Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 12:13:00 AM (view original):
And your assertion that my numbers give more credit for playing time than for quality of playing time is total horseschit. There are lots of guys with real long careers that did not make these rankings. But if both guys are high quality players and one played 38% more minutes than the other, guess what?
54852 minutes of Karl Malone at a rate of .205 win shares per 48 minutes is FAR MORE VALUABLE than 34443 minutes of Larry Bird at .203 win shares per 48 minutes. Malone is even slightly more valuable that Bird on a per minute basis, but he also played 59% more minutes than Bird. You're a complete fool if you'd rather have Bird on your team for his entire career than Malone on your team for his entire career.
If you want to just talk each player's 2 or 3 best seasons you'd lose that too. Malone's best 3 seasons in win shares per 48 minutes are all better than Bird's best season. But Karl only had one other hall of famer to play with while Bird had four. After Stockton the best player Malone ever had with him on the Jazz was Hornacek. When they had him they tore through the Western Conference playoffs twice in a row like a hot knife through butter. and then lost really close games to the Bulls to lose the title. But if Dick Bavetta had not ****** up and called a bad 24 second violation as Eisley hit a 3 in game 6, most likely they win that game and are slight favorites to win game 7 at home.
So because a referee ****** up, now Malone is a loser, right?
You arseholes think that all that matters is championships. David Robinson took the Spurs who were a joke and made them a huge contender. Before they got Duncan who was the best player he ever had on his team? Avery Phucking Johnson?
The year before the Admiral got there the Spurs went 21-61. His first year they went 56-26, a 35 game improvement, which is still the highest ever. The year before Olajuwon arrived the Rockets went 29-53. His first year they went 45-37. That's a great 16 game improvement, which is less than half of the Spurs improvement with the rookie David Robinson.
The first Spurs championship, 98-99, when YOU think Duncan was the reason, Robinson was the best player in the league. He led the league in WS/48 at .261. Duncan was .213. David led the league in that metric 5 times, and his career WS/.48 was .250. Olajuwon was just .177 for his career. Robinson was far more valuable than Olajuwon. That's why he went 30-12 against him head to head. Counting playoffs David went 32-16 head to head against Hakeem.
To the Olajuwon argument:
In year two Olajuwon took the Rockets to the finals. In year 2 Robinson lost int the first round so there is that.
You discuss win shares a lot, but what bolsters win shares....WINNING! That has a lot to do with what is around you. Olajuwon's peak only featured playing with one all-star player that made the all-star game one time. BTW Duncan was above Robinson in WS in the 98-99 Season. Duncan finished 3rd in MVP voting and Robinson was 12th. Say what you will about the objective nature of MVP voting, but the top 3 is rarely wrong. I can argue with about 10 of the eventual winners, but the top 3 were the dominant figures of the league clearly. Additionally, you asked who the best player was and like a moron you stated Avery Johnson was the best player. You forgot that Sean Elliott and Vinny Del Negro played there. Plus, in the 98-99 season Mr. "The Kiss of Death" had a higher WS total than were better despite player 380 fewer minutes. So, to the Karl Malone point, if you think the choker/kid toucher Mailman was in the same class with Larry Bird puts you squarely against any basketball historian. At some point you have to acknowledge that you are wrong and not everyone else. Bird won when the game was on the line, and Bird was THE dominant player in the league for five years. Malone was a footnote in comparison. There has never been a question about Bird's MVPs...the same cannot be said for Mailman. 1997 was voter fatigue and 1999 you have already questioned. (BTW you want to complain about Bavetta? Olajwuon received more techs and was fouled out by him more than any other referee so let's not go down the road of referee preferences lest I get into another Scott Foster/Joey Crawford diatribe). Then you want to talk about how I lose the debate about the best seasons between Bird and Malone. Bird's level of competition was light years ahead or Malone in a weaker western conference. The Lakers were done, the Suns were borderline, the Sonics, Rockets, and Spurs were good consistently (except that one year when Robinson was hurt), but he played in the era of vast expansion. Bird had the Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks were all good at varying times. The league didn't expand until Bird was starting his downhill turn. Malone's only argument was longevity. When he "tore through the western conference like a knife through hot butter" the west was not exceptional. The Bulls had stiffer competition in the east plus had to play through more adversity.
I never said that championships are all that matters, but when we get to the cream of the crop (the top 10-15 players in history) winning matters and winning as the best player is crucial. The list of players I shared is bulletproof except for Reed (one of his Finals MVPs is specious at best - should have belonged to Frazier). If I was selecting a power forward for my team, I would choose at least four before I got to Malone. I get your argument about the eye test. When you don't know the game, it is hard to understand what you are seeing.