.
So for Stockton supporters, what's there to make of this? We know both him and Karl have great durability. Why didn't they get over the hump or at least make more serious pushes for a title? We can't just say "well they ran into Jordan" or something. They rarely were able to get out the West as it stood. I think if Stockton's longevity means as much as people say shouldn't we be seeing more results?
wrt the bolded, I've openly implied that I've reached a point where I'm kind of mentally giving them credit for at least a partial title for one that they were possibly [probably] robbed of by the officials.
I put at least about 6:5 odds that the Jazz win the '98 title if the refs hadn't botched TWO crucial calls in game 6. And these weren't discretionary calls [e.g. was there enough contact to call the foul? were his feet set? etc]; these were shot-clock violation mis-calls that directly resulted in a
5-point swing in Chicago's favour (in a game that was decided by a single point).
Now certainly we can't fully assume that the rest of the game would have played out exactly the same if these calls hadn't been blown; but nor can we just assume that Chicago finds a way to make up the difference (in fact, that would
clearly be the
bigger mental stretch).
This game was a bit of a grudge match, and the Jazz were battling. Pippen was hurt and under-performing, and Jordan was kinda tired (commentators mention this once or twice, pertaining to his body language, some missed shots [15/35 from field], etc). Jordan knew Pippen was questionable if this series continued, and that game 7 would be in Salt Lake City; if he had an "extra gear", I'd guess he was already there. And it still came down to a single possession and a 1-pt win (in a game where the refs had gifted them
5).
My boiled down opinion is that if the refs don't botch those calls (
OR if they do botch them, but in an era that allows replay-assisted corrections of things like that [i.e. like today]), then I think there's a >90% [maybe >95%] likelihood that the Jazz win game 6.
This would have forced a game 7 which [as noted above] would have been in SLC, and Chicago [at best] would have been playing with a hampered [70%(ish)??] limited-minute Pippen like they were in game 6. In those circumstances, I'd put Utah as close to a 3:2 favorite (maybe higher??). This is how I arrived at my "at least about 6:5" figure, btw.
It’s a lot of assumption or speculation, but I think it’s hard to deny that there isn’t some sound reasoning that goes into it. The calls were blown [that’s not opinion; that’s fact confirmed on replay]. Hard to suggest that, minus those two mis-calls, Utah isn’t the heavy favourite in this game.
Those two plays are an inconvenient truth if you've already got your mind made up based in part on a "no rings" narrative. But seriously: if John Stockton
had won a ring in '98, would we be having this discussion?
Maybe, though I doubt anyone would feel particularly cocksure in calling a pick here for Stockton "dubious" or otherwise questioning it with much confidence.
As to why they didn't make a run more often.....
It
might be a fair criticism; but let’s take a closer look.
It should be acknowledged that the guys filling #3-12 on a roster end up accounting for more minutes than #1 and #2 (by a long shot); so they kinda matter.
Outside of a 2-3 years in the late 80's (when Eaton was still in his prime), Stockton and Malone [while in
their respective primes] didn't have a decent #3 until Hornacek arrived (mid-season '94). And even once he was around, I would gauge that the NEVER had terrific extended depth (save maybe in '98, when Stockton was past his prime).
colts18 kinda went into this a bit, but if we look at certain groupings of years……
’88-’89While these are terrific years for Stockton [who’d entered the league one year before Malone], one should note that Malone wasn’t into his prime yet in ‘88 (and only barely so in ‘89 [“early prime” at best]).
The 3rd-best player on the team at this time is Mark Eaton. Eaton’s obviously a fantastic defensive presence [all-time tier rim protector], though only a mediocre rebounding big, and he could be justifiably placed on the short-list of WOAT offensive players.
I remember reading an account [I feel like it may have even been coach Frank Layden, though don’t quote me on that] stating that Eaton’s presence on the court made it extremely difficult for opposing teams to score, but that on the flip-side they were basically playing 4 against 5 on offense when he was out there.
In the grand scheme of ALL teams, he’s a fairly decent “3rd-best” player, though probably a slightly WEAK 3rd-best for a contender.
4th-best player is Thurl Bailey. Not a bad player; weak rebounding forward, meh defender, but a decent scorer; perhaps “slightly weak starter-level” overall here at his peak.
They don’t have anyone else who’s above replacement level in these years…...names like Bobby Hansen, Mike Brown, aging Marc Iavaroni, Darrell Griffith [mostly post-injury], one year of old Rickey Green, one year of Eric Leckner. And Griffith missed the ‘88 playoffs, Rickey Green was partially injured for them too. Their backcourt was so thin in both ‘88 and ‘89 in the playoffs that Bobby Hansen averaged 37.9 mpg in the playoffs between the two years.
’90-’93Malone is solidly into his prime by this point (though his offensive game would be more varied by the mid-90s). Mark Eaton is 33 years old in ‘90, however, and in early decline [‘93 would be his final season].
They still have Thurl Bailey at the start of this period, though his best years are already past. They trade him mid-season in ‘92.
In ‘91 they obtained Jeff Malone, a no defense, no rebounding, no playmaking guard, though at least a fair/decent scorer (mostly a jump-shooter without 3pt range, which limited his efficiency).
They obtained rookies Blue Edwards and Delaney Rudd in ‘90, and would have both for 3 of 4 years [thru ‘92]. Edwards was a totally meh player for the first two years, though had developed into a decent role player by ‘92. In ‘92 they get rookie David Benoit.
They did get a 30-yr-old Ty Corbin in ‘93, who was probably only a slightly weak starter-level player at that point.
Otherwise it’s Mike Brown, one year of Jay Humphries, one year of Eric Leckner.
In short, the quality of the roster from #3 to #12 is no better than it had been from ‘88-’89 (they’re a little better from #5-12, but a little worse at #3 and #4).
Karl Malone is better than he'd been in '88 or '89, that’s basically the only difference-maker.
’94-’95In ‘94 [mid-season] they obtained Jeff Hornacek. For the first time they have a legit good [in a contender-level sense] “3rd-best”.
They still have Ty Corbin in ‘94, too, though he’s perhaps showing the faintest sign of early decline (his best years are definitely behind, at any rate, and he’s certainly a bit lesser player than he’d been in ‘93). He’s without question a weak starter and weak “4th best” in ‘94. In ‘95, Corbin’s spot as starting SF [and “4th-best”] is replaced with David Benoit, which is not any better.
Starting at C in ‘94 is Felton Spencer, which is also a little icky for a starter. Spencer would be a totally decent back-up C, but not someone you’re happy to be starting.
He missed much of the year in ‘95; his starting spot principally replaced by the newly acquired 33-yr-old Antoine Carr, iirc…...probably a slight downgrade defensively and BIG downgrade on the boards; but also a MUCH better offensive player. I’d rate it a very slight upgrade overall (still not someone you’re happy starting).
The bench these years includes young Bryon Russell (rookie in ‘94, not yet the player he’d become in either year), old Tom Chambers (34 years old in ‘94), Jay Humphries as back-up guard in ‘94 only, and rookie Howard Eisley in ‘95 (otherwise John Crotty as a back-up PG both years), Adam Keefe in ‘95 only. Garbage otherwise.
It’s an “OK” bench.
I’ll pause here to pose a question, and sort of switch tack: suppose instead of Malone/Stockton on these teams in these years, it’s Jordan/Pippen…….do they win a title in any of these years? Heck, let’s even be generous and say that in ‘88 and ‘89 Pippen was already at his ‘90 level; how many titles do the Jazz win then? I know it’s an imperfect question, given they play different positions, but nonetheless indulge me…..
I mean, we know they don’t win in ‘94 [assuming Jordan still retires], and ‘95 is very likely no, with rusty Jordan.
‘88-’90 is almost assuredly no, not with the extended cast present, and Pippen only at ‘90 level.
In ‘91-’93, if instead of Grant, Paxson, Armstrong, Levingston, Cartwright, S.Williams, King, Perdue, + bits of either Bob Hansen or Dennis Hopson……...they now have some
partial combination [never all of them together] of Thurl Bailey, Jeff Malone, post-prime Mark Eaton, Mike Brown, Blue Edwards, Delaney Rudd, Eric Leckner, one year of Ty Corbin, one year of Jay Humphries.
How many titles do they win? I could see them winning one, maybe two; I certainly don’t think they get by the Blazers in ‘92. I could also see them winning zero. And that’s with Michael frickin’ Jordan, at or near his peak [ditto Scottie Pippen].
From ‘96 to ‘98, if instead of Dennis Rodman, Toni Kukoc, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, Judd Beuchler, Randy Brown, Bill Wennington, Jason Caffey, and Bison Dele (‘97 playoffs only)........now they have Hornacek, Russell, Ostertag, old Antoine Carr, Howard Eisley, a waning Chris Morris, Greg Foster, Adam Keefe, and Shandon Anderson from ‘97 on (a cast which, fwiw, still fills the necessary positions Jordan/Pippen would need filled: probably looking at a starting line-up of Hornacek/Jordan/Pippen/Carr [or maybe Keefe??]/Ostertag [with Pippen doing the point-forward thing]; bench of Eisley, Keefe [or Carr], Anderson, Morris, and Foster).
And for this exercise, let’s assume they have to face their clones in Chicago. How many titles do they win from ‘96-’98?
I definitely don’t think they get by the ‘96 or ‘97 Bulls (assuming they’re even able to get by the ‘96 Sonics).
‘98 is their best shot: Ostertag [after a promising year in ‘97] came into ‘98 sort of chubby and unmotivated [pretty disappointing season imo], and Antoine Carr is only getting older [now 36]. But Bryon Russell is primed and having one of his best years (I mean, he’s purely a 3&D role player, but he was GOOD at that very specific role). Shandon Anderson made some good strides as a player in his second year and is a VERY solid role player off the bench. Chris Morris bounces back a little after a slumped year in ‘97. Howard Eisley [4th season] also has his best year to date, and is
finally a legitimately decent back-up PG. And Greg Foster and Adam Keefe…...well, they’re there. Overall, this was the best extended cast that Stockton/Malone ever had (and if Stockton is still in his prime, I think they win this title EVEN WITH the blown calls by the refs in game 6).
And Jordan’s cast in Chicago was no longer bullet-proof in ‘98. So if our hypothetical Jordan/Pippen Jazz has a shot in this time-frame, it’s in ‘98. But it’s definitely not a sure thing.
So if I’m looking at this entire 11-year span and plugging Jordan/Pippen in for Stockton/Malone, I think they win between 0-3 titles. Michael bleedin’ Jordan [with Scottie bleedin' Pippen]: 0 to 3.
That extended cast [and the path you have to go thru] matters a lot.
And fwiw, there was a 5-year stretch [‘94-’98] where I think the Jazz DID pretty consistently contend (which is as long as most dynasties or semi-dynasties)...
Notes on opponents in Playoffs (rs SRS of opponent, opp. wins, results, *notes) for '94-'98‘941st round: +5.05 SRS opp (Spurs, 55 wins), Jazz win 3-1 (MOV +8.3)
WCSF: +1.54 SRS opp (Nuggets*, 42 wins), Jazz win 4-3 (MOV +2.7)
*this was the team that knocked off the #1-seeded Sonics in 1st round, indicating they're maybe a little tougher than that +1.54 SRS suggests
WCF: +4.19 SRS opp (Rockets*, 58 wins), Jazz lose 4-1 (MOV -4.2)
*eventual Champion (74th best playoff SRS all-time thru ‘19 [+7.84])
‘951st round: +2.32 SRS opp (Rockets*, 47 wins), Jazz lose 3-2 (MOV -4.0)
*eventual champion, had a playoff SRS or +8.57 (which was 54th all-time, thru ‘19 [+8.57])
‘961st round: +2.21 SRS opp (Blazers, 44 wins), Jazz win 3-2 (MOV +10.0 [their two losses were by 3 and 8 pts, respectively; their three wins were by 8, 15, and 38])
WCSF: +5.98 SRS opp (Spurs, 59 wins), Jazz win 4-2 (MOV +11.7 [their two losses were each by 11 pts, while their four wins were all by 15-30 pts])
WCF: +7.40 SRS opp (Sonics, 64 wins), Jazz lose 3-4 (MOV +2.6 [their four losses were by 30, 4, 2, and 4; three wins by 20, 3, and 35])
‘97 (*64th greatest playoff SRS of all-time thru ‘19; close comps include ‘16 Warriors, ‘07 Spurs, ‘74 Bucks, ‘77 Blazers, and ‘80 Lakers)
1st round: -2.66 SRS opp (Clippers, 36 wins), Jazz win 3-0 (MOV +12.7)
WCSF: +3.66 SRS opp (Lakers, 56 wins), Jazz win 4-1 (MOV +3.6)
WCF: +3.85 SRS opp (Rockets, 57 wins), Jazz win 4-2 (MOV +2.3)
Finals: +10.70 SRS opp (Bulls, 69 wins), Jazz lose 4-2 (MOV -0.6)
‘981st round: -1.23 SRS opp (Rockets, 41 wins), Jazz win 3-2 (MOV +6.8)
WCSF: +3.30 SRS opp (Spurs, 56 wins), Jazz win 4-1 (MOV +0.2)
WCF: +6.88 SRS opp (Lakers, 61 wins), Jazz win 4-0 (MOV +13.5
)
Finals: +7.24 SRS opp (Bulls, 62 wins), Jazz lose* 2-4 (MOV -7.8)
*prior comments regarding potentially being denied title chance by refs
So from ‘94-’98…
*Only two [of 15] opponents had an SRS < +1.5.
**Six of 15 (40%) had an SRS > +5. Their series record against > +5 SRS teams was 3-3 (and had a positive MOV in one of the losses).
***They “lost” to the eventual champ in 4 of 5 years (“ “ again opinion regarding specifics in ‘98).
****EVERY year in this span they lost to either a > +7 SRS team
OR the eventual champ (
or both).
Compare that, for example, to the ‘15-’19 Warriors run…..
Whereas 40% of the Jazz’s opponents were > +5 SRS, teams of that calibre comprised only 25% (5 of 20) of what the Warriors faced. Their record against those > +5 SRS teams was 3-2. And they arguably never faced a team as good as the ‘97 Bulls.
This is already tl;dr, so I’ll stop here. But there’s a tremendous amount to consider, imo.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
