I hate the disparaging of Karl Malone who is consensus top 15...

[dankok8]

Every time there is a thread about him a few people jump on talking about how Barkley was a better player. He wasn't... If you look at a single peak season there is an argument although Malone is still a way better defensive player and had a better attitude. Not to mention that his prime was about twice as long and there is a myth flowing around that Barkley was outplaying Malone head to head. From 1989 onwards, it was usually Malone outplaying Barkley and from 1995 onwards it was never even close as Malone kept chugging along and Chuck declined.

Malone's 1989-1990 season was his statistical peak and he averaged 31.0 ppg on 62.6 %TS with 11.1 rpg and 2.8 apg. He also played very good defense and ended the season 3rd in defensive rebounds and 4th in defensive win shares. That's quite possibly better than any other regular season by a PF in history.

How about the clutch play? Let's debunk some myths. Sure he missed two free throws in Game 1 in the 1997 Finals and sure he got stripped by MJ in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals (he had 31/11/7 on 57% shooting in this elimination game by the way). Everyone can miss free throws or lose the ball. Every great player had a bad moment in the playoffs. Malone is a 74.2% free throw shooter for his career and considering he had 193 playoff games on his name, surely he has a few big free throws he missed. He also has many many that he made.

Let's look at all of his fourteen Game 7's and decisive Game 5's:

1987 R1 Game 5 vs. Warriors: 23/9/2 on 53.3% shooting L
1988 R2 Game 7 vs. Lakers: 31/15/4 on 66.7% shooting L
1990 R1 Game 5 vs. Suns: 26/8/2 on 52.6% shooting L
1991 R1 Game 5 vs. Clippers: 19/16/2 on 29.4% shooting W
1993 R1 Game 5 vs. Sonics: 26/12/2 on 52.6% shooting L
1994 R2 Game 7 vs. Nuggets: 31/14/6 on 52.2% shooting W
1995 R1 Game 5 vs. Rockets: 35/10/3 on 47.6% shooting L
1996 R1 Game 5 vs. Blazers: 25/10/1 on 52.4% shooting W
1996 CF Game 7 vs. Sonics: 22/5/7 on 36.4% shooting L
1998 R1 Game 5 vs. Rockets: 31/15/5 on 54.5% shooting W
1999 R1 Game 5 vs. Kings: 20/12/2 on 31.6% shooting W
2000 R1 Game 5 vs. Sonics: 27/8/3 on 54.2% shooting W
2001 R1 Game 5 vs. Mavericks: 24/10/2 on 32.1% shooting L
2004 R1 Game 5 vs. Rockets: 18/9/5 on 50.0% shooting W

Overall Decisive Game Average: 25.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 3.3 apg on 47.5% shooting

Overall Playoff Average: 24.7 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.2 apg on 46.3% shooting

Overall Season Average: 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg on 51.6% shooting

So he actually raised his level a bit in those decisive games! There is a few duds but also a few huge performances against the Showtime Lakers and then twice against Hakeem. His win loss record is a dead even 7-7.

EDIT: Malone is also an all-time leader in free throws made and attempted so his real efficiency and his impact in terms of fouling opponents out is also very underrated.

But here is where it gets the most interesting. Malone has a reputation as a choker but what really happened is he ran into MJ and the Bulls in two consecutive years.

Here is Karl Malone's likely career if Jordan never existed:

3x MVP (1997, 1998, 1999)
2x NBA Champion (1997, 1998) -- Utah would beat the Heat and Pacers
2x Finals MVP (1997, 1998)
5x Scoring Champion (1989, 1990. 1991. 1992. 1997) -- he was #2 to MJ five times
3x PER Leader
4x Win Shares Leader

and then...

#2 on the All-Time Scoring List
#1 in Free Throws Made and Attempted

That is a top 10 resume...


Basically Karl Malone wasn't as good as the GOAT MJ. Compared to MJ he wasn't that good as a scorer, or that clutch. MJ was a simply a better player. Comparing him to most other greats though, he stacks up quite nicely.

[IGOTGAME]

I just see a bunch of stats but no talk of skill sets. What was the point? Everyone knows Malone's resume and statistical accomplishments?

I'm pretty sure most people could easily find 15 players whose prime they would take over Karl Malone. The object is to win games and win titles and other skill sets were better for those purposes. Give me Wade or Barkley or Dirk over him any day.

[Gotterdammerung]

Karl Malone is one of the greatest players of all time, IMO. He is borderline second tier, along with the likes of Barkley, Havlicek, Moses, Baylor, Erving, Pettit.

[dankok8]

I just see a bunch of stats but no talk of skill sets. What was the point? Everyone knows Malone's resume and statistical accomplishments?

I'm pretty sure most people could easily find 15 players whose prime they would take over Karl Malone. The object is to win games and win titles and other skill sets were better for those purposes. Give me Wade or Barkley or Dirk over him any day.

The point is that if he didn't have to face Michael Jordan in two consecutive finals that he would have 2 titles and 2 Finals MVP's which with his other accomplishments would make him a consensus pantheon player. If there was no MJ he would also have five scoring titles.

How in the world is Barkley better for winning games? He won less than Malone, also has no title... In terms of skill sets Barkley gets an edge in scoring with his back to the basket, both were great face up and in the open floor, Malone is better from mid-range, Malone is better at drawing fouls, Malone is way better at defense... And yes Malone's prime was about twice as long.

Dirk has to be the most overrated player on the internet. No other player saw such a stratospheric rise into completely another tier from winning a championship. On one hand Lebron's 2011 Finals is listed as "the biggest finals choke of all time" (it probably was by the way...). They say "Heat should have won the series and the only reason Mavs won is Lebron choked." Ok I can agree... But then Dirk is praised so much for winning a title over Lebron's Heat and he didn't even play THAT WELL in the finals... 26.0 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 2.0 apg but on just 41.6% shooting. Dirk wasn't defended by Rodman and Pippen either like Malone was. Anyways I find people's take on the 2011 finals extremely hypocritical. On one hand Lebron's choke gave away the series but on the other hand Dirk also gets all the credit.

Dirk is pretty one-dimensional when you compare him to other great PF's.

Here is the top 10 PF's give or take:

Duncan
Garnett
Malone
Barkley
Pettit
Dirk
McHale
Hayes
Rodman
Lucas

Out of those 10, Dirk is the single worst rebounder and the only guys not better than him on defense are Barkley and Lucas.

Offensively he's up there but he's not better than Malone on offense either. Malone is a better scorer on face-up drives, in the open court, and inside with his back to the basket. Dirk has a way better mid-range game and shoots his free throws better but he also doesn't get to the line as much.

Statistically Malone's best seasons and even post seasons are superior to Dirk's and Malone also sustained his prime longer.



I will give you Wade. At his peak he was actually better than Malone. However, Wade had four prime years... 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Malone had fourteen... Wade is fragile and can't stay healthy. Malone is THE IRON MAN of the NBA. He accumulated just 10 missed games in 1444 games or 18 seasons. 10 games missed in 18 seasons!

It is not just about how good you are but how long you maintain it...

[JT123]

Karl Malone is one of the greatest players of all time, IMO. He is borderline second tier, along with the likes of Barkley, Havlicek, Moses, Baylor, Erving, Pettit.

Kobe also belongs in this tier

[Gotterdammerung]

The point is that if he didn't have to face Michael Jordan in two consecutive finals that he would have 2 titles and 2 Finals MVP's which with his other accomplishments would make him a consensus pantheon player. If there was no MJ he would also have five scoring titles.

For what it's worth, having watched almost every Western Conference playoffs game in the 90s, I thought that the Jazz were more of a beneficiary of the declining Western powers than anything they did in making the Finals in 1997 and 1998.

They were the up-and-coming power in 1988, after forcing the Showtime Lakers to a game 7. But by 1998, 10 years later, they never won a championship:
[list]
1989. First round. Got swept by the 7th seeded Warriors. [*]1990. First round. Lost in 5 tough games to the Phoenix Suns. [*]1991. Semis. Dusted in 5 by the Trailblazers. [*]1992. Conference finals. Dominated in 6 by the Blazers. The Blazers were in control the entire series. [*]1993. Choked in the first round to the Seattle Sonics. They were actually up 2-1[*]1994. Conference finals. Lost in 5 to the eventual Champs Houston Rockets. [*]1995. First round. Choked in 5 to the eventual champs, Houston Rockets. They were actually up 2-1[*]1996. Conference finals. Lost in 7 to the Seattle Sonics. [*]1997 & 1998, finally made the Finals, but choked a few games to the Bulls on their last legs. [*]1999. Semifinals. Lost in 6 to the Portland Trailblazers.[/list]


In other words, only when the Western powers like the Sonics, Blazers, and the Rockets declined, did the Jazz break through. But when the Blazers and the Spurs reloaded and revamped themselves, the Jazz faded away to mediocrity.

[Clifton]

I wasn't around for their primes, but I've seen several quality seasons of Malone's. He seems like the Chris Paul of PFs. So perfect that you get bored of it and take it for granted.

Barkley was the Westbrook of PFs. The highs were higher, and it was never boring, but is anyone taking prime Westbrook over Paul? Paul you know what you're getting every night. And again, it's perfect. It's not greater-than-perfect like Magic Johnson was, but it's the most you can expect from a normal human.

For 15-ish consecutive years, Malone was a 20+/10 player with good defense, great passing, great teamwork, and a great attitude. You want to know how many games he missed from 1985 until his year with the Lakers? 10. Over the first 18 seasons of his 19 year career, he missed 10 games. Total.

Among players at his position, Duncan's defensive impact, and comparable offensive perfection and consistency, and greater postseason success, give him the edge. But I'm not automatically putting KG ahead of him, not without a fight. Barkley neither.

[ArbitraryWater]

For what it's worth, having watched almost every Western Conference playoffs game in the 90s, I thought that the Jazz were more of a beneficiary of the declining Western powers than anything they did in making the Finals in 1997 and 1998.

They were the up-and-coming power in 1988, after forcing the Showtime Lakers to a game 7. But by 1998, 10 years later, they never won a championship:
[list]
1989. First round. Got swept by the 7th seeded Warriors. [*]1990. First round. Lost in 5 tough games to the Phoenix Suns. [*]1991. Semis. Dusted in 5 by the Trailblazers. [*]1992. Conference finals. Dominated in 6 by the Blazers. The Blazers were in control the entire series. [*]1993. Choked in the first round to the Seattle Sonics. They were actually up 2-1[*]1994. Conference finals. Lost in 5 to the eventual Champs Houston Rockets. [*]1995. First round. Choked in 5 to the eventual champs, Houston Rockets. They were actually up 2-1[*]1996. Conference finals. Lost in 7 to the Seattle Sonics. [*]1997 & 1998, finally made the Finals, but choked a few games to the Bulls on their last legs. [*]1999. Semifinals. Lost in 6 to the Portland Trailblazers.[/list]


In other words, only when the Western powers like the Sonics, Blazers, and the Rockets declined, did the Jazz break through. But when the Blazers and the Spurs reloaded and revamped themselves, the Jazz faded away to mediocrity.

Bingo. Their team got weaker as did the conference, and somehow that makes them a 2 time champion in another era?

OP arbitarily removes the Bulls as a threat, but adds no other sufficient contender?

Malone doesn't really touch Dirk on offensive matters, either. Lol at Malone drawing out defenders near the 3 point line.

[dankok8]

For what it's worth, having watched almost every Western Conference playoffs game in the 90s, I thought that the Jazz were more of a beneficiary of the declining Western powers than anything they did in making the Finals in 1997 and 1998.

They were the up-and-coming power in 1988, after forcing the Showtime Lakers to a game 7. But by 1998, 10 years later, they never won a championship:
[list]
1989. First round. Got swept by the 7th seeded Warriors. [*]1990. First round. Lost in 5 tough games to the Phoenix Suns. [*]1991. Semis. Dusted in 5 by the Trailblazers. [*]1992. Conference finals. Dominated in 6 by the Blazers. The Blazers were in control the entire series. [*]1993. Choked in the first round to the Seattle Sonics. They were actually up 2-1[*]1994. Conference finals. Lost in 5 to the eventual Champs Houston Rockets. [*]1995. First round. Choked in 5 to the eventual champs, Houston Rockets. They were actually up 2-1[*]1996. Conference finals. Lost in 7 to the Seattle Sonics. [*]1997 & 1998, finally made the Finals, but choked a few games to the Bulls on their last legs. [*]1999. Semifinals. Lost in 6 to the Portland Trailblazers.[/list]


In other words, only when the Western powers like the Sonics, Blazers, and the Rockets declined, did the Jazz break through. But when the Blazers and the Spurs reloaded and revamped themselves, the Jazz faded away to mediocrity.

Umm yeah... I agree the competition declined. However you must realize that Malone and Stockton were in their mid-30's by 1997. Karl had his best cast in the late 80's with Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, and a prime Stockton. In 1998 he had a role player Stockton, Jeff Hornacek who is basically Mike Dunleavy on steroids, and Antoine Carr who could provide some one-dimensional scoring off the bench. The rest of the team were relative scrubs like Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and Howard Eisley.

Malone was the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on those Jazz teams that made the Finals. He shouldered an enormous load and when push came to shove he rarely had another scorer to take the load off of him. And in 1997 and 1998 it was between him, MJ, and prime Shaq for best player in the league. The reason Jazz were worth shit was because of him.

I wasn't around for their primes, but I've seen several quality seasons of Malone's. He seems like the Chris Paul of PFs. So perfect that you get bored of it and take it for granted.

Barkley was the Westbrook of PFs. The highs were higher, and it was never boring, but is anyone taking prime Westbrook over Paul? Paul you know what you're getting every night. And again, it's perfect. It's not greater-than-perfect like Magic Johnson was, but it's the most you can expect from a normal human.

For 15-ish consecutive years, Malone was a 20+/10 player with good defense, great passing, great teamwork, and a great attitude. You want to know how many games he missed from 1985 until his year with the Lakers? 10. Over the first 18 seasons of his 19 year career, he missed 10 games. Total.

Among players at his position, Duncan's defensive impact, and comparable offensive perfection and consistency, and greater postseason success, give him the edge. But I'm not automatically putting KG ahead of him, not without a fight. Barkley neither.

Good post. I think KG has a case over Malone but Barkley has none whatsoever. His body of work just doesn't compare. Short prime, less awards, more weaknesses in his game, bad attitude.

Bingo. Their team got weaker as did the conference, and somehow that makes them a 2 time champion in another era?

OP arbitarily removes the Bulls as a threat, but adds no other sufficient contender?

Malone doesn't really touch Dirk on offensive matters, either. Lol at Malone drawing out defenders near the 3 point line.

I replaced them with sufficient contenders. Both the Heat and Pacers were 60+ win teams in 1997 and 1998 and the latter made a finals appearance in 2000.

Dirk draws defenders out to the three point line but Malone takes it to the rim and draws fouls and Malone grabs more offensive rebounds. In their peak seasons and over 10+ years Malone also has superior offensive production. Way to disregard all objective evidence... Of course when we look at the totality of their games including rebounding and defense it's not really close.

The only argument and literally the ONLY argument Dirk fans have is "but...but... Dirk won a championship". Yea... only it took a truly historic choke for him to win it and it appears to be a fluke considering that the Mavs did absolutely nothing a few years before and after that title. Oh and he didn't have to face the 90's Bulls...

I think the only titles in league history I would call flukes are Barry's Warriors in 1975 and Mavs in 2011. When your team flames out of the playoffs the year prior and the year following something is wrong don't you think?

[Round Mound]

Chuck was better in both their primes. Why mention him. ALL BROKEN DOWN STATS suggest he was better too.

[Gotterdammerung]

By the late 90s I was rooting for anyone to beat the Bulls. The Jazz seemed the best type of team to pull that off: a bona fide MVP, reliable system, hall of fame coach, a solid roster, great home court and defense, etc.

But I knew that when it came down to the clutch, Malone would try that low percentage turnaround jumper that took him out of rebounding position, and the Bulls would take off. Stockton, although a clutch shooter, could never take over the game, and Hornaceck was strictly a beneficiary who got open shots only in the flow of the offense.

While Malone was a solid rebounder, he was a bad interior defender. All you had to do was keep the ball over your head to avoid the patented strip move he had.

The Bulls didn't really beat the Jazz. The Jazz lost to them because Karl Malone was not a clutch performer. In the Hall of Shame where the likes of Vince Carter and Walt Bellamy reside, there's the Failman

[feyki]

More like top 20 .

[fourkicks44]

By the late 90s I was rooting for anyone to beat the Bulls. The Jazz seemed the best type of team to pull that off: a bona fide MVP, reliable system, hall of fame coach, a solid roster, great home court and defense, etc.

But I knew that when it came down to the clutch, Malone would try that low percentage turnaround jumper that took him out of rebounding position, and the Bulls would take off. Stockton, although a clutch shooter, could never take over the game, and Hornaceck was strictly a beneficiary who got open shots only in the flow of the offense.

While Malone was a solid rebounder, he was a bad interior defender. All you had to do was keep the ball over your head to avoid the patented strip move he had.

The Bulls didn't really beat the Jazz. The Jazz lost to them because Karl Malone was not a clutch performer. In the Hall of Shame where the likes of Vince Carter and Walt Bellamy reside, there's the Failman

Come on, son....please.

[ArbitraryWater]

Umm yeah... I agree the competition declined. However you must realize that Malone and Stockton were in their mid-30's by 1997. Karl had his best cast in the late 80's with Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, and a prime Stockton. In 1998 he had a role player Stockton, Jeff Hornacek who is basically Mike Dunleavy on steroids, and Antoine Carr who could provide some one-dimensional scoring off the bench. The rest of the team were relative scrubs like Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and Howard Eisley.

Malone was the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on those Jazz teams that made the Finals. He shouldered an enormous load and when push came to shove he rarely had another scorer to take the load off of him. And in 1997 and 1998 it was between him, MJ, and prime Shaq for best player in the league. The reason Jazz were worth shit was because of him.



Good post. I think KG has a case over Malone but Barkley has none whatsoever. His body of work just doesn't compare. Short prime, less awards, more weaknesses in his game, bad attitude.



I replaced them with sufficient contenders. Both the Heat and Pacers were 60+ win teams in 1997 and 1998 and the latter made a finals appearance in 2000.

Dirk draws defenders out to the three point line but Malone takes it to the rim and draws fouls and Malone grabs more offensive rebounds. In their peak seasons and over 10+ years Malone also has superior offensive production. Way to disregard all objective evidence... Of course when we look at the totality of their games including rebounding and defense it's not really close.

The only argument and literally the ONLY argument Dirk fans have is "but...but... Dirk won a championship". Yea... only it took a truly historic choke for him to win it and it appears to be a fluke considering that the Mavs did absolutely nothing a few years before and after that title. Oh and he didn't have to face the 90's Bulls...

I think the only titles in league history I would call flukes are Barry's Warriors in 1975 and Mavs in 2011. When your team flames out of the playoffs the year prior and the year following something is wrong don't you think?

There are no "flukes", and your idea of why it should be a fluke is completely retarded. Mavs acquire Chandler after multiple first round exits, win title with him, he leaves and becomes DPOTY with the Knicks. Mavericks lose to eventual finalist in first round, 3/4 close games. None of this is relevant but I adressed it anyway to adjust your mental gymnastics. How the opposition performed and what you deem a choke and what not is also irrelevant, since the odds were stacked against Dirk in a large manner in the first place. Mavericks were bigger underdogs than the Jazz.

[ArbitraryWater]

By the late 90s I was rooting for anyone to beat the Bulls. The Jazz seemed the best type of team to pull that off: a bona fide MVP, reliable system, hall of fame coach, a solid roster, great home court and defense, etc.

But I knew that when it came down to the clutch, Malone would try that low percentage turnaround jumper that took him out of rebounding position, and the Bulls would take off. Stockton, although a clutch shooter, could never take over the game, and Hornaceck was strictly a beneficiary who got open shots only in the flow of the offense.

While Malone was a solid rebounder, he was a bad interior defender. All you had to do was keep the ball over your head to avoid the patented strip move he had.

The Bulls didn't really beat the Jazz. The Jazz lost to them because Karl Malone was not a clutch performer. In the Hall of Shame where the likes of Vince Carter and Walt Bellamy reside, there's the Failman

The Mailman who bricked em when it mattered

[QUOTE]