Career Scoring Leaders

IMHO just because you have biceps, doesnt mean you are strong. I define strength as who ever can get the position they feel like it against whoever they feel like. Shaq can bump away anyone in the NBA, there isnt a person STRONG enough to stop Shaq, the league knows it, even the players know it.
Malone however cannot move anyone he feels like it. Put Wallace on Malone, Malone will never be able to bump away Wallace...he's not strong enough for that imho. Shaq is undoubtedly the stronger of the two. Just because Malone seems to be fitter then Shaq doesnt mean he has more strength.
I think I have alot of supporters when I say, Shaq is the strongest man in the NBA today, and undoubtedly stronger then Malone. Maybe all time. I dont know if Wilt was strong or not.
I find it VERY difficult to believe that Malone is stronger then Shaq.

See that's exactly what I'm talking about. Shaq is bigger and more massive than Malone so he can bump people away and get good position. I disagree about Malone not being able to move anyone if he feels like it. He does have the strength to do so, but he wants to play on the perimeter these days. You have a lot of supporters here because most of those supporters probably don't lift weights. If Malone and Shaq got into a bench-pressing contest, I would have no problem putting money on Malone since bench-presses measures true strength and not sheer bulk.

I think we can both agree to disagree on this one, once again imho, I feel Shaq would be able to bench press more then Malone since I think Shaq is stronger out of the two. Bulk doesnt usually mean you are strong Robby, if this was the case I think Yao Ming wouldve been bulking up a long time ago. Shaq is valuable to his team because he is strong and he has bulk. Both of these have an impact on someone's game. I still disagree that because Malone has biceps, he is strong. The rest of the league would be lifting weights like hell if this was the case. If by having biceps you are strong, Arnold Schwarsnegger is stronger then Malone? Maybe, but I dont think so. If you are an NBA player you surely are stronger then sumone like the terminator. That was an example maybe not one of the best, but I hope you see my point. Just because you have biceps doesnt mean that you are strong.

Malone is strong BUT he's not stronger then Shaq.

Well, I based my opinion on watching Malone and Shaq play against each other. Whenever, Malone was put on Shaq, Shaq couldn't back him down so he had to settle for the jump-hook on Malone. Malone obviously couldn't back down Shaq either. I still think that people who consistently lift weights will understand what I'm trying to say. But we'll just agree to disagree on this one. Discussing this topic of who's stronger reminds of this Jazz-Lakers game where Shaq drew an offensive foul from Malone by flopping and falling to the ground just as Karl was making his move to the basket. Quite a humorous and rare event that was. Maybe someone else remembers that too. Anyways, we could say that Shaq and Karl are the two strongest players and stop at that. You agree?

Discussing this topic of who's stronger reminds of this Jazz-Lakers game where Shaq drew an offensive foul from Malone by flopping and falling to the ground just as Karl was making his move to the basket.

Anyways, we could say that Shaq and Karl are the two strongest players and stop at that. You agree?

Agreed .

How does one define strength?

It's definitely important to set a criterion for strength, as you've sought to do, Robby. Unfortunately, your criterion only considers half of a person's body! And since I lift regularly, I should know what you're trying to say, right? Well, I know that you've considered only the appearance of certain prize muscles (the biceps) as an adequate determinate of one's strength. That's pretty superficial. What about squats, cleans, and everything else involving the legs? Don't these even count? The reality is, you don't know what Malone nor Shaq is capable of in the weight room with the upper body, lower body, or anything. So how can you purport (and with such assurance) that Malone is stronger? Unless you know (and are secretly withholding from the rest of us) how much each guy can lift, in proportion to their respective body weights, you can't be so sure. It seems all you've done is considered the length of a player's tenure with the Utah Jazz in addition to bicep definition. Should I even be surprised?

Malone won the Regualr Season Award, not the Finals won so let's compare both player's regular season stats (you can ignore this if you want Bourbon since you don't want to debate)

I like how you conveniently excuse his poor postseason play here. Of course the MVP's only awarded for regular season play, and yes, I feel like debating now. Malone over Jordan in 1997? I mean, are you kidding me? I'm all fired up.

Malone was also more valuable to his team than MJ since the second highest point total for the Bulls was Pippen with 20+ppg while the second highest on Utah was Hornacek with 14+ ppg. I'd say Malone was pretty deserving of the award. If anyone wants me to further prove my point, click on this link I found

First of all, your link comes from the official website of the Utah Jazz, so consider the source. (Hint: you won't see anything anti-Malone there.) Secondly, Jordan's second fiddle was a more prolific scorer than Malone's, yes, but that doesn't by itself make Malone more valuable. Think about it. Shaquille O'Neal's right hand man, who actually outscored Shaq last season, averaged 30 ppg in 2002-2003. Now you can look at each and every NBA roster, and ask yourself if their best player is more valuable than Shaq simply because their second-best player scored considerably less than Kobe Bryant. See what you come up with.

See Bourbon, for people who actually watched the Jazz play through the 96-97 season, they know how good and dominant Malone was. I hope you go to the link I posted to see what I'm talking about.

I remember the 1996-1997 season just fine, thanks. Speaking of ...

Yeah, those two shots were clean but the plays before them were ridiculous. In Game 1, with Chicago down 1, Hornacek got called for a touch foul that put MJ on the line and helped tie the game which eventually set up his game-winner. In the flu game, before making the 3 pointer, MJ was at the line shooting free throws because of another very questionable call. He shot 12 free-throws that game. Also, it's funny how you forgot to mention game 6 in 98 when he pushed Russell to get his shot off. He shot 15 free throws in that game.

It's not nearly as funny as some of the notable omissions you've made. Remember when Malone elbowed David Robinson in the back of the head, knocking him unconscious, and Malone wasn't even charged with a foul? Or how about that deciding game with the Rockets in '97? Remember seeing John Stockton wide-open for three, knocking it down, and sending the Rockets packing? Ever wonder why he had so much space to shoot? Karl Malone set a "pick" that involved picking up Clyde Drexler and carrying him several feet. Check the tape. That's right, elbows, flopping, illegal picks, dirty plays, Utah had it all. And let's not forget that every Karl Malone jumpshot was prefaced with a kick to the opposing player's shins. Sure, MJ got his share of calls, as all the greats have, but it's laughable watching a die-hard Jazz fan take issue with the referees. Consider ...

"They've been doing that for the last 17 years. Time and time again they create foul situations, and the refs call it. We (the coaching staff) used to get furious in my earlier days with Chicago, but we just laugh at it now."
-- Phil Jackson

And ... (I loved this one, by the way) ...

"MVPs do not need to flop." - Hakeem Olajuwon, on Karl Malone.

That brings us full-circle to the MJ/Malone travesty. Since you're fond of citations, here are a couple more regarding Malone's MVP, from the Associated Press and the Notre Dame Observer, respectively.

Malone wouldn't say the same about himself after again showing that he probably didn't deserve to beat out Jordan for MVP honors. ``We just got waxed,'' Malone said. ``I think my teammates feed off the things I do. When I don't bring a lot of energy ... it seems like as a team, we don't. I'm just stinking it up right now. It was embarrassing.''

Malone wouldn't say the same about himself after again showing that he probably didn't deserve to beat out Jordan for MVP honors. ``We just got waxed,'' Malone said. ``I think my teammates feed off the things I do. When I don't bring a lot of energy ... it seems like as a team, we don't. I'm just stinking it up right now. It was embarrassing.''

I know I pasted this twice; I just wanted to see it in print again.

This mistake unfortunately happens repeatedly. Athletes are given awards that they don't deserve. As much as it hurts a loyal Jazz fan to admit, both of Karl Malone's MVPs are questionable.
His first award was given while Michael Jordan still ruled the hardcourt. Can anyone realistically claim that Jordan didn't deserve the award EVERY year he played the game? But because Malone's numbers were higher than normal and Jordan's numbers were lower than normal, Malone walked away with the trophy. Certainly Jordan shouldn't be punished for racking up astronomical statistics in previous years.
Malone's second award came after Jordan retired. With MJ out of the picture, he logically assumed the role of MVP frontrunner. While Tim Duncan had the statistics to win the award, Malone had paid his dues and consequently won.

You'll notice that my sources come from credible journalism mediums, not the team's fan site. It's also worth mentioning that in a separate article, the Associated Press outwardly (and in a headline, no less) defines the MVP acronym as "Malone Vote Perplexes." While it was nice seeing the middle-of-the-road AP confront the situation intelligently, the Observer article was even more telling. Best of all, it used the pro-Jazz perspective; even the author knew Malone didn't deserve it. The article, in a nutshell, summarizes why I thought Jordan deserved the honor: he shouldn't have been overlooked for his previous achievements. There was a nauseatingly-high tide of sentimentalist voting in the media, with the general feeling being, "Let's not give it to him this year, he just won it." Honestly, Robby, if 1996-1997 was MJ's comeback year (which, in this theoretical sense, precludes him from winning the MVP in 1996), and all things being the same, do you think Karl Malone wins the award in '97? I don't think so.

Last edited by Bourbon on Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree, every superstar gets his fair share of calls but MJ was at a different level. Many times if oppponents just touched Michael. a foul would be called.

once hand-checking was considered a foul, it made it easier for players like iverson & jordan to draw fouls (of the less violent variety then post players)...touch fouls happen with the league's stars but i'll just agree to disagree.

However, for bigger guys like Malone and Shaq, they sometimes have to get hit pretty hard to get a foul call. This is why Shaq attacked Brad Miller because he gets pounded down low consistently with no fouls being called. Malone was the same way a few years ago when he played in the low post.

malone more often then not initiates contact, so i think naturally it would be a tougher call for the zebras to call the foul. more so with shaq.

Quote:
so i took the position in defending him.


I'm not sure I understood that. Could you please elaborate?

you said malone would school walton. i disagreed and discussed why

Ok, but do read my response to Bourbon's "assessment."

i did. malone and mj were both worthy of the award. fair enough

Isn't Malone about the same age as Hakeem and Charles so why should that be a factor? I think Andrew and I had a discussion as to when was Hakeem's last great year, and we agreed that it was 96-97. Charles wasn't exactly that bad either, he averaged about 18+ ppg and 13+ rpg game that year. There was no game 7 in that series, the Jazz won in six. Do try to get your facts straight. Yeah, Stockton hit big shots but he wasn't in the low post going up aginst Hakeem, Charles, and Kevin Willis. It was Malone who battled those guys in the low post while Stockton schooled guys like Matt Maloney and Sedale Threatt.

oops.. game 6 my mistake. barkley was no gym rat so age caught up with quickly. hakeem ok, but clearly past his prime... but malone didn't beat those guys by himself in that series as you claimed

Alright, please try to get your facts straight before posting false information. The Jazz swept LA in 1998 with Shaq and Campbell, along with Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Kobe Bryant, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher. Portland never swept LA, in fact they lost in the first round to LA in 97 and 98. The Spurs did sweep LA in 99, but that was an LA team without Campbell, Van Exel, and Eddie Jones.

oh well, aren't i the dumbass? i just remember the LA teams getting swept out of the playoffs for several years before phil showed up. could be wrong on the swept thing, but they were getting their asses handed to them

Yeah, I completly agree with that. Malone did not play like an MVP in the Finals, if he would have, then Utah would have won both times, especially in 98. But without Malone, Utah would have never made it to the Finals.

yep malone's got them there, but he's failed to win it...twice. in fact, he has choked on the nba's biggest/greatest stage. malone may be a great player but IMO opinion, the greatest players are the ones that got their teams to finals and WON. no excuses.

The gutsy Barkely you speak of missed more games in one season due to injury than Malone did in his entire career. Not only was Malone in great shape, he always played hurt, unlike Sir Charles.

agreed but if you read my post again, i was referring to barkley's performance in the finals only. age/health aside, barkely didn't choke in the finals like malone did.

It's definitely important to set a criterion for strength, as you've sought to do, Robby. Unfortunately, your criterion only considers half of a person's body! And since I lift regularly, I should know what you're trying to say, right? Well, I know that you've considered only the appearance of certain prize muscles (the biceps) as an adequate determinate of one's strength. That's pretty superficial. What about squats, cleans, and everything else involving the legs? Don't these even count? The reality is, you don't know what Malone nor Shaq is capable of in the weight room with the upper body, lower body, or anything. So how can you purport (and with such assurance) that Malone is stronger? Unless you know (and are secretly withholding from the rest of us) how much each guy can lift, in proportion to their respective body weights, you can't be so sure. It seems all you've done is considered the length of a player's tenure with the Utah Jazz in addition to bicep definition. Should I even be surprised?

No, but should I be surprised because all you're doing is bashing a member of the Utah Jazz? Anyways, I know how all the different muscles are important and assigned different point values in body-building contests but I didn't think there were many people in here who did serious lifting. And I defined stength as upper body strenght which to me Malone clearly has more of if you compare him to Shaq. Believe it or not, you can tell who's stronger by looking carefully. Look at shoulders, and I think it's very clear that Malone has the upper edge in that. Next look at the arms. If you truly do lift weights regularly as you say you do, then you'd know that as a person lifts regularly, the bicep muscles, among others, begin to show themselves without the person having to flex. Look at Malone's picture that I posted, he's not flexing but his biceps are quite distinct. If you look at Shaquille, you'll see that his arms are not the same. That's because even though his arms may be thicker, much of it is due to fat. This is very similar to obese people. They have very big (in terms of diameter) arms, but when it comes to lifting, they can't do much at all. However, they can bump people out of the way because of their abnormal mass. Finally, I'd say Malone's abdominal area is clearly superior to Shaq's belly which routinely stick out.

I like how you conveniently excuse his poor postseason play here. Of course the MVP's only awarded for regular season play, and yes, I feel like debating now. Malone over Jordan in 1997? I mean, are you kidding me? I'm all fired up.

I didn't use any excuse. I simply listed that the MVP award is based on the regualr season not the playoffs, which most people don't realize when talking about this issue because they don't read the entire post before posting.

First of all, your link comes from the official website of the Utah Jazz, so consider the source. (Hint: you won't see anything anti-Malone there.) Secondly, Jordan's second fiddle was a more prolific scorer than Malone's, yes, but that doesn't by itself make Malone more valuable. Think about it. Shaquille O'Neal's right hand man, who actually outscored Shaq last season, averaged 30 ppg in 2002-2003. Now you can look at each and every NBA roster, and ask yourself if their best player is more valuable than Shaq simply because their second-best player scored considerably less than Kobe Bryant. See what you come up with.

See, if you read the examples I posted carefully, you'll see that the quotes were made by people not associated with the Jazz or Utah. But this does show me your anti-Jazz feelings though. Ok, so if Jordan was taken out of the equation, the Bulls make the playoffs and maybe lose in the second round. If Malone was taken out of the equation. the Jazz don't even make the playoffs. So who's more valuable to their team? Come on, I know even you can answer that question. As for the Shaq and Kobe example, I didn't quite understand what you're trying to say. Please eloborate.

I remember the 1996-1997 season just fine, thanks. Speaking of ...

But how much of it do you remeber? I'd like to know just how closely you followed the NBA that year? Do tell.

It's not nearly as funny as some of the notable omissions you've made. Remember when Malone elbowed David Robinson in the back of the head, knocking him unconscious, and Malone wasn't even charged with a foul? Or how about that deciding game with the Rockets in '97? Remember seeing John Stockton wide-open for three, knocking it down, and sending the Rockets packing? Ever wonder why he had so much space to shoot? Karl Malone set a "pick" that involved picking up Clyde Drexler and carrying him several feet. Check the tape. That's right, elbows, flopping, illegal picks, dirty plays, Utah had it all. And let's not forget that every Karl Malone jumpshot was prefaced with a kick to the opposing player's shins. Sure, MJ got his share of calls, as all the greats have, but it's laughable watching a die-hard Jazz fan take issue with the referees. Consider ...

The David Robinson incident was in 97-98 and I watched that game. That elbow, unlike many Malone elbows, was inadvertant yet he was suspended for the incident. Was MJ ever suspended? I agree with that, but you should then consider Game 5 in 95 when Hakeem got some ludicrous calls in the 2nd half. I hardly agree with that remark about Malone's jumpshots. I'm starting to have doubts about you credibility Bourbon. Yes, Utah played a physical style, but most of that was from guards going up against centers. Stockton took just as many elbows to the head by David Robinson as he dished out. Did you know that or were you just superficially assuming that since it's the Jazz, it must be dirty? Lastly, I never complained about the refs, I simply pointed out that MJ's game would have suffered had he not gotten beneficial calls from the refs. It seems as though your habit of putting words in people's mouths is creeping up again.

Malone wouldn't say the same about himself after again showing that he probably didn't deserve to beat out Jordan for MVP honors. ``We just got waxed,'' Malone said. ``I think my teammates feed off the things I do. When I don't bring a lot of energy ... it seems like as a team, we don't. I'm just stinking it up right now. It was embarrassing.''

Wow, talk about being a hippocrite, after telling me off for getting stuff from the Jazz website. That quote is said after Game 2 of the NBA Finals in 97. See, I told you that people like you are obsessed with mixing in the NBA Finals with the Regular Season awards to make MJ look better.

This mistake unfortunately happens repeatedly. Athletes are given awards that they don't deserve. As much as it hurts a loyal Jazz fan to admit, both of Karl Malone's MVPs are questionable.
His first award was given while Michael Jordan still ruled the hardcourt. Can anyone realistically claim that Jordan didn't deserve the award EVERY year he played the game? But because Malone's numbers were higher than normal and Jordan's numbers were lower than normal, Malone walked away with the trophy. Certainly Jordan shouldn't be punished for racking up astronomical statistics in previous years.
Malone's second award came after Jordan retired. With MJ out of the picture, he logically assumed the role of MVP frontrunner. While Tim Duncan had the statistics to win the award, Malone had paid his dues and consequently won.

Same thing as above, this quote is way after the 97 Season.

You'll notice that my sources come from credible journalism mediums, not the team's fan site. It's also worth mentioning that in a separate article, the Associated Press outwardly (and in a headline, no less) defines the MVP acronym as "Malone Vote Perplexes." While it was nice seeing the middle-of-the-road AP confront the situation intelligently, the Observer article was even more telling. Best of all, it used the pro-Jazz perspective; even the author knew Malone didn't deserve it. The article, in a nutshell, summarizes why I thought Jordan deserved the honor: he shouldn't have been overlooked for his previous achievements. There was a nauseatingly-high tide of sentimentalist voting in the media, with the general feeling being, "Let's not give it to him this year, he just won it." Honestly, Robby, if 1996-1997 was MJ's comeback year (which, in this theoretical sense, precludes him winning the MVP in 1996), and all things being the same, do you think Karl Malone wins the award in '97? I don't think so.

Your articles come from credible sources, true, but they come during or after the Finals. Everyone changed their opinions after the Bulls won game 1 in 97. Again you're contradicting yourself. First you claim that Malone won because of sentiments, then you bring in a question of if 1996-97 was MJ's comeback year, would he have won the award? Isn't that also based on sentiments. I quite honestly don't know what would have happened if MJ came back in 96-97. All I know is that Malone's numbers were just as good, if not superior to, Michael's that year. Funny how you haven't said anything about the numbers of both players that year? Perhaps since the numbers don't lie.

Here's a parting thought from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Karl Malone's selection over Michael Jordan for the NBA's Most Valuable Player award continues to be a hot topic for the talking heads on radio.
But as far as Jordan is concerned, there is no controversy or any reason to be outraged.

once hand-checking was considered a foul, it made it easier for players like iverson & jordan to draw fouls (of the less violent variety then post players)...touch fouls happen with the league's stars but i'll just agree to disagree.

Ok, I won't argue this with you anymore if you wish to stop.

malone more often then not initiates contact, so i think naturally it would be a tougher call for the zebras to call the foul. more so with shaq.

It's not their fault their bigger than everyone else. If guys like MJ got the same nightly beating those two did, he probably wouldn't even last a full season.

you said malone would school walton. i disagreed and discussed why

Ok.

i did. malone and mj were both worthy of the award. fair enough

Thank You.

oops.. game 6 my mistake. barkley was no gym rat so age caught up with quickly. hakeem ok, but clearly past his prime... but malone didn't beat those guys by himself in that series as you claimed

Who else helped Malone? Ostertag, Carr, and Foster? That's not exactly a lot of help.

oh well, aren't i the dumbass? i just remember the LA teams getting swept out of the playoffs for several years before phil showed up. could be wrong on the swept thing, but they were getting their asses handed to them

Jazz beat Lakers 4-1 in 1997
Jazz beat Lakers 4-0 in 1998
Spurs beat Lakers 4-0 in 1999

yep malone's got them there, but he's failed to win it...twice. in fact, he has choked on the nba's biggest/greatest stage. malone may be a great player but IMO opinion, the greatest players are the ones that got their teams to finals and WON. no excuses.

Not too many other great players had to go through MJ. Would Houston have been the Bulls? I don't think so. LA with Shaq? No, het got swept with Penny on his team. Unfortunately for Malone, he made it to the Finals against Jordan. Had the Jazz played any other team, they would have won. And I still don't know how they lost the 98 NBA Finals. But the greatest players you speak of also had quite a bit of help, unlike Malone.

agreed but if you read my post again, i was referring to barkley's performance in the finals only. age/health aside, barkely didn't choke in the finals like malone did.

Choking has nothing to do with guts. Pippen choked under pressure much more than Malone, but he always had MJ to bail him out. Game 1 in 97 could have gone either way, Jordan missed a free-throw and Stockton missed a three which Malone rebounded and then was fouled and he missed two free throws. Game 2 he just played terrible. Game 5 was when he played and acted like a selfish and idiot player and Bryon Russel doubled Pippen and left Jordan open for some reason. game 6 was also tough and could have gone either way after Kerr hit the shot. If Bryon Russell had inbounded the ball properly, Shandon Anderson would have had a dunk and the game goes into OT, where Pippen has 5 fouls. Who knows what happens in overtime. In Game 6 in 98, he played well. MJ stealing the ball from Malone in that game doesn't say much about him being a choker since he was blind-sided by MJ. His teammates, particularly Stockton should have helped him in that situation. But Karl had the ability to dominate the Finals and beat the Bulls, he just couldn't get it done. The Jazz would have also won had Malone gotten some help.

Unfortunately for Malone, he made it to the Finals against Jordan. Had the Jazz played any other team, they would have won. And I still don't know how they lost the 98 NBA Finals. But the greatest players you speak of also had quite a bit of help, unlike Malone.

that and the rest that you posted after....

just sounds likes to me you're making excuses. if malone is as great as you claim him to be, he would have gotten the job done, no excuses. no ifs, ands, or buts. no would have, could have, etc... same goes for jazz beating the bulls. this reminds me an old discussion back in the old forum where ben was saying seattle was a better then chicago (the 72-10 bulls) and would have won if certain things went the other way.

as for the pippen thing- the jazz were counting on malone much more then the bulls were counting on pippen. let's not lose focus here by trying to put the blame on others. in the end, great players make the big plays, don't turnover the ball, etc. the mailman did not deliver in finals. period.

Unfortunately for Malone, he made it to the Finals against Jordan. Had the Jazz played any other team, they would have won. And I still don't know how they lost the 98 NBA Finals. But the greatest players you speak of also had quite a bit of help, unlike Malone.

that and the rest that you posted after....

just sounds likes to me you're making excuses. if malone is as great as you claim him to be, he would have gotten the job done, no excuses. no ifs, ands, or buts. no would have, could have, etc... same goes for jazz beating the bulls. this reminds me an old discussion back in the old forum where ben was saying seattle was a better then chicago (the 72-10 bulls) and would have won if certain things went the other way.

as for the pippen thing- the jazz were counting on malone much more then the bulls were counting on pippen. let's not lose focus here by trying to put the blame on others. in the end, great players make the big plays, don't turnover the ball, etc. the mailman did not deliver in finals. period.

Malone was a great player, which is something most people don't give him credit for and the same goes for the Jazz. He was hurt in the 97 Finals so that loss is understandable but in 98 the Jazz should have won, no excuses for that. But the lost NBA Finals don't make him any lesser of a player. It's teams that win championships, not just great players. Even MJ needed help to get rings. Malone just never had consistent help from his teammates and had to carry the team so he had to play well every night. Not only did Malone have to score, but he aslo had to rebound and play defense. Michael never had that kind of pressure on him because he had Pippen to pick up the scoring slack and Rodman to rebound. Lets not forget that had Pippen not hurt his back in the 98 Finals, he would have been MVP. Malone never had anyone like that to help him out.

Believe it or not, you can tell who's stronger by looking carefully.

You're judging a book by its cover, Robby. Sure, Malone looks better, but you can't definitively claim that he's stronger than Shaq. You just don't know.

See, if you read the examples I posted carefully, you'll see that the quotes were made by people not associated with the Jazz or Utah. But this does show me your anti-Jazz feelings though.

I read your examples carefully, and I do understand that the statements made were from independent third parties. Similarly, there were people not associated with the Jazz that felt Malone shouldn't have won the award over Jordan, but you won't find their opinions espoused on the Jazz website. Basically, it offers a one-sided perspective, and why shouldn't it? It's the team's site. I'm just pointing out the other side to your argument, so I'm not sure where you're detecting my anti-Jazz sentiments. Sheesh, Robby, talk about putting words in my mouth! I'm starting to wonder about your credibility!

Ok, so if Jordan was taken out of the equation, the Bulls make the playoffs and maybe lose in the second round. If Malone was taken out of the equation. the Jazz don't even make the playoffs.

I'm not sure the Jazz don't make the playoffs without Malone. Who knows. But what I do know, is if you take Jordan off the Bulls' roster, you don't have that fifth championship. And a title (Jordan's work) is infinitely more valuable than a failed Finals appearance (Malone's work). On a side note, I'm extending your aforementioned "what if you took each player away" analogy, so please don't remind me that the MVP's a regular season distinction.

As for the Shaq and Kobe example, I didn't quite understand what you're trying to say. Please eloborate.

Hmmmm, I thought I was pretty clear. Just try re-reading it. It's not a main point, though, so don't worry if you can't figure it out.

That elbow, unlike many Malone elbows, was inadvertant yet he was suspended for the incident.

Kudos to you for admitting that many of Malone's elbows were intentional.

I hardly agree with that remark about Malone's jumpshots. I'm starting to have doubts about you credibility Bourbon.

LOL. Of course Malone didn't kick the defender every time he shot the ball. It's unfortunate I have to explain hyperbole to you, but Heaven forbid you start doubting my credibility. Truth be told, Malone did come under fire for kicking at players as he shot the ball. That's where sportswriter Peter May derived the term "kick jumpers."

Did you know that or were you just superficially assuming that since it's the Jazz, it must be dirty?

If you read my post carefully (remind you of anyone?), you'd find examples of questionable play left and right. You'd also find that Utah had earned a reputation throughout the league as a dirty team. So no, I wasn't making a superficial assumption; I was concurring with a prevailing majority.

Lastly, I never complained about the refs, I simply pointed out that MJ's game would have suffered had he not gotten beneficial calls from the refs. It seems as though your habit of putting words in people's mouths is creeping up again.

I said you were taking issue with the referees, which you did in your Jordan Rules critique. While "taking issue" certainly encompasses complaining, I never pinpointed your words as "complaints" about the officiating, did I? Looks like the pot just called the kettle black. Again.

Wow, talk about being a hippocrite, after telling me off for getting stuff from the Jazz website.

When did I "tell you off?" Look, it's fine to cite the Jazz website if it suits your purpose, but I just pointed out its inherent lack of objectivity. I didn't tell you off. Oh, and even though you can't spell hypocrite, you do know what it means, right? Maybe you were just messing with me when you used the word, because it doesn't look like you do.

See, I told you that people like you are obsessed with mixing in the NBA Finals with the Regular Season awards to make MJ look better.

You missed my point entirely, and I'm not the least bit surprised. I was pointing out the significance of an AP sports writer saying, " ... after again showing that he probably didn't deserve to beat out Jordan for MVP honors." My point, since I'll have to spell it out for you, is that the Associated Press, like other news organizations, holds itself accountable for providing balanced accounts, and here, the writer diverged completely from presenting the story bias-free, and instead pandered to the prevailing, popular opinion at the time.

Same thing as above, this quote is way after the 97 Season.

Does that make it less relevant? Does the advantage of additional 20/20 hindsight cripple the writer's ideas? You're killing me.

Again you're contradicting yourself. First you claim that Malone won because of sentiments, then you bring in a question of if 1996-97 was MJ's comeback year, would he have won the award? Isn't that also based on sentiments.

Popular sentiment would've given him a boost, but MJ still had to deliver. Remember, in his comeback season with the Wizards, Jordan wasn't an MVP front-runner, despite the return of Jordanmania. I really don't see where I'm contradicting myself here. While I acknowledge the power of sentamentalist movements in MVP voting, I don't value it higher than a player's on-court performance. So to return to our hypothetical question, I think that (given Jordan's 95-96 season, nothing else) he would've won the award, and yes, sentiment would be on his side, but the bottom line is, he would've won because he deserved to. After all, the best don't need emotional pleas to win.

Funny how you haven't said anything about the numbers of both players that year? Perhaps since the numbers don't lie.

Not much to mention. I agree they both had great seasons, and yes, Malone was deserving of the honor. I just don't think he deserved it over Jordan.

But as far as Jordan is concerned, there is no controversy or any reason to be outraged.

What, you mean MJ didn't cause a ruckus over this? Of course he handled it well, what would you expect? I'd also like to mention, however, that after the votes were in and the Mailman won, Jordan grew especially excited at the prospects of meeting Utah in the Finals again. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

In regards to 1996-1997:

Games played (in order of scoring average):

BULLS:
Michael Jordan 82
Scottie Pippen 82
Toni Kukoc 57
Luc Longley 59
Steve Kerr 82
Jasson Caffey 75
Brian Williams 9 (but that's because he joined late so disregard him)
Ron Harper 76
Dennis Rodman 55
Randy Brown 72
Bill Wennington 61
Robert Parish 43
Dickey Simpkins 48
Jud Buechler 77

JAZZ:
Karl Malone 82
Jeff Hornacek 82
John Stockton 82
Bryon Russell 81
Antoine Carr 82
Greg Ostertag 77
Shandon Anderson 65
Howard Eisley 82
Chris Morris 73
Adam Keefe 62
Stephen Howard 49
Greg Foster 79

3 Jazz Starters (including Malone) averaged over 50% from the field, while the other two averaged 48%.

No Bulls starters averaged over 50% from the field, Jordan was the best starter with 48% from the field.

That should tell you guys a little bit about the efficiency of both teams, since Jordan and Malone both had great/and fairly even individual seasons .

3 Key Bulls missed 20+ games (Longley, Kukoc, Rodman), and they still won 69 games.

Great discussion guys,

Carry on

You're judging a book by its cover, Robby. Sure, Malone looks better, but you can't definitively claim that he's stronger than Shaq. You just don't know.

True, in most cases you can't judge a book by its cover but in this case I feel I can tell who's stronger by looking carefully at Malone and Shaq, just like I can tell that Malone and Shaq are stronger than Keon Clark. How else do you think body-building contests are judged? THe contestants are asked to flex different muscles and the judges rate their muscles based on how they look. Sound familiar? I've already detailed why I think this can be applied to Malone and Shaq, so I'm not going to go over it if you don't understand what I said.

I read your examples carefully, and I do understand that the statements made were from independent third parties. Similarly, there were people not associated with the Jazz that felt Malone shouldn't have won the award over Jordan, but you won't find their opinions espoused on the Jazz website. Basically, it offers a one-sided perspective, and why shouldn't it? It's the team's site. I'm just pointing out the other side to your argument, so I'm not sure where you're detecting my anti-Jazz sentiments. Sheesh, Robby, talk about putting words in my mouth! I'm starting to wonder about your credibility!

I provided opinions of people who felt Malone should be MVP before the NBA Finals (which means their opinions were based on his regualr season performance) unlike the citations you provided which were after the Finals so obviously no one's going to say he's MVP after MJ outplayed him. You're doing just what I said most people do today, which is that they combine the Finals with the Regular season to discredit Malone. Now, if you find some anti-Malone for MVP articles before the 97 NBA playoffs, please do post them because all the other articles are irrelevant no matter what source they come from.

I'm not sure the Jazz don't make the playoffs without Malone. Who knows. But what I do know, is if you take Jordan off the Bulls' roster, you don't have that fifth championship. And a title (Jordan's work) is infinitely more valuable than a failed Finals appearance (Malone's work). On a side note, I'm extending your aforementioned "what if you took each player away" analogy, so please don't remind me that the MVP's a regular season distinction.

Which one do you think is a more drammatic jump: going from NBA champs to conference semi-finalist or going from NBA Finals runner-up to going to the lottery? Again, if Jordan and Malone weren't the players in question, would you say the same thing? I don't think so.

Hmmmm, I thought I was pretty clear. Just try re-reading it. It's not a main point, though, so don't worry if you can't figure it out.

Ok,

Kudos to you for admitting that many of Malone's elbows were intentional.

I don't have a problem saying negative stuff about Malone, unlike you who can't seem to say anything bad about MJ or acknowledge that someone had a better year than him.

LOL. Of course Malone didn't kick the defender every time he shot the ball. It's unfortunate I have to explain hyperbole to you, but Heaven forbid you start doubting my credibility. Truth be told, Malone did come under fire for kicking at players as he shot the ball. That's where sportswriter Peter May derived the term "kick jumpers."

I can never be sure if you were exaggerating or not because judging from your anti-Jazz comments, you could in fact believe that Malone kicked the opposition before taking any shots. Nice to hear that you don't feel that way.

If you read my post carefully (remind you of anyone?), you'd find examples of questionable play left and right. You'd also find that Utah had earned a reputation throughout the league as a dirty team. So no, I wasn't making a superficial assumption; I was concurring with a prevailing majority.

What you refer to as dirty, many people call tough and competitive play if you actually watched the Jazz play and listened to the broadcasters when their games were nationally televised. As for your "concurring with a prevailing majority" remark, I not surprised you conformed to the majority.

I said you were taking issue with the referees, which you did in your Jordan Rules critique. While "taking issue" certainly encompasses complaining, I never pinpointed your words as "complaints" about the officiating, did I? Looks like the pot just called the kettle black. Again.

What is that supposed to mean? Just because I used a synonym for "taking issues" you're turning this into a psychological issue? I suggest you stop watching Frasier for a while. Besides, you ever wonder why most Bulls fans don't complain about the officiating? Maybe that's because most of the calls went in their favor during MJ's playing days.

When did I "tell you off?" Look, it's fine to cite the Jazz website if it suits your purpose, but I just pointed out its inherent lack of objectivity. I didn't tell you off. Oh, and even though you can't spell hypocrite, you do know what it means, right? Maybe you were just messing with me when you used the word, because it doesn't look like you do.

Good job, you caught hippocrite. I expected you to do so since you're one of the few people who actually pays attention to spelling and grammer in here. This thing was getting a bit heated so I though I'd lighten the mood. I was thinking of changing hypocrite or ludicrous, but hippocrite sounded funnier. Again, good-eye.

You missed my point entirely, and I'm not the least bit surprised. I was pointing out the significance of an AP sports writer saying, " ... after again showing that he probably didn't deserve to beat out Jordan for MVP honors." My point, since I'll have to spell it out for you, is that the Associated Press, like other news organizations, holds itself accountable for providing balanced accounts, and here, the writer diverged completely from presenting the story bias-free, and instead pandered to the prevailing, popular opinion at the time.

No, you actually missed my point. I know the associated press is supposed to be unbiased but the time frame from which you chose this article is irrelevant to the discussion. Again, if you find an article before the playoffs, please post that instead.

Does that make it less relevant? Does the advantage of additional 20/20 hindsight cripple the writer's ideas? You're killing me.

Yes, because the writer's opinon has been influenced by hos the players performed in the Finals. Again, since you can't seem to get it straight, the MVP award Malone won was for the regular season and we should only look at the regular season when comparing the two players.

Popular sentiment would've given him a boost, but MJ still had to deliver. Remember, in his comeback season with the Wizards, Jordan wasn't an MVP front-runner, despite the return of Jordanmania. I really don't see where I'm contradicting myself here. While I acknowledge the power of sentamentalist movements in MVP voting, I don't value it higher than a player's on-court performance. So to return to our hypothetical question, I think that (given Jordan's 95-96 season, nothing else) he would've won the award, and yes, sentiment would be on his side, but the bottom line is, he would've won because he deserved to. After all, the best don't need emotional pleas to win.

Actually, had MJ actually gotten the Wizards to the playoffs, he would have been MVP but he couldn't do so. As for the question of delivering, Malone put numbers just as good as Michael's, if not better, so why shouldn't he get the award? Because of sentiments that many people have about MJ is the best player ever so no one can have a better year than him.

Not much to mention. I agree they both had great seasons, and yes, Malone was deserving of the honor. I just don't think he deserved it over Jordan.

No who's acting like a hypocrite? In the beginning of this thread you said Malone was undeserving of the award and now you say he was deserving of the award. As for the second part of this quotation, just look at my previous post.

What, you mean MJ didn't cause a ruckus over this? Of course he handled it well, what would you expect? I'd also like to mention, however, that after the votes were in and the Mailman won, Jordan grew especially excited at the prospects of meeting Utah in the Finals again. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

That's because of his competitivness. But even Michael Jordan acknowledged that Malone deserved the award so why can't you do the same. If you look at just the regular season, then Malone was the MVP.

In regards to 1996-1997:

Games played (in order of scoring average):

Good post Stevan. You think perhaps you could post the player averages here too.

How else do you think body-building contests are judged? THe contestants are asked to flex different muscles and the judges rate their muscles based on how they look.

bodybuilders arn't the strongest people in the world, people who enter 'world stongest man' competitions are

bourbon's right, all what robby does is defending utah jazz players, robby's always saying bourbon contradicted himself, and that he's putting words into other people's mouths, but bourbon's a very objective poster; robby's the one contradicting himself.

bourbon´s right man.

True, in most cases you can't judge a book by its cover but in this case I feel I can tell who's stronger by looking carefully at Malone and Shaq

In that case, congratulations. Your psychic powers transcend mine. But just so you know, body building judges don't judge who's the strongest competitor, they judge who looks the best.

doing just what I said most people do today, which is that they combine the Finals with the Regular season to discredit Malone.

Please. Until you can prove that Malone's atrocious post-season play was the reason the aforementioned authors thought Jordan deserved it more, then you can't throw the "irrelevant" blanket over my arguments. You need to support your assumptions with a little more.

Which one do you think is a more drammatic jump: going from NBA champs to conference semi-finalist or going from NBA Finals runner-up to going to the lottery?

Dropping from the Finals runner-up to the lottery is a more dramatic shift, without question. But winning the title versus the failing in the Finals obviously carries more value. Remember, we're measuring value here, not drama, Robby.

Again, if Jordan and Malone weren't the players in question, would you say the same thing? I don't think so.

You're the most defiant partisan poster on this board. I don't think I even need to respond to this.

I don't have a problem saying negative stuff about Malone, unlike you who can't seem to say anything bad about MJ or acknowledge that someone had a better year than him.

There's plenty bad I could say about Jordan, but since I'm arguing on his behalf, I'll restrict my comments to Jordan's achievements in 1996-1997.

you could in fact believe that Malone kicked the opposition before taking any shots. Nice to hear that you don't feel that way.

I do feel that way to an extent. "Kick jumpers" weren't fashioned from thin air.

As for your "concurring with a prevailing majority" remark, I not surprised you conformed to the majority.

Just like no one here's surprised to see you defend a former Utah player. LeBron James knows what I'm talking about, I think limpdilznik's acknowledged your homerism before, and there are certainly others.

Just because I used a synonym for "taking issues" you're turning this into a psychological issue? I suggest you stop watching Frasier for a while.

Your reading comprehension could definitely use a shot in the arm. I don't know where my argument veered from simply common sense to a psychological ploy. You put words into my mouth, so I'm a regular "Frasier" viewer?

Again, if you find an article before the playoffs, please post that instead.

You're asking the impossible of me. The MVP's announced during the playoffs, so I couldn't post critiques of the award from before the post-season. Maybe you'll reconsider your "all your articles from the playoffs are irrelevant" contention.

Yes, because the writer's opinon has been influenced by hos the players performed in the Finals.

You know this, much in the same as you know Malone's stronger than Shaq. Need I say more?

In the beginning of this thread you said Malone was undeserving of the award and now you say he was deserving of the award.

My thoughts have been consistent; I just waited until the end of my post to give Malone a little props. I stand by my words, though; he doesn't deserve it over Jordan. Is that too tough to understand?

But even Michael Jordan acknowledged that Malone deserved the award so why can't you do the same.

It was a de facto acknowledgement. Remember, he didn't even call Malone to congratulate him, so he hardly lauded Malone as more deserving than himself.

but in 98 the Jazz should have won, no excuses for that.

Malone just never had consistent help from his teammates and had to carry the team so he had to play well every night.

that and the following statements sound like more excuses...

But the lost NBA Finals don't make him any lesser of a player.

in terms of being the one of the league's best scorers, maybe not. but in terms of being one of the all time greats, definitely yes. can you honestly mention malone at the same level or better as mj, magic, wilt, etc?

It's teams that win championships, not just great players.

true but basketball is one of the sports where one individual can overcome his team's weaknesses, bring his game to another level and bring home the nba championship. do you not agree? you did say malone singlehandedly brought his team past great teams in LA, houston, etc.

Not only did Malone have to score, but he aslo had to rebound and play defense

rodman and longley are no offensive powerhouses.

Just found this thing on the LA times:

Asked specifically about the process of muscling up again, and whether he's actually gotten larger, Bryant smiled.

"A little bit," he said. "I don't have the pipes like Karl does. Who does?"

haha i was in a different message board and they were talking bout something similar but i posted in the wrong one

malone was sick tho...he was like a better scoring Nene with a worse shot in his first year

also i'd say malone is stronger than shaq....pound for pound at least

you could compare maybe with points per 48 minutes


Isn't related to the topic but kinda Interesting

Last edited by fgrep15 on Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:01 am, edited 4 times in total.

malone had stockton tho...lets not remove praise from what stockton had done

What are you talking about? Did you even read the thread?