Karl Malone v Shaq

[Dutchball97]

What you just showed was for playoff career.

For ten year primes and 3 year peak, as I did before:


10 Year Prime-

Karl Malone- 1989-98, 117gms
109OR, 103DR, 23.2PER, 53.3TS%, 9.0PWS, 8.0DWS, 17.0WS, .167WS/48, 5.4BPM, 9.1VORP

Shaquille O'Neal- 1994-2003, 136gms
114OR, 104DR, 28.7PER, 56.8TS%, 17.4OWS, 6.6SWS, 24.0WS, .211WS/48, 7.0BPM, 12.4VORP


3 Year Peak-

Karl Malone- 1996-98, 58gms
105OR, 99DR, 23.3PER, 51.1TS%, 3.2OWS, 4.6DWS, 7.8WS, .160WS/48, 5.7BPM, 4.5VORP

Shaquille O'Neal- 2000-02, 58gms
113PR, 100DR, 29.3PER, 56.2TS%, 8.4PWS, 3.7DWS, 12.1WS, .238WS/48, 7.5BPM, 5.9VORP


For playoffs it's definitely Shaq but I think having more scoring burden on him is why Malone had less numbers than in the RS. Give him a good two way big like Horace, who would open things up, would've allowed Malone to perform better.

Besides his lower efficiency Malone has great numbers across the board and they are comparable to many alltime greats.

Of course I talked about their careers, no use looking at arbitrary stretches that tell you the same thing, which is Shaq was on a completely different level. Actual all-time greats also aren't reliant on having someone like Horace Grant on the team in order not to crumble in the play-offs.

Malone being unable to string together 2 years in the play-offs has nothing to do with a lack of a 2-way big next to him. He just wasn't build for the post-season. Especially considering he played nearly his entire career next to Stockton. Malone benefitted from getting fed by the all-time assist leader in the regular season but then he couldn't step up in the play-offs when getting a bucket required some more effort on his part. Look at Stockton in the play-offs as well. His production also dropped somewhat but less so than Malone and he was much, much more consistent year to year. This isn't a situation of Malone not living up to the top 10 guys because he had bad teammates, it's because of his level of teammates that he was even able to rack up enough stats for you to entertain this comparison.

Besides all that, if you already knew Shaq had a massive edge in the post-season and the regular season numbers are similar at best, what made you think Malone had any kind of case over Shaq?

Malone does have a case because playoffs isn't more than RS. The numbers are very similar and Malone was great for longer than Shaq. Shaq is a top 10 player but Malone isn't far behind.

So you're arguing to only place the same emphasis on a play-off game than on a regular season game? They're not remotely the same in terms of pressure and effort though. I can understand not valuing the play-offs more than the regular season or even like a 60/40 in favor of the regular season due to the sample size being so much bigger but you're here acting like play-off performance doesn't matter at all.

Karl Malone being great for longer than Shaq doesn't rhyme with me either. "Great" is such a vague term that eliminates any differentation. If you only need to be "great" then what is even your argument for Malone over Stockton? What then makes Malone better than Robert Parish? This is why I dislike people who simply count the amount of seasons someone played at a general level and then call it a day without looking at it any deeper. Shaq is definitely a top 10 player but Malone isn't anywhere near that conversation.

[migya]

Of course I talked about their careers, no use looking at arbitrary stretches that tell you the same thing, which is Shaq was on a completely different level. Actual all-time greats also aren't reliant on having someone like Horace Grant on the team in order not to crumble in the play-offs.

Malone being unable to string together 2 years in the play-offs has nothing to do with a lack of a 2-way big next to him. He just wasn't build for the post-season. Especially considering he played nearly his entire career next to Stockton. Malone benefitted from getting fed by the all-time assist leader in the regular season but then he couldn't step up in the play-offs when getting a bucket required some more effort on his part. Look at Stockton in the play-offs as well. His production also dropped somewhat but less so than Malone and he was much, much more consistent year to year. This isn't a situation of Malone not living up to the top 10 guys because he had bad teammates, it's because of his level of teammates that he was even able to rack up enough stats for you to entertain this comparison.

Besides all that, if you already knew Shaq had a massive edge in the post-season and the regular season numbers are similar at best, what made you think Malone had any kind of case over Shaq?

Malone does have a case because playoffs isn't more than RS. The numbers are very similar and Malone was great for longer than Shaq. Shaq is a top 10 player but Malone isn't far behind.

So you're arguing to only place the same emphasis on a play-off game than on a regular season game? They're not remotely the same in terms of pressure and effort though. I can understand not valuing the play-offs more than the regular season or even like a 60/40 in favor of the regular season due to the sample size being so much bigger but you're here acting like play-off performance doesn't matter at all.

Karl Malone being great for longer than Shaq doesn't rhyme with me either. "Great" is such a vague term that eliminates any differentation. If you only need to be "great" then what is even your argument for Malone over Stockton? What then makes Malone better than Robert Parish? This is why I dislike people who simply count the amount of seasons someone played at a general level and then call it a day without looking at it any deeper. Shaq is definitely a top 10 player but Malone isn't anywhere near that conversation.

As I said, the numbers are similar between the two and I included that information a few posts back. Shaq is a bit better but he had better situations. Malone shouldered the scoring load every year off his Jazz career.

[Dutchball97]

Malone does have a case because playoffs isn't more than RS. The numbers are very similar and Malone was great for longer than Shaq. Shaq is a top 10 player but Malone isn't far behind.

So you're arguing to only place the same emphasis on a play-off game than on a regular season game? They're not remotely the same in terms of pressure and effort though. I can understand not valuing the play-offs more than the regular season or even like a 60/40 in favor of the regular season due to the sample size being so much bigger but you're here acting like play-off performance doesn't matter at all.

Karl Malone being great for longer than Shaq doesn't rhyme with me either. "Great" is such a vague term that eliminates any differentation. If you only need to be "great" then what is even your argument for Malone over Stockton? What then makes Malone better than Robert Parish? This is why I dislike people who simply count the amount of seasons someone played at a general level and then call it a day without looking at it any deeper. Shaq is definitely a top 10 player but Malone isn't anywhere near that conversation.

As I said, the numbers are similar between the two and I included that information a few posts back. Shaq is a bit better but he had better situations. Malone shouldered the scoring load every year off his Jazz career.

You included the stats for the regular season but the stats for the play-offs clearly disprove the supposed similarity between the two.

Also what do you understand under scoring load? Malone averaged 17.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA for his career, while Shaq has 16.1 FGA and 9.3 FGA for his career. That also includes Shaq's later years where he didn't shoot nearly as much though, looking at both their primes they shot a similar amount of shots generally around 18-20 FGA. Malone also played alongside multiple double digit scorers for his entire career. 1990 and 1998 are the only two seasons in his career that he played with only two other double digit scorers, while being alongside 3-4 the other years. If you want to get technical during his rookie year Malone scored only half the points Dantley did, while taking roughly 65% of the amount of shots Dantley took meaning Malone did not shoulder the scoring load every single year.

I'm not even sure how having more scorers would help Malone here. He'd probably take less shots so his numbers would go down, not up. I also fail to see how other players would be able to fix the inconsistency Malone had in the play-offs.

[migya]

So you're arguing to only place the same emphasis on a play-off game than on a regular season game? They're not remotely the same in terms of pressure and effort though. I can understand not valuing the play-offs more than the regular season or even like a 60/40 in favor of the regular season due to the sample size being so much bigger but you're here acting like play-off performance doesn't matter at all.

Karl Malone being great for longer than Shaq doesn't rhyme with me either. "Great" is such a vague term that eliminates any differentation. If you only need to be "great" then what is even your argument for Malone over Stockton? What then makes Malone better than Robert Parish? This is why I dislike people who simply count the amount of seasons someone played at a general level and then call it a day without looking at it any deeper. Shaq is definitely a top 10 player but Malone isn't anywhere near that conversation.

As I said, the numbers are similar between the two and I included that information a few posts back. Shaq is a bit better but he had better situations. Malone shouldered the scoring load every year off his Jazz career.

You included the stats for the regular season but the stats for the play-offs clearly disprove the supposed similarity between the two.

Also what do you understand under scoring load? Malone averaged 17.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA for his career, while Shaq has 16.1 FGA and 9.3 FGA for his career. That also includes Shaq's later years where he didn't shoot nearly as much though, looking at both their primes they shot a similar amount of shots generally around 18-20 FGA. Malone also played alongside multiple double digit scorers for his entire career. 1990 and 1998 are the only two seasons in his career that he played with only two other double digit scorers, while being alongside 3-4 the other years. If you want to get technical during his rookie year Malone scored only half the points Dantley did, while taking roughly 65% of the amount of shots Dantley took meaning Malone did not shoulder the scoring load every single year.

I'm not even sure how having more scorers would help Malone here. He'd probably take less shots so his numbers would go down, not up. I also fail to see how other players would be able to fix the inconsistency Malone had in the play-offs.

Hornacek and Stockton were the next scorers after Malone and neither would've been the third scorer on Shaq's teams. It's obvious that is much harder to score when the defense is focussed on you. Having Anfernee and Kobe in his prime allowed Shaq to score easier. That's why Shaq didn't do so well in the playoffs in 94 against Indiana, Penny was a rookie. The following season it was different.

[Dutchball97]

As I said, the numbers are similar between the two and I included that information a few posts back. Shaq is a bit better but he had better situations. Malone shouldered the scoring load every year off his Jazz career.

You included the stats for the regular season but the stats for the play-offs clearly disprove the supposed similarity between the two.

Also what do you understand under scoring load? Malone averaged 17.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA for his career, while Shaq has 16.1 FGA and 9.3 FGA for his career. That also includes Shaq's later years where he didn't shoot nearly as much though, looking at both their primes they shot a similar amount of shots generally around 18-20 FGA. Malone also played alongside multiple double digit scorers for his entire career. 1990 and 1998 are the only two seasons in his career that he played with only two other double digit scorers, while being alongside 3-4 the other years. If you want to get technical during his rookie year Malone scored only half the points Dantley did, while taking roughly 65% of the amount of shots Dantley took meaning Malone did not shoulder the scoring load every single year.

I'm not even sure how having more scorers would help Malone here. He'd probably take less shots so his numbers would go down, not up. I also fail to see how other players would be able to fix the inconsistency Malone had in the play-offs.

Hornacek and Stockton were the next scorers after Malone and neither would've been the third scorer on Shaq's teams. It's obvious that is much harder to score when the defense is focussed on you. Having Anfernee and Kobe in his prime allowed Shaq to score easier. That's why Shaq didn't do so well in the playoffs in 94 against Indiana, Penny was a rookie. The following season it was different.

It doesn't make sense with Malone's inconsistency. Why are there such huge differences between his effectiveness year to year when his situation remained relatively stable throughout his career?

What about Shaq on the Lakers before Kobe became a star? Didn't see Shaq suddenly crumbling in the play-offs then either. Not even David Robinson, someone you could really argue experienced a dip in post-season production to a lack of good teammates, was that inconsistent.

[migya]

You included the stats for the regular season but the stats for the play-offs clearly disprove the supposed similarity between the two.

Also what do you understand under scoring load? Malone averaged 17.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA for his career, while Shaq has 16.1 FGA and 9.3 FGA for his career. That also includes Shaq's later years where he didn't shoot nearly as much though, looking at both their primes they shot a similar amount of shots generally around 18-20 FGA. Malone also played alongside multiple double digit scorers for his entire career. 1990 and 1998 are the only two seasons in his career that he played with only two other double digit scorers, while being alongside 3-4 the other years. If you want to get technical during his rookie year Malone scored only half the points Dantley did, while taking roughly 65% of the amount of shots Dantley took meaning Malone did not shoulder the scoring load every single year.

I'm not even sure how having more scorers would help Malone here. He'd probably take less shots so his numbers would go down, not up. I also fail to see how other players would be able to fix the inconsistency Malone had in the play-offs.

Hornacek and Stockton were the next scorers after Malone and neither would've been the third scorer on Shaq's teams. It's obvious that is much harder to score when the defense is focussed on you. Having Anfernee and Kobe in his prime allowed Shaq to score easier. That's why Shaq didn't do so well in the playoffs in 94 against Indiana, Penny was a rookie. The following season it was different.

It doesn't make sense with Malone's inconsistency. Why are there such huge differences between his effectiveness year to year when his situation remained relatively stable throughout his career?

What about Shaq on the Lakers before Kobe became a star? Didn't see Shaq suddenly crumbling in the play-offs then either. Not even David Robinson, someone you could really argue experienced a dip in post-season production to a lack of good teammates, was that inconsistent.

I don't really see why you say Malone was inconsistent in the playoffs. As he got older his efficiency dropped, which is the main factor in the difference in his RS and playoffs. His rate of scoring is almost always elite and he makes up for lower fg efficiency with a high level foul drawing rate.

Shaq had a bad showing in 94 and also 96, 97, 98 and 99. His efficiency was below his usual for some of those playoffs years and his WS/48 was also lower. 96 and 99 he was well below his other years. His rebounding is also low for him.

[70sFan]

I don't really see why you say Malone was inconsistent in the playoffs. As he got older his efficiency dropped, which is the main factor in the difference in his RS and playoffs. His rate of scoring is almost always elite and he makes up for lower fg efficiency with a high level foul drawing rate.

No, Malone's efficiency was never up to his RS standards. He took much more shots to get the same points average and it's not good. His foul rate also got considerably lower (52% in RS vs 47% in PS).

You basically look at counting stats, but do you realize that defenses wins the battle when Malone is forced to get additional 2-3 possessions to get the same numbers?

Shaq had a bad showing in 94 and also 96, 97, 98 and 99. His efficiency was below his usual for some of those playoffs years and his WS/48 was also lower. 96 and 99 he was well below his other years. His rebounding is also low for him.

Shaq had a few underperformances, but it's normal for ATG players. Malone underperformed in most of his postseason runs.

I get that you like Malone, but you should try to defend him differently. He's not close to Shaq as a scorer.

[tsherkin]

I don't really see why you say Malone was inconsistent in the playoffs. As he got older his efficiency dropped, which is the main factor in the difference in his RS and playoffs. His rate of scoring is almost always elite and he makes up for lower fg efficiency with a high level foul drawing rate.

I don't know that "inconsistent" is the correct word. He was consistent, just he was consistently worse in the playoffs.

88-98, he averaged 27.6 ppg in the regular season on 59.1% TS, and 27.7 ppg on 53.7% TS in the playoffs. There's around a 9-point drop in his TS+ from RS to PS. His raw PPG only actually dropped off in 4 seasons during that stretch, but he dropped off precipitously in efficiency, only maintaining or improving his efficiency in one year. He also posted an average drop of 5.4%... and two of his top-3 drop-offs were before 1994, lest you bring age into this. And again, if you filter out postseasons with fewer than 9 games (he played 9 games in 91, no straight 10-game playoffs), it doesn't get any better with larger samples in extended runs.

That's why he gets grief over his postseason performances.

94-03, Shaq averaged 28.1 ppg on 58.4 TS% in the RS and 28.1 ppg in the playoffs on 56.8% TS.

RS to RS, there's talk to be had, mainly because Shaq was never able to do what Karl was, and couldn't ever learn how to not-suck at FT shooting. Come the playoffs, though, he was notably more effective, even accounting for the fact that Shaq had his own drop in PS scoring efficiency (it's quite rare to find a player who fully maintains or improves, wherefore Hakeem being so impressive).

There are reasons people go at Malone; he sucked a lot more as a primary scoring threat in the playoffs than his other ATG peers. He dropped from a hyper-efficient dude to around league average. LgAV TS% during the mentioned stretch was about 53.5% for Malone, so he was +0.2% rTS during that stretch. For a guy who was +5.6 rTS% during that regular season stretch, that's a big, big loss of efficacy.

EDIT: Oh yes, because 70sFan dutifully noted this...

Malone was a .519 FTr guy in the named RS stretch and .483 during those postseasons. Still quite good; not AS good, but still good.

Shaq was at .557 FTr RS vs .618.

Malone was at 53.1% FG vs 46.8%, which is where you see the big drop off.

Shaq was at 57.8% FG (with 6 FG% titles and 5 in a row at one point) vs 55.8%.

Postseason Shaq still shot better from the field than regular season Karl Malone; knowing the differences in their styles, this should surprise no one, but it created a foundation of efficacy which helped him stay far more consistent than Malone ever could, particularly as he relied on his jumper more and more.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Karl Malone well into his 30s had no problem outperforming prime Shaq in b2b playoff years en route to the Finals but somehow Shaq was on some higher tier. It's funny how few posts here dont mention that Malone and Shaq actually crossed paths in the postseason.

Shaq was a much more consistent playoff performer according to nearly all here but when their teams actually met....Karl Malone was the better superstar of the two and is labelled as the underwhelming of the two?

Imagine if the ages were reversed and Malone was in his 20s going against Shaq in his 30s? The results probably would've been even more lopsided than the 97 and 98 meetings in favor of Malone/Utah as Shaq at the age of 33 beyond wasnt good enough to be any contending teams' go to guy in the playoffs.

Karl Malone has a argument due to longevity and actually outperforming Shaq in the postseason.

And I'm sure if the 3peat Lakers with peak Shaq had to go through 90s Utah they'd have lost at least one of those years just like they were doing in 97 n 98.

They were already being pushed to the brink by CWebb (not even a top 10 all time PF as far as I'm concerned) and 2 PGs that weren't even good enough to make a all star team. Rasheed not even HOF worthy outperformed peak Shaq in game 7 in 00.

Shaq never figured out how to defend vs Utah. He just had to hope his teams didnt encounter them in the playoffs or that they got old and fell off.