2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time #18

[AbeVigodaLive]

What is it about Malone? I just don't see it. He has 2 mvp's, one of them(1999) being arguably the worst mvp vote in league history.

Him and Baylor are very similar to me. They both put up gaudy numbers and are excellent playes but have little to show for in terms of team playoff success.

And neither can use the excuse of not having enough talent around them like Oscar or Barry(who still won titles by the way).

Wes Unseld is blushing.

We're in the late teens. Every player from here has some serious flaws, including Malone. Baylor. Havlicek. Garnett. Nowitzki. Wade. Pippen. Barry. Stockton. Cousy. Et al.

And yes... those should be the guys considered for the next few picks.

[Y2K]

There are a lot of moving parts in these discussions, and we all have our own weighing systems and schemas for how we evaluate players.

The main question on Malone is probably if his positives are enough to override his lack of rings, especially when there are some pretty good lead dog title winners still on board.

I think it is, but I can see some reasonable arguments against it as well.

I agree with what you're saying, I just think the reasonable arguments are what makes him drop to the mid/high teens, as he already has. Statistically speaking he's top 5 all-time, and it's not like his teams were complete hacks, they just never got over the big hump.

We've come to the point where it's time for him to earn a place on this list.

When you look at his playoff stats, his efficiency drops off considerably. Much of that can be contributed to the fact that he was a finisher, not a playmaker. When he had to start creating his own shot, he's not nearly as effective nor efficient.

He's definitely a viable candidate for #18 but my selection is KG on the basis that he's a far superior defensive player, better rebounder and better playmaker.

Malone was the better volume scorer and his longevity was more impressive.

[AbeVigodaLive]

There are a lot of moving parts in these discussions, and we all have our own weighing systems and schemas for how we evaluate players.

The main question on Malone is probably if his positives are enough to override his lack of rings, especially when there are some pretty good lead dog title winners still on board.

I think it is, but I can see some reasonable arguments against it as well.

I agree with what you're saying, I just think the reasonable arguments are what makes him drop to the mid/high teens, as he already has. Statistically speaking he's top 5 all-time, and it's not like his teams were complete hacks, they just never got over the big hump.

We've come to the point where it's time for him to earn a place on this list.

When you look at his playoff stats, his efficiency drops off considerably. Much of that can be contributed to the fact that he was a finisher, not a playmaker. When he had to start creating his own shot, he's not nearly as effective nor efficient.

He's definitely a viable candidate for #18 but my selection is KG on the basis that he's a far superior defensive player, better rebounder and better playmaker.

Malone was the better volume scorer and his longevity was more impressive.

I'm surprised by all the newfound hate for Malone. At this pace... he's down to the 5th best PF? Because Dirk is right there with KG... which would drop Malone even further.

This is the same guy previously regarded as the #2 PF in history by many/most? I have him above Garnett. Remember, he played Garnett as an old man (40) in 2004 at Garnett's apex as a player. And he wasn't overwhelmed.

Malone's defense is criminally underrated. He had one of the signature defensive moves in NBA history... watch a video of an old Jazz game sometime. You'll see a post player post up Malone. And you'll see the post player turn around to take a jump shot only to have Malone's meat hooks slap down on the ball before a shot can be taken. Malone was also great at pulling the chair out from post players.

Malone posted the numbers. He was crafty. Cheap. And effective.

Playoff dips be damned... his legacy is better than Garnett's. By the way, it's amazing how a trade changed how Garnett is viewed. He was labeled one of the biggest playoff flops in NBA history before he was traded to Boston. Heck, he couldn't even make the playoffs at the end in his prime in Minnesota. Now, his playoff success in Boston is being used to overcome a guy who made the playoffs every season in his 19 year career?

[Bush4Ever]

It is actually pretty crazy to think how radically things could swing historically on the smallest of margins, especially considering the big jump in such things is when you go from 0 rings to 1 (more important than going from 2 to 3 or 4 to 5 for example).

Imagine....

If Hakeem doesn't get a fingertip on Stark's three-pointer....Ewing gets a lead dog ring and is probably viewed significantly different (although he was beyond atrocious offensively in that series).

If the refs somehow remember violently shoving a player to the ground is a foul, the Jazz win game 6 and place themselves in a very good spot to win game 7 and getting Malone that first ring.

If Ray Allen doesn't hit that three, Lebron's legacy takes a major hit...and Duncan (especially now) would basically be a demigod with 6 rings.

And so on...you all can think of other examples.

[AbeVigodaLive]

It is actually pretty crazy to think how radically things could swing historically on the smallest of margins, especially considering the big jump in such things is when you go from 0 rings to 1 (more important than going from 2 to 3 or 4 to 5 for example).

Imagine....

If Hakeem doesn't get a fingertip on Stark's three-pointer....Ewing gets a lead dog ring and is probably viewed significantly different (although he was beyond atrocious offensively in that series).

If the refs somehow remember violently shoving a player to the ground is a foul, the Jazz win game 6 and place themselves in a very good spot to win game 7 and getting Malone that first ring.

If Ray Allen doesn't hit that three, Lebron's legacy takes a major hit...and Duncan (especially now) would basically be a demigod with 6 rings.

And so on...you all can think of other examples.

Already posted about the slightest difference between Bird and Magic based off one shot in the 1987 Finals. One miss... one make is a 2-title difference.

You can also point to Laimbeer's phantom foul, fans on the court and Magic's tackling of Isiah with those fans on the court as a helpful aid to Magic's legacy too.

[Y2K]

I agree with what you're saying, I just think the reasonable arguments are what makes him drop to the mid/high teens, as he already has. Statistically speaking he's top 5 all-time, and it's not like his teams were complete hacks, they just never got over the big hump.

We've come to the point where it's time for him to earn a place on this list.

When you look at his playoff stats, his efficiency drops off considerably. Much of that can be contributed to the fact that he was a finisher, not a playmaker. When he had to start creating his own shot, he's not nearly as effective nor efficient.

He's definitely a viable candidate for #18 but my selection is KG on the basis that he's a far superior defensive player, better rebounder and better playmaker.

Malone was the better volume scorer and his longevity was more impressive.

I'm surprised by all the newfound hate for Malone. At this pace... he's down to the 5th best PF? Because Dirk is right there with KG... which would drop Malone even further.

This is the same guy previously regarded as the #2 PF in history by many/most? I have him above Garnett. Remember, he played Garnett as an old man (40) in 2004 at Garnett's apex as a player. And he wasn't overwhelmed.

Malone's defense is criminally underrated. He had one of the signature defensive moves in NBA history... watch a video of an old Jazz game sometime. You'll see a post player post up Malone. And you'll see the post player turn around to take a jump shot only to have Malone's meat hooks slap down on the ball before a shot can be taken. Malone was also great at pulling the chair out from post players.

Malone posted the numbers. He was crafty. Cheap. And effective.

Playoff dips be damned... his legacy is better than Garnett's. By the way, it's amazing how a trade changed how Garnett is viewed. He was labeled one of the biggest playoff flops in NBA history before he was traded to Boston. Heck, he couldn't even make the playoffs at the end in his prime in Minnesota. Now, his playoff success in Boston is being used to overcome a guy who made the playoffs every season in his 19 year career?

I've previously spoken on Malone being a very underrated defender. But that doesn't put him in KG's territory.

But also, you know as well as I know that those Timberwolves teams outside of KG were not very good. The one season that Cassell and Spreewell were there, they made it to the WCF. Cassell got injured and they lost the series. KG simply didn't get to play with enough talent until getting to Boston. By then, his best statistical years were over, albeit he won DPOY.

Malone never had to play on a team with a total lack of talent. That's what makes it mind numbing that he never win a ring, imho.

I have no issue with Malone over Garnett whatsoever. But if I'm choosing, I'll pick KG.

[Y2K]

It is actually pretty crazy to think how radically things could swing historically on the smallest of margins, especially considering the big jump in such things is when you go from 0 rings to 1 (more important than going from 2 to 3 or 4 to 5 for example).

Imagine....

If Hakeem doesn't get a fingertip on Stark's three-pointer....Ewing gets a lead dog ring and is probably viewed significantly different (although he was beyond atrocious offensively in that series).

If the refs somehow remember violently shoving a player to the ground is a foul, the Jazz win game 6 and place themselves in a very good spot to win game 7 and getting Malone that first ring.

If Ray Allen doesn't hit that three, Lebron's legacy takes a major hit...and Duncan (especially now) would basically be a demigod with 6 rings.

And so on...you all can think of other examples.

Already posted about the slightest difference between Bird and Magic based off one shot in the 1987 Finals. One miss... one make is a 2-title difference.

You can also point to Laimbeer's phantom foul, fans on the court and Magic's tackling of Isiah with those fans on the court as a helpful aid to Magic's legacy too.

Or Laimbeer inbounding The ball in 1987 instead of Isiah Thomas, so promptly the the ball and game 5 away.

Don Nelsons shot not falling and the Lakers grabbing the rebound with a chance to tie or win in 1969.

[Robceltsfan]

I don't see how Malone had a fall-off in the playoffs outside of shooting 40 points worse.

Career stats

Reg. Season: 25.0/10.1/3.6/1.4
Playoffs: 24.7/10.7/3.2/1.3

[Havlicekstealsit]

The Summerfield Rapist, aka The Mailman, aka Butterfingers Malone.

[vcsgrizzfan]

I don't see how Malone had a fall-off in the playoffs outside of shooting 40 points worse.

Career stats

Reg. Season: 25.0/10.1/3.6/1.4
Playoffs: 24.7/10.7/3.2/1.3

His shooting percentage just falls off a cliff and goes from tremendous, even for a PF, to mediocre for a SG.

His shooting percentage in regular season is 51.6%. In the playoffs, it's 46.3%. We aren't talking a small sample size here either. He had a little under 200 playoff games. Him and Stockton have to get hit by the fact they both had a lot of first round exits and I punish Malone a little more because of that awful drop in efficiency. If you are supposed to be one of the top 3 or 4 PGs of all time and one of the top 3 or 4 PFs of all time, all those early round exits and only 2 finals for 18 years (or whatever it was together) is hard to imagine.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The Summerfield Rapist, aka The Mailman, aka Butterfingers Malone.

Yeah, I've been slipping for my failure to call Malone a rapist and pedophile and deadbeat dad rapist when I post about him.

I will try to do better from here on out.

[Bush4Ever]

Relatedly, I once read a book on basketball by Dick whatshisface (the PG from Duke back in the day), and he did some number-crunching and found out that the top teams only beat the bottom teams by an average of 8 points per game (or something like that). He went on to point out that could be:

1 missed boxout
1 play where you turned your head defensively
1 sloppy entry pass (denying points)
1 pair of missed free throws

And that is comparing the TOP teams to the BOTTOM teams.

Basketball is such a game of inches it's amazing to think about.

#deepthoughts #woah

[Y2K]

I don't see how Malone had a fall-off in the playoffs outside of shooting 40 points worse.

Career stats

Reg. Season: 25.0/10.1/3.6/1.4
Playoffs: 24.7/10.7/3.2/1.3

His shooting percentage just falls off a cliff and goes from tremendous, even for a PF, to mediocre for a SG.

His shooting percentage in regular season is 51.6%. In the playoffs, it's 46.3%. We aren't talking a small sample size here either. He had a little under 200 playoff games. Him and Stockton have to get hit by the fact they both had a lot of first round exits and I punish Malone a little more because of that awful drop in efficiency. If you are supposed to be one of the top 3 or 4 PGs of all time and one of the top 3 or 4 PFs of all time, all those early round exits and only 2 finals for 18 years (or whatever it was together) is hard to imagine.

[Robceltsfan]

From a shooting standpoint Stockton fell off just like Malone did in the playoffs. I really don't think they ever had much of a team outside of Malone and Stockton, but I agree that that duo should have won at least one title. In 18 seasons together they amassed:

Regular season record: 925-519 .641%
16 Playoff series wins
Never missed the playoffs

I don't see anything wrong with that resume alongside Karl's amazing stats and longevity.

[AbeVigodaLive]

From a shooting standpoint Stockton fell off just like Malone did in the playoffs. I really don't think they ever had much of a team outside of Malone and Stockton, but I agree that that duo should have won at least one title. In 18 seasons together they amassed:

Regular season record: 925-519 .641%
16 Playoff series wins
Never missed the playoffs

I don't see anything wrong with that resume alongside Karl's amazing stats and longevity.

Was there ever a season when they were considered the best team?

[Robceltsfan]

From a shooting standpoint Stockton fell off just like Malone did in the playoffs. I really don't think they ever had much of a team outside of Malone and Stockton, but I agree that that duo should have won at least one title. In 18 seasons together they amassed:

Regular season record: 925-519 .641%
16 Playoff series wins
Never missed the playoffs

I don't see anything wrong with that resume alongside Karl's amazing stats and longevity.

Was there ever a season when they were considered the best team?

96-97 and 97-98 are the only two seasons they were the WC #1 seed, and both years the Bulls had as good or a better record than the Jazz. Again, the Jazz never really had a reliable #2 scoring option on their team unless you think Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey or Jeff Hornacek were world beaters. I just don't think the teams were well constructed outside of the two HOFers (and yes I know that sounds a bit off).

[876Stephen]

From a shooting standpoint Stockton fell off just like Malone did in the playoffs. I really don't think they ever had much of a team outside of Malone and Stockton, but I agree that that duo should have won at least one title. In 18 seasons together they amassed:

Regular season record: 925-519 .641%
16 Playoff series wins
Never missed the playoffs

I don't see anything wrong with that resume alongside Karl's amazing stats and longevity.

Was there ever a season when they were considered the best team?

96-97 and 97-98 are the only two seasons they were the WC #1 seed, and both years the Bulls had as good or a better record than the Jazz. Again, the Jazz never really had a reliable #2 scoring option on their team unless you think Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey or Jeff Hornacek were world beaters. I just don't think the teams were well constructed outside of the two HOFers (and yes I know that sounds a bit off).

Those guys were better than anything Barry and Oscar had. Malone just didn't perform as well in the postseason like Barry did and i already talked about him not deserving his 1999 mvp which i think we can all agree on.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Was there ever a season when they were considered the best team?

96-97 and 97-98 are the only two seasons they were the WC #1 seed, and both years the Bulls had as good or a better record than the Jazz. Again, the Jazz never really had a reliable #2 scoring option on their team unless you think Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey or Jeff Hornacek were world beaters. I just don't think the teams were well constructed outside of the two HOFers (and yes I know that sounds a bit off).

Those guys were better than anything Barry and Oscar had. Malone just didn't perform as well in the postseason like Barry did and i already talked about him not deserving his 1999 mvp which i think we can all agree on.

While Barry did indeed win a title in 1975... let's not forget that it was in a fractured league... with half of the top players in the ABA.

Barry averaged 31 ppg on 46.4% shooting during the regular season in 1975.
His averages dipped across the board in the Finals... fewer assists. Fewer rebounds. And fewer points... while shooting only 44.4%.

But his team won so he gets A LOT of credit for that 40 years later.

In 1998, Malone averaged 25/10/4/50% in the Finals... the next highest scoring Jazz player averaged 10.7 ppg on 41% fg. But who gets blamed the most for the loss to the Bulls?

[elmouse03]

96-97 and 97-98 are the only two seasons they were the WC #1 seed, and both years the Bulls had as good or a better record than the Jazz. Again, the Jazz never really had a reliable #2 scoring option on their team unless you think Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey or Jeff Hornacek were world beaters. I just don't think the teams were well constructed outside of the two HOFers (and yes I know that sounds a bit off).

Those guys were better than anything Barry and Oscar had. Malone just didn't perform as well in the postseason like Barry did and i already talked about him not deserving his 1999 mvp which i think we can all agree on.

While Barry did indeed win a title in 1975... let's not forget that it was in a fractured league... with half of the top players in the ABA.

Barry averaged 31 ppg on 46.4% shooting during the regular season in 1975.
His averages dipped across the board in the Finals... fewer assists. Fewer rebounds. And fewer points... while shooting only 44.4%.

But his team won so he gets A LOT of credit for that 40 years later.

In 1998, Malone averaged 25/10/4/50% in the Finals... the next highest scoring Jazz player averaged 10.7 ppg on 41% fg. But who gets blamed the most for the loss to the Bulls?

Howard Eisley?

[Y2K]

96-97 and 97-98 are the only two seasons they were the WC #1 seed, and both years the Bulls had as good or a better record than the Jazz. Again, the Jazz never really had a reliable #2 scoring option on their team unless you think Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey or Jeff Hornacek were world beaters. I just don't think the teams were well constructed outside of the two HOFers (and yes I know that sounds a bit off).

Those guys were better than anything Barry and Oscar had. Malone just didn't perform as well in the postseason like Barry did and i already talked about him not deserving his 1999 mvp which i think we can all agree on.

While Barry did indeed win a title in 1975... let's not forget that it was in a fractured league... with half of the top players in the ABA.

Barry averaged 31 ppg on 46.4% shooting during the regular season in 1975.
His averages dipped across the board in the Finals... fewer assists. Fewer rebounds. And fewer points... while shooting only 44.4%.

But his team won so he gets A LOT of credit for that 40 years later.

In 1998, Malone averaged 25/10/4/50% in the Finals... the next highest scoring Jazz player averaged 10.7 ppg on 41% fg. But who gets blamed the most for the loss to the Bulls?

No reasonable person blames Malone for losing in 1998. That series was close, outside of game 3, and either team could've won. Thankfully the Bulls won.

Now 1997 is different.