12/30/24
July 01, 2004
posted by mr_crash_davis to basketball at 12:15 PM - 14 comments
posted by lilnemo at 01:20 PM on July 01, 2004
Good for him. Never liked him, but he could play.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:31 PM on July 01, 2004
I always thought he had one of the best "old-time" nicknames in sports.
posted by grum@work at 01:36 PM on July 01, 2004
Speculation like this pisses off the Benefactor, but my 2 cents anyway: Karl Malone was one of the dirtier players in the NBA, but he also was easily one of top-3 power forwards of all-time skillswise. And I agree with lilnemo that he was the key to the Lakers last season. They still probably wouldn't have won even had he been healthy, but they were immeasurably better both on and off the court because of his presence.
posted by platocave at 01:40 PM on July 01, 2004
Guess it's time for the younger generation to take over...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:45 PM on July 01, 2004
I guess the real question now is, will he be a unanimous selection when he's eligible for the HOF? IMO, anyone who wouldn't vote him in as soon as his name comes up shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, but that's just me.
posted by bcb2k2 at 02:26 PM on July 01, 2004
Karl Malone was one of the dirtier players in the NBA, but he also was easily one of top-3 power forwards of all-time skillswise. And while I agree with both of those statements, my inclination is to say that fans will admit the first but focus on the second, while the non-fans (myself inluded) will focus on the first and concede the second. He's a menace (thanks again, jeffmshaw!) On preview: Yes, bcb2k2, I think there's no doubt he's a unanimous first time pick.
posted by Ufez Jones at 02:28 PM on July 01, 2004
Chris said it best: Peace out, Karl Malone. Have a nice summer f#%king elk poaching or whatever. Don't hurry back. easily one of top-3 power forwards of all-time skillswise Elgin Baylor. Charles Barkley. Tim Duncan. Elvin Hayes.
posted by Mike McD at 02:50 PM on July 01, 2004
lilnemo: The Lakers could not have beaten the Pistons even with a fully-healthy Karl Malone. Did you watch the series? They could have played 10 more games and Detroit would have won all of them. It was sheer domination and it would have been 4-1 with or without Karl. Now if Kobe had passed the damn rock to Shaq like he should have, that would have been a different story altogether. You can really consider Karl's accomplishments without acknowledging John Stockton's contributions to them. Stockton probably assisted on 50% of his career baskets.
posted by Scott Carefoot at 02:58 PM on July 01, 2004
I can't see Barkley being better than Malone. Maybe he had a higher peak (1-2 seasons), but the longevity alone would put Malone ahead. Same reason it's too early to say Tim Duncan's better "all-time." I do agree John Stockton played a huge role in his success. But you probably already knew that.
posted by yerfatma at 04:46 PM on July 01, 2004
The Lakers could not have beaten the Pistons even with a fully-healthy Karl Malone. I dispute that. You're honestly telling me that if Karl was fully-healthy, if he had never been injured at all, that the Pistons would have won? I don't think so, I admit the possibility, I just disagree. If Karl doesn't get injured the core of the team plays more than 20-30 games and numerous practices together, gels, and doesn't look anywhere near as lost, not to mention thin as they did in the Finals. Anyone who watched the Lakers all season could tell you that Karl was the steadying influence on the team. If Karl is healthy: Karl boxes out, Lakers rebound better. Karl scores from 15 ft. out, Shaq has more room to operate in the paint. Karl can switch out on the pick and roll, Shaq is free to patrol the paint. If Karl is healthy the Lakers have a much better chance of winning than losing. Devaluing his importance by saying that with or without him the Pistons win is illogical, there is absolutely no way of knowing. Did you watch the series? Yes, it was entertaining, thanks for asking. Did you watch?
posted by lilnemo at 05:18 PM on July 01, 2004
lilnemo: Are you a Lakers fan? I'm trying to figure out how you could rationalize that a 40-year-old Malone could have changed the outcome of a series where the average margin of victory in the Pistons' four wins was 13 points. Maybe Malone in his prime could have made the series interesting. But what happened in those finals was a good-ol-fashioned ass-whupping and creaky ol' Karl could not handle Wallace and Wallace, healthy or not.
posted by Scott Carefoot at 10:08 AM on July 02, 2004
to be fair to lilnemo I gather the part of his argument expressed in the previous comment is not entirely that Malone changes the team in the detroit series but has a positive impact on the team over the course of the season. a tough argument to make since you'd be comparing the performance of a lakers team that got whupped with some fictional lakers team that had their shit together.
posted by gspm at 11:58 AM on July 02, 2004
I thought if he hadn't been hurt, they would have won it. I'd go further than that. I truly feel that if Karl hadn't gotten injured, the team not only would have won, they would have been more cohesive. They would have stayed together. If Karl doesn't go down: Gary doesn't bitch (as much). Phil gets listened to. Shaq stays in line. Kobe doesn't have to shoulder the load. For the majority of his career in Utah I was able to appreciate his game, even when cursing his physicality. Having had the chance to catch a few games in person this season was truly special. I can't believe I'm saying it but: He'll be missed.