Would anyone here rate McHale higher than Karl Malone?

[JGXEN]

Just curious :confusedshrug:

[Gabuyaux]

No

[StateOfMind12]

Malone is top 15-20 to me. Mchale is top 35-40 to me. There is a decent amount of separation between the two.

[1987_Lakers]

Nah, McHale doesn't have the longevity K. Malone has.

But I would take a peak McHale ('86 & '87) over peak Malone.

[IGotACoolStory]

IMO, McHale is firmly behind Pettit, Dirk, Barkley, and KG.

So yeah, I hope not.

[CavaliersFTW]

Nah, McHale doesn't have the longevity K. Malone has.

But I would take a peak McHale ('86 & '87) over peak Malone.
^---- this.

[wakencdukest]

We all know that McHale was the better low post player. Karl Malone just had a much longer prime and was incredibly consistent through out his career.

[Alan Shore]

i'll take the more creative and the better defender of the two, thanks.

[JGXEN]

So if McHale had stayed relatively injury free and produced at a similar level to his 85-86' season, would he have been ranked higher than Karl Malone?

[1987_Lakers]

So if McHale had stayed relatively injury free and produced at a similar level to his 85-86' season, would he have been ranked higher than Karl Malone?

If he put up the numbers he did during the '86 postseason & the '87 season then yes.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I'd rather have McHale on my team. Malone's stats are better and he had better longevity so it's hard to rank Mchale over Malone.

[97 bulls]

You guys are incredible. First, Mchale is not on Malones level. For as long as Ive argued Pippen and his contributions over certain players, what reason could you possibly hhave for taking him over Malone?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

[97 bulls]

If he put up the numbers he did during the '86 postseason & the '87 season then yes.
But he didnt. So why even try to qualify it?

[1987_Lakers]

But he didnt. So why even try to qualify it?

I already said I have Malone ranked ahead of McHale. All I said was McHale probably had the better peak.

1987 Kevin McHale
26 PPG | 60 FG%
10 RPG
2.5 APG
2 BPG
All-NBA First Team
All-NBA Defensive First Team
4th in MVP voting
Named DPOY by NBA Head Coaches

It's not insane to say McHale had a better peak.

[BlackVVaves]

In terms of skill, hell yea. Anyone that watched prime McHale would tell you this without needing a moment to think.

In terms of individual career, hell no. Anyone with half a brain would tell you that with even less time needed to think.

[KLovin]

Since I do take longevity into account for my all-time rankings among people I've seen play, Karl Malone would have to get the edge here. The fact that I have peak play more valued than longevity in my ranking "system" says something about how long Karl Malone was doing his thang. That being said, boy, a prime Mchale was something else to watch down low in the post, and as an oddly effective defender.

[greymatter]

Nah, McHale doesn't have the longevity K. Malone has.

But I would take a peak McHale ('86 & '87) over peak Malone.

Basically this. Peak McHale was superior to Malone on both sides of the ball. His peak was cut short with a broken foot in 87.

[Kblaze8855]

Since longevity wont help me in any single game....id take Mchale in his prime over Malone in his for a number of reasons. Hes more likely to get me a good shot on command and he can guard pretty much anyone between 6'4'' and 7'5'' other than the people nobody can guard(Shaq types).

He doesnt rank higher than Malone for quite a few reasons. Doesnt mean he couldnt do as much or more for a team setup to make use of him.

If you had offense enough to not need to play through him so much that his ball stopping would turn your guys into do nothings...hes a weapon.

Karl needs a little more to go right on a play to get his best look. And he can play defense....and beat up guards who challenge him...but I cant rely on him to slow down as many people. And Mchale can get a shot he can make at least half the time on any touch inside 15 feet hes not doubled.

Karl Malone probably shot 40% or so on shots that were not spoonfed. May have been worse than that at some points. Ive read articles showing he got assisted on like 75-80% of his shots for good periods of time and if hes shooting 50-52%....how much of that is quick layups around the rim Stockton dropped off that he shoots 80% on?

Karl could score. Especially when he had his jumper going. But id feel better going to Mchale if I needed 2-3 shots to extend a late lead or stop a run...at least if I didnt have a great guy setting either one up.

I want my scorers to be whatever the situation may be scorers. Cant count on everything going right scorers. Mchale is a very good broken play "Just get out of the way...." scorer.

He cant pass like Karl and when Karl is on hes a better scorer too. But as a guy to give the ball and assume they bail me out? Id want Kevin. And there are a lot of options when you have a guy who can defend like 70% of the NBA if he has to.

Id like to see what Kevin does longterm if a team is built to make best use of him.

[DaHeezy]

Kevin McHale was a black hole. Superior post play, but he was a ball hog. Could he have led his own team? I don't think so. Karl Malone ranks higher, and is a better teammate

[Kblaze8855]

I think you have to separate being a ball hog and being a black hole. His job was to score when he got the ball around the basket. When the express purpose of giving you the ball is so you can shoot it...how do you call the guy a ball hog? the ball didnt often come back out....but that wasnt the desired result of him having the ball.

His teammates joked around about it but you could see they understood his role.

[DaHeezy]

I think you have to separate being a ball hog and being a black hole. His job was to score when he got the ball around the basket. When the express purpose of giving you the ball is so you can shoot it...how do you call the guy a ball hog? the ball didnt often come back out....but that wasnt the desired result of him having the ball.

His teammates joked around about it but you could see they understood his role.

I think he was a great post player, probably the greatest shot creator under the basket ever, but I think too often he tried to force through double teams and looked for the refs to bail him out. Part of being a great post presence is also recognizeing those situations and kicking it back out to teammates. Grant it he had great shooters on his team so he benefited from that having one-on-one situations. I question if he could have led his own team. I don't think he could have.

[Kblaze8855]

Well that depends on what you mean. Loy Vaught led a playoff team.

Mchale clearly had franchise player talent. The only season he didnt have Bird anywhere near his prime he Parish and Reggie Lewis all kinda shared the load. But I never saw anything to suggest he couldnt lead a good team if it were built to play through him. The Celtics never were.

He was a "Every now and then let Kevin go one on one" option for a team that didnt really need it to be good. But plenty of guys with worse versions of the same skills he had have led teams.

Just depends on how you build the team. Put him on a team like the pre Rose Bulls who were already solid and playing amazing defense?

What happens? They get worse?

[1987_Lakers]

Surprising stat: McHale shot 89% from the FT line in 1990.

[97 bulls]

Since longevity wont help me in any single game....id take Mchale in his prime over Malone in his for a number of reasons. Hes more likely to get me a good shot on command and he can guard pretty much anyone between 6'4'' and 7'5'' other than the people nobody can guard(Shaq types).

He doesnt rank higher than Malone for quite a few reasons. Doesnt mean he couldnt do as much or more for a team setup to make use of him.

If you had offense enough to not need to play through him so much that his ball stopping would turn your guys into do nothings...hes a weapon.

Karl needs a little more to go right on a play to get his best look. And he can play defense....and beat up guards who challenge him...but I cant rely on him to slow down as many people. And Mchale can get a shot he can make at least half the time on any touch inside 15 feet hes not doubled.

Karl Malone probably shot 40% or so on shots that were not spoonfed. May have been worse than that at some points. Ive read articles showing he got assisted on like 75-80% of his shots for good periods of time and if hes shooting 50-52%....how much of that is quick layups around the rim Stockton dropped off that he shoots 80% on?

Karl could score. Especially when he had his jumper going. But id feel better going to Mchale if I needed 2-3 shots to extend a late lead or stop a run...at least if I didnt have a great guy setting either one up.

I want my scorers to be whatever the situation may be scorers. Cant count on everything going right scorers. Mchale is a very good broken play "Just get out of the way...." scorer.

He cant pass like Karl and when Karl is on hes a better scorer too. But as a guy to give the ball and assume they bail me out? Id want Kevin. And there are a lot of options when you have a guy who can defend like 70% of the NBA if he has to.

Id like to see what Kevin does longterm if a team is built to make best use of him.
It seems as if youre trying to be unbiased, but cant. You basically compared the two if they were to be put in Mchales situation. Take into consideration Mchale playingg with a much better team than Malone. How does Mchale fair in Malone pick and roll situation? He sure didnt run the floor and finish like Malone.

Malone was flat out a better player than Mchale. Was Mchale better in the post? Absolutely. Kinda easy when you have sso many great players on the perimeter to hold defenders at bay.

[97 bulls]

I think you have to separate being a ball hog and being a black hole. His job was to score when he got the ball around the basket. When the express purpose of giving you the ball is so you can shoot it...how do you call the guy a ball hog? the ball didnt often come back out....but that wasnt the desired result of him having the ball.

His teammates joked around about it but you could see they understood his role.
Ball hog and black hole are the same thing. The meaning is youre an unwilling passer. At no point is it ok for you to be a ball hog or black hole. If youre interested in winning

[1987_Lakers]

It seems as if youre trying to be unbiased, but cant. You basically compared the two if they were to be put in Mchales situation. Take into consideration Mchale playingg with a much better team than Malone. How does Mchale fair in Malone pick and roll situation? He sure didnt run the floor and finish like Malone.

Malone was flat out a better player than Mchale. Was Mchale better in the post? Absolutely. Kinda easy when you have sso many great players on the perimeter to hold defenders at bay.

In their peaks Malone was not flat out better than McHale. McHale was a better offensive player in the half court set, they both had great playmakers around them, but Malone without a doubt relied more on Stockton than McHale relied on Bird.

Defensively, McHale was better as well, he was the more versatile defender being able to guard multiple positions effectively, both were very good low post defenders with McHale being the better shot blocker.

And I know I can depend on McHale more in big games, McHale always stepped it up when the season was on the line, can't say the same for Malone.

[RaininTwos]

Black hole? dude shot 60% from the field, he can shot jack all he wants

[1987_Lakers]

Ball hog and black hole are the same thing. The meaning is youre an unwilling passer. At no point is it ok for you to be a ball hog or black hole. If youre interested in winning

McHale was a willing passer by 1986. Go look at some games from the Celtics in that '86 postseason. He knew how to pass out of double teams and he made a nice pass every know and then. Since when is averaging 2.7 APG for a big man considered to be a bad thing?

His job when he got the ball down low was to score, if he was being guarded one on one in the post of course he was going to look to score, that was his job and he was so efficient from down there. If I was putting up 25 PPG on 58-60% shooting I would be looking to score everytime I got the ball down low as well.

[1987_Lakers]

Black hole? dude shot 60% from the field, he can shot jack all he wants

Exactly.

[L.Kizzle]

I already said I have Malone ranked ahead of McHale. All I said was McHale probably had the better peak.

1987 Kevin McHale
26 PPG | 60 FG%
10 RPG
2.5 APG
2 BPG
All-NBA First Team
All-NBA Defensive First Team
4th in MVP voting
Named DPOY by NBA Head Coaches

It's not insane to say McHale had a better peak.
It is, Malone did that for over 10-12 seasons. McHale maybe 2.

I think McHale is one of the more overrated players ever.

It's crazy how a 7 time All-Star, one time All-NBA player is considered top 30 buy a lot of folks.

[Kblaze8855]

Why would someone put Mchale into Malones pick and roll situation? Its almost like trying to pick and roll with Shaq or Kareem. sure...its been done. But it isnt exactly needed. You might do it to suit your ball handler but its not what they are gonna do best.

And even if Malone is better than Mchale(an idea I wouldnt call exactly...wrong) that doesnt mean hes gonna be better suited for all teams or that his skills would be best leaned on to win big games.

To me its kinda like how building a team to suit Steve nashs skills makes you play a style not as likely to win as building one to suit some worse point guards who dont force you to fill your team with shooters/finishers.

Its rare you can really build a team to be led in the halfcourt by a point and win. It doesnt mean they arent good enough. It means that the shooters/off the ball quick finishers to help them be their best dont tend to also be defenders and great broken play scorers to make you play playoff ball.

I dont think its by chance so any great points dont win it all while great isolation players do.

I want my best player to be great at one of two things....

Helping my defense be world champion level....or scoring/helping us score in situations that cant be planned for. Get out of the way while the man brings it home scorers.

Mchale I think could do both at a level beyond Karl.

Which does not always make a player better. But more often than not it makes me want them over someone I cant expect either of those things from.

[97 bulls]

In their peaks Malone was not flat out better than McHale. McHale was a better offensive player in the half court set, they both had great playmakers around them, but Malone without a doubt relied more on Stockton than McHale relied on Bird.

Defensively, McHale was better as well, he was the more versatile defender being able to guard multiple positions effectively, both were very good low post defenders with McHale being the better shot blocker.

And I know I can depend on McHale more in big games, McHale always stepped it up when the season was on the line, can't say the same for Malone.
Both had great playmakers. But Mchale had the better teammates. Mchale was versilte defensively in that he could defend out on the perimeter. And he was defiinately the better low post scorer.

Malone was a very good defender as well. Not as versitle though. But his strength over mchale is running the floor, rebounding, and passing. And just overall scoring.


Obviously Malone didnt win as much as Mchale, but as I stated, he didnt have as good of the team. Im positiive Malones Jazz couldve beat those rocket teams the Celtics played against in 81 and 86.

[Kblaze8855]

Ball hog and black hole are the same thing. The meaning is youre an unwilling passer. At no point is it ok for you to be a ball hog or black hole. If youre interested in winning

Id say a ballhog is someone who keeps the ball when he shouldnt.Someone who freezes out his teammates partly out of being selfish.

I think a black hole is someone you give the ball when the offense doesnt expect to get it back.

Mchale was like an around the basket version of a great shooter catching the ball off a screen. Hes not selfish because he shoots it on a waaaaaaay higher percentage of his touches than most others. Hes doing what hes supposed to do when he gets the ball in that situation. And when Mchale gets the ball on the block guarded one on one....virtually every shot you can expect to get without a defensive mistake is gonna be less likely to go in.

So you have to ask...is it being selfish to shoot a shot you are more likely to make than anyone else?

Or is it bringing the play to its desired conclusion?

Mchale shooting so many of his touches is no more wrong to me than Peja in his prime shooting far more often for the time he had the ball than a more talented player like say...Kevin Garnett.

One is there to shoot. Shooting is what he is supposed to do.

[97 bulls]

Why would someone put Mchale into Malones pick and roll situation? Its almost like trying to pick and roll with Shaq or Kareem. sure...its been done. But it isnt exactly needed. You might do it to suit your ball handler but its not what they are gonna do best.

And even if Malone is better than Mchale(an idea I wouldnt call exactly...wrong) that doesnt mean hes gonna be better suited for all teams or that his skills would be best leaned on to win big games.

To me its kinda like how building a team to suit Steve nashs skills makes you play a style not as likely to win as building one to suit some worse point guards who dont force you to fill your team with shooters/finishers.

Its rare you can really build a team to be led in the halfcourt by a point and win. It doesnt mean they arent good enough. It means that the shooters/off the ball quick finishers to help them be their best dont tend to also be defenders and great broken play scorers to make you play playoff ball.

I dont think its by chance so any great points dont win it all while great isolation players do.

I want my best player to be great at one of two things....

Helping my defense be world champion level....or scoring/helping us score in situations that cant be planned for. Get out of the way while the man brings it home scorers.

Mchale I think could do both at a level beyond Karl.

Which does not always make a player better. But more often than not it makes me want them over someone I cant expect either of those things from.
Im not saying put Mchale in the another situation. Obviously you want to cater to his strengths. My point is in my opinion, youre not fairly comparing the two when you compare them based on Mchales strengths.


It almost seems as if youre implying that Mchale would be the better franchise player.

[1987_Lakers]

It is, Malone did that for over 10-12 seasons. McHale maybe 2..

What is your point? I already said Malone is ranked higher in an all-time list because of that.

[1987_Lakers]

Obviously Malone didnt win as much as Mchale, but as I stated, he didnt have as good of the team. Im positiive Malones Jazz couldve beat those rocket teams the Celtics played against in 81 and 86.

It's not even about winning, McHale always stepped up his game in important playoff series'.

'85 Finals? McHale was Boston's best player.
'86 Finals? Ended up with the most points even with Bird & Hakeem on the floor.
'87 Postseason? Played entire playoffs' with broken foot and still produced.
'88 duel between Bird-Nique in game 7? McHale had 33 pts & 13 reb in that game.
'88 BOS-DET series when Boston finally lost? McHale was Boston's best player.

And we already know Malone's reputation in big games.

[BoutPractice]

Prime McHale is the one I'd prefer on my team. Not only are his scoring skills harder to replace, but his defense is more valuable.
There's a difference between a "blackhole" and a "finisher", and McHale is the latter. I'd rather have his 2 efficient points than a great pass to a 45% scorer.

However, Malone's career is significantly more impressive, and makes it very difficult to rank McHale above him. Malone simply outworked better players all the way to an all-time great career.

[L.Kizzle]

It's not even about winning, McHale always stepped up his game in important playoff series'.

'85 Finals? McHale was Boston's best player.
'86 Finals? Ended up with the most points even with Bird & Hakeem on the floor.
'87 Postseason? Played entire playoffs' with broken foot and still produced.
'88 duel between Bird-Nique in game 7? McHale had 33 pts & 13 reb in that game.
'88 BOS-DET series when Boston finally lost? McHale was Boston's best player.

And we already know Malone's reputation in big games.
It's easier to step up your game when you're not the focal point of your team. Any day it could have been Bird, DJ or Parish.

With the Jazz, it was KARL MALONE ...

[97 bulls]

It's not even about winning, McHale always stepped up his game in important playoff series'.

'85 Finals? McHale was Boston's best player.
'86 Finals? Ended up with the most points even with Bird & Hakeem on the floor.
'87 Postseason? Played entire playoffs' with broken foot and still produced.
'88 duel between Bird-Nique in game 7? McHale had 33 pts & 13 reb in that game.
'88 BOS-DET series when Boston finally lost? McHale was Boston's best player.

And we already know Malone's reputation in big games.
Mchale a great player. But no matter how you slice it, Malone was better.

[1987_Lakers]

Mchale a great player. But no matter how you slice it, Malone was better.

Wow, you've swayed me. Malone is better.

[1987_Lakers]

Prime McHale is the one I'd prefer on my team. Not only are his scoring skills harder to replace, but his defense is more valuable.
There's a difference between a "blackhole" and a "finisher", and McHale is the latter. I'd rather have his 2 efficient points than a great pass to a 45% scorer.

However, Malone's career is significantly more impressive, and makes it very difficult to rank McHale above him. Malone simply outworked better players all the way to an all-time great career.

:applause:

[Micku]

I would probably take a peak Mchale over K.Malone.

Mchale could run the floor pretty well, but not as well as K.Malone obviously. Mchale is better in the post and more efficient in the offense. He was one of the couple of players that scored 26 ppg on 60% shooting. He was versatile defender too. Mchale was called the blackhole, but he was better in his passing ability in 1985-1986 season. His rebounding ability was solid, but he was competing against Bird, Parish, and Walton a little bit. He had to guard SF at times. Mchale also stepped up in the playoffs. You could argue that Bird and Parish took the pressure off of him, but you could also argue that Mchale was their best and most dangerous weapon at times.

But career wise, I would take a K.Malone over Mchale. Much better longevity, and already proven franchise player. K.Malone career accomplishments sets him above Mchale.

K.Malone was a great fast break player. His strength and agility/speed makes him difficult to guard. He actually improved with age and his prime seemed like it occurred when he was in his 30s. He became a better defender and a better post player. So, his longevity sets him above Mchale.

But I would rather take a prime Mchale over prime K.Malone. Especially in the playoffs.

[1987_Lakers]

It's easier to step up your game when you're not the focal point of your team. Any day it could have been Bird, DJ or Parish.

With the Jazz, it was KARL MALONE ...

Except Malone never stepped up his game.:oldlol:

Also think it's very bias to add Parish & DJ and completely ignore Stockton. lol

[WockaVodka]

I find it rather odd that a username named 1987 Lakers is constantly defending the Celtics. :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

He would be the better player for the kind of franchise id attempt to build. But that isnt the world we live in now is it?

Its well known I dont like Karl Malone and I felt he was overrated for a long long time. Doesnt mean all even somewhat great forwards are better than him. It doesnt mean Mchale is better than him.

But I dont know if the team best for Malone is as likely to win in the playoffs than the team best built around Mchale. All we saw of Mchale as "The man" was him kinda co leading the 89 Celtics. Didnt go well. But that doesnt mean it cant work when the team is built for him over a period of years.

A lot of teams have won leaning on the skills Mchale had and playing defense that he would make easy. When I can rely on my power forward to guard a Nique/Melo/Lebron/whoever or Dirk/KG/Duncan and he can play the pik and roll...and run the floor....blocks shots off the ball and has the insane wingspan to play off quick players and still contest shots?

A defensive minded coach would be up giddy thinking of the ways you could build around that.

When that guy can also score around the basket as well as just about anyone ever?

You can do some big things.

Karl did big things. But his career was big loss after big loss and many were because the second leading scorer ever couldnt be relied on to get good shots on command at the same rate as many of his star opponents.

Considering his contributions to his team for nearly 20 years and helping them be a good team for most of that time....its hard to say Mchale would be a better franchise player.

Its not hard for me to say id rather try to win with Mchale though.
Maybe its because I hate Malone. But a LOT of people think I hate dirk. Ive been accused of it this week. But I said this 5 years ago after the worst moment of his career(just lost in 07):



Give me Dirk to make a shot for the title over Drob, Ewing, Malone, .


Which inspired someone to ask:



On what basis?

IMO Dirk is a notch below these players, both in the clutch and overall.

None of those players had a series like the GSW one for Dirk. That's pressure and he epically failed.




No they didnt.....but really. Its game 7 of the finals....you have foolishly bet your rent money on this series. The team you bet on has one shot to win it all. down 1 with 4 seconds. Dirk or Karl Malone have a play of their choice run for them to take the last shot. No to just make a play.....to take the shot.

You have more faith in Karl Malone?

Better hope its not Sunday....



Well I'd prefer neither if they are gonna shoot a p*ssy fadeaway from 18 feet.
:)

Last I said on it:



Know what? As ****ed up as it is give me Dirk shooting an inexplicable fadeaway over a guard for the title over Karl Malone shooting a FT for the title. He just doesnt have it in him. I could see Dirk hitting it and running around looking hard in a way that makes you think "Maaaaaan...sit your ass down" before I see Karl Malone calmly sinking an uncontested shot for the ring.



And I supposedly hate dirk. And it was at the lowest/most hated on point of his career.

But Dirk has something Karl never did...and he proved it. Much as people hated at the time...it was there. Dirk...can score when he shouldnt be able to. He can score when there is nothing to suggest what hes taking is a good shot. You get out of his way and let him work.

Mchale has some of that in him. Karl has it when his jumper is going. But Mchale? I can post him up every time and expect a good result. would it eventually test his ability to move the ball when doubled? Sure.

But Kevin mchale could pass. Ive seen him make some very good passes. Kevin Mchale didnt pass. because he wasnt supposed to. But I dont think he would jsut go a career without learning when to move the ball.

That advantage he has as a "Things are falling apart...lets give it to the man" scorer is major to me. And he combines that with what id call more valuable and much more well rounded defense.

Id like to see what I could do with him. I saw what Karl could do. Its impressive...but its not what id want to repeat in the hopes that this time around I dont need him to go off down the stretch for us to win. It happens with some teams. But they tend to have an epic defense. And Mchale is more likely to contribute to that as well. I believe so at least. Im sure it doesnt show in the numbers.

[Micku]

It's easier to step up your game when you're not the focal point of your team. Any day it could have been Bird, DJ or Parish.

With the Jazz, it was KARL MALONE ...

John freakin' Stockton. Jeff Hornacek wasn't bad either.

[L.Kizzle]

Except Malone never stepped up his game.:oldlol:

Also think it's very bias to add Parish & DJ and completely ignore Stockton. lol
Cuz Stockton had so many plays ran for him down the stretch ...

The only one I can remember is that three over us in 97 ... and I don't even think the play for for Stockton.

[WockaVodka]

John freakin' Stockton. Jeff Hornacek wasn't bad either.
Stockton was not assertive of enough and Hornacek came around a little too late.

[Kblaze8855]

Cuz Stockton had so many plays ran for him down the stretch ...

The only one I can remember is that three over us in 97 ... and I don't even think the play for for Stockton.

John Stockon didnt have plays run for him often but he made a hell of lot of big plays and baskets. I dont remember which game it was but he pretty much won them a game vs the Bulls in the finals in OT. Which reminds me...he made at least one but I think 2 game winners vs the Bulls in the early 90s. the one I remember best was in Utah. he kinda double clutched it and sank a runner at the buzzer with Jordan in the frame.

John made a lot of big shots. People just dont remember them.

[97 bulls]

I would probably take a peak Mchale over K.Malone.

Mchale could run the floor pretty well, but not as well as K.Malone obviously. Mchale is better in the post and more efficient in the offense. He was one of the couple of players that scored 26 ppg on 60% shooting. He was versatile defender too. Mchale was called the blackhole, but he was better in his passing ability in 1985-1986 season. His rebounding ability was solid, but he was competing against Bird, Parish, and Walton a little bit. He had to guard SF at times. Mchale also stepped up in the playoffs. You could argue that Bird and Parish took the pressure off of him, but you could also argue that Mchale was their best and most dangerous weapon at times.

But career wise, I would take a K.Malone over Mchale. Much better longevity, and already proven franchise player. K.Malone career accomplishments sets him above Mchale.

K.Malone was a great fast break player. His strength and agility/speed makes him difficult to guard. He actually improved with age and his prime seemed like it occurred when he was in his 30s. He became a better defender and a better post player. So, his longevity sets him above Mchale.

But I would rather take a prime Mchale over prime K.Malone. Especially in the playoffs.
Lol youd take 26/9 on 60% shooting over 31/11 on 54%? Wow. And why do some people constantly try to take one year and draw a conclusion from it? Why not take a players best game? Or best quarter?

[Micku]

Stockton was not assertive of enough and Hornacek came around a little too late.

Hornacek came around in his prime. He went to Utah in the mid 90s. And Stockton was probably the best point guard in the 90s. Very efficient, getting good looks for his teammates. He had Hornacek for 94, 95, and 96, and then he went to the finals with him in 97 and 98. He had Stockton almost his whole career.

However, the Jazz did lose to the Bulls. You could argue that if the Bulls weren't there, the Jazz would've beat any team in the East.

But to your original point, that K.Malone was the focal point of the offense and Mchale wasn't, that much is true. We got a feel of what it would be like for Mchale in 1988-1989 season. He was going down hill then, but we still got a feel of it. It also showed how reliable Bird was I would think.

But when Mchale was in his prime, Bird and Mchale were the most dangerous. A lot of ppl commented on how Mchale was so difficult to guard and how much trouble they had.

[97 bulls]

John Stockon didnt have plays run for him often but he made a hell of lot of big plays and baskets. I dont remember which game it was but he pretty much won them a game vs the Bulls in the finals in OT. Which reminds me...he made at least one but I think 2 game winners vs the Bulls in the early 90s. the one I remember best was in Utah. he kinda double clutched it and sank a runner at the buzzer with Jordan in the frame.

John made a lot of big shots. People just dont remember them.
He did. Stockton was great. But he doesnt amount to Bird and Parrish

[97 bulls]

Hornacek came around in his prime. He went to Utah in the mid 90s. And Stockton was probably the best point guard in the 90s. Very efficient, getting good looks for his teammates. He had Hornacek for 94, 95, and 96, and then he went to the finals with him in 97 and 98. He had Stockton almost his whole career.

However, the Jazz did lose to the Bulls. You could argue that if the Bulls weren't there, the Jazz would've beat any team in the East.

But to your original point, that K.Malone was the focal point of the offense and Mchale wasn't, that much is true. We got a feel of what it would be like for Mchale in 1988-1989 season. He was going down hill then, but we still got a feel of it. It also showed how reliable Bird was I would think.

But when Mchale was in his prime, Bird and Mchale were the most dangerous. A lot of ppl commented on how Mchale was so difficult to guard and how much trouble they had.
Mchale was still in his prime in 89. Statistically, he had one of his best seasons. He was no worse than anyother year. And factor in that he played limited minutes his first few years. So hhe really didnt have the the milage on him.

The fact is he failed miserably as the "man" when Bird went down

[Kblaze8855]

No he does not equal bird and Parish. But he probably had more to do with what made Karl exceptional than they had to do with what made Mchale. Not like people are really giving Kevin credit for 3 rings. But an awful lot of people give Karl full credit for his production and winning teams when John had a LOT to do with that.

[Micku]

Lol youd take 26/9 on 60% shooting over 31/11 on 54%? Wow.

Mchale was a better defender than that year's K.Malone. He was more efficient in the offensive end.

And it was 26/9 on 60% while playing with Bird, Parish, DJ and playing on a broken foot in the playoffs. Bird was still the star and leader of the team, and we don't know how Mchale would preform if he was the main guy to go to offensively. I think that Bird said that Mchale could average more points if he was the focal point of the offense. And many teams can't stop him. You could say that playing with Bird really helped Mchale as well tho.

And Mchale was constantly great and was getting better until his broken foot.


And why do some people constantly try to take one year and draw a conclusion from it? Why not take a players best game? Or best quarter?

I said that I would take career K.Malone over Mchale. But give me that prime Mchale over him because what he brought to the table. Efficient on offensive, unstoppable in the post (arguably the best post player ever), and a versatile defender. I think his skills would benefit a lot either as a first role guy or a second role guy. But I don't blame anyone for taking K.Malone over Mchale peak to peak. K.Malone is already a proven franchise player.

[97 bulls]

No he does not equal bird and Parish. But he probably had more to do with what made Karl exceptional than they had to do with what made Mchale. Not like people are really giving Kevin credit for 3 rings. But an awful lot of people give Karl full credit for his production and winning teams when John had a LOT to do with that.
They both greatly benefited from the the players on their respective teams. I did acknowledge Mchales three rings. But I also feel Malone wwouldve had two himself had his best Jazz teams been able to face those Rockets teams the Celtics played against.

[Kblaze8855]

The Jazz got beat by worse teams with worse best players than Moses Malone and Hakeem/Ralph. I wouldnt put it past Karl Malones ability to lose to anyone. he didnt do much beating of the kinds of teams you had to go through to get out of the 80s east either.

[nycelt84]

He did. Stockton was great. But he doesnt amount to Bird and Parrish

Not sure what you're talking about because Stockton was better than both McHale and Parish.

[97 bulls]

Not sure what you're talking about because Stockton was better than both McHale and Parish.
Typical. You just come in right in the middle and make a false accusation. You dont even know the converstion.

[97 bulls]

The Jazz got beat by worse teams with worse best players than Moses Malone and Hakeem/Ralph. I wouldnt put it past Karl Malones ability to lose to anyone. he didnt do much beating of the kinds of teams you had to go through to get out of the 80s east either.
I disagree. At a glance the teams the Jazz lost to either won thhe championship or made it to the Championship almost every year of Malones career going back to 88. And only twice did they lose with homecourt advantage. One being to the eventual championd Rockets in 95. Led by prime Olajuwan and Drexler. Oh and they lost to the Bulls in 98. How many times did the Celtics lose with homecourt?

[Gotterdammerung]

It is, Malone did that for over 10-12 seasons. McHale maybe 2.

I think McHale is one of the more overrated players ever.

It's crazy how a 7 time All-Star, one time All-NBA player is considered top 30 buy a lot of folks.

I call it a heavy east coast, new england bias.

Much like how many experts refuse to countenance a possible future of LBJ overtaking Larry Bird atop the greatest of all-time small forward list. :banghead:

[Gotterdammerung]

I find it rather odd that a username named 1987 Lakers is constantly defending the Celtics. :oldlol:

Much like how 97 Bulls prop up a staunch Jordan opponent, the 87 Laker fanboy is propping up an opponent for the same reasons.

:oldlol:

[Gotterdammerung]

I would rate either player only in the context of the team I already have.

If I have a powerful, championship caliber team full of MVPs, lock down defense specialists, and a second tier bigman, along with all around great team passing, then McHale is the much better fit.

OTOH if I have a solid, playoff caliber team full of average to above-average players, with a top-5 point guard that can make any pass, and a great shooter on the other wing, then I'll go with Karl Malone.

Absent those factors, absent all and any context, building from scratch, in a draft where I get to pick either one at my spot, after all the other greats are taken, i'll go with Karl Malone. He's far more durable than McHale, no question, and has proven to carry a team as the #1 option.

Perhaps McHale could, but that's speculation and I never go with speculation over proven history. :no:

[ThaRegul8r]

We all know that McHale was the better low post player.

And better defender.

[Kblaze8855]

I disagree. At a glance the teams the Jazz lost to either won thhe championship or made it to the Championship almost every year of Malones career going back to 88.

The Jazz lost to Run TMC, the Blazers(Pippens and drexlers), Spurs, Mavs, Suns before Barkley, the 93 Sonics, and they lost to the Kings I think twice....

No less than 8 times they lost to a non finals team and thats off the top of my head. I think both years they lost the Drexler blazers it was a finals year but im positive 8 of them were not. That isnt almost every season when we are only counting like 15 years of his career.

The Jazz didnt lose to just champs or finals teams. The Jazz lost to every kind of team. Young up and comers, contenders, fluke teams that shouldnt have won and all. The Jazz just lost in general.

No reason to believe they even get out of the 80s east or win a ring if they do. The Jazz managed to lose to just about everyone.

[97 bulls]

Much like how 97 Bulls prop up a staunch Jordan opponent, the 87 Laker fanboy is propping up an opponent for the same reasons.

:oldlol:
What on gods green earth would give you the idea that I'm a Jordan opponant? I just dont feel he drug the Bulls to 6 championship. He had plenty of help.

However, I'm on record as saying Jordan is the greatest ever, and has no weakness.

[97 bulls]

I disagree. At a glance the teams the Jazz lost to either won thhe championship or made it to the Championship almost every year of Malones career going back to 88.

The Jazz lost to Run TMC, the Blazers(Pippens and drexlers), Spurs, Mavs, Suns before Barkley, the 93 Sonics, and they lost to the Kings I think twice....

No less than 8 times they lost to a non finals team and thats off the top of my head. I think both years they lost the Drexler blazers it was a finals year but im positive 8 of them were not. That isnt almost every season when we are only counting like 15 years of his career.

The Jazz didnt lose to just champs or finals teams. The Jazz lost to every kind of team. Young up and comers, contenders, fluke teams that shouldnt have won and all. The Jazz just lost in general.

No reason to believe they even get out of the 80s east or win a ring if they do. The Jazz managed to lose to just about everyone.
So did the Celtics

[Gotterdammerung]

What on gods green earth would give you the idea that I'm a Jordan opponant? I just dont feel he drug the Bulls to 6 championship. He had plenty of help.

However, I'm on record as saying Jordan is the greatest ever, and has no weakness.

Reread that sentence one more time.

In case that doesn't help: 97 Bulls (i.e., you) prop up a Jordan opponent (i.e., Malone) in order to boost their favorite team (i.e., 97 Bulls, the very team that beat MVP Malone's Jazz). Hence the transparent agenda you and 1987 Lakers both share. :oldlol:

Perhaps English is not your first language. :confusedshrug:

[FatComputerNerd]

Malone was better at stretching the floor since he had that mid-range J.

McHale was better at pretty much everything else, on both ends, from what little I remember.

[TheBigVeto]

I never did, until Malone joined the Lakers.

[97 bulls]

Reread that sentence one more time.

In case that doesn't help: 97 Bulls (i.e., you) prop up a Jordan opponent (i.e., Malone) in order to boost their favorite team (i.e., 97 Bulls, the very team that beat MVP Malone's Jazz). Hence the transparent agenda you and 1987 Lakers both share. :oldlol:

Perhaps English is not your first language. :confusedshrug:
Ok I got it. No thats not the case. I just think Mchale is drastically overrated. Hes a great one on one player, but thats it. His inability to lead the Celtics in 89 says a lot about his ability to lead a team in any way close to Malone over a long career.

[Round Mound]

McHale was Better Post Player and Post Defender/Shot Blocker.

Malone was a Better Rebounder, Passer, Finisher and Versatile Player.

Malone was Better as a Total Player but him and Barkley did More Things than the Average PF.

Malone was Better but Not By Much.

[nycelt84]

Typical. You just come in right in the middle and make a false accusation. You dont even know the converstion.

That's kind of a dumb thing to say and where did I say something false? John Stockton is better than every player Larry Bird ever played with. That's not close to being false and you can't discuss Malone without Stockton wouldn't be the player he was. And you're the one in the thread who has already made up their mind without looking at anything anyone else has to say.

[97 bulls]

That's kind of a dumb thing to say and where did I say something false? John Stockton is better than every player Larry Bird ever played with. That's not close to being false and you can't discuss Malone without Stockton wouldn't be the player he was. And you're the one in the thread who has already made up their mind without looking at anything anyone else has to say.
My point is Stockton doesnt equal to Bird and Parrish. The thread is about Malone vs Mchale.

[Micku]

So did the Celtics

No they didn't. They only lost one non finals team against the Bucks in 1983, and that was when the team was revolting against their coach. The rest they either lost to the 76ers, Lakers, or Pistons throughout the 80s. All of them either went to the Finals or won the championship.

[97 bulls]

No they didn't. They only lost one non finals team against the Bucks in 1983, and that was when the team was revolting against their coach. The rest they either lost to the 76ers, Lakers, or Pistons throughout the 80s. All of them either went to the Finals or won the championship.
And the Celtics lost to teams they were favored to beat.

More than the Jazz did

[Micku]

And the Celtics lost to teams they were favored to beat.

More than the Jazz did

All of teams that the Celts lost to except for one either won the championship or final caliber teams. The Jazz were sometimes 5th-1st seed in the 90s while the Celtics were top tier in the 80s, going to the finals four straight times. They did lose to teams with homecourt advantage, but those same teams did go to the finals or winning it all.

You said that you think the best of the Jazz could beat those Rockets while Kblaze said he doubts that they would come out of the East when they lost to different teams, and teams that didn't even make it to the Finals. That is much different than the Celtics seeing how they were either 1 or 2nd losing to 76ers, Pistons, or Lakers. Could they beat the teams that the Celtics lost to? And could they beat the Rockets that beat the Lakers?

We don't really know if they could or not.

[97 bulls]

All of teams that the Celts lost to except for one either won the championship or final caliber teams. The Jazz were sometimes 5th-1st seed in the 90s while the Celtics were top tier in the 80s, going to the finals four straight times. They did lose to teams with homecourt advantage, but those same teams did go to the finals or winning it all.

You said that you think the best of the Jazz could beat those Rockets while Kblaze said he doubts that they would come out of the East when they lost to different teams, and teams that didn't even make it to the Finals. That is much different than the Celtics seeing how they were either 1 or 2nd losing to 76ers, Pistons, or Lakers. Could they beat the teams that the Celtics lost to? And could they beat the Rockets that beat the Lakers?

We don't really know if they could or not.
They most definately couldve won in 81. Lets say the 97-98 Jazz. The Celtics didnt play any great teams that year. As well as 86. In fact, the 81 run was probably the weakest run any champion had to endure.

Sounds like a great thread. Weakest run by a championship team

[1987_Lakers]

They most definately couldve won in 81. Lets say the 97-98 Jazz. The Celtics didnt play any great teams that year. As well as 86. In fact, the 81 run was probably the weakest run any champion had to endure.

Sounds like a great thread. Weakest run by a championship team

You're such a hater.:oldlol:

What makes you think they get past the Sixers in '81? How do you see them beating the '86 Rockets, the same team that took out the showtime Lakers in 5. It's not like those Utah teams were stacked.

[BlackVVaves]

They most definately couldve won in 81. Lets say the 97-98 Jazz. The Celtics didnt play any great teams that year. As well as 86. In fact, the 81 run was probably the weakest run any champion had to endure.

Sounds like a great thread. Weakest run by a championship team

:biggums:

[G-train]

Just curious :confusedshrug:

Na

[G-train]

Malone is being severely underrated by some in this thread.
I agree he made some questionable personal decisions - so did MJ and many other NBA players.
I agree he had some poor playoff games.

But overall he was a dominant playoff performer. He was a dominant regular season performer. He was a proven legendary number one scoring option. He was a great defender.

McHale might have gotten close to that as number one option. But he didnt, and my ratings are based on reality, so McHale is not rated close to him IMO. Malone I rate top 20 all time, McHale perhaps top 50.

If we are gonna talk fantasy, well IMO Malone on those Celtics teams would have shot 60% every season.

[97 bulls]

You're such a hater.:oldlol:

What makes you think they get past the Sixers in '81? How do you see them beating the '86 Rockets, the same team that took out the showtime Lakers in 5. It's not like those Utah teams were stacked.
That Sixer team was good but definately not great. They didnt have Moses Malone. A young inexperienced Mo Cheeks. They beat a mediocre Bulls team in the first round. The Jazz couldnt do that? Come on.


The 86 Rockets wouldve been touugher but the Jazz beat a better Rocket team in 97. Hell the Lakers team the Jazz beat in the semi finals was better than any of the teams the Celtics beat in 81 and 86

[1987_Lakers]

That Sixer team was good but definately not great. They didnt have Moses Malone. A young inexperienced Mo Cheeks. They beat a mediocre Bulls team in the first round. The Jazz couldnt do that? Come on.


The 86 Rockets wouldve been touugher but the Jazz beat a better Rocket team in 97. Hell the Lakers team the Jazz beat in the semi finals was better than any of the teams the Celtics beat in 81 and 86

It's hard to say, it's very possible that Utah beats them, but we don't know. That '81 Sixers team won 62 games, they are not gonna lay down, & we know how dangerous that '86 Houston team was. It's pretty useless arguing this IMO.

[97 bulls]

Malone is being severely underrated by some in this thread.
I agree he made some questionable personal decisions - so did MJ and many other NBA players.
I agree he had some poor playoff games.

But overall he was a dominant playoff performer. He was a dominant regular season performer. He was a proven legendary number one scoring option. He was a great defender.

McHale might have gotten close to that as number one option. But he didnt, and my ratings are based on reality, so McHale is not rated close to him IMO. Malone I rate top 20 all time, McHale perhaps top 50.

If we are gonna talk fantasy, well IMO Malone on those Celtics teams would have shot 60% every season.
I agree. And when does Dennis Rodman get credit for what his defense did to stop Malone the same way Mchale gets credited for stopping Wilkins.

[G-train]

I already said I have Malone ranked ahead of McHale. All I said was McHale probably had the better peak.

1987 Kevin McHale
26 PPG | 60 FG%
10 RPG
2.5 APG
2 BPG
All-NBA First Team
All-NBA Defensive First Team
4th in MVP voting
Named DPOY by NBA Head Coaches

It's not insane to say McHale had a better peak.

Its almost insane.
1991 Malone (could have picked any of 14 seasons)

29/12/3
1 steal, 1 block
And RE your bolded parts, Malone has 2 MVPS and is 4 time all defensive.
He was all NBA FIRST 11 YEARS IN A ROW.
Malone averaged for 14 years better than McHale could produce over 2.

Lets not hate da playa

[1987_Lakers]

Malone is being severely underrated by some in this thread.
I agree he made some questionable personal decisions - so did MJ and many other NBA players.
I agree he had some poor playoff games.

But overall he was a dominant playoff performer. He was a dominant regular season performer. He was a proven legendary number one scoring option. He was a great defender.

McHale might have gotten close to that as number one option. But he didnt, and my ratings are based on reality, so McHale is not rated close to him IMO. Malone I rate top 20 all time, McHale perhaps top 50.

If we are gonna talk fantasy, well IMO Malone on those Celtics teams would have shot 60% every season.

Nobody here is arguing that McHale had a better career then Malone, some would just rather have McHale if we are talking about peaks, which really isn't a ridiculous statement.

Karl Malone was known more for his longevity than his peak play, he wasn't even considered to be better than Barkley, Hakeem, D-Rob, & Ewing up until the mid-late 90's.

[97 bulls]

It's hard to say, it's very possible that Utah beats them, but we don't know. That '81 Sixers team won 62 games, they are not gonna lay down, & we know how dangerous that '86 Houston team was. It's pretty useless arguing this IMO.
It is. But so are the multiple Celtics vs Bulls arguments and the 80s vs 90s arguments you make. Its fun banter

[1987_Lakers]

Its almost insane.
1991 Malone (could have picked any of 14 seasons)

29/12/3
1 steal, 1 block
And RE your bolded parts, Malone has 2 MVPS and is 4 time all defensive.
He was all NBA FIRST 11 YEARS IN A ROW.
Malone averaged for 14 years better than McHale could produce over 2.

Lets not hate da playa

I'm still taking '87 McHale over any version of K. Malone. You highlighted Malone's '91 season, but peak McHale was a far more impactful defender than '91 Malone and McHale is a far more dependable postseason performer. And let's not act like Stockton didn't have alot to do with Malone averaging 29 PPG, Stockton averaged 14 APG in '91, I can only imagine how many easy buckets he got Malone that year, McHale was far better at creating his own shot.

Malone only had 4 postseasons where he shot over 50%, ONLY 4, despite playing in 19 postseasons. He had 15 seasons where he shot over 50% in the regular season. I find that AMAZING. His efficiency dropped significantly when the postseason arrived which is why i prefer peak McHale, a player who's game translates extremely well in the postseason.

It's not insane to take peak Malone over peak McHale, I just prefer to have McHale because of his more impactful defense, & his scoring & efficiency doesn't drop come playoff time.

[Kblaze8855]

So did the Celtics

I....just dont think you know what you are talking about or even bothered to google it if you think the two are even somewhat similar on this issue. The celtics lost to great teams before Bird fell off with injury. The Jazz lost to teams that nobody has any reason to remember. Karl lost 19 years in a row to all manner of teams. The Celtics meanwhile made 5 finals and won 3 and the worst losses they suffered were to the contending Bucks and 60 or so win 76ers.

Comparing a dynasty to a team known for 20 years of laughable collapses, wasted chances, and "next year they mights" over some losses by the dynasty to other historically great teams is more than a stretch......

[97 bulls]

I....just dont think you know what you are talking about or even bothered to google it if you think the two are even somewhat similar on this issue. The celtics lost to great teams before Bird fell off with injury. The Jazz lost to teams that nobody has any reason to remember. Karl lost 19 years in a row to all manner of teams. The Celtics meanwhile made 5 finals and won 3 and the worst losses they suffered were to the contending Bucks and 60 or so win 76ers.

Comparing a dynasty to a team known for 20 years of laughable collapses, wasted chances, and "next year they mights" over some losses by the dynasty to other historically great teams is more than a stretch......
Im not calling the Jazz a dynasty. But is it farfetched to say theyd beat the teams the Celtics beat in 81 and 86? Compare the teams the Celtics Beat those years to the teams the Jazz beat in 97. Before losing to the 69 win Bulls in six.

We need to move away from this notion that both the Lakers and Celtics made these incredible runs beating a bunch of great teams in the process. Because they didnt. Theres no doubt in my mind that the Jazz would have three championships had they been Lucky enough to play in 81 and 86

[1987_Lakers]

Theres no doubt in my mind that the Jazz would have three championships had they been Lucky enough to play in 81 - 86

:roll:

[97 bulls]

:roll:
Then tell me what alltime great team did they beat in 81 or 86

[Legends66NBA7]

Just curious :confusedshrug:

No, it's not reasonable.

But, like other have mentioned at their peaks are some what close and McHale could give you a few things he does better than Malone.

[G-train]

I'm still taking '87 McHale over any version of K. Malone. You highlighted Malone's '91 season, but peak McHale was a far more impactful defender than '91 Malone and McHale is a far more dependable postseason performer. And let's not act like Stockton didn't have alot to do with Malone averaging 29 PPG, Stockton averaged 14 APG in '91, I can only imagine how many easy buckets he got Malone that year, McHale was far better at creating his own shot.

Malone only had 4 postseasons where he shot over 50%, ONLY 4, despite playing in 19 postseasons. He had 15 seasons where he shot over 50% in the regular season. I find that AMAZING. His efficiency dropped significantly when the postseason arrived which is why i prefer peak McHale, a player who's game translates extremely well in the postseason.

It's not insane to take peak Malone over peak McHale, I just prefer to have McHale because of his more impactful defense, & his scoring & efficiency doesn't drop come playoff time.

But thats fantasy. McHale couldnt do what Malone did. McHale's body barely allowed him to play the role he actually played. I'd argue in the same role in a fantasy world, Malone could have done what McHale did on that C's team, yet the reverse cannot be said for McHale.

I agree his fg% dropped. But for varying reasons.
His shot attempts increased significantly.
Teams zoned in on the only dominant scorer.
He played heavy minutes.
Teams could play him more physically.

He still scored 25-30 points per game. he still made 3 conference finals. He still made 2 NBA finals.
This despite it being basically a 2 man show most of the time, with some quality role players. There was no Parish, no Rodman. No D-Rob or Manu, not even an Oakley. Maybe not even a Dan Majerle.

Check this out. 1988 Malone, against the Lakers in playoffs. Game 7.
48 mins. 31/15. 14/21 fgs. 4 assists, 2 stls.
Ever heard of that performance?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198805210LAL.html
Nope. Salt Lake hate.

His playoff failures are exaggerated.

[Kblaze8855]

They didnt need to beat ab unch of great teams to prove they were beyond the Jazz. The Jazz spent 19 years losing. They lost t othe warriors, suns, spurs, mavs, kings and so on. The Celtics and Lakers have nothing to prove in comparison. The Jazz lost to teams nobody will ever bring up again. And did so on a pretty regular basis. Just assuming they win 3 rings when they need to go through 76ers teams with 4 to 5 all stars, Birds celtics, the Lakers, or whoever to do it? Please. The Jazz were pretty much handed the title in advance in 99 because everyone was out of the way. Karl gets handed another MVP and then gets knocked out being outplayed by Rasheed wallace as he puts up 8 points on 3-16 shooting on the way out.

But this time.....thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis time...hes gonna just run through and stack rings vs teams better than the majority of those that knocked him out?

The Jazz did nothing to justify giving them that. They failed and failed and failed. And went out looking soft while they did. Choking away games late...setting finals records for poor scoring....

But yea...they will just run through Birds celtics, Showtime, and 76ers teams that at times had 2 superstars and 3 all stars supporting them.

Perfectly reasonable assumption.

[1987_Lakers]

Then tell me what alltime great team did they beat in 81 or 86

What does that have to do with anything? Utah wouldn't even come close to 3 championships if they played in 81-86.

[97 bulls]

They didnt need to beat ab unch of great teams to prove they were beyond the Jazz. The Jazz spent 19 years losing. They lost t othe warriors, suns, spurs, mavs, kings and so on. The Celtics and Lakers have nothing to prove in comparison. The Jazz lost to teams nobody will ever bring up again. And did so on a pretty regular basis. Just assuming they win 3 rings when they need to go through 76ers teams with 4 to 5 all stars, Birds celtics, the Lakers, or whoever to do it? Please. The Jazz were pretty much handed the title in advance in 99 because everyone was out of the way. Karl gets handed another MVP and then gets knocked out being outplayed by Rasheed wallace as he puts up 8 points on 3-16 shooting on the way out.

But this time.....thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis time...hes gonna just run through and stack rings vs teams better than the majority of those that knocked him out?

The Jazz did nothing to justify giving them that. They failed and failed and failed. And went out looking soft while they did. Choking away games late...setting finals records for poor scoring....

But yea...they will just run through Birds celtics, Showtime, and 76ers teams that at times had 2 superstars and 3 all stars supporting them.

Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Follow me Blaze. The Lakers, the Sixers, nor the Celtics. Played each other when they were at their best. It never happened. Its no different than saying the Jazz beat a variation of what would be the threepeat Lakers in the lates 90s because they had Shaq and Kobe. The teams the Celtics beat in 81 and 86 weren't great. They were a variatiion of championship teams.

And unlike the Jazz, the Celtics were favored to win the east virtually every year of the 80s.

[1987_Lakers]

His playoff failures are exaggerated.

You must have missed his epic choke jobs vs Chicago in those Finals.

Missing critical free throws down the stretch in BOTH '97 & '98, being stripped by Jordan which led to MJ hitting that famous game winning shot.

Jazz could of easily took Chicago to a 7th game in both '97 & '98 if he didn't have a few mental break downs.

[Da_Realist]

John Stockon didnt have plays run for him often but he made a hell of lot of big plays and baskets. I dont remember which game it was but he pretty much won them a game vs the Bulls in the finals in OT. Which reminds me...he made at least one but I think 2 game winners vs the Bulls in the early 90s. the one I remember best was in Utah. he kinda double clutched it and sank a runner at the buzzer with Jordan in the frame.

John made a lot of big shots. People just dont remember them.

This one --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaQ4feb4MGk#t=1h49m34s

[97 bulls]

What does that have to do with anything? Utah wouldn't even come close to 3 championships if they played in 81-86.
I disagree. They were better than any team the Celtics played in two of their finals runs. And beat better teams in 97-98.

[G-train]

You must have missed his epic choke jobs vs Chicago in those Finals.

Missing critical free throws down the stretch in BOTH '97 & '98, being stripped by Jordan which led to MJ hitting that famous game winning shot.

Jazz could of easily took Chicago to a 7th game in both '97 & '98 if he didn't have a few mental break downs.

I watched those games several times.
35 year old Malone did not play well in some games. But I do not judge him completely by that, particulary against what many believe to be against one of the greatest defensive teams ever.
He had 31/11 on 58% by the way in the game he was stripped, and 39 at 63% the game before. At 35 years old. Against Rodman with Pip and MJ lurking. I cant remember if he had the hand injury that finals or the one before. I'll have to check.

[97 bulls]

You must have missed his epic choke jobs vs Chicago in those Finals.

Missing critical free throws down the stretch in BOTH '97 & '98, being stripped by Jordan which led to MJ hitting that famous game winning shot.

Jazz could of easily took Chicago to a 7th game in both '97 & '98 if he didn't have a few mental break downs.
He isnt the first player to miss a ft in crunch time. I dont fault him for that play in 98. You got Rodman defending you and Jordan helping.

Why isnt Mchales defense on Wilkins considered a choke job, when Rodmans defense on Malone is considered a choke on the part of Malone?

[1987_Lakers]

I disagree. They were better than any team the Celtics played in two of their finals runs. And beat better teams in 97-98.

They wouldn't even come close in 83-86. '83 still goes to Philly, LA & BOS would have it over UTAH in '84-86. Celtics would be favorites in '81, Lakers in '82.

[97 bulls]

They wouldn't even come close in 83-86. '83 still goes to Philly, LA & BOS would have it over UTAH in '84-86. Celtics would be favorites in '81, Lakers in '82.
Im saying replace the Celtics with the Jazz. The Jazz couldnt beat the Celtics. But they gave the showtime Lakers hell in 88. And that teasm wasnt as good as the mid to late 90s Jazz.

[1987_Lakers]

He isnt the first player to miss a ft in crunch time. I dont fault him for that play in 98. You got Rodman defending you and Jordan helping.

Why isnt Mchales defense on Wilkins considered a choke job, when Rodmans defense on Malone is considered a choke on the part of Malone?

McHale put the clamps on Nique in '86, I assume you're talking about that game 7 in '88, Nique was just hot and McHale still had 33 and 13 in that game as well & Boston ended up winning. Not even close to a choke job. You can do better.:oldlol:

For that entire '88 series vs Boston Nique only shot 44%, so McHale was still pretty effective defensively vs Nique in that series.

[97 bulls]

McHale put the clamps on Nique in '86, I assume you're talking about that game 7 in '88, Nique was just hot and McHale still had 33 and 13 in that game as well & Boston ended up winning. Not even close to a choke job. You can do better.:oldlol:

For that entire '88 series vs Boston Nique only shot 44%, so McHale was still pretty effective defensively vs Nique in that series.
Youre missiing my point. Mchale shut down Wilkins. But thats credited to Mchales defense on him. Not Wilkins choking.

Malone not performing well vs the Bulls is considered a choke job. Not Rodman playing great defense on him. Especially in 97

What gives?

[1987_Lakers]

Malone not performing well vs the Bulls is considered a choke job. Not Rodman playing great defense on him. Especially in 97

Rodman made Malone miss several critical free throws?

[97 bulls]

Rodman made Malone miss several critical free throws?
Karl Malones missed Fts didnt cause the Jazz to lose. That was one play. Come on. They lost to the Bbulls because the Bulls were the better team.

[1987_Lakers]

Karl Malones missed Fts didnt cause the Jazz to lose. That was one play. Come on. They lost to the Bbulls because the Bulls were the better team.

Utah would have took the Bulls to 7 games if Malone didn't miss critical free throws. He missed 2 go ahead free throws in the last 20 seconds in game 1 of the 97" finals which ended with a Jordan game winner. We all know about game 6 in '98 when Jordan just stole the ball from him in the final moments.

How about game 7 vs Seattle in '96? Malone shot 8-22, missed 6 freethrows (in a game decided by 4 points), and grabbed 5 rebounds

Game 6 vs Portland in '99. The NBA MVP Karl Malone goes 3 for 16 and scores only 8 points.

That is a choker right there.

[97 bulls]

Utah would have took the Bulls to 7 games if Malone didn't miss critical free throws. He missed 2 go ahead free throws in the last 20 seconds in game 1 of the 97" finals which ended with a Jordan game winner. We all know about game 6 in '98 when Jordan just stole the ball from him in the final moments.

How about game 7 vs Seattle in '96? Malone shot 8-22, missed 6 freethrows (in a game decided by 4 points), and grabbed 5 rebounds

Game 6 vs Portland in '99. The NBA MVP Karl Malone goes 3 for 16 and scores only 8 points.

That is a choker right there.
Again, why are those choke jobs? Why not credit Shawn Kemp, Rasheed Wallace? Not to mention the Jazz were favored to beat the teams you mentioned anyway.

Why didnt Mchale at least lead the Celtics to a win in the playoffs in 89? Did he choke too?

[1987_Lakers]

Again, why are those choke jobs? Why not credit Shawn Kemp, Rasheed Wallace? Not to mention the Jazz were favored to beat the teams you mentioned anyway.

Makes the choke job more obvious.

Why not credit Sheed & Kemp? My God, what a cop-out. lmao.

[97 bulls]

Makes the choke job more obvious.

Why not credit Sheed & Kemp? My God, what a cop-out. lmao.
Its not a cop out its a bias. You dont feel Malone was shut down by Rodman, or Wallace, or Kemp. It was his choking.


But Wilkins? His wasnt a choke job, it was Mchales defense.


And by the way. Can you give me your top 10 power forwards of the 80s?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Kevin McHale was a black hole. Superior post play, but he was a ball hog. Could he have led his own team? I don't think so. Karl Malone ranks higher, and is a better teammate
A ball hog who shot 60+% from the floor? I'll take it.

[1987_Lakers]

Its not a cop out its a bias. You dont feel Malone was shut down by Rodman, or Wallace, or Kemp. It was his choking.


But Wilkins? His wasnt a choke job, it was Mchales defense.
The Hawks weren't expected to beat the Celtics & it's not like any of the games were close for Wilkins to display what he can do in the clutch. Malone played awful & failed big time in the clutch when his team was expected to win. Pretty big difference.



And by the way. Can you give me your top 10 power forwards of the 80s?

1. McHale
2. Barkley
3. Malone
4. Sampson
5. Nance
6. B. Williams
7. Cummings

After that it is pretty debatable.

[joeyjoejoe]

Ya could pick a few bad playoff games for every player i think drexler had a shocker with rockets vs jazz in a gm 5 went something like 1/10 thats just off the top of my head, so malone missed a cpl of ft and had a turnover in two finals matchups against one of the greatest teams ever assembled, he actaully had clutch plays also that helped jazz win games even in the finals

[97 bulls]

The Hawks weren't expected to beat the Celtics & it's not like any of the games were close for Wilkins to display what he can do in the clutch. Malone played awful & failed big time in the clutch when his team was expected to win. Pretty big difference.




1. McHale
2. Barkley
3. Malone
4. Sampson
5. Nance
6. B. Williams
7. Cummings

After that it is pretty debatable.
Why couldnt he make more than one all nba team?

[Kblaze8855]

Follow me Blaze. The Lakers, the Sixers, nor the Celtics. Played each other when they were at their best. It never happened. Its no different than saying the Jazz beat a variation of what would be the threepeat Lakers in the lates 90s because they had Shaq and Kobe. The teams the Celtics beat in 81 and 86 weren't great. They were a variatiion of championship teams.


So the Celtics beating a 62 win 76ers team with an MVP and multiple other stars/near stars isnt impressive but the Jazz losing to everyone from go nowhere Warriors/spurs/mavs teams is to be defended?

If the 81 76ers were not great how many great teams did the Jazz EVER beat?

There is just no evidence the Jazz would come through vs the quality of team they would have to in order to win 3 rings in the early to mid 80s. None. They have to beat Showtime and then either the Celtics or the 76ers and nothing they did suggests they would beat any of those teams. Or even that the Bucks from those days would go down. The 86 Rockets were better than any number of teams that beat the Jazz. If they were playing 81-86 at the top of their game(lets say its the 94-99 jazz) they are I guess you think...winning with their 97 and 98 teams and then one more along the way? So....they are beating the 84 Celtics and 86 Lakers? Perhaps the possible GOAT 86 Celtics? The 83 76ers? They are beating the 82 Lakers with Magic and Kareem and 3-4 borderline stars? Where do you get 3 rings? And why should I believe they beat these teams when they never proved capable of beating any all time great team? Especially when you dont consider a 62 win Philly team great for Boston.


The idea that they go from losing to....whoever...19 years straight...to winning vs some of the most talented teams ever? Its just hard to take serious.



And unlike the Jazz, the Celtics were favored to win the east virtually every year of the 80s.


In 80 they won 60 to the 76ers 59. In 81 both teams won 62 and the Bucks won 60. In 83 Philly had 2 MVPs and 5 all stars and won 65 games and nearly swept the playoffs. In 85 the Bucks and Philly won 59 and 58 games. In 89 Bird was out and by 90 they were the 4th seed. At least 6 years them losing wouldnt be some kinda huge upset. And even if they were favored every year due to generally being a team people felt would win even if other teams had better or the same records...they went to 5 finals and won 3 rings.

And we are comparing them to the Jazz who lost 19 years in a row.

So........

[97 bulls]

So the Celtics beating a 62 win 76ers team with an MVP and multiple other stars/near stars isnt impressive but the Jazz losing to everyone from go nowhere Warriors/spurs/mavs teams is to be defended?

If the 81 76ers were not great how many great teams did the Jazz EVER beat?

There is just no evidence the Jazz would come through vs the quality of team they would have to in order to win 3 rings in the early to mid 80s. None. They have to beat Showtime and then either the Celtics or the 76ers and nothing they did suggests they would beat any of those teams. Or even that the Bucks from those days would go down. The 86 Rockets were better than any number of teams that beat the Jazz. If they were playing 81-86 at the top of their game(lets say its the 94-99 jazz) they are I guess you think...winning with their 97 and 98 teams and then one more along the way? So....they are beating the 84 Celtics and 86 Lakers? Perhaps the possible GOAT 86 Celtics? The 83 76ers? They are beating the 82 Lakers with Magic and Kareem and 3-4 borderline stars? Where do you get 3 rings? And why should I believe they beat these teams when they never proved capable of beating any all time great team? Especially when you dont consider a 62 win Philly team great for Boston.


The idea that they go from losing to....whoever...19 years straight...to winning vs some of the most talented teams ever? Its just hard to take serious.



In 80 they won 60 to the 76ers 59. In 81 both teams won 62 and the Bucks won 60. In 83 Philly had 2 MVPs and 5 all stars and won 65 games and nearly swept the playoffs. In 85 the Bucks and Philly won 59 and 58 games. In 89 Bird was out and by 90 they were the 4th seed. At least 6 years them losing wouldnt be some kinda huge upset. And even if they were favored every year due to generally being a team people felt would win even if other teams had better or the same records...they went to 5 finals and won 3 rings.

And we are comparing them to the Jazz who lost 19 years in a row.

So........

If the 81 76ers were not great how many great teams did the Jazz EVER beat?

If the 81 Sixers should be considered great even though they DIDNT HAVE MOSES MALONE and had a young Mo Cheeks. Then so were the eventual back to back to back threepeat lakers the Jazz SWEPT in 98. They had all of the core players unlike the 81 Sixers. They had four allstars that year. As well as two future MVPs.


I also dont think its fair to use all 19 years of Malones career. But only five of Mchales. Throughout Malones career, his teams were never the undisputed best in the West like the Celtics back in the 80s. Aside from 97-99. They just were beaten by the greatest team ever in 97 and 98.

I cant think of one season during the early to mid 80s where the Celtics werent considered the best team in the East. Aside from 83 and 84 when the Sixers were great.


Honetly Blaze, you dont think the 97 Jazz couldve went through and beat the teams the Celtics beat in the playoffs in 81?

[Kblaze8855]

The 98 Lakers did not make the finals as the team they were or even close to it. The 81 76ers were a year removed from the finals won 62 games and their best player had led them to 2 finals and they would og again the following year. Compared to a young Laker team? Eh. Those 76s had ben together longer, won more games, and accomplished more in the playoffs.

And no....I have no reason to assume the Jazz beat anyone of note. I watched them not do it for 20 years.

People talked up what the Jazz could do from like 90-2002. And they lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost...and im many losses short.

There is no reason for me to assume they beat the 81 76ers or the Rockets. Worse teams beat the Jazz. Not like they only had that team for 2 years. As I said...people talked them up in 99 like now with no Jordan it will all come together.

It never came together. Karl Malone kept on being expected to ____ and ____ never came. Why would I assume it would in this case?

[JellyBean]

I love Kevin McHale. Minnesota native and legend. But I can't place him higer than Karl Malone. No way.

[DaHeezy]

Black hole? dude shot 60% from the field, he can shot jack all he wants

So then why does Adrian Dantley get labelled as a black hole despite being the same career % shooter and 80% plus at the FTL while attempting up to 12 per all the while averaging twice as many assists as McHale?

[97 bulls]

The 98 Lakers did not make the finals as the team they were or even close to it. The 81 76ers were a year removed from the finals won 62 games and their best player had led them to 2 finals and they would og again the following year. Compared to a young Laker team? Eh. Those 76s had ben together longer, won more games, and accomplished more in the playoffs.

And no....I have no reason to assume the Jazz beat anyone of note. I watched them not do it for 20 years.

People talked up what the Jazz could do from like 90-2002. And they lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost and lost...and im many losses short.

There is no reason for me to assume they beat the 81 76ers or the Rockets. Worse teams beat the Jazz. Not like they only had that team for 2 years. As I said...people talked them up in 99 like now with no Jordan it will all come together.

It never came together. Karl Malone kept on being expected to ____ and ____ never came. Why would I assume it would in this case?
The Jazz were never the perennial favorite to come out of the West even going back to the early 90s. They were a good team. But not considered the best. And when they were the best, they went up against the Bulls. You think Mchale wouldve done better? When he needed expansion to be able to lead the Celtics to 42 wins before bowing out in a sweep in 89? Talk about underachieving.

As far as the Sixers, youre arguing semantics. What difference does it make if they were able to make the finals. The Jazz did that. They werent good enough to win until they got Malone. The Lakers needed to Mature in the late 90s. The basic premise is neither the Sixers at that time or the Lakers of the 90s won. The Sixers happened faster becasue they aquired the best center in the league.

Youre trying to say the Celtics 81 championship run was special because they beat a Sixer team that Didnt have Moses Malone. I see no difference in the Jazz of 98 when they beat the eventual threepeat Lakers. Or 97 when they beat the Back to Back Rockets. Other than they lost to the greatest team ever in the Bulls.

[1987_Lakers]

Why couldnt he make more than one all nba team?

Because Erving, King, & Wilkins were making it. (All SFs BTW)

By '88, Barkley started to dominate as a player and a bit after that, McHale was past his prime.

I don't see how your question has anything to do with the top PFs.

[97 bulls]

Because Erving, King, & Wilkins were making it. (All SFs BTW)

By '88, Barkley started to dominate as a player and a bit after that, McHale was past his prime.

I don't see how your question has anything to do with the top PFs.
Malone made a lot of all nba teams in the 90s. Competing against far better Power forwards than Mchale iin the 80s.

[Kblaze8855]

What difference does it make if they made the finals? That ALL the jazz ever did and you are telling me they would be a dynasty facing teams better than those they already proved they couldnt beat.

Point blank...saying they win 3 rings in a league with the Celtics, Lakers, and philly when they couldnt win one facing teams less talented? It has no merit. I dont think you can defend it with anything but "I think it happens". Something people said in support of the Jazz winning for a long time.

It didnt help.

Team didnt win. They didnt win vs the worse teams post expansion. Im not assuming they win when they have to play Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, and so on.....or Bird, Mchale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, and walton. Or Doc, Moses, Toney, Cheeks, and Jones. Why would I?

Just makes no sense.

Nothing they did suggests they would win in any league. All signs point to them failing under pressure. But we just assume they win when the opposing teams have even more talent? The excuse you give for the 2 years they lost in the finals is playing the best team ever....when 3 more teams with a claim to that title were in the league you act like they win 3 rings in 6 years in.

Feels like you arent really thinking this out.

[1987_Lakers]

Malone made a lot of all nba teams in the 90s. Competing against far better Power forwards than Mchale iin the 80s.

What's your point?

[97 bulls]

What difference does it make if they made the finals? That ALL the jazz ever did and you are telling me they would be a dynasty facing teams better than those they already proved they couldnt beat.

Point blank...saying they win 3 rings in a league with the Celtics, Lakers, and philly when they couldnt win one facing teams less talented? It has no merit. I dont think you can defend it with anything but "I think it happens". Something people said in support of the Jazz winning for a long time.

It didnt help.

Team didnt win. They didnt win vs the worse teams post expansion. Im not assuming they win when they have to play Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, and so on.....or Bird, Mchale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, and walton. Or Doc, Moses, Toney, Cheeks, and Jones. Why would I?

Just makes no sense.

Nothing they did suggests they would win in any league. All signs point to them failing under pressure. But we just assume they win when the opposing teams have even more talent? The excuse you give for the 2 years they lost in the finals is playing the best team ever....when 3 more teams with a claim to that title were in the league you act like they win 3 rings in 6 years in.

Feels like you arent really thinking this out.
Those three teams, never played each other at their best. Ive gone through this before. For whatever reason, youre not picking it up.

When the Celtics played the Sixers in 81, they didnt have Moses Malone. The 83 sixers best player.

When the Jazz beat the 61 win Lakers in 98 with Shaq, Bryant, fisher, Horry, Fox and co. Its dismissed as the Lakers not being ready. For goodness sake tell me whats the difference? Other than the Jazz ended up losing in the finals to arguably the greatest team ever, and the Celtics were fortunate enough to play and beat a team that lost more games than they won in the regular season.

The Celtics never played the Sixers in the Playoffs with what he consider their alltime great roster.

You gonna tell me the 81 Celtics were good enough to beat the 98 Bulls? A team that won 62 games with their second best player (Pippen) missing half the season.

[97 bulls]

What's your point?
The point is Mchale played in an era of weak power forwards. Malone and Barkley didnt come into their own until the Late 80s. But Mchale could only get one all nba? Sad.

[1987_Lakers]

The point is Mchale played in an era of weak power forwards. Malone and Barkley didnt come into their own until the Late 80s. But Mchale could only get one all nba? Sad.

Just like the Bulls played in a watered down expansion era in the 90's. Sad

[Micku]

I know it's not directed at me but:


The Jazz were never the perennial favorite to come out of the West even going back to the early 90s. They were a good team. But not considered the best. And when they were the best, they went up against the Bulls. You think Mchale wouldve done better? When he needed expansion to be able to lead the Celtics to 42 wins before bowing out in a sweep in 89? Talk about underachieving.

As far as the Sixers, youre arguing semantics. What difference does it make if they were able to make the finals. The Jazz did that. They werent good enough to win until they got Malone. The Lakers needed to Mature in the late 90s. The basic premise is neither the Sixers at that time or the Lakers of the 90s won. The Sixers happened faster becasue they aquired the best center in the league.

Youre trying to say the Celtics 81 championship run was special because they beat a Sixer team that Didnt have Moses Malone. I see no difference in the Jazz of 98 when they beat the eventual threepeat Lakers. Or 97 when they beat the Back to Back Rockets. Other than they lost to the greatest team ever in the Bulls.

The difference being is that the Sixers already went to the Finals the prior year, they had the MVP of the league that year, and they were tied for having the best record. They were one game away from beating the Celtics to get to the Finals again in 1981. How do you not see the difference between them and the Lakers of the 90s?

The Lakers had constant failure to reach the Finals even though they had the talent. While getting beat by the Jazz is nothing to be ashamed, they only won one game out of the from 97-98 against the Jazz in the playoffs. They got swept by the Jazz in 98 then got swept by the Spurs in 99. Total opposite with the Sixers who already went to the Finals with the MVP of the league. And they Sixers vs Celtics usually go to a full seven games, and they play Lakers to six games.

To say:

Theres no doubt in my mind that the Jazz would have three championships had they been Lucky enough to play in 81 - 86

when it's pretty doubtful they could even beat the 76ers to get out of the East. The 76ers beat the Celtics, which they might've been better than the Jazz teams. Even if they get out of the East, you expect to beat the Rockets who beat Lakers, or the Lakers themselves. I think it would've been hard for the Jazz to win a championship back then. Let alone three. Who would they even have to get pass? They would have to beat the 76ers to get to the Finals, then they would have to face either Showtime Lakers, who were more stacked and have the best player on the floor either with Magic and/or Kareem, or the Rockets with either Moses or Hakeem.

And to answer the question that relates to the topic:


You think Mchale wouldve done better? When he needed expansion to be able to lead the Celtics to 42 wins before bowing out in a sweep in 89? Talk about underachieving.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know because Mchale in his peak never really had a team to himself. I like his abilities and when he stepped up in the playoffs. If you set a team around them, then it could be great.

[1987_Lakers]

Feels like you arent really thinking this out.


Typical from 97 bulls.

This is the same guy who has said in the past that McHale is Rasheed Wallace with no range.

[97 bulls]

I know it's not directed at me but:



The difference being is that the Sixers already went to the Finals the prior year, they had the MVP of the league that year, and they were tied for having the best record. They were one game away from beating the Celtics to get to the Finals again in 1981. How do you not see the difference between them and the Lakers of the 90s?

The Lakers had constant failure to reach the Finals even though they had the talent. While getting beat by the Jazz is nothing to be ashamed, they only won one game out of the from 97-98 against the Jazz in the playoffs. They got swept by the Jazz in 98 then got swept by the Spurs in 99. Total opposite with the Sixers who already went to the Finals with the MVP of the league. And they Sixers vs Celtics usually go to a full seven games, and they play Lakers to six games.

To say:


when it's pretty doubtful they could even beat the 76ers to get out of the East. The 76ers beat the Celtics, which they might've been better than the Jazz teams. Even if they get out of the East, you expect to beat the Rockets who beat Lakers, or the Lakers themselves. I think it would've been hard for the Jazz to win a championship back then. Let alone three. Who would they even have to get pass? They would have to beat the 76ers to get to the Finals, then they would have to face either Showtime Lakers, who were more stacked and have the best player on the floor either with Magic and/or Kareem, or the Rockets with either Moses or Hakeem.

And to answer the question that relates to the topic:



Maybe, maybe not. We don't know because Mchale in his peak never really had a team to himself. I like his abilities and when he stepped up in the playoffs. If you set a team around them, then it could be great.
Why is it doubtful when you admit the Jazz beat a more talented Laker team? A team that won three straight championships with the same team the Jazz swept? Some people believe the Laker team the Jazz beat were better than the teams that won three straight titles in the early 00s.

And why are we dismissing the team the Jazz did lose to? The Bulls. Put the 81 Celtics In the Jazz place, do they get past the Bulls?

[Round Mound]

Typical from 97 bulls.

This is the same guy who has said in the past that McHale is Rasheed Wallace with no range.

Did He Really Say that? :wtf:

[1987_Lakers]

Did He Really Say that? :wtf:

Yep.

[Round Mound]

Yep.

:facepalm

1st of all He Keeps Overrating the 90s Bulls and the 90s Jazz. The 1988 Jazz had they had Hornacek could have Made the Finals. The Late 80s Jazz > Late 90s Jazz. The Problem was That They Had To Face Way More Stacked Teams in the Golden 80s.

2nd Place...He Should Listen to Barkley in Regards of McHale. The Toughest Post Player to Guard in the 80s and PF that Could Cover SFs with his 6`10 frame and a 8 ft Wingspam. McHale was Onstoppable in Terms of Shot Made/Missed after Barkley the Most Dominant Offensive PF Ever.

[Micku]

Why is it doubtful when you admit the Jazz beat a more talented Laker team? A team that won three straight championships with the same team the Jazz swept? Some people believe the Laker team the Jazz beat were better than the teams that won three straight titles in the early 00s.


1. The Lakers of the 90s never made it to the Finals unlike the 76ers and Celtics of the 80s who beat each other.

2. The series weren't close. When they got eliminated by the Jazz and Spurs for three years straight (97-99) and they only won one game.

3. If they Lakers got eliminated by the Jazz and Spurs team with ease, why are you comparing them with the 76ers with who are stacked and play better as a team than them? Unless you think the Lakers of the 90s> 76ers of 80-82.

You don't see the difference between a team that went to the Finals and went seven game series that tied for the best record in the league over a team not only got swept twice, only won one game one in elimination series, and they didn't even make it to finals. That is a big difference. It was a different situation.


And why are we dismissing the team the Jazz did lose to? The Bulls. Put the 81 Celtics In the Jazz place, do they get past the Bulls?

I'm not dismissing the Bulls as much as I am debating with you that the Jazz could not win three championships without a doubt in 81-86. There are teams that are more stacked with players that are better than their star players in K.Malone during that era, and I just think their team aren't good as the teams that they would face. I am not saying that they wouldn't have a chance, but to win three championships without a doubt??

And even if the 81 Celts would lose to the Bulls in 97 or 98 (which very could happen), it doesn't mean that the Jazz without a doubt were better than the 81 Celts or 81 76ers. I can ask that same thing in saying do you think the Jazz could beat the 84 Lakers or an 85 76ers? Could the Bulls of 97-98 beat the 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics even?

Bottom line is that just because they lost to the Bulls in 97-98, it doesn't mean that they were better than other teams. Hell, the Indiana Pacers gave the Bulls more of a fight in 98, and pushed it to seven games. It doesn't mean the Pacers>Jazz. But the talent and the teamplay that the top tier teams that the 80s had (especially in the east), it makes it difficult to say whatever or not the Jazz would even make it to the Finals.

[97 bulls]

1. The Lakers of the 90s never made it to the Finals unlike the 76ers and Celtics of the 80s who beat each other.
The core of that team won three championships. Straight.

2. The series weren't close. When they got eliminated by the Jazz and Spurs for three years straight (97-99) and they only won one game.
Perhaps the Jazz were better than you give them credit for. Unfortunately for them, after the Lakers, they faced the Bulls


3. If they Lakers got eliminated by the Jazz and Spurs team with ease, why are you comparing them with the 76ers with who are stacked and play better as a team than them? Unless you think the Lakers of the 90s> 76ers of 80-82.
Stacked? The Lakers had four Allstars in 98. Won 61 games, and were one season away from winning their first of three championships.


You don't see the difference between a team that went to the Finals and went seven game series that tied for the best record in the league over a team not only got swept twice, only won one game one in elimination series, and they didn't even make it to finals. That is a big difference. It was a different situation.
No. The difference is I know the teams mentioned werent in a gym playing by themselves. The only difference between. The Jazz and the Rockets, and Sixers pre 83. Is the Jazz were beaten by a better team. I see no reason why a Malone/Stockton led Jazz, couldnt beat a team Rocket team led by Moses Malone/and Calvin Murphy, and a Sixer team led by Dr J.


I'm not dismissing the Bulls as much as I am debating with you that the Jazz could not win three championships without a doubt in 81-86. There are teams that are more stacked with players that are better than their star players in K.Malone during that era, and I just think their team aren't good as the teams that they would face. I am not saying that they wouldn't have a chance, but to win three championships without a doubt??
What made the Rockets and Sixers stacked? They both had one player playing at a hall of fame level. Calvin Murphy wasnt the same player he was during his prime. What makes them so stacked?


And even if the 81 Celts would lose to the Bulls in 97 or 98 (which very could happen), it doesn't mean that the Jazz without a doubt were better than the 81 Celts or 81 76ers. I can ask that same thing in saying do you think the Jazz could beat the 84 Lakers or an 85 76ers? Could the Bulls of 97-98 beat the 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics even?
The Bulls wouldve stomped a mudhole in the 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics.


Bottom line is that just because they lost to the Bulls in 97-98, it doesn't mean that they were better than other teams. Hell, the Indiana Pacers gave the Bulls more of a fight in 98, and pushed it to seven games. It doesn't mean the Pacers>Jazz. But the talent and the teamplay that the top tier teams that the 80s had (especially in the east), it makes it difficult to say whatever or not the Jazz would even make it to the Finals.
lol talent? The Rockets were a SIXTH SEED AT 40-42. SIXTH!!!!!!!. The eighth seed won 37 games. Come on.

The next time it comes up, think about how 86 Celtics and 87 Laker fans argue about who was better. Neither believe the other played or beat an alltime great team enroute to the title. The Celtics fan say the lakers beat an injured Celtic team with Mchales injured foot and Walton breaking down. And noone believes the 86 Rockets were great. Celtic fans also routinely bring up how bad thhe west was in the 80s. Sixer fans say the Lakers couldnt beat them with Malone, the Laker fans say the sixer won because key player from the lakers were injured. None of them played each other at their best.

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

1st of all He Keeps Overrating the 90s Bulls and the 90s Jazz. The 1988 Jazz had they had Hornacek could have Made the Finals. The Late 80s Jazz > Late 90s Jazz. The Problem was That They Had To Face Way More Stacked Teams in the Golden 80s.

2nd Place...He Should Listen to Barkley in Regards of McHale. The Toughest Post Player to Guard in the 80s and PF that Could Cover SFs with his 6`10 frame and a 8 ft Wingspam. McHale was Onstoppable in Terms of Shot Made/Missed after Barkley the Most Dominant Offensive PF Ever.
The Bulls own the best (72 wins) second best (69 wins) and fourth best (67 wins) record in NBA history. They won 62 games with Pippen missing half the season in 98. Theres no doubt that with a healthy Pippen, they win at least 68 games. They won 55 games without Jordan. They have five hofers on their team. Six when Kukoc gets in. Theyre far from overrated.


Barkley was a shitty defender. So what he says about defense is worthless


The late 90s Jazz were better. Lets compare the 97-98 Jazz with thethe 88 team that took the showtime Lakers to seven games. They didnt have the shotblocker in Mark Eaton. But he was atorcious offensively. Ostertag was better around the basket. And a good defender. They didnt have the scorer in Bailey but Carr could score and provided more defense and toughness. And dont underestimate them replacing Layden with Sloan.

[Micku]

The core of that team won three championships. Straight.

Perhaps the Jazz were better than you give them credit for. Unfortunately for them, after the Lakers, they faced the Bulls


Stacked? The Lakers had four Allstars in 98. Won 61 games, and were one season away from winning their first of three championships.

The core of Shaq and Kobe you mean? They had to trade Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Campbell and change the coach. They didn't go to the Finals in 99, 98, or 97. They got swept in 98 and 99. The only beat the Jazz in one game in 97. And you are comparing them to a 76ers who went to the finals in 80 and 82 prior to getting Moses. And they played against the Celtics to seven games in both 81 and 82. And you see no difference in the situation between them?

And after 98, they got rid their two all stars when they won the championship in 2000. But they weren't ready in 99.



No. The difference is I know the teams mentioned werent in a gym playing by themselves. The only difference between. The Jazz and the Rockets, and Sixers pre 83. Is the Jazz were beaten by a better team. I see no reason why a Malone/Stockton led Jazz, couldnt beat a team Rocket team led by Moses Malone/and Calvin Murphy, and a Sixer team led by Dr J.

What made the Rockets and Sixers stacked? They both had one player playing at a hall of fame level. Calvin Murphy wasnt the same player he was during his prime. What makes them so stacked?

The Bulls wouldve stomped a mudhole in the 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics.

lol talent? The Rockets were a SIXTH SEED AT 40-42. SIXTH!!!!!!!. The eighth seed won 37 games. Come on


You really think the Bulls would've stomped a mudhole in the 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics? When they are probably better than all the teams the Bulls ever beat in the 90s?

And that same Rockets did beat the showtime Lakers and reached all the way to the Finals. Granted, they did first rounds differently back then. The best out of three. If we would've kept the system and place it in 98, then the Jazz wouldn't make it to the Finals in 98. They would've lost in the first round to the Rockets ironically enough. And the Rockets in the first round gave them more trouble than the Lakers did in 98.

And I can see the Jazz losing to the Sixers if the Sixers gave the Celtics trouble with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones and Darryl Dawkins. They could win, but it's very doubtful to me they could win three championship. They might not even win one. When do you think the Jazz would win? If we disregard the Celtics of the East, they would have to go against the 76ers and Bucks. In the Finals they would have to face Lakers or the Rockets? And if we regard them, do you think they could beat the Celtics of 81?

[Legends66NBA7]

Just like the Bulls played in a watered down expansion era in the 90's. Sad

And still beat:

1993 Knicks
1993 Suns
1996 Magic
1996 Sonics
1997 Heat
1997 Jazz
1998 Jazz

All teams that won over 60 games. The 93 playoffs, the Bulls beat the Knicks (#1 ranked defense) and Suns (#1 ranked offense). They also beat 2 other 60+ wins teams in their playoff runs a grand total of 3 times.

You can bring up expansion all you want, but there is no other NBA dynasty that did that with such consistency.


The Bulls own the best (72 wins) second best (69 wins) and fourth best (67 wins) record in NBA history. They won 62 games with Pippen missing half the season in 98. Theres no doubt that with a healthy Pippen, they win at least 68 games. They won 55 games without Jordan. They have five hofers on their team. Six when Kukoc gets in. Theyre far from overrated.

Bold is truth. 95-98 Bulls were scary talented.

[97 bulls]

The core of Shaq and Kobe you mean? They had to trade Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Campbell and change the coach. They didn't go to the Finals in 99, 98, or 97. They got swept in 98 and 99. The only beat the Jazz in one game in 97. And you are comparing them to a 76ers who went to the finals in 80 and 82 prior to getting Moses. And they played against the Celtics to seven games in both 81 and 82. And you see no difference in the situation between them?
No. I dont. Series play out differently. The Lakers were a great team. So were the Jazz. Why penalize the Jazz for sweeping a team with four allstars, that would eventually win three championships? And when I say core, I mean Shaq, Kobe, Fox, Horry, and Fisher. They all were on that 98 team. They didnt make the finals because the Jazz beat them.
And after 98, they got rid their two all stars when they won the championship in 2000. But they weren't ready in 99.
Neither were the Sixers or Rockets. Hell the Rockets couldnt even win half their games.


You really think the Bulls would've stomped a mudhole in the 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics? When they are probably better than all the teams the Bulls ever beat in the 90s?
Yes. I dont follow that 80s is the golden era religion like you do. The Bulls beat some damn good teams in the 90s. The notion that the 80s had the best teams is just a myth


And that same Rockets did beat the showtime Lakers and reached all the way to the Finals. Granted, they did first rounds differently back then. The best out of three. If we would've kept the system and place it in 98, then the Jazz wouldn't make it to the Finals in 98. They would've lost in the first round to the Rockets ironically enough. And the Rockets in the first round gave them more trouble than the Lakers did in 98.

And I can see the Jazz losing to the Sixers if the Sixers gave the Celtics trouble with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones and Darryl Dawkins. They could win, but it's very doubtful to me they could win three championship. They might not even win one. When do you think the Jazz would win? If we disregard the Celtics of the East, they would have to go against the 76ers and Bucks. In the Finals they would have to face Lakers or the Rockets? And if we regard them, do you think they could beat the Celtics of 81?
Im not sure about 84. But I feel they win in 86 and 81.

[97 bulls]

Just like the Bulls played in a watered down expansion era in the 90's. Sad
Perhaps youd like to explain why or how the Bulls were able to win 55 games in 94 without Jordan. Playing the same amount of teams as the 89 Celtics who could barely win half their games without Larry Bird. Now add Jordan, replace Grant with Rodman (upgrade), and an improved Toni Kukoc. Thats why they won so many games.

[Micku]

No. I dont. Series play out differently. The Lakers were a great team. So were the Jazz. Why penalize the Jazz for sweeping a team with four allstars, that would eventually win three championships? And when I say core, I mean Shaq, Kobe, Fox, Horry, and Fisher. They all were on that 98 team. They didnt make the finals because the Jazz beat them.

The Lakers weren't even the same team when they won their first championship in 2000. Those four all stars were down to two. They traded and got rid of a bunch of pieces from 97-98. And they got swept not only by the Jazz, but by the Spurs.


Neither were the Sixers or Rockets. Hell the Rockets couldnt even win half their games.
The Sixers already went the Finals, and had seven games series against the Celts to get there and faced the Lakers. The Lakers couldn't get out of their conference until much later. And it was a different team but kept Shaq and Kobe. The Rockers upset Showtime Lakers, the champions and went on to the Finals to get beat by the Celts. It's a totally different situation and I don't think they are comparable. If anything, they are more comparable to the Jazz for getting over the hump.




Yes. I dont follow that 80s is the golden era religion like you do. The Bulls beat some damn good teams in the 90s. The notion that the 80s had the best teams is just a myth

The Bulls did beat good teams in the 90s. But none of them were the quality of the Celtics or Lakers.

The notion that the 80s having best teams isn't a myth to me. Look at what many ppl consider the best teams of all time. Most of them were in the 80s. And that's not including the runner ups, and those teams were pretty great. Some of the teams that didn't win championships are probably better than all the teams that the Bulls faced.

While I don't think it's impossible for the Bulls to win against the teams like 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics, I don't think it'll be a walk in the park. They are very capable of losing to those teams. You really don't think those teams are better than any of the Bulls teams faced in the 90s?

[1987_Lakers]

I don't really see the early 90's as watered down.

For me the quality of the NBA in the mid 90's - mid 00's wasn't as good as the mid 80's - early 90's. The product wasn't the same.

- Expansion teams arrived
- Less star power compared to the late 80's - early 90's
- Less talented teams were making the Finals out of the West in the mid-late 90's

Those Seattle & Utah teams from '96 & '97 could only dream of winning 64 games in today's era and no way the Bulls sniff 70+ wins in 2013.

[Round Mound]

97 Bulls...Your Fanship Blinds You.

*What does Barkley have to do with the Thread? You Mentioned him not me.

The 90s Where Watered Down Compared to the 80s Big Time. Fact!

The Record by the Bulls in 95-96 is Just a Record. They Would Have Gotten Destroyed by the 85 and 87s Lakers, 86s Celtics and the 83 Sixers.

So When D-rob Scored 73 Made Him the Better Scorer than MJ, Malone, Barkley and Hakeem? NAA :no:

[KG215]

Not going to lie, I haven't read all of these posts, but why does 97 Bulls keep referring to the '98 Lakers as the same team that 3-peated?

In '97 Kobe was an 18 year old rookie who wasn't even kidna sorta close to what he would be during the 3-peat and Shaq still wasn't quite at his peak yet, either. The only other core 3-peat players on the '97 team was a rookie Fisher who barely played and Robert Horry. In '98 they added one more core player or the 3-peat teams in Rick Fox.

Mainly, though, they weren't the same teams in '97 and '98 because Kobe wasn't even close to what he would be become for the 3-peat.

[TheBigVeto]

No point arguing with 97bulls. In his mind, the 86 Celtics is the same as a team of Division 2 college players. Move on, ignore this agenda driven clown.

[97 bulls]

The Lakers weren't even the same team when they won their first championship in 2000. Those four all stars were down to two. They traded and got rid of a bunch of pieces from 97-98. And they got swept not only by the Jazz, but by the Spurs.
Neither were the Sixers. But that doesnt stop people from acting as if the Celtics beat the 83 Sixers or 87 Lakers every playoff every year. Thats what you seem to not care to acknowledge

The Sixers already went the Finals, and had seven games series against the Celts to get there and faced the Lakers. The Lakers couldn't get out of their conference until much later. And it was a different team but kept Shaq and Kobe. The Rockers upset Showtime Lakers, the champions and went on to the Finals to get beat by the Celts. It's a totally different situation and I don't think they are comparable. If anything, they are more comparable to the Jazz for getting over the hump.
Why is it a foregone conclusion that the Sixers are better than the Jazz just because they made it to two finals? The Lakers wouldve made it to the finals in 98 had the Jazz not been there. In fact, the Lakers were favored to beat the Jazz.




The Bulls did beat good teams in the 90s. But none of them were the quality of the Celtics or Lakers.
And how often did the Lakers or Celtics beat a team on the same caliber as the Bulls? If you listen to their fans, they beat inferior versions of each other best teams. Or in the lakers case, lost to teams they had no business losing to.


The notion that the 80s having best teams isn't a myth to me. Look at what many ppl consider the best teams of all time. Most of them were in the 80s. And that's not including the runner ups, and those teams were pretty great. Some of the teams that didn't win championships are probably better than all the teams that the Bulls faced.
How many alltime great teams did the 83 Sixers, 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers beat?


While I don't think it's impossible for the Bulls to win against the teams like 84 Lakers or 85 Celtics, I don't think it'll be a walk in the park. They are very capable of losing to those teams. You really don't think those teams are better than any of the Bulls teams faced in the 90s?
Sure they were. But I do feel the 96 Magic, the 96 Sonics, 97 Jazz, and 97 Heat, 98 Pacers, and the 92 Blazers were more than capable of beating any team weve seen in the League. Definately the teams thhe Celtis faced in 81 and 86.

[Legends66NBA7]

Those Seattle & Utah teams from '96 & '97 could only dream of winning 64 games in today's era and no way the Bulls sniff 70+ wins in 2013.

What does this have to do with what the Bulls accomplished ?

And I disagree, the rule changes of today gives the Bulls wings (specifically Jordan and Pippen) much more advantages on offense (though defensively, wouldn't be the same, but they were a great defensive team regardless). Which Bulls teams are you referring to by the way ? The ones from 91-93 or 96-98 ?

Each one of them would be the favourite today, if healthy.

[97 bulls]

Not going to lie, I haven't read all of these posts, but why does 97 Bulls keep referring to the '98 Lakers as the same team that 3-peated?

In '97 Kobe was an 18 year old rookie who wasn't even kidna sorta close to what he would be during the 3-peat and Shaq still wasn't quite at his peak yet, either. The only other core 3-peat players on the '97 team was a rookie Fisher who barely played and Robert Horry. In '98 they added one more core player or the 3-peat teams in Rick Fox.

Mainly, though, they weren't the same teams in '97 and '98 because Kobe wasn't even close to what he would be become for the 3-peat.
At least you qualified this post by saying you havnt gone through all the post. And avoid making a false claim. My point is why do people act as if the 81 Sixers were the same team as the 83 Sixers? They didnt have Moses Malone. Mo Cheeks Was a second year player. They were good enough to make it to two finals, losing both like the Jazz. What makes them better?

Trying to say the Sixers were better than the Jazz because they eventually won a title without acknowledging the aquisition of Malone, is no different then qualifying the Jazz sweeping the Lakers who had the same players on their roster that won three championships. And just overlook the fact that the Lakers, while talented, werent ready or good enough.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls...Your Fanship Blinds You.

*What does Barkley have to do with the Thread? You Mentioned him not me.

The 90s Where Watered Down Compared to the 80s Big Time. Fact!

The Record by the Bulls in 95-96 is Just a Record. They Would Have Gotten Destroyed by the 85 and 87s Lakers, 86s Celtics and the 83 Sixers.

So When D-rob Scored 73 Made Him the Better Scorer than MJ, Malone, Barkley and Hakeem? NAA :no:
Like I told 87 Lakers. If the Bulls could win 55 games without Jordan. Playing the same amount of teams as the Celtics of 89 who barely managed to stay above 500. Why is it so farfetched that they win 70 games with the addition of the greatest player ever, an upgrade over Grant in Rodman, another upgrade when Ron Harper replaced Armstrong, and an improved Toni Kukoc?

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls...Your Fanship Blinds You.

*What does Barkley have to do with the Thread? You Mentioned him not me.

The 90s Where Watered Down Compared to the 80s Big Time. Fact!

The Record by the Bulls in 95-96 is Just a Record. They Would Have Gotten Destroyed by the 85 and 87s Lakers, 86s Celtics and the 83 Sixers.

So When D-rob Scored 73 Made Him the Better Scorer than MJ, Malone, Barkley and Hakeem? NAA :no:
No you brought up Barkley when you quoted Barkley saying Mchale was hard to guard. In an effort to put Mchale over Malone.

[97 bulls]

No point arguing with 97bulls. In his mind, the 86 Celtics is the same as a team of Division 2 college players. Move on, ignore this agenda driven clown.
I normally dont respond to these kinds of post. But I will this time. We all have a bias and an agenda. That what a fan is. Anyone thats says they dont is a liar.

[Micku]

At least you qualified this post by saying you havnt gone through all the post. And avoid making a false claim. My point is why do people act as if the 81 Sixers were the same team as the 83 Sixers? They didnt have Moses Malone. Mo Cheeks Was a second year player. They were good enough to make it to two finals, losing both like the Jazz. What makes them better?

Trying to say the Sixers were better than the Jazz because they eventually won a title without acknowledging the aquisition of Malone, is no different then qualifying the Jazz sweeping the Lakers who had the same players on their roster that won three championships. And just overlook the fact that the Lakers, while talented, werent ready or good enough.

You were/are comparing them to the Lakers of 90s, who lost to the Jazz and didn't get out of their conference unlike the 76ers who went to the Finals already. And the Lakers did not have the same. They didn't have Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, or Campbell. Their starting five was different and the way they played the game was different.

While the Jazz did beat the Lakers in 98 and 97, it's still no guarantee that they will beat the 76ers of 81. Whose to say if they are even better than the Celtics of 81. Let alone win three championship in 81-86. You said that you think they would win in 81 and 86. Maybe 84. I just disagree.

[pauk]

Would anyone here rate McHale higher than Karl Malone?

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/no%20no%20no/grand/no-no-no-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-995.gif

[97 bulls]

You were/are comparing them to the Lakers of 90s, who lost to the Jazz and didn't get out of their conference unlike the 76ers who went to the Finals already. And the Lakers did not have the same. They didn't have Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, or Campbell. Their starting five was different and the way they played the game was different.
Were Shaq, Kobe, Fisher, Horry, and Fox on the 98 team?
While the Jazz did beat the Lakers in 98 and 97, it's still no guarantee that they will beat the 76ers of 81. Whose to say if they are even better than the Celtics of 81. Let alone win three championship in 81-86. You said that you think they would win in 81 and 86. Maybe 84. I just disagree.
None of this can be proven. Its all opinion. We will never know.

[97 bulls]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/no%20no%20no/grand/no-no-no-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-995.gif
Lol funny

[Kblaze8855]

Those three teams, never played each other at their best. Ive gone through this before. For whatever reason, youre not picking it up.

When you call them their best when they won it all how could they all be their best at once?



When the Celtics played the Sixers in 81, they didnt have Moses Malone. The 83 sixers best player.

The Celtics never played the Sixers in the Playoffs with what he consider their alltime great roster.



The Celtics played the 76ers with Moses, Doc, Barkley, Toney, Bobby Jones, and Cheeks. They won.

That the 76ers didnt win it allthat year doesnt mean it wasnt a great team. It means the celtics were one of the best teams ever....and two teams cant win the same series.



When the Jazz beat the 61 win Lakers in 98 with Shaq, Bryant, fisher, Horry, Fox and co. Its dismissed as the Lakers not being ready. For goodness sake tell me whats the difference?

Being quite sure nobody on this planet but you fails to see the difference...and if you cant see it you arent a reasonable person to begin with....why would I bother?



Other than the Jazz ended up losing in the finals to arguably the greatest team ever, and the Celtics were fortunate enough to play and beat a team that lost more games than they won in the regular season.

The Jazz lost to someone 19 years in a row and for about 10 of them had the same core and several that they didnt...they had a similar core with better role players. The Jazz did nothing....ever...to suggest they would even make the finals in the early 80s. They beat nobody on the level of the Celtics or Lakers then....and probably not Philly either.



You gonna tell me the 81 Celtics were good enough to beat the 98 Bulls? A team that won 62 games with their second best player (Pippen) missing half the season.


The 98 Pacers were good enough to win. They had a lead in game 7 and fell apart. The 81 Celtics were quite a bit better than them.

The Jazz were a team that fell short when it counted every year for 2 decades. Assuming they win 3 rings when they couldnt get by a gang of teams nobody cares about is just ****ing stupid.

That or uninformed. Im thinking the second because a number of things you have said are just factually incorrect which make me think that not only do you not remember the teams in question you dont even look into the things you say. Like them losing to finals teams almost every season.....as if losing to non finals teams at least 8 times is anything close to that.

You pretty much seem to be talking out your ass.

[Round Mound]

No you brought up Barkley when you quoted Barkley saying Mchale was hard to guard. In an effort to put Mchale over Malone.

It was with the Intention to premote McHale as a Player that Gets Underrated Here by Kiddos Like You Who Never Watched the 80s. I Never Mentioned Barkley as a Topic Here in This Thread. Put McHale over Malone? :roll: When Did I Say McHale was Better? Malone as a Total Player was Better.

[TheBigVeto]

I normally dont respond to these kinds of post. But I will this time. We all have a bias and an agenda. That what a fan is. Anyone thats says they dont is a liar.

Let's ignore this clown folks.

[Knicksfever2010]

mchale couldnt have put up the numbers malone did. Malone was a the #1 option. mchale had a fistful of hall of famers on his team. If you put Bird/Parish on Malones team, NO WAY is malone scoring 25+ points a game.

[Micku]

Were Shaq, Kobe, Fisher, Horry, and Fox on the 98 team?


Yes, but they were. But it doesn't mean they were the same team. Horry and Fisher were there in 96-97. They constantly change their starting line up, and Kobe eventually went to the starting line up in the 98-99 season. The team was differently in 2000, and changed their second/third/fourth option.

Point is, they didn't get out of the conference for three years with Shaq and the gang. They didn't even make the series competitive against the teams that beat them. It's the opposite with the 76ers, which was back and forward with the Celtics, a constant top tier team, and sometimes a full seven game series. The Lakers couldn't get pass their conference. The 76ers did. So why even compare them when the Lakers would get swept in their own conference?



None of this can be proven. Its all opinion. We will never know.


This is true. We could back up our opinions with different things. Like I would gamble on Mchale in his peak to see what he could do being the number 1 option.

[1987_Lakers]

It was with the Intention to premote McHale as a Player that Gets Underrated Here by Kiddos Like You Who Never Watched the 80s..

People here don't realize how much of a defensive beast McHale was at his peak. Before Hakeem & Ewing settled in defensively, McHale was the best defensive big man in the league.

[greymatter]

People here don't realize how much of a defensive beast McHale was at his peak. Before Hakeem & Ewing settled in defensively, McHale was the best defensive big man in the league.

Just looking at old pictures of McHale, he had high shoulders and a short neck relative to his proportions. His listed height was 6'10" and he had an estimated 8' wingspan. Given that, I'd say he easily played like a guy 7'2-7'3". Never remembered him being much of a leaper. Hardly ever saw him get off the ground. Got about as much air under him as Dirk, maybe even less. Could only imagine what kind of defensive beast he could have been if he had just average leaping ability.

[Round Mound]

People here don't realize how much of a defensive beast McHale was at his peak. Before Hakeem & Ewing settled in defensively, McHale was the best defensive big man in the league.

McHale was a Better Post Player and Defender than Malone. Atleast We All Have To Admit To That.

[G-train]

McHale was a Better Post Player and Defender than Malone. Atleast We All Have To Admit To That.

We all have to admit the answer to thread title is NO unless you are stupid.

:confusedshrug:

[1987_Lakers]

We all have to admit the answer to thread title is NO unless you are stupid.

:confusedshrug:

Who here has said McHale ranks higher than Malone in an all-time list?:oldlol:

[G-train]

Who here has said McHale ranks higher than Malone in an all-time list?:oldlol:

Who here claimed that they did? :oldlol:

I simply answered OP.

[1987_Lakers]

Who here claimed that they did? :oldlol:

I simply answered OP.

idk, that post seemed very butt hurt.

[G-train]

It was a direct post.
This thread is full of garbage, fantasy, guessing and nit picking.
The simply answer is no. There is no debate. Any conversation following that is simply trolling by people who love McHale and hate Malone, or is off topic. And the reason for preference is not always about said players basketball ability.

[1987_Lakers]

It was a direct post.
This thread is full of garbage, fantasy, guessing and nit picking.
The simply answer is no. There is no debate. Any conversation following that is simply trolling by people who love McHale and hate Malone, or is off topic. And the reason for preference is not always about said players basketball ability.

How dare posters prefer a player (at their peaks) who is a better post scorer, defender, & playoff performer over a proven choker.

[Round Mound]

Look McHale Wasn`t Better as a Total Player than Malone but He Did Have 3 Skills That Where Better at than Malone: Low Post Game, Interior Defense/Shot Blocking and FT Shooting. Malone was a Better Rebounder, Passer, Finisher, Rim Attacker, Floor Defender and Stealer. More Versatile but If You Need a Dominant Post Scorer Who Can Defend SFs and PFs...Then You Gotta Go With McHale.

[G-train]

How dare posters prefer a player (at their peaks) who is a better post scorer, defender, & playoff performer over a proven choker.

As I said, haters are gonna hate.

Malone being labelled a choker is so absurd, you are either hating or have no idea what you are talking about.

By the way, McHale had more low post moves. Malone still dropped 40,000 points from the high post and in, and was also an excellent defender, just not in the air as McHale was.

Its a BS thread, driven by hate of a personality (and probably racism). This thread is no better than the trolls hating on Kobe or Lebron.

McHale at his absolute peak play over 2-3 seasons, did not play as good as Malone did over 14 of his season, which included 11 straight All NBA at the power forward position.
So why dont posters acknowledge his absolute greatness on court and put to bed this petty comparison by nit picking with peaks and other garbage.

[1987_Lakers]

As I said, haters are gonna hate.

Malone being labelled a choker is so absurd, you are either hating or have no idea what you are talking about.

It's well known by the basketball world that Malone was a choker. I'm going by facts, Malone choked 4 years in a row ('96-'99)

As Scottie Pippen said "Mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays".

[Im Still Ballin]

Some great insights ITT.

[kawhileonard2]

Malone beat Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq in the same playoffs.

[Full Court]

It's an interesting comparison, and I'm a huge fan of McHale, but I can't put him over Malone when Malone was the alpha on his team and McHale wasn't. Malone is a tier above McHale.

[Full Court]

It's well known by the basketball world that Malone was a choker. I'm going by facts, Malone choked 4 years in a row ('96-'99)

As Scottie Pippen said "Mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays".

Take a guess who the biggest choker in the history of the NBA is.

Hint: it's not Tom Brady. :lol

[1987_Lakers]

Nah, McHale doesn't have the longevity K. Malone has.

But I would take a peak McHale ('86 & '87) over peak Malone.

Made this post over 10 years ago. (It's on the 1st page)

Karl Malone has a huge longevity edge over McHale which is why he is ranked higher.

Longevity matters.

[Im Still Ballin]

Made this post over 10 years ago. (It's on the 1st page)

Karl Malone has a huge longevity edge over McHale which is why he is ranked higher.

Longevity matters.

It's funny to see you and L Kizzle having the exact same argument ten years earlier. Also interesting to see Kblaze's opinion on peak vs peak.

[BigShotBob]

Malone beat Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq in the same playoffs.

McHale as the main option would have gotten shut down by either or any of them. He wasn't an offensive engine like Karl Malone was

[kawhileonard2]

Just curious :confusedshrug:
Mchale wouldn't have betaen Hakeem, Duncan/Robinson, Shaq/Kobe in a series the same year.