Could the Jazz Win 55 Games Without Karl Malone A La the Bulls Without Jordan?

[Roundball_Rock]

Malone was an iron man--in 18 seasons in Utah he never missed more then 2 games--so we have no sample size without him to extrapolate from.

Let's assume a Jordan-like scenario where Malone either retires 3 weeks before the season or is injured in the preseason. In other words, a scenario where the team has no opportunity to find a quality replacement. So it would be the Jazz core plus a scrub PF added to Malone's roster spot.

I can't see them doing anything of note, especially if we are talking the 97' and 98' Jazz teams that people remember from that Malone-Stockton run. They simply wouldn't be able to score with Stockton, Hornacek as their principal scorers. Losing Malone would also weaken their defense considerably and Malone was a better passer than a scrub PF who would replace him.

How many wins? Do they even make the playoffs? If so, what do they do once there?

[HoopsNY]

Malone was an iron man--in 18 seasons in Utah he never missed more then 2 games--so we have no sample size without him to extrapolate from.

Let's assume a Jordan-like scenario where Malone either retires 3 weeks before the season or is injured in the preseason. In other words, a scenario where the team has no opportunity to find a quality replacement. So it would be the Jazz core plus a scrub PF added to Malone's roster spot.

I can't see them doing anything of note, especially if we are talking the 97' and 98' Jazz teams that people remember from that Malone-Stockton run. They simply wouldn't be able to score with Stockton, Hornacek as their principal scorers. Losing Malone would also weaken their defense considerably and Malone was a better passer than a scrub PF who would replace him.

How many wins? Do they even make the playoffs? If so, what do they do once there?

You're so desperate. :lol Let me preface this by saying I agree with you. Of course that will be lost on deaf ears since I'm always accused of saying things I don't say.

Having said that, it's not an apples to apples comparison. For one, you would have to look at the 1992-93 team and see if they would win the same or more games. That team had a prime Stockton putting up 15/12 on 49%, and Jeff Malone who could at least score.

In Malone's final season with Utah, he averaged 21/8/5/2 on 46%. They won 47 games that year. The following season with no Malone they won 42 games. So who knows, really.

As usual, these arguments, while they are valid, are weighed too heavily.

[Roundball_Rock]

In his final season in Utah he was 39. We are talking prime Malone when the Jazz were contenders. What they did after a 39 year old Malone doesn't tell us much about the impact of MVP caliber Malone. That is like bringing up the Lakers after 41 year old KAJ left.


For one, you would have to look at the 1992-93 team and see if they would win the same or more games. That team had a prime Stockton putting up 15/12 on 49%, and Jeff Malone who could at least score.

That team won 47 games with 82 games of prime Karl Malone and got bounced in the first round...55 wins would be an appreciable improvement over 47 wins. K. Malone, Stockton, J. Malone all played full seasons so the win total wasn't deflated by key injuries (like the 94' Bulls' was--a healthy 94' Bulls team would be around 60).

[HoopsNY]

This argument is flawed because it weighs more heavily on the fact that Chicago won 57 games the previous year. Those who were around that time know that the Bulls underachieved that season for a number of reasons.

MJ's off the court issues and the gambling scandal was a big issue. In addition, Scottie Pippen played hurt that year coming back from the Olympics where he didn't get to rest. He played with that injury right through the season and into the finals.

Chicago was a 67 win team just the year prior, and more than likely would have won more games if not for these issues like the scandals with MJ, Pippen's injuries, Cartwright's injury woes, and MJ battling wrist injuries.

Furthermore, we saw the Thunder win 47 games when they lost KD in a Western Conference that was stronger than the East in 1993-94.

We also saw the Sixers win 55 games without Wilt (down from 62 the previous year), but they added Imhoff and Clark in the trade for Wilt.

Here is the problem with that, though. Imhoff and Clark put up 22 PPG combined on 47% in an era where the league pace was near 117.

Myers/Kukoc in comparison gave 19 PPG on 44-45% in an era where the league pace was 95.

This is why this argument can't be taken THAT seriously despite it having some credence.

[HoopsNY]

In his final season in Utah he was 39. We are talking prime Malone when the Jazz were contenders. What they did after a 39 year old Malone doesn't tell us much about the impact of MVP caliber Malone. That is like bringing up the Lakers after 41 year old KAJ left.



That team won 47 games with 82 games of prime Karl Malone and got bounced in the first round...55 wins would be an appreciable improvement over 47 wins. K. Malone, Stockton, J. Malone all played full seasons so the win total wasn't deflated by key injuries (like the 94' Bulls' was--a healthy 94' Bulls team would be around 60).

The point here is to emphasize that Malone was still an excellent player and losing him didn't diminish drastically from the team's success. It should be noted that that was also Stockton's last season. So the Jazz lost Malone and Stockton and still managed 42 wins.

Make what you want of it, but obviously there is context to this discussion. Simply doing a plug and play of the 1993-94 season isn't reasonable. You have to factor in that Chicago underachieved the previous year, the fact that Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong all hit their peaks, and while Myers wasn't a suitable replacement, the Bulls made some other additions that contributed to their team's success.

[Xiao Yao You]

In his final season in Utah he was 39. We are talking prime Malone when the Jazz were contenders. What they did after a 39 year old Malone doesn't tell us much about the impact of MVP caliber Malone. That is like bringing up the Lakers after 41 year old KAJ left.



That team won 47 games with 82 games of prime Karl Malone and got bounced in the first round...55 wins would be an appreciable improvement over 47 wins. K. Malone, Stockton, J. Malone all played full seasons so the win total wasn't deflated by key injuries (like the 94' Bulls' was--a healthy 94' Bulls team would be around 60).

Kareem was a role player at 41. Malone was still helping lead a team to the playoffs at 39.

Jeff Malone sucked. let's keep him out of this!

[HoopsNY]

Kareem was a role player at 41. Malone was still helping lead a team to the playoffs at 39.

Jeff Malone sucked. let's keep him out of this!

Exactly.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kareem was a role player at 41. Malone was still helping lead a team to the playoffs at 39.

True, but he was not an all-star in 03'--the first time he wasn't since 87'. His last all-NBA season was 01', his last all-NBA first team season was 99'. Malone in 03' wasn't the Malone we remember. Also, Stockton retired too after that year. So they lost both Malone and Stockton. Moreover, the core of the 03' team bears no resemblance to the 90's Jazz teams we remember, outside of Malone and Stockton.

For these reasons what happened in 03' versus 04' tells us nothing about what would happen if Malone wasn't there in 94' or 98'.

At any rate, the Jazz lost Malone & Stockton and went from 47 wins to 42 (although they missed the playoffs). Are we supposed to extrapolate from that the Jazz could lose both in the 90's and falloff only 5 games? Obviously not. We did see them without Stockton for 18 games in 98' and there was a diminution in their performance and Malone was much better than Stockton and his skill set tougher to replace than Stockton's so there would be a much larger falloff minus Malone.

[Xiao Yao You]

True, but he was not an all-star in 03'--the first time he wasn't since 87'. His last all-NBA season was 01', his last all-NBA first team season was 99'. Malone in 03' wasn't the Malone we remember. Also, Stockton retired too after that year. So they lost both Malone and Stockton. Moreover, the core of the 03' team bears no resemblance to the 90's Jazz teams we remember, outside of Malone and Stockton.

For these reasons what happened in 03' versus 04' tells us nothing about what would happen if Malone wasn't there in 94' or 98'.

At any rate, the Jazz lost Malone & Stockton and went from 47 wins to 42 (although they missed the playoffs). Are we supposed to extrapolate from that the Jazz could lose both in the 90's and falloff only 5 games? Obviously not. We did see them without Stockton for 18 games in 98' and there was a diminution in their performance and Malone was much better than Stockton and his skill set tougher to replace than Stockton's so there would be a much larger falloff minus Malone.

the core was pretty much the same. A bunch of role players around the two greats. Kirilenko was arguably better than Malone the following year. Only Gobert has been able to carry a Jazz team like he did that year. Probably Sloan's best job as well. He actually changed up the offense based on the players he had instead of trying to make them fit into what he had always done

[HoopsNY]

True, but he was not an all-star in 03'--the first time he wasn't since 87'. His last all-NBA season was 01', his last all-NBA first team season was 99'. Malone in 03' wasn't the Malone we remember. Also, Stockton retired too after that year. So they lost both Malone and Stockton. Moreover, the core of the 03' team bears no resemblance to the 90's Jazz teams we remember, outside of Malone and Stockton.

For these reasons what happened in 03' versus 04' tells us nothing about what would happen if Malone wasn't there in 94' or 98'.

At any rate, the Jazz lost Malone & Stockton and went from 47 wins to 42 (although they missed the playoffs). Are we supposed to extrapolate from that the Jazz could lose both in the 90's and falloff only 5 games? Obviously not. We did see them without Stockton for 18 games in 98' and there was a diminution in their performance and Malone was much better than Stockton and his skill set tougher to replace than Stockton's so there would be a much larger falloff minus Malone.

Yea I mean, you're probably right. But the point still stands about the Sixers, Thunder, and heck, look at the Raptors of this year after losing Kawhi.

The discussion is based on the premise that this has never happened nor will ever happen. It's obviously not true. And I don't believe it adds or takes away from any of the all time greats (Wilt, KD, MJ, Kawhi).

[Roundball_Rock]

So would you expect the same type of outcome if Malone and Stockton bounced in 1993 instead of 2003? I just don't see it. They had no one of the caliber of AK back then. Their #1 would be Hornacek or J. Malone (depending on what year we are talking about).

[LonelyOwl]

Imagine Jeff Hornacek being the focal point of your offense :oldlol:

Utah would struggle to reach 80 points a game :lol

[Xiao Yao You]

Imagine Jeff Hornacek being the focal point of your offense :oldlol:

Utah would struggle to reach 80 points a game :lol

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01/gamelog/1992/

Suns did alright.

Horny was a lot better offensive player than Pippen

[TheGoatest]

Remember now, the Bulls won that many games because Jordan left a "winning culture" in Chicago. :oldlol:

That's why everyone is shytting on Tom Brady these days for not leaving a "winning culture" in New England. :roll:

[HoopsNY]

So would you expect the same type of outcome if Malone and Stockton bounced in 1993 instead of 2003? I just don't see it. They had no one of the caliber of AK back then. Their #1 would be Hornacek or J. Malone (depending on what year we are talking about).

Of course not. I guess my point is that team dynamics don't work with plug and plays (i.e, insert/delete player and voila, you have this amount of wins). In some cases it happens, in others it doesn't. It's too fragile an argument, even though it holds some weight.

Bird played 45 games in his last season and his team was 31-14 (57 game win pace). The team went 20-17 without him. But the very next season without Bird, they won 48 games and made the playoffs. So now what?

Yes, Chicago had a great team. They had some of the best teams and there is a reason a dynasty is a dynasty. Dynasties are made up of great players.

But I also think Chicago winning 55 games is overblown, especially when you consider peak play of their core and the fact that they underachieved from the previous season.

[HoopsNY]

Imagine Jeff Hornacek being the focal point of your offense :oldlol:

Utah would struggle to reach 80 points a game :lol

This is the ignorance that people like yourself love to display. Hornacek peaked at 20 PPG on 50% with Phoenix. You obviously didn't watch him play in the early 90s.

Between 89'-93', Hornacek was basically 18/4/5 on 50% (58% TS). He joined a Utah team that ran a system. It doesn't mean he was incapable of scoring. When he joined Utah, he saw his his FGA drop. That alone wasn't indicative of his abilities.

[Roundball_Rock]

Horny was a lot better offensive player than Pippen

:facepalm

Krause tried to trade for Hornacek in 94' for Hornacek to be the second option to Pippen but bizarrely didn't want to give up a draft pick (a low pick--Bulls in 1st place in the East at that break) for your "a lot better than Pippen". At the time, Pippen was 8th in scoring (Hornacek's career high was 20th) and a MVP candidate on a contender. Hornacek was putting up 16.6 PPG on a a bottom feeder before being traded to Utah, not Chicago.

Anyway, this is what happens if Jeff Hornacek is your best player (Johnson was the Sun's best player and the centerpiece of the offense, even if Hornacek scored 1 more point than him in one season): https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1993.html#all_per_game
.

23rd in offense and 26-56 overall--and this is with Hersey Hawkins and Clarence Weatherspoon, both better 2nd/3rd options as scorers than anything Utah would have around Hornacek. They sucked in the one season he was the #1; in 94' he was down to the #2 option. NBA legend Weatherspoon surpassed him as the #1 option (Hawkins departed).

It is interesting you say J. Malone sucked and then hype Hornacek. We can compare their numbers on two teams the same year. Malone scored more, Hornacek dished out more assists. Basically similar caliber players. Malone made 2 all-star teams, Hornacek 1.

It is funny. Krause thought Pippen was nearly as good as MJ but on ISH Hornacek>Pippen, the WOAT.

[HoopsNY]

:facepalm Yes, because Pippen "sucked."

Krause tried to trade for Hornacek in 94' for Hornacek to be the second option to Pippen but bizarrely didn't want to give up a draft pick (a low pick--Bulls in 1st place in the East at that break) for your "a lot better than Pippen". At the time, Pippen was 8th in scoring and a MVP candidate on a contender. Hornacek was putting up 16.6 PPG on a a bottom feeder before being traded to Utah, not Chicago.

Anyway, this is what happens if Jeff Hornacek is your best player (Johnson was the Sun's best player and the centerpiece of the offense, even if Hornacek scored 1 more point than him): https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1993.html#all_per_game
.

23rd in offense and this is with Hersey Hawkins and Clarence Weatherspoon, both better 2nd/3rd options as scorers than anything Utah would have around Hornacek.

Good point. I concede.

[Smoke117]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01/gamelog/1992/

Suns did alright.

Horny was a lot better offensive player than Pippen

lol No he wasn't. He was a better shooter (obviously) and that's about it. Besides, Pippen actually made others around him better on the offensive end. Hornacek wasn't capable of that. Also, Hornacek on the Jazz was half of what he was in 92.

[HoopsNY]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01/gamelog/1992/

Suns did alright.

Horny was a lot better offensive player than Pippen

He was a better shooter, but that was about it. Pippen was the superior interior player, playmaker, passer, and transition player.

[Roundball_Rock]

lol No he wasn't. He was a better shooter (obviously) and that's about it. Besides, Pippen actually made others around him better on the offensive end. Hornacek wasn't capable of that. Also, Hornacek on the Jazz was half of what he was in 92.

Yup. Look no further than the 93' Sixers, the one year Hornacek was the #1 option on a team. The guy was surpassed by Clarence Weatherspoon for the #1 spot the next year and we are hearing he was "a lot better" than Pippen offensively. I suppose that means Pippen would be the #3 option on the 20-25 win 94' Sixers then, right? :lol

Pippen and Hornacek played each other in two finals. Hornacek did nothing in either series.

I can see why he would think that way, though. There is a perpetual crusade to present Pippen as the Ben Wallace of SF's to people who never watched him play. I challenged MJ stans months ago to point to one reputable source calling prime Pippen a one-way player at the time. Still waiting...:oldlol:

[Xiao Yao You]

:facepalm

Krause tried to trade for Hornacek in 94' for Hornacek to be the second option to Pippen but bizarrely didn't want to give up a draft pick (a low pick--Bulls in 1st place in the East at that break) for your "a lot better than Pippen". At the time, Pippen was 8th in scoring (Hornacek's career high was 20th) and a MVP candidate on a contender. Hornacek was putting up 16.6 PPG on a a bottom feeder before being traded to Utah, not Chicago.

Anyway, this is what happens if Jeff Hornacek is your best player (Johnson was the Sun's best player and the centerpiece of the offense, even if Hornacek scored 1 more point than him in one season): https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1993.html#all_per_game
.

23rd in offense and 26-56 overall--and this is with Hersey Hawkins and Clarence Weatherspoon, both better 2nd/3rd options as scorers than anything Utah would have around Hornacek. They sucked in the one season he was the #1; in 94' he was down to the #2 option. NBA legend Weatherspoon surpassed him as the #1 option (Hawkins departed).

It is interesting you say J. Malone sucked and then hype Hornacek. We can compare their numbers on two teams the same year. Malone scored more, Hornacek dished out more assists. Basically similar caliber players. Malone made 2 all-star teams, Hornacek 1.

It is funny. Krause thought Pippen was nearly as good as MJ but on ISH Hornacek>Pippen, the WOAT.

Better half court player certainly. Pippen was a streaky shooter at best. Horny was a combo guard that could shoot and pass from anywhere. Pippen best in the open court

You can compare Malone and Horny all you want with your numbers and accolades. When they got Jeff Malone he was supposed to give Karl room to work down low. They weren't calling it spacing yet. The problem was his game was between 12-15 feet. I would have been happy if they'd cut Malone and somehow they got Horny for him! :roll: He instantly took them to another level. He was almost like another Stockton on the floor

[Xiao Yao You]

lol No he wasn't. He was a better shooter (obviously) and that's about it. Besides, Pippen actually made others around him better on the offensive end. Hornacek wasn't capable of that. Also, Hornacek on the Jazz was half of what he was in 92.

Hornacek certainly made players around him better. Jazz were a great offensive team and he was a huge part of it

[dankok8]

Honestly I think the late 80's Jazz with prime Stockton, Thurl Bailey and Mark Eaton maybe could. Early 90's possible. Late 90's... no. Malone did too much on that team being the leading scorer, rebounding and defensive anchor. That's why I've always rated him higher than most people.

[Roundball_Rock]

Honestly I think the late 80's Jazz with prime Stockton, Thurl Bailey and Mark Eaton maybe could. Early 90's possible. Late 90's... no. Malone did too much on that team being the leading scorer, rebounding and defensive anchor. That's why I've always rated him higher than most people.

The problem is here are their actual win totals with Malone. Let's start the clock in 88', his first all-star season (Stockton's first AS season was 89').

1988-1999 Jazz win totals: 47, 51, 55, 54, 55, 47, 53, 60, 55, 64, 62, 61 (pro-rated over 82 games).

They never won more than 55 until 95'. If that is what they were doing with full seasons of Karl Malone, why would we think they would manage to do it with 0 games of Malone?


Hornacek certainly made players around him better. Jazz were a great offensive team and he was a huge part of it

Who did he make better? You can't invoke the Jazz being a good offensive team. The Bulls were an all-time great offensive team with Jordan and Pippen and without Jordan were still a good offensive team.

Pippen missed 10 games in 94'. The Bulls had the #21 offense during that span. We don't have the data for the 72 RS games Pippen played, but we have data for the 71 games Pippen, Grant, Kukoc played (61 RS and 10 PO) in 94'. They were the #8 offense during that span--on par with the Jazz or Blazers.

Hornacek could never dream of having that kind of offensive impact--how bad the 93' Sixers were with him as their #1 option and his subsequent demotion behind Clarence freaking Weatherspoon say it all.

As to the Jazz, they were the #4 offense in 92', #7 in 93'. They were #7 again in 94'. Back to #4 in 95'. So they were a good offense with J. Malone, a good offense with Hornacek. It makes sense. They had the #2 all-time leading scorer and two top 30 all-time players.

As to the 94' trade, both offenses improved but the Sixers' offense improved more. The Sixers scored 3 PPG more with J. Malone while the Jazz's improvement was 1 PPG.

Pippen, as a comparison, added 7 PPG to a team with Jordan on it in 98' when he brought his "poor offensive play" to the team (a bigger increase than the Jazz had when Stockton returned the same year).

There is no factual basis to support your belief. Hornacek just doesn't have an online army talking diminishing him each day. He is lucky he didn't get traded to Chicago after all. Can you imagine what would be said if Hornacek was on the 1995-1998 Bulls? :lol

[dankok8]

It would be tough no doubt. I don't see it either. After all Malone is a consensus top 20 all timer and often ranked top 15 so that makes sense.

[Xiao Yao You]

Honestly I think the late 80's Jazz with prime Stockton, Thurl Bailey and Mark Eaton maybe could. Early 90's possible. Late 90's... no. Malone did too much on that team being the leading scorer, rebounding and defensive anchor. That's why I've always rated him higher than most people.

Eaton sucked!

[Xiao Yao You]

The problem is here are their actual win totals with Malone. Let's start the clock in 88', his first all-star season (Stockton's first AS season was 89').

1988-1999 Jazz win totals: 47, 51, 55, 54, 55, 47, 53, 60, 55, 64, 62, 61 (pro-rated over 82 games).

They never won more than 55 until 95'. If that is what they were doing with full seasons of Karl Malone, why would we think they would manage to do it with 0 games of Malone?



Who did he make better? You can't invoke the Jazz being a good offensive team. The Bulls were an all-time great offensive team with Jordan and Pippen and without Jordan were still a good offensive team.

Pippen missed 10 games in 94'. The Bulls had the #21 offense during that span. We don't have the data for the 72 RS games Pippen played, but we have data for the 71 games Pippen, Grant, Kukoc played (61 RS and 10 PO) in 94'. They were the #8 offense during that span--on par with the Jazz or Blazers.

Hornacek could never dream of having that kind of offensive impact--how bad the 93' Sixers were with him as their #1 option and his subsequent demotion behind Clarence freaking Weatherspoon say it all.

As to the Jazz, they were the #4 offense in 92', #7 in 93'. They were #7 again in 94'. Back to #4 in 95'. So they were a good offense with J. Malone, a good offense with Hornacek. It makes sense. They had the #2 all-time leading scorer and two top 30 all-time players.

As to the 94' trade, both offenses improved but the Sixers' offense improved more. The Sixers scored 3 PPG more with J. Malone while the Jazz's improvement was 1 PPG.

Pippen, as a comparison, added 7 PPG to a team with Jordan on it in 98' when he brought his "poor offensive play" to the team (a bigger increase than the Jazz had when Stockton returned the same year).

There is no factual basis to support your belief. Hornacek just doesn't have an online army talking diminishing him each day. He is lucky he didn't get traded to Chicago after all. Can you imagine what would be said if Hornacek was on the 1995-1998 Bulls? :lol

As long as you argue Jeff Malone is comparable to Hornacek I can't take you seriously.

[Roundball_Rock]

Eaton sucked!

:facepalm

[Xiao Yao You]

:facepalm

being big doesn't make you good. Another big reason they got better in the late 90's was they weren't playing 4 on 5 at the offensive end anymore

[Smoke117]

being big doesn't make you good. Another big reason they got better in the late 90's was they weren't playing 4 on 5 at the offensive end anymore

lol Mark Eaton was a beast defensively. The Jazz were first in defense four times in the 80s off of him. It's not his fault the Jazz couldn't get more offensive talent. He was doing his job that's for sure. Jazz might have actually beat the Bulls if they had him instead of that scrub Olden Polynice. lol

[Manny98]

This is the ignorance that people like yourself love to display. Hornacek peaked at 20 PPG on 50% with Phoenix. You obviously didn't watch him play in the early 90s.

Between 89'-93', Hornacek was basically 18/4/5 on 50% (58% TS). He joined a Utah team that ran a system. It doesn't mean he was incapable of scoring. When he joined Utah, he saw his his FGA drop. That alone wasn't indicative of his abilities.
I didn't say he can't score I said he can't be a clear cut first option where the defense is focused on him and expect to win lots of games

Utahs offense would fall completely apart without Malone, we're not talking about prime Hornacek here who could average 20

[Roundball_Rock]

I didn't say he can't score I said he can't be a clear cut first option where the defense is focused on him and expect to win lots of games

Utahs offense would fall completely apart without Malone, we're not talking about prime Hornacek here who could average 20

That's what the evidence suggests. The Sixers sucked when he was the #1 option and that was a better version of Hornacek than what was on the 1996-1998 Jazz teams. Hornacek put up 11 PPG in the 98' finals. He was in single digits in 4 of 6 games, including a 4 point game (Stockton had a 2 point game in the same series). If you take Malone away defenses will key in on Stockton and Hornacek and they already struggled to score.

There are cases where players who become #1 options maintain or increase efficiency but they are exceptions to the rule and happy to be top 10 level players at minimum (e.g., Kobe, Pippen, Westbrook, Harden, Richmond). What are much more common are cases like Penny, Worthy, McHale, Kemp whose efficiency nose-dived as #1's. Hornacek and Stockton weren't in the same class as any of these players as scorers at any point let alone the 97' and 98' versions of them. Hornacek and Stockton would presumably crash and burn even worse, especially if Stockton continued to cherry pick only the easiest of shots (e.g., being open or layups).

[Xiao Yao You]

lol Mark Eaton was a beast defensively. The Jazz were first in defense four times in the 80s off of him. It's not his fault the Jazz couldn't get more offensive talent. He was doing his job that's for sure. Jazz might have actually beat the Bulls if they had him instead of that scrub Olden Polynice. lol

Would have never made it to the finals playing 4 on 5 offensively. Standing with your arms up cluelessly is beasting! :roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

Would have never made it to the finals playing 4 on 5 offensively. Standing with your arms up cluelessly is beasting! :roll:

The Jazz did make it to the finals playing 4 on 5. That is why Pippen was free to roam around because the Bulls had to only guard 4 players at a given time. :lol

The problem with touting Hornacek's offense is what did he do in the NBA finals? He put up 12 the first time and 11 the second time. They won't cut it (to actually win) when Stockton is going 15 and 10 in the same series.

[HoopsNY]

I didn't say he can't score I said he can't be a clear cut first option where the defense is focused on him and expect to win lots of games

Utahs offense would fall completely apart without Malone, we're not talking about prime Hornacek here who could average 20

No you're right about that. I mentioned before that I conceded to that point.

[HoopsNY]

Of course not. I guess my point is that team dynamics don't work with plug and plays (i.e, insert/delete player and voila, you have this amount of wins). In some cases it happens, in others it doesn't. It's too fragile an argument, even though it holds some weight.

Bird played 45 games in his last season and his team was 31-14 (57 game win pace). The team went 20-17 without him. But the very next season without Bird, they won 48 games and made the playoffs. So now what?

Yes, Chicago had a great team. They had some of the best teams and there is a reason a dynasty is a dynasty. Dynasties are made up of great players.

But I also think Chicago winning 55 games is overblown, especially when you consider peak play of their core and the fact that they underachieved from the previous season.

^^^

[dankok8]

1997 and 1998 Jazz are much better teams than people nowadays give them credit. The Stockton-Malone pick and roll had players waking up in the middle of the night screaming in terror. They ran entire teams into the ground. Stockton to Malone could not be defended unless you had multiple dobermans in Jordan and Pippen that could swarm them and switch that the Bulls had. And then they had Rodman to frustrate the shit out of Karl. Ask the Lakers with Shaq, Eddie Jones, Van Exel and young Kobe who got swept and gentleman swept in back to back years by the "puny" Jazz. Guys were tired to even shoot the ball after chasing Stockton around screens for 40 minutes.

[kawhileonard2]

If they 3 pleated they would.

[And1AllDay]

nope, trash bros were hot garabage

[Round Mound]

lol Mark Eaton was a beast defensively. The Jazz were first in defense four times in the 80s off of him. It's not his fault the Jazz couldn't get more offensive talent. He was doing his job that's for sure. Jazz might have actually beat the Bulls if they had him instead of that scrub Olden Polynice. lol

Agree with this. Mark Eaton would have provided rim protection and altering shots when attacking the basket. But one must not forget Thurl Bayly as a an athletic 6'11 ft "James Worthy"-Like SF who could defend and score pretty good. The 1988 Jazz would have taken those Bulls to 7 games atleast. The only problem i saw with the Stockton-Malone Duo is that they where pretty much classic prototypes as PG and PF. They did not have much versatility and less chances to blend more as Multipositional Players ala Bird, Magic, Charles and Scottie. Still till today i've ever seen a better "offensive" duo than Stockton and Malone.

[Xiao Yao You]

Agree with this. Mark Eaton would have provided rim protection and altering shots when attacking the basket. But one must not forget Thurl Bayly as a an athletic 6'11 ft "James Worthy"-Like SF who could defend and score pretty good. The 1988 Jazz would have taken those Bulls to 7 games atleast. The only problem i saw with the Stockton-Malone Duo is that they where pretty much classic prototypes as PG and PF. They did not have much versatility and less chances to blend more as Multipositional Players ala Bird, Magic, Charles and Scottie. Still till today i've ever seen a better "offensive" duo than Stockton and Malone.

The '88 team was Stockton and Malone at their offensive peak. Unfortunately Jerry put a stop to the easy baskets on the break when he took over and concentrated on the half court game. They weren't deep though past the big 2 and Thurl. Malone could play the 5. That was often their best lineup in the later years.

[Round Mound]

The '88 team was Stockton and Malone at their offensive peak. Unfortunately Jerry put a stop to the easy baskets on the break when he took over and concentrated on the half court game. They weren't deep though past the big 2 and Thurl. Malone could play the 5. That was often their best lineup in the later years.

In 97 and 98: if they added another good scorer they would have one of those rings. The Bulls where just too good defensively.

[Xiao Yao You]

In 97 and 98: if they added another good scorer they would have one of those rings. The Bulls where just too good defensively.

Sloan was outcoached, Malone didn't deliver, Miller was a cheapskate. Lots of reasons

[Bronbron23]

Malone was an iron man--in 18 seasons in Utah he never missed more then 2 games--so we have no sample size without him to extrapolate from.

Let's assume a Jordan-like scenario where Malone either retires 3 weeks before the season or is injured in the preseason. In other words, a scenario where the team has no opportunity to find a quality replacement. So it would be the Jazz core plus a scrub PF added to Malone's roster spot.

I can't see them doing anything of note, especially if we are talking the 97' and 98' Jazz teams that people remember from that Malone-Stockton run. They simply wouldn't be able to score with Stockton, Hornacek as their principal scorers. Losing Malone would also weaken their defense considerably and Malone was a better passer than a scrub PF who would replace him.

How many wins? Do they even make the playoffs? If so, what do they do once there?

Definitely. When malone left in 03 the jazz still finished with a winning record and they didn't have a star to speak of. Giive him a hof who's one of the best playmakers ever and i'd say it's possible. You have to remember pip was in his prime in 93. Prime stocton blows pips numbers out of the water. He wasn't on pips level defensively though so impact wise it pretty much evens out.

You do know prime stocton was a problem right? 17/14 all day and definitely he wasn't trash defensively. Put Stockton in this era and he's 20/10 all day long.

[Xiao Yao You]

Definitely. When malone left in 03 the jazz still finished with a winning record and they didn't have a star to speak of. Giive him a hof who's one of the best playmakers ever and i'd say it's possible. You have to remember pip was in his prime in 93. Prime stocton blows pips numbers out of the water. He wasn't on pips level defensively though so impact wise it pretty much evens out.

You do know prime stocton was a problem right? 17/14 all day and definitely he wasn't trash defensively. Put Stockton in this era and he's 20/10 all day long.

don't know if Stockton ever would have put up 20 a game. He was unselfish to a fault. It was his one flaw

[Baller789]

Jazz could possibly do it.

But theyd suck in the playoffs without an ATG scorer.

[3ball]

Pippen was nothing without the perfect setup - 7 years of grooming and a 3-peat strategy/system = 55 wins just like Lowry or Marc Gasol, aka everyone... plus a 2nd round embarrassment.. then he was a .500 bum the next year when the 3-peat luster was gone and the playoffs had exposed him

That was peak pippen.. 21 on 40% in the 2nd Round and destroyed by Ewing.. Kukoc had higher BPM in those playoffs, while grant/bj/kukoc had higher WS/48... Pippen simply wasn't a 1st option.... he was.... "a pippen"

So again, pippen never "succeeded", aka averaged 27 and 29 in the Finals like Kyrie, AD, and Wade or otherwise "carried" or "dominated".. his peak was 21 in the Finals and 19 on 42% overall.. he had 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 5 ECF, and the 7 game war in the 92' ECSF.. 17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs..

Only Jordan kept this guy on the map.. the 99' rockets had pippen at 3rd option (more stacked than bulls) but lost in 1st round

[Xiao Yao You]

Pippen was nothing without the perfect setup - 7 years of grooming and a 3-peat strategy/system = 55 wins just like Lowry or Marc Gasol, aka everyone... plus a 2nd round embarrassment.. then he was a .500 bum the next year when the 3-peat luster was gone and the playoffs had exposed him

That was peak pippen.. 21 on 40% in the 2nd Round and destroyed by Ewing.. Kukoc had higher BPM in those playoffs, while grant/bj/kukoc had higher WS/48... Pippen simply wasn't a 1st option.... he was.... "a pippen"

So again, pippen never "succeeded", aka averaged 27 and 29 in the Finals like Kyrie, AD, and Wade or otherwise "carried" or "dominated".. his peak was 21 in the Finals and 19 on 42% overall.. he had 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 5 ECF, and the 7 game war in the 92' ECSF.. 17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs..

Only Jordan kept this guy on the map.. the 99' rockets had pippen at 3rd option (more stacked than bulls) but lost in 1st round

Horace leaving was the main reason the next year. The always underrated member of the first 3 peat

[3ball]

Horace leaving was the main reason the next year. The always underrated member of the first 3 peat

People forget that Horace frequently had higher WS/48, PER and other stats than pippen, especially in the playoffs

In other words, Jordan had 2 Horace's.. pippen was often a horace-caliber player and his stats prove it (role player level)

It's funny because I remember people knocking Draymond for shooting poorly in a Finals game where he had 17/7/4... And I was like, "pippen averaged that for the entire 96-98' Playoffs!!!".. MJ 3-peated with that trash..

poopen averaged 17/7/5 on 41% for the entire 2nd three-peat, as 2nd option!!

[Smoke117]

Pippen was nothing without the perfect setup - 7 years of grooming and a 3-peat strategy/system = 55 wins just like Lowry or Marc Gasol, aka everyone... plus a 2nd round embarrassment.. then he was a .500 bum the next year when the 3-peat luster was gone and the playoffs had exposed him

That was peak pippen.. 21 on 40% in the 2nd Round and destroyed by Ewing.. Kukoc had higher BPM in those playoffs, while grant/bj/kukoc had higher WS/48... Pippen simply wasn't a 1st option.... he was.... "a pippen"

So again, pippen never "succeeded", aka averaged 27 and 29 in the Finals like Kyrie, AD, and Wade or otherwise "carried" or "dominated".. his peak was 21 in the Finals and 19 on 42% overall.. he had 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 5 ECF, and the 7 game war in the 92' ECSF.. 17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs..

Only Jordan kept this guy on the map.. the 99' rockets had pippen at 3rd option (more stacked than bulls) but lost in 1st round

Gotta love the irony of you bringing up Pippen's fg% vs the Knicks when Jordan had the same exact fg% just a year prior. Also, the only reason Jordan's is even at 40 is that one huge game. If you take out the 55 point explosion game he shot 35% in the other five games.

[3ball]

Gotta love the irony of you bringing up Pippen's fg% vs the Knicks when Jordan had the same exact fg% just a year prior. Also, the only reason Jordan's is even at 40 is that one huge game. If you take out the 55 point explosion game he shot 35% in the other five games.

The Bulls lost with pippen's 21 on 40%, so they win easily with Jordan's 32 on 40%

And the bulls would've beaten the rockets with Jordan's 40% because the Knicks nearly beat the rockets with Ewing shooting 33%

Carry on the fraud and misperception tho

[Smoke117]

The Bulls lost with pippen's 21 on 40%, so they win easily with Jordan's 32 on 40%

And the bulls would've beaten the rockets with Jordan's 40% because the Knicks nearly beat the rockets with Ewing shooting 33%

Carry on the fraud and misperception tho

lol They only beat the Knicks with Jordan's 40% because Pippen was so good in that 93 series, dipshit. Down 0-2 and what does Jordan do? Puts up a 3/18 stinker. Pippen, on the other hand, was 10/12 with 29 points to keep the team going down 0-3.

[Hey Yo]

Horace leaving was the main reason the next year. The always underrated member of the first 3 peat
Absolutely..... they weren't called the BIG 3 for nothing back then.

[And1AllDay]

lol They only beat the Knicks with Jordan's 40% because Pippen was so good in that 93 series, dipshit. Down 0-2 and what does Jordan do? Put's up a 3/18 stinker. Pippen, on the other hand, was 10/12 with 29 points.

earth shattering

[Bronbron23]

don't know if Stockton ever would have put up 20 a game. He was unselfish to a fault. It was his one flaw

I disagree he played in a time where the post was the scoring focus. Now its perimeter and threes. Stocton was one of the best three point shooters in the league. He'd easily be shooting 4 or 5 more shots a game today, most of them threes. I'd say 20 is fairly probable.

[Xiao Yao You]

I disagree he played in a time where the post was the scoring focus. Now its perimeter and threes. Stocton was one of the best three point shooters in the league. He'd easily be shooting 4 or 5 more shots a game today, most of them threes. I'd say 20 is fairly probable.

There were scoring pg's though. He wasn't one of them though he seemingly could at will when he wanted to which was all to rare

He was one of the best shooters because he wasn't forcing up bad shots.

[Smoke117]

There were scoring pg's though. He wasn't one of them though he seemingly could at will when he wanted to which was all to rare

He was one of the best shooters because he wasn't forcing up bad shots.

Stocktons efficiency is deceiving in that he only really took wide open shots most of the time. He wasn't some great shooter or anything.

[Xiao Yao You]

Stocktons efficiency is deceiving in that he only really took wide open shots most of the time. He wasn't some great shooter or anything.

He wasn't elite.

[3ball]

Stocktons efficiency is deceiving in that he only really took wide open shots most of the time. He wasn't some great shooter or anything.

Exactly like lebron

Lebron only takes open jumpshots - this is statistical fact

According to NBA.com, 94% of lebron's shots outside of 10 feet are considered "open" (4-6 feet from closest defender) or "wide open" (6+ feet from closest defender)..

So lebron defers the contested shots to teammates - this is statistical fact because he doesn't take contested jumpers.. otoh, guys like KD, Kawhi and Harden have only 66-80% of their jumpers uncontested, so they're taking 3-6 times as many contested jumpers as lebron

But carry on the fraud and misperception

[Smoke117]

Exactly like lebron

Lebron only takes open jumpshots - this is statistical fact

According to NBA.com, 94% of lebron's shots outside of 10 feet are considered "open" (4-6 feet from closest defender) or "wide open" (6+ feet from closest defender)..

So lebron defers the contested shots to teammates - this is statistical fact because he doesn't take contested jumpers.. otoh, guys like KD, Kawhi and Harden have only 66-80% of their jumpers uncontested, so they're taking 3-6 times as many contested jumpers as lebron

But carry on the fraud and misperception

Yes, because the guy who is going to go down with the most points of all time "doesn't take contested shots". You are as foolish as you are ****ing retard.

[3ball]

Yes, because the guy who is going to go down with the most points of all time "doesn't take contested shots". You are as foolish as you are ****ing retard.

Lebron doesn't take contested jumpers - this is statistical fact

He defers tough jumpers to teammates like we saw with Kyrie's shot in the 16' Finals, or passing into traffic at the end of Game 1 in 2018... Or the countless times he passed to teammates for a contested three with defenders closing out on the shooter well

[Smoke117]

Exactly like lebron

Lebron only takes open jumpshots - this is statistical fact

According to NBA.com, 94% of lebron's shots outside of 10 feet are considered "open" (4-6 feet from closest defender) or "wide open" (6+ feet from closest defender)..

So lebron defers the contested shots to teammates - this is statistical fact because he doesn't take contested jumpers.. otoh, guys like KD, Kawhi and Harden have only 66-80% of their jumpers uncontested, so they're taking 3-6 times as many contested jumpers as lebron

But carry on the fraud and misperception

lol Yeah because their games and stats are in any way similar LeBron has a higher ppg his rookie year than Stockton at any point of his career. LeBron is going to end up being the all time leader in points. You trying to act like he's Josh Smith or something to raise up MJ is pathetic as **** you stupid monkey ape.

[HoopsNY]

Pippen was nothing without the perfect setup - 7 years of grooming and a 3-peat strategy/system = 55 wins just like Lowry or Marc Gasol, aka everyone... plus a 2nd round embarrassment.. then he was a .500 bum the next year when the 3-peat luster was gone and the playoffs had exposed him

That was peak pippen.. 21 on 40% in the 2nd Round and destroyed by Ewing.. Kukoc had higher BPM in those playoffs, while grant/bj/kukoc had higher WS/48... Pippen simply wasn't a 1st option.... he was.... "a pippen"

So again, pippen never "succeeded", aka averaged 27 and 29 in the Finals like Kyrie, AD, and Wade or otherwise "carried" or "dominated".. his peak was 21 in the Finals and 19 on 42% overall.. he had 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 5 ECF, and the 7 game war in the 92' ECSF.. 17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs..

Only Jordan kept this guy on the map.. the 99' rockets had pippen at 3rd option (more stacked than bulls) but lost in 1st round

So you think he was a .500 bum in 1995, meanwhile he lost both Horace Grant and MJ? What is wrong with you? The Bulls were 6th in the conference and would have still made the playoffs. Furthermore, they were 34-31 when MJ returned and in their last 10 games, they were 8-2 before MJ's return. That's without both Grant and MJ.

This narrative is poisonous and you've been corrected many times, yet you persist like your counterpart TheFakeBullsFan in his bashing of MJ. Pippen is one of the greatest players of all time. #StopHatin