The Karl Malone Thread

[nuraman00]

Well, with all due respect, if the observation is that Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do it like Stockton because of the system or because of team assists, then the observation is a bunch of crock. (In a separate matter, we would have brought them back after Stockton left, if that were true.) I understand that the system is conducive to assists, but Stock earned it and was a step above the rest. For example, if Einstein took a class for Kindergarteners with other scientists, just because others his age got 100% doesn't meant he wasn't smarter than they were. As a whole, the subjects would get 100% with or without Einstein, but it says nothing about Einstein. Yes, the questions are questionable, but it doesn't equate the subjects.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that team assists have that much to do with individual assists. Compensating for not having Stockton may help the team, but it doesn't serve as a correlation between individual players. If anyone else on the Jazz were that great, they'd have reproduced Stockton's numbers individually, because I bet Sloan would rather have a reliable floor general than PG by committee, relying upon all those cuts, layups, and offensive rebounding.

Watching every game Stockton played since the early 1990's, I can tell you that Stockton had ball placement skills that other PGs don't have that would not have lead to points and he had great vision. Substituting assists to others doesn't change the skills and effectiveness of Stockton. It is a testament to the system, but Sloan was compensating for a lacking when Stockton left and we weren't as good, regardless of assists. How was the rest of the league? Being 3rd place one year could mean 25 assists and being 3rd another year could mean 22. Being 3rd in the league in assists, doesn't mean they are at the same level of scoring or wins as when Stockton was here.

It's sort of like taking a two-people working family who combined make 100,000 a year. It doesn't matter if it's split 80/20 or 60/40, but you can make a determination on who is making more. I understand that observation's contention is like if the 80,000 person left and the new couple made 100,000 combined, it's all the same, even if it changed to 60/40.

I was just focusing on assists. Stockton was more than assists, he could also shoot from anywhere (both close and far) and he could defend. McLeod, Arroyo, and Lopez couldn't shoot nor defend at an average level, so that explains some of the overall dropoff in guard play, as well as the team record.

Stockton could still defend at a starting level until the day he retired.

Kidd, on the other hand, dropped off a lot defensively even before he got to Dallas, IMO. Kidd is still a capable defender in spurts, but you can't put him on the other team's best guard like you could when he was with the Nets.

Billups, I think could still defend at a starting level last year, but I don't know if he can when he returns from injury, just because he's getting older and coming back from injury.

But I understand your overall response too.

Would you say the same logic applies to the PF spot too? That just because Matt Harpring averaged 17ppg and 16ppg in his first two seasons with Utah, whereas he was an 11ppg guy in his other seasons, whether with Utah or before Utah, that it still wasn't like Malone or Boozer? That, similarly, just because Harpring could boost his scoring a few seasons, it still doesn't mean he could score like Malone or Boozer?

Back to your Einstein example, would it be like if those other Kindergarteners got 100%, but Einstein would still do it 6X faster and throw in an answer in a foreign language?

Another tangent - The reason why keeping McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo at PG and Harpring at PF doesn't work longterm is because these guys can't sustain it longterm, it's just a short-term fix while the Jazz transitioned into better talent (Deron at PG, Boozer at PF). Also, in each case, whether looking at the PG or PF, I was just focusing on one statistic each. Assists from the PG, and scoring from the PF. As previously mentioned, Stockton and Malone did a lot more, and the guys that filled in during those years couldn't fill in the gap on those other things.

 

[MHSL82]

I was just focusing on assists. Stockton was more than assists, he could also shoot from anywhere (both close and far) and he could defend. McLeod, Arroyo, and Lopez couldn't shoot nor defend at an average level, so that explains some of the overall dropoff in guard play, as well as the team record...

Another tangent - The reason why keeping McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo at PG and Harpring at PF doesn't work longterm is because these guys can't sustain it longterm, it's just a short-term fix while the Jazz transitioned into better talent (Deron at PG, Boozer at PF). Also, in each case, whether looking at the PG or PF, I was just focusing on one statistic each. Assists from the PG, and scoring from the PF. As previously mentioned, Stockton and Malone did a lot more, and the guys that filled in during those years couldn't fill in the gap on those other things.

Back to your Einstein example, would it be like if those other Kindergarteners got 100%, but Einstein would still do it 6X faster and throw in an answer in a foreign language?

Switched the order of you post in the quote above and cut it down to what I'm responding to.

The fact that you say that McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo was a short-term fix tells me that even in assists, they weren't like Stockton. I don't know how to say it differently, so I don't mean to be rude, but I really, REALLY don't think you can take team stats to discuss individual skills, even when isolating one area like assists. So say our teams are similar, but any reference that players x, y, or z could do it like Stockton, is a stretch unless that's Kidd, Nash, Magic, etc. If Mcleod, Arroyo, or Lopez could produce Stockton's numbers (talking just assists, here) and the remaining team could produce the rest, amounting to the same as the Stockton years (in total, not league rank), I'd say for that stretch, sure. Sloan would have rolled with them. But if McLopOyo do it by committee, I don't agree. The systems and teams could be similar, and in fact were, but that was the system's compensatory abilities.

Excuse me for the rough analogy but David Locke from a local radio stations was talking about how Jefferson's scoring in Minnesota was not that impressive on a losing team because the total points for the T'Wolves was a certain level, well below what was necessary to win. Even the Bobcats averaged a certain number, it was bound for one to carry the load. You could arrange a certain number of professionals randomly and someone would have to average a lot because the team is bound to score 90 or 80 or whatnot (number is just illustrative) and one player is bound to play a long time and take a lot of shots - he could be good at it, but number wise wasn't impressive to Locke. What he does when there are other talented players, speaks a lot more to him. With Favors and Millsap, etc., we're getting a look at Jefferson. (Love was starting to play better like Favors could, etc. so there was some overlap of situations.)

I understand the same can't be said about assists, when you are top 5 team, but a certain number of team assists are a given - the amount above that minimum is impressive, but in regards to individual floor generals, I feel it has to come from one PG to make a comparison. If the flex system was so conducive and Stockton left, someone else would have filled his shoes and replaced the assists (forget about points and defense for a moment) - team scoring from all those assists and team assists outside of the PG would compensate. But it didn't. Stockton wasn't there for his scoring or defense primarily, it was for running the point and he did it better than any other Jazz man, even removing everything but assists. The scoring and defense was a plus.

Maybe Sloan didn't give another PG a chance until we got Deron, but that just speaks to how those others couldn't make up for it - even if just discussing assists. I think Sloan looked primarily for a passer.

I have to say, I know you weren't saying that these guys were the same as Stockton, even when just comparing assists, but I had to discuss what I thought about such hypothetical belief. Obvious when adding scoring and defense, but still true when not considering those.

About the Einstein question, yes, in a way, but the overall assessment of results does not change. Doing it faster or with more style, doesn't speak to effectiveness in a test setting - moving it to on the court, if McLeod gets 10 assists, it's same as Stockton getting 10 assists. The 99 Jazz getting 25 assists, to me, is not the same as the 2004 team getting 25 assists, unless McLeod got the 10 assists, too. I don't mind PG by committee, but I don't like equating them when naming individuals or looking for context to Stockton's record (or anyone else's record).

Some teams scored more than Jordan's team, but no player got more than Jordan, if the 1999 Bulls scored the same, I wouldn't be saying, maybe Jordan was a product of the system - unless one player scored the same with comparable supporting cast and it produced similar results - I know I'm mixing two areas - scoring and winning, which is not fair, but as Locke said, how you score matters (garbage points or real competitive scoring). Yes, the defense factor does remove the analogy a bit and so does level of competition. Making a nexus between flex offense assisting and garbage points could be made, because it isn't the PG driven assist, but I think there's too many factors going on here.

My whole analogy is messy, but my belief is clear - team stats can compare teams, not individuals, IMO. It can shed light on some things, but when comparing individuals in the same system, a lesser statistical output is informative. The decision by Sloan to play one PG less, may be effected by Sloan's belief in his ability to do it like Stock, assists or otherwise.

 

[nuraman00]

The systems and teams could be similar, and in fact were, but that was the system's compensatory abilities.

My whole analogy is messy, but my belief is clear - team stats can compare teams, not individuals, IMO. It can shed light on some things, but when comparing individuals in the same system, a lesser statistical output is informative.

I've been talking about team stats though, not individuals.

I'm not saying Stockton or Malone were a product of the system.

I'm saying the system seems to take below average players, such as what you coined McLopOyo, and enhance their skills in a certain area (assists).

Or, scoring from a PF (Harpring).

And they can still maintain rank high on a team levels in those areas (assist %, points in the paint, frontcourt scoring).


I'm focusing on the lesser players, not the HOFs.

A system can't make a HOF (but it could turn an above average player into an All-Star).


Other side notes:

* No, there are teams where nobody has to score. Jefferson scored because he could get shots. You have to be skilled to be able to average that many points and have that kind of usage rate. It takes skill to be able to generate a certain amount of shots.

There are plenty of teams in NBA history where the team can't score, and nobody has a high usage rate on the team.

The Bobcats, for example, don't have a player that had a usage rate like what Jefferson did in Minnesota. Because they don't have a player that can get shots like Jefferson could. The Bobcats only have one player above 15ppg. Walker leads the team with 18ppg.

The Nuggets in 2002-2003 were similar. Only one player above 14.2 points a game, Juwan Howard, and he only averaged 18ppg. And again, Howard's usage rate is a few % lower than what Jefferson did in Minnesota.

So even those players on other teams that played a lot of minutes couldn't do what Jefferson could. It takes a certain skill to be able to get off shots.

I know you were just making an analogy, using what Locke said. But I'm saying that sometimes a player on a bad team playing well is still a sign of some skill.

And similarly, sometimes a player playing well on a good team is not as impressive. For example, Trevor Ariza had some decent numbers on a good Lakers team, but I knew his numbers would get worse on a bad team. And they did, when the Lakers didn't want him back (they wanted Artest instead) and he signed with Houston. Ariza had little responsibility on the Lakers, while on the Rockets, even if he had to do just a little more, it showed he couldn't handle it. When he had to make any decisions with the ball in Houston, he made the wrong one. Sometimes, a player's responsibility is limited so much that it makes them look better than they are on a good team. But that if there's an injury, they would struggle to raise their game vs. another player who is more adaptable to step up.






* On offense, the PG is supposed to run the team however he and the coach see fit.

But on defense, the PG is the first line of defense. The longer he can keep the ball from getting in the paint, the greater the chance of the defensive team in getting a stop.

It's an equally important responsibility.

And Stockton helped the Jazz defense even more than Malone IMO.

Also, the Jazz were a great defensive team. Top 10 many of those years. From 1986-1989, they were # 1 three straight years (but lost to the Warriors in the 1st round two of the three years).

Stockton was a 5-time defensive team player, and was probably just as good some of those other years too. His defensive ability put him in the 99.7th percentile of PGs in that area, so he was that much better.


His shooting was similar. He didn't have to shoot a lot, but being a 50% shooter probably put him in the 97% percentile for PGs for shooting. It was a huge advantage, and all what contributed to his greatness. As I mentioned, I can recall countless other PGs either missing layups or long jumpers.


So while shooting wasn't his main role, the fact that he could is what also set him apart, from say a Brevin Knight type player (who could also get assists and steals but not shoot even 40%). And because he could shoot, it changed the way you could play him.

You can lay off of Brevin Knight or Andre Miller or Raymond Felton completely at times, but you wouldn't do that to Stockton or Nash or Price because they could also shoot. The defending team would then pick someone else to leave open rather than the PG, changing the schemes.

 

[MHSL82]

I've been talking about team stats though, not individuals.

I'm not saying Stockton or Malone were a product of the system.

I'm saying the system seems to take below average players, such as what you coined McLopOyo, and enhance their skills in a certain area (assists)...

* No, there are teams where nobody has to score. Jefferson scored because he could get shots. You have to be skilled to be able to average that many points and have that kind of usage rate. It takes skill to be able to generate a certain amount of shots...

I know you were just making an analogy, using what Locke said. But I'm saying that sometimes a player on a bad team playing well is still a sign of some skill...

And Stockton helped the Jazz defense even more than Malone IMO.

Also, the Jazz were a great defensive team. Top 10 many of those years. From 1986-1989, they were # 1 three straight years (but lost to the Warriors in the 1st round two of the three years)...

So while shooting wasn't his main role, the fact that he could is what also set him apart, from say a Brevin Knight type player (who could also get assists and steals but not shoot even 40%). And because he could shoot, it changed the way you could play him.

You can lay off of Brevin Knight or Andre Miller or Raymond Felton completely at times, but you wouldn't do that to Stockton or Nash or Price because they could also shoot. The defending team would then pick someone else to leave open rather than the PG, changing the schemes.

I agree with everything you said, not just the exerpts I left here.

I guess Locke didn't know what he was talking about when he said that and I took him for his word - it sounded like he was giving statistical information on the Bobcats and T'Wolves. I agree with what you said, that wasn't a good comment to cite. If I did that in court, I'd lose badly. Mulligan!

Stockton was a better defender and I enjoyed having a good defense in Stockton's years. And I do think his ability to shoot is overlooked by most.

Despite being a Utah fan, I never really clinged onto Andre Miller's career, though I did like Keith Van Horn. I loved his use in the Kidd trade. I wish I could be paid 4 million to act like I wanted to come back to play and sit on an NBA bench. I'd do it for less. Heck, I'd do it for travel expenses, so that my family could come with me - considerably less than 4 million. Hear that Jazz? Whatever team has me, you have my rights, use me in a trade with the Jazz!

 

[MHSL82]

Deron Williams says he is not responsible for Avery Johnson firing - ESPN New York

Again, perhaps erroneously, Deron is accused of running Johnson out like he was accused of doing so with Sloan. While I know both of these could be false, I've also seen enough of Deron to know he does blame others, he is very vocal about certain things that could be left private, and he does seem to bitch about what's unfair - never using the word unfair, of course. He constantly talked about the Jazz and Nets moves as being determinative of where he was going to be, while under contract. It just seems to me, shut up and try to win, we'll judge you on a curve. Talk privately but understand there comes a point where you stop looking for help and take over.

This isn't totally fair, I'm just tired of Williams like I'm sure some people were tired of Malone when he was trying to get his first big deal. For his rookie contract and perhaps first extension, he was paid very little compared to today's athletes, and it took awhile before he got up there after a few superstars got paid. Obviously, he was paid a lot regardless.

 

[MHSL82]

Avery Johnson fired by Brooklyn Nets after starting 14-14

Deron Williams says he is not responsible for Avery Johnson firing - ESPN New York

Again, perhaps erroneously, Deron is accused of running Johnson out like he was accused of doing so with Sloan. While I know both of these could be false, I've also seen enough of Deron to know he does blame others, he is very vocal about certain things that could be left private, and he does seem to bitch about what's unfair - never using the word unfair, of course. He constantly talked about the Jazz and Nets moves as being determinative of where he was going to be, while under contract. It just seems to me, shut up and try to win, we'll judge you on a curve. Talk privately but understand there comes a point where you stop looking for help and take over.

This isn't totally fair, I'm just tired of Williams like I'm sure some people were tired of Malone when he was trying to get his first big deal. For his rookie contract and perhaps first extension, he was paid very little compared to today's athletes, and it took awhile before he got up there after a few superstars got paid. Obviously, he was paid a lot regardless.

P.S. Yes, I both quoted myself and copy and pasted me from another thread. I am so full of myself.

 

[nuraman00]

Deron Williams says he is not responsible for Avery Johnson firing - ESPN New York

Again, perhaps erroneously, Deron is accused of running Johnson out like he was accused of doing so with Sloan. While I know both of these could be false, I've also seen enough of Deron to know he does blame others, he is very vocal about certain things that could be left private, and he does seem to bitch about what's unfair - never using the word unfair, of course. He constantly talked about the Jazz and Nets moves as being determinative of where he was going to be, while under contract. It just seems to me, shut up and try to win, we'll judge you on a curve. Talk privately but understand there comes a point where you stop looking for help and take over.

This isn't totally fair, I'm just tired of Williams like I'm sure some people were tired of Malone when he was trying to get his first big deal. For his rookie contract and perhaps first extension, he was paid very little compared to today's athletes, and it took awhile before he got up there after a few superstars got paid. Obviously, he was paid a lot regardless.

P.S. Yes, I both quoted myself and copy and pasted me from another thread. I am so full of myself.

Williams also complained about the moves to not bring back Dee Brown (his college teammate), and trading away Brewer.

I don't mind athletes talking about moves -- I like hearing the various Knicks talk about the decision not to resign Lin.

Or Nowitzki talked about playing with Terry when Terry first joined the Mavs, or the decision to let Chandler and Barea go last year.

But Williams is also having a poor season.

I also don't think it took Deron any longer than it took other superstars from his draft class. He got an extension after his 3rd year, the same as other top players from that draft class.

lillybee (a Suns fan) was tired of Marion complaining about his role, before he was traded. I do think he was underutilized in Phoenix, but I also understand that that's not the point whether he was utilized fully or not, she was just tired of hearing about his role. I like the way Dallas has used him, as opposed to the way Phoenix used him. In the game that Stoudemire was suspended, during the 2007 playoffs, Marion had 25+ points at halftime, and I thought for once they finally ran some plays for him. I thought if Phoenix had used him more equally in the offense, it would have helped them.

During today's TNT games, they noticed that Deron was a top 5 trend on Twitter, but it was in relation to Johnson being fired. Not something you want to be trending for.

Deron has also praised the Nets moves, I believe he said that getting Joe Johnson had a huge influence on his decision to resign.

I believe Garnett barely complained about the moves Minnesota made, when he had the string of 7 straight 1st round exits. And he would be more justified to complain, since Minnesota didn't make good moves during that span. But, Garnett was also at fault for the lack of moves. He convinced management to try and sign Joe Smith to an illegal contract, which the NBA found out about, and punished Minnesota by taking away 5 future 1st round picks (2 of which were eventually reinstated).

When Minnesota acquired Cassell and Sprewell, he was very complimentary of them from day one, and said he finally felt like he had his equals.


When watching Williams games, I've felt he doesn't come out aggressive from the start, and his teams get behind too often. It's not just his teams I've felt that way about though. I've felt the same way about Paul's teams over the years too. Westbrook and Rondo, as far as modern PGs, are some of the few that I can feel their impact during the entire game, whether good or bad.

I don't have any real astute observation or point I was making. Just stating my observations about to what extent various players have voiced their opinions and frustrations.

 

[MHSL82]

Many other teams feel the same way about some of the foul calls in Utah, against them.

Do you think I care what they think? These calls were at the end of the game so only they mattered. (You don't need to refute this, I'm only kidding.)

OT: Jordan pushed off, Eisley also made the three they took away, and Harper clearly made a shot after the buzzer. But even Jordan's foul was not called and explained as "he's MJ" or "refs don't want to decide a game." The Jazz would have lost in seven, no way Jordan loses, but news to them: the refs did decide the game. Not calling the push-off was deciding the game. (I know, I know, it just decided that the result of Jordan's shot would stand, miss or make - but that did determine it.) The Jazz got another shot, but that could have been free throws or more.

My point isn't to say the Jazz would have beaten Jordan, but if people don't care about three blatant calls, why would I care about their calls? Apparently, the end plays don't matter if they re wrongly called, so why would the others? Bah, both matter and no they did not even out in Game 6. But, as I said, it only is a bad thing if it's against the Jazz. What is with all this objectivity and reason, Nuraman?

I do feel a little ok because on Stockton's three against the Rockets, Malone held Drexler. Plus, as said, Jordan would have won in 7. I would have taken pride in pushing him that far if the refs weren't blowing it.

 

[nuraman00]

Do you think I care what they think? These calls were at the end of the game so only they mattered. (You don't need to refute this, I'm only kidding.)

OT: Jordan pushed off, Eisley also made the three they took away, and Harper clearly made a shot after the buzzer. But even Jordan's foul was not called and explained as "he's MJ" or "refs don't want to decide a game." The Jazz would have lost in seven, no way Jordan loses, but news to them: the refs did decide the game. Not calling the push-off was deciding the game. (I know, I know, it just decided that the result of Jordan's shot would stand, miss or make - but that did determine it.) The Jazz got another shot, but that could have been free throws or more.

My point isn't to say the Jazz would have beaten Jordan, but if people don't care about three blatant calls, why would I care about their calls? Apparently, the end plays don't matter if they re wrongly called, so why would the others? Bah, both matter and no they did not even out in Game 6. But, as I said, it only is a bad thing if it's against the Jazz. What is with all this objectivity and reason, Nuraman?

I do feel a little ok because on Stockton's three against the Rockets, Malone held Drexler. Plus, as said, Jordan would have won in 7. I would have taken pride in pushing him that far if the refs weren't blowing it.

I'm still not sure if Jordan pushed off, despite seeing the clip several times. I know it's widely accepted that he did, but that doesn't mean I agree with the consensus. I also wish I had access to other angles to help me make a decision, like they do with replays nowadays.

And it's also one of those things that's talked about so much, and everyone has an opinion on it, that I don't think I can watch it without letting someone influence me.

As for the Eisley and Harper calls, I don't remember them anymore. I probably haven't seen them since they occurred in real time. That might have been one of those things where it was a bad call that they could have looked at in modern times with replay, but that was not an option then. Tough break. There's been others like that too (specifically during the 2002 playoffs.)

basketball-reference doesn't have the play-by-play for that game, so I can't scan for those plays either.

I do agree that the phrase "the refs don't want to decide the game" is overused in cases where there's a missed no-call. And that the refs did decide the game by not calling a foul.

But I also remember in the 2003 playoffs, there was a lot of contact, yet Jason Kidd still made the final shot.

New Jersey Nets at Detroit Pistons Play-By-Play, May 18, 2003 | Basketball-Reference.com

And in the 2005 playoffs, Carlisle, who was now coaching Indiana, said "the refs did not decide the game. Lindsey Hunter is a great defender, but he decided the game by fouling Reggie Miller."

Detroit Pistons at Indiana Pacers Play-By-Play, May 13, 2005 | Basketball-Reference.com

That was an instance in which a coach supported a foul call at the end of a game. Yes it was for his player, but he flipped the cliche of "refs don't want to decide a game" back. Miller didn't get the call, and Indiana won without it, but I remember Carlisle saying that he should have gotten a call. If I had the sound bites, it would be even more interesting.


And here's a clip where Miller shoved Jordan, didn't get called for a foul, and made the shot anyways.


I don't have any real point, I'm just bringing up past questionable instances at the end of the game, where the call went either way.

(Ok, I just realized I didn't bring up any where someone DID get the foul call, but you know I could pull those up if I wanted to. I don't want to look those up right now.)

 

[MHSL82]

Why would you be more angry if the Jazz won game 6 and forced a game 7, as opposed to losing game 6?

Is it because you'd feel the NBA is rigged and trying to keep the Jazz down, and the Jazz had to overcome that?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather win Game 6 than lose Game 6. I was just saying that the claim we would have lost anyway makes me feel that even if we had won Game 6, we'd still be ringless. So, missed pushoff = one loss, not = missed one ring. I already consider us to have won Game 6, so accepting the push-off does not kill my rationalization of Game 6's outcome. It just doesn't reward Utah with a ring they did not earn.

P.S. I don't go around telling everyone this. Just here on this public board. I have already accepted that Jordan is one of if not the best. I wish we had won, which still wouldn't have changed that, but given Stockton and Malone something. But, it's sports. You can't have wins without losses. The Jazz are winning it all in 2032 in memory of 32 Malone. Should have been this year for Stockton.

 

[nuraman00]

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather win Game 6 than lose Game 6. I was just saying that the claim we would have lost anyway makes me feel that even if we had won Game 6, we'd still be ringless. So, missed pushoff = one loss, not = missed one ring. I already consider us to have won Game 6, so accepting the push-off does not kill my rationalization of Game 6's outcome. It just doesn't reward Utah with a ring they did not earn.

P.S. I don't go around telling everyone this. Just here on this public board. I have already accepted that Jordan is one of if not the best. I wish we had won, which still wouldn't have changed that, but given Stockton and Malone something. But, it's sports. You can't have wins without losses. The Jazz are winning it all in 2032 in memory of 32 Malone. Should have been this year for Stockton.

Great post.

P.S. I look at it as "you don't know what can happen in game 7's", which is why I get excited for them.

Of course, they disappoint me sometimes. The back-to-back game 7s during the 2005 playoffs were some of the worst I've seen. It was a Saturday evening. First Indiana beats Boston on the road by 27 points, then Houston loses to Dallas by 40 points. I think there was another year where they had 2 game 7's on the same day, or two on consecutive days, and both were duds also. But the disappointment of the 2005 1st round pair is the one that hurts the most.

 

[MHSL82]

Even taking into account the staggering of minutes, and increased familiarity with each other, I'm still surprised Lin's shooting has risen by that much.

Of course, it's only been 2 weeks worth of games (7 games), from Dec. 16th until when this article was written.



I liked the Kidd-Carter pick and roll that the Nets used in 2005-2006. Unfortunately, I thought they only used it that one year. It put their two best players in a pick and roll, and they both could shoot, drive, or pass in the middle of the floor.

I wonder if I'll like the Lin-Harden pick and roll too.

Shooting-wise, I was worried in the first twelve games. He was 42-126, which is 33%. I remember on Pardon the Interruption that after Lin's poor preseason shooting, one panelist went on the under 40% and one took the over.

It was looking bad because I used to track stats for Malone on shooting and in the lockout year, he was 5 shots from 50% and in 2000-01, he was 2.5 makes away. Three lousy layups away from 50%, I knew I had seen him miss a few - to his credit, sometimes he'd get a putback of his own shot, so that lessened the harm. Anyway, my point is, I was watching him comeback from poorer shooting and it looked really hard to climb the percentages. He'd start making progress and then a 10-24 game. Because not only do you need to shoot 50% to maintain that percentage, you have to shoot over 50% to climb back. It's like building up a GPA after a bad first two semesters, or something.

Thankfully 33% is easier to climb back from and 12 games is short. So when Lin was at 33% and the coach didn't seem to have an answer and some blame was on Lin for poor shooting - regardless of the system's use of him (he is not a spot shooter!), there was still hope if they adjusted ("they" includes Lin, not just the coaches or teammates).

So first 12 games: 42-126 (33%), 8-35 3pt shooting (22.8%), and 10.0 pts.
Last 19 games: 101-201 (50%), 16-53 3pt shooting (30.1%) and 13.5 pts.

Right now, overall, he's shooting 43.6% - my goal for him would be over the 44.6% he shot in New York. It'll be hard to push those numbers because he's not that great of a shooter, but he is driving to the hoop more and they are using him better.

He averages, 12.2 points and I've resigned that it's too late for him to better his 14.6 with New York, so my goal is for him to split the difference to get to 13.4 points per game. He'd have to average 16.2 points the rest of the season to get to 14.6+. Not likely, but possible. Harden will just need too many touches for that to happen over a sustained amount of time - 51 games. Even if he matched the 14.6, it still wouldn't be as good as it was in New York because now that he's playing more minutes and averaging hypothetically the same, the rate is down. Plus, the 14.6 in New York was watered down due to pre-Linsanity days.

He's never likely to be a 3-pt threat, as in teams needing to dedicate a commitment to guarding him. He may better his percentage by taking smarter and fewer threes. (I know "fewer" doesn't effect rate, but if he's thinking about passing or driving when it's a hard shot, fewer could help. I haven't seen enough games to see if he's taking unwise threes or just isn't the shooter. He's shooting better or choosing his shots better lately.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, 19 games isn't much better than two weeks as to sample size, but it's better. I could cherry pick more as his last 12 games is better than his last 19. I just chose first 12 and last 19 as the splits because 12 was his low. I plan to keep watching and see as it goes. He's now my Alex Smith of the NBA (I think you know why), but he's not on my favorite team. I can't seem to manufacture that interest with any player on the Jazz. I suppose Favors is closest?

 

[beardown07]

Pic?

I guess I should say, my Mother has it....it was mine at one point, but she's a diehard Jazz fan, so I just left it when I moved out. I know she still has it, and would only assume it's mine when she passes.

A friend of hers is a close friend of Karl Malone. Got the whole team on a ball too...can't remember the exact year, but John and Karl's is on there...Eaton's, Sloan's. Chocolate Thunder...Darryl Dawkins.


***edit...Thunder's is on a piece of paper...totally separate occurrence. Ran into him and Karl in a restaraunt/bar in SLC. I thought Karl was big....DD dwarfed him.

 

[nuraman00]

I guess I should say, my Mother has it....it was mine at one point, but she's a diehard Jazz fan, so I just left it when I moved out. I know she still has it, and would only assume it's mine when she passes.

A friend of hers is a close friend of Karl Malone. Got the whole team on a ball too...can't remember the exact year, but John and Karl's is on there...Eaton's, Sloan's. Chocolate Thunder...Darryl Dawkins.


***edit...Thunder's is on a piece of paper...totally separate occurrence. Ran into him and Karl in a restaraunt/bar in SLC. I thought Karl was big....DD dwarfed him.

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

 

[MHSL82]

I got Malone's autograph at a University of Utah football game, his arms are leg sized! I was a kid so it looked even bigger. I also got his autograph at a record store when he was selling his workout video. My grandmother won a Jazz ball autographed by the team with Stock, Malone, Hornacek, Russell, etc. I also got Greg Ostertag's autograph at a mall.

 

[MHSL82]

talk about records that will never be broken..

I could see someone doing the assists, eventually.

But the steals is even harder.

I suppose all records are meant to be broken, but there is no one even close to it playing currently, so it will be a long time before it is.

Just to play that long and be such a true iron man...the longevity alone, makes it a tough one to reach.

Yeah. You have a few players that have been very healthy, such as Andre Miller and Russell Westbrook. Miller has only missed 4 games in his career, 3 due to injury (all separate years), 1 due to suspension.

Westbrook has never missed a game.

You just need one of them to have a game closer to Stockton.

Rondo took a few years to develop, so he won't do the assists.

I think he's a little closer to steals, but would come in 2nd place at best. Chris Paul has been injured too much in his career.

I think if they ever are broken, it's very unlikely that both assists and steals will be done by the same person.

Nope. The assists will never be broken. The NBA will go out of business before that happens. There simply isn't anyone out there so dedicated and consistent to break it who is also durable in a great system and ages well. I think it was a perfect storm to get where Stockton is. The big scorers in the game these days are shooting guards, guys with the ball already. There's no point guard to set up a LeBron shot, as there was to get Malone baskets. Point guards are asked to score more these days. I know some don't, but if you are to get a lot of assists, you are slacking in points. I'm still very impressed with Stocktons 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, and 2.7 spg in 1989-90. Stockton was averaging around 8 in the twilight of his career, too. I don't see older guys doing that currently. I know the system helped but where do we find that in this league anymore?

I think the most impressive stat that is vulnerable is scoring. Scoring is easier these days and now it is acceptable to just score, regardless of winning. I know, LeBron and Kobe win, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if some guy comes and tops Kareem without much winning (some, obviously). These aren't mutually exclusive, just saying that sometimes to win you must pass and rebound well, too. Plus, people are starting at 19, so that gives them three years before retirement age, assuming they aren't burned out three years earlier, too. Some other stats are passable but aren't as impressive to me.

Steals could be, but I don't know who's going to play long enough. Steals are hard to come by consistently and for 20 seasons.

 

[nuraman00]

Also, think about it this way. It's easier to create an assist than to steal.

The best assist rate guys assist on 40-50% of their possessions.

The best steal guys steal on 4% of their possessions, and 2.75% is considered good too.

Yes, that's why the assist totals are what they are, and steals are what they are.

But steals just occur so infrequently compared to assists, that's why I think it's harder.

Rebounding is probably the hardest to break. Wilt has 23924 rebounds. Karl Malone only had 14968.

It's a different era now though. Guards and wing players rebound.

Not only PGs like Kidd, Rondo, and Westbrook. But you'll have SFs like Dominic McGuire, Wade, Pierce, Bonzi Wells getting 14-18 rebound games once in a while.

It's a different era now, with all positions rebounding.

Also, if you've looked at the FG% in the 50s and 60s, they were horrible. You need missed shots for rebounds. Offense is a little better now, so there's less missed shots. I also think defense is good too. Before, in the 40s-60s, it was just bad offense, not good defense. So easier to get rebounds then.

 

[MHSL82]

Just my opinion, but I don't care about assist % when you divorce it from games played or minutes played or whatnot. It means absolutely nothing to me in terms of anyone breaking Stockton's records or Kareem's records. If you wanted to say someone could get to 10,000 quicker, fine. Don't think so, but maybe.

Case in point, Karl Malone only needed to average 17.4 points for 84 more games (to match Abdul-Jabbar's game total) to pass Kareem. However, he didn't. The man of steel, the durable Malone averaged more points per game than Jabbar but couldn't pass him. Jordan couldn't either - but I blame the guy who killed his father.

Teams aren't as loyal as they were to Stockton and Malone. Not once did I think the Jazz drafted their replacement, even to the day they left Utah. Kidd is second all-time, teams kept dumping him. That made it harder. Stockton had the talent, will, and the perfect system and situation - a perfect storm in sports to get to his 15,806 assists.

 

[MHSL82]

Hakeem's 2162 steals, 9th all-time, is unusual on one hand because it's a big man. On the other hand, big men have worse turnover rates than guards. So if Hakeem was primarily stripping big men, it's not as impressive as a guard stripping a guard, because big men are supposed to turn it over more. But if Hakeem was stripping a lot of guards too, then that's more impressive.

True. Malone got a lot of assists and is up there on the all-time list, but I remember you talking about how he got his versus others. What do you think of Malone's turnover rate compared to other big men? Keep in mind the assist rate, as more attempts at assists lead to more turnovers, versus a black hole (though dribbling may also contribute equally and peripheral vision of defenders - a PG should be better at that).

 

[nuraman00]

True. Malone got a lot of assists and is up there on the all-time list, but I remember you talking about how he got his versus others. What do you think of Malone's turnover rate compared to other big men? Keep in mind the assist rate, as more attempts at assists lead to more turnovers, versus a black hole (though dribbling may also contribute equally and peripheral vision of defenders - a PG should be better at that).

I'll look up some stats to see how Malone fits in later, for his turnovers.

But I'll say this, even though Hakeem might be my favorite player.

After watching bigs like Kaman, Mourning, etc. turn it over a lot, and studying bigs turnover rates, there are a lot of bigs that can't handle the ball. Nor are they supposed to, if they could, they'd be guards. But because bigs lose the ball a lot, I feel Hakeem's stat is more likely just due to him having a long career and being around a bunch of bumbling bigs who can't hold onto the ball.

It's also true that I just don't have memories of Hakeem stealing the ball.

I have a lot more memories of guys like Malone, Webber, Marion, AK actually stealing the ball.


I will say that I saw less Houston games than even Seattle, San Antonio, Indiana, NY in the 90s. So perhaps if I had watched Hakeem for a year and really watched for his steals, I'd have a greater appreciation for them.

And, as I mentioned, I look for different things now than I did in the 90s.


And usually, bigs don't get turnovers because they make a bad pass. They get turnovers when they try to dribble in traffic (the Mourning special), or they lose the ball off their foot (Kaman). Or they get offensive fouls (Webber). Or they can't catch (Mutombo, Adonal Foyle).

Sometimes, yes, you try to create some space by dribbling in traffic, but sometimes that leads to turnovers too.

Bigs that could pass like Malone, Webber, Divac, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, they rarely turned it over while attempting to pass. Maybe it's because of their height.

I'm not saying they only could pass because of their height. I'm saying that they were good passers first, and their height made it easier.