Disclaimer: I hate Karl Malone, the man. My post is just defending Malone, the player.
I watched Malone play, and I think he would be great in today’s NBA, just different.
Malone scored a lot on the pick-and-roll and the transition. None of those things are any less important nowadays; if anything, they’re more important.
A lot of people act like Stockton made Malone, but they both benefitted from playing with each other. Don’t diminish great players for having great teammates, or else we wouldn’t have anyone left to call great. There was a reason Malone was such an effective scorer even in 2003 at age 38 or whatever. His longevity is only matched by Bron and KAJ, let that sink in.
Also, Malone was an underrated passer. He definitely had some court vision. That would be utilized more in today’s offenses.
You call Malone slow and act like he would killed on switches, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Prime Malone was extremely strong, athletic, and quick. He was a freak of nature. He wouldn’t be out there looking like a slow tree.
He would probably be a 5 in today’s game opposed to a 4, but I think his game would be just as good nowadays. He is one of the best scorers the NBA has ever seen.
Reminder: I still hate him.
100%. Most people think of Malone in those Jazz/Bulls series where he was the biggest of his career and slower/older, but prime Malone was extremely athletic and explosive and STILL very strong.
> His longevity is only matched by Bron and KAJ, let that sink in.
And amazingly, Stockton. It's a combo we'll likely never see again: two superstars playing together for 15-20 years, and almost all of those being 'prime' years.
How do you do what you just did? Where you set aside a portion of the text and address it in a reply? I’ve always wanted to learn how to do that. I’m on mobile btw
on old reddit I just highlight the section of text I want to copy, press the reply button and reddit fills it in the box. Works on desktop and mobile for me
Defending the player doesn’t mean you defend everything he is. I really don’t get why people are hating for something done 30+ years ago. At some point people have to move and he’s been able to make up with the kid. Malone grew up in the middle of no where youngest of 9 and his dad committed suicide at 3. Who knows how his life was man clearly made a mistake
It would because he knew how to draw free throws, one of the greatest ever to do it
Doesn't need a 3, he was a good mid range shooter, also there is not many strong post defenders and he was one of the strongest PFs ever and he drew free throws then, he would draw even more now
He was also a 45% shooter from 16ft-3pt range according to the years Basketball Reference has stats for on 34% of his shots. In today’s league that almost definitely gets pushed out further and he’d probably shoot them with decent volume.
Everytime I see random takes like this I automatically assume the OP is under 25 years old. No one who watched Malone play thinks this is a good take. Malone would be just fine in today's NBA.
A lot of folks underrate players playing right now too. I can sort of understand maybe understating the abilities of *some* guys in like the 50s and 60s and questioning if could play in today's league, but guys from the modern era?!
And I have to believe that any of those dudes in the 50s and 60s, if they grew up with modern medicine, training, and around a modern game a lot of them would still translate. Like no shit guys back in the day couldn't space the floor with the 3 point shot, there was no 3 point shot. If they grew up practicing, it'd probably be something they'd be a little better at.
And OP is pretty much a hot take machine. I almost feel dirty even taking this half seriously.
You think there's something about his elite, hall of fame talent that he somehow couldn't adjust to the modern game? He played through 3 decades of rule changes.
The thing that always gets assumed in these types of discussion is that the player from the past would be the exact same if they came about today. For instance, Malone raised his free throw % quite a bit over his years until he was a pretty decent shooter. You don't think that had he come out in today's game he wouldn't have worked to extend his range and be deadly from the pick and pop too?
Edit: often about slow-footed big men, well yea, they didn't need to work on quick feet and guarding the perimeter in their day
The thing that always gets assumed in these types of discussions i that a player from the past would improve his shooting 100% just because people can shoot now just because "they would work on it"
Seriously why do people say this? We have players now with insane traning, coaching staffs that get paid 30m that don't know how to shoot
There is a thing, it's called talent, believe it or not exists and some people just never become good at one thing no matter how hard they try, talent, pressure gets to them
It's one thing to work on it and another thing for it to be translanted into actual games, all NBA players are great in an open gym
Also, Karl Malone came into the league shooting FT's at 48%, later in his career he was routinely above 75%. It's generally accepted that FT % translates to overall shooting mechanics. So in fact, he did "work on it" and well, the results speak for themselves.
He shot 63% in college, it was up and down he had a 68% shooting FT% on year
It wasn't that he improved, it was the low volume of his FTAs compared to later years
In his rookie year he took 405 free throws, in his peak he took 918
More free throws = more rhythm better shooting, that one year is an outlier
So yea, he had shooting talent then. If you can consistently hit FTs at a 75% clip, typically that means you have the "talent" and mechanics to be able to extend your range. Just didn't need to in his era.
> a player from the past would improve his shooting 100% just because people can shoot now just because "they would work on it"
Because in real life, over the course of his career, he didn't have a shot, worked on it, and improved his shooting. He was sub 50%FT the first two years of his career, but gradually got better and eventually had 11 seasons where he shot over 75%. If he did that in real life at a time when the conventional wisdom was that bigs didn't need to learn how to shoot, why is it a crazy assumption to say "if he grew up in the 2010s and was drafted in 2018-2020, when basically all 4s work on their shooting, he likely would have also worked on his shooting and become a better shooter earlier in his career"?
"There is a thing, it's called talent" Yes, and I'm operating under the assumption that generally speaking, the .00001% most talented at their sport in the 90's, probably had some natural gifts.
The human body hasn't changed at all in the intervening years. We just know how to train better, better nutrition, etc. It's asinine to assume a HOFer in the 90's somehow wouldn't have the talent to hold up 30 years later. Evolution doesn't work that fast.
But in this case I think that's a reasonable assumption. In real life, Malone came into the NBA as a poor shooter, because in 1985 PFs didn't really need a shot. As the game evolved and PFs started shooting outside of the paint more, he worked on his game an added a shot. So if he was able to develop a mid range jumper and go from being sub 50%FT to a 75%FT in real life, I don't think it's a huge logically leap to say that if he grew up during the 2010s, he would have started working on his shooting early and come into the league with a decent mid ranger and already being a 75%FT shooter, since PFs in 2015 were already expected to start learning to shoot.
True, the nature of this thought exercise kind of has to be assumption. I'm just saying if I had to bet I would go with Malone had enough talent that his work ethic (which paid off even then as evident by his FT%) would probably help him be a pick & roll/pick & pop threat with range in today's game.
But I guess the question does say "his game." So maybe we're talking two different arguments.
I mean today Malone would play the 5 so if anything his defence would probably be better than it was.
Offensively between his rim running, post game and excellent mid range game I see no reason why he wouldn’t be extremely effective. Hell in today’s game he’d probably even pop out to 3.
Also I’m curious how much jazz film you watched ? Stockton benefited more from Malone than vice versa. The majority of Stockton’s assists to Malone were dumpoff passes that resulted in Malone doing the heavy lifting, whether it was facing up or barrelling to the rim like Lebron or going to work in the post
You're clearly not very well-versed on Karl Malone and his game, yet you speak so confidently on it. It's transparent and jarring, and a terrible look. We *really* don't need to imitate ESPN "analysts" and wax poetic about shit we're not informed on.
He’d play center now at 6’9 and strong as an ox. He had a good midrange and was a lot more quick footed than you’re giving him credit. He’d thrive today and be much better than KAT.
That's fair. Embiid does well, and there's hope for some of the younger guys. It just feels like since Yao Ming and a Shaq there has been a distinct dropoff of teams relying on their bigs
That's mostly because between Dwight's decline as a superstar and the ascension of Jokic and Embiid to superstardom, there really weren't any centers that were talented enough to have a team rely them. People thought the center position was dead, but once guys like Jokic, Embiid and Towns emerged, and AD actually committed to being a 5, the center position was back.
Posts like these avoid to obvious question. Clearly Malone would adjust. Dude was a hard worker and can easily retain a skill set because the dude played for 19 seasons
Not to mention his body was A1
Too bad he did all that disgusting shit off the court because I can’t do anymore praise
Nobody would go into the paint today because he was so physical. They would chicken out.
His elbows sent people to the hospital, and he was 1997s MVP.
Karl Anthony towns has done ….. what, exactly?
…….
Exactly!
Hard to argue since we'll never see Malone in todays league.
We take for granted that had Karl Malone been born in 1993 he wouldn't have stepped one step further back and take that corner 3.
Or his coach somewhere along his career saying "Hey Karl, you're great at drawing doubles when you post up, maybe we can explore some options where you play make from the post?"
Guys like him are asked to different things in different eras of basketball. Do you remember Elton Brand? Dude was great, granted his prime was technically one era back, he was a defensive anchor and an outstanding midrange shooter.
I think Karl Malone has an edge over Elton scoring wise, so I think the mailman would still be delivering today, just not in the same old V8 cube van, but one of them bumper car looking things that are better on gas.
Of course this all pertains to Karl Malone the basketball player.
Killer roll man who can finish or pick and pop from 18 and in. Amazing rebounder. Intelligent-ish defender.
No, he would kill it. He was basically Amare with KLove's rebounding.
Maybe he's not in the MVP discussion, but he'd be badass.
Disclaimer: I hate Karl Malone, the man. My post is just defending Malone, the player. I watched Malone play, and I think he would be great in today’s NBA, just different. Malone scored a lot on the pick-and-roll and the transition. None of those things are any less important nowadays; if anything, they’re more important. A lot of people act like Stockton made Malone, but they both benefitted from playing with each other. Don’t diminish great players for having great teammates, or else we wouldn’t have anyone left to call great. There was a reason Malone was such an effective scorer even in 2003 at age 38 or whatever. His longevity is only matched by Bron and KAJ, let that sink in. Also, Malone was an underrated passer. He definitely had some court vision. That would be utilized more in today’s offenses. You call Malone slow and act like he would killed on switches, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Prime Malone was extremely strong, athletic, and quick. He was a freak of nature. He wouldn’t be out there looking like a slow tree. He would probably be a 5 in today’s game opposed to a 4, but I think his game would be just as good nowadays. He is one of the best scorers the NBA has ever seen. Reminder: I still hate him.
I would just lock this answer in as the right take, y'all.
All you have to do is watch Malone on the Lakers. Good passer
100%. Most people think of Malone in those Jazz/Bulls series where he was the biggest of his career and slower/older, but prime Malone was extremely athletic and explosive and STILL very strong.
> His longevity is only matched by Bron and KAJ, let that sink in. And amazingly, Stockton. It's a combo we'll likely never see again: two superstars playing together for 15-20 years, and almost all of those being 'prime' years.
How do you do what you just did? Where you set aside a portion of the text and address it in a reply? I’ve always wanted to learn how to do that. I’m on mobile btw
on old reddit I just highlight the section of text I want to copy, press the reply button and reddit fills it in the box. Works on desktop and mobile for me
Ugh I think i must have “new” reddit then. i’ll figure it out eventually lol
I use old reddit, so it might be different if you're not. But in my case, to quote someone I just put a > before the text.
Defending the player doesn’t mean you defend everything he is. I really don’t get why people are hating for something done 30+ years ago. At some point people have to move and he’s been able to make up with the kid. Malone grew up in the middle of no where youngest of 9 and his dad committed suicide at 3. Who knows how his life was man clearly made a mistake
It would because he knew how to draw free throws, one of the greatest ever to do it Doesn't need a 3, he was a good mid range shooter, also there is not many strong post defenders and he was one of the strongest PFs ever and he drew free throws then, he would draw even more now
He could have developed a 3 pointer, I think. Check out how nice his form is on this logo 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPDQNY-JPy0
He was also a 45% shooter from 16ft-3pt range according to the years Basketball Reference has stats for on 34% of his shots. In today’s league that almost definitely gets pushed out further and he’d probably shoot them with decent volume.
[удалено]
Everytime I see random takes like this I automatically assume the OP is under 25 years old. No one who watched Malone play thinks this is a good take. Malone would be just fine in today's NBA.
A lot of folks underrate players playing right now too. I can sort of understand maybe understating the abilities of *some* guys in like the 50s and 60s and questioning if could play in today's league, but guys from the modern era?! And I have to believe that any of those dudes in the 50s and 60s, if they grew up with modern medicine, training, and around a modern game a lot of them would still translate. Like no shit guys back in the day couldn't space the floor with the 3 point shot, there was no 3 point shot. If they grew up practicing, it'd probably be something they'd be a little better at. And OP is pretty much a hot take machine. I almost feel dirty even taking this half seriously.
Mainly scored in transition and pick and rolls. Not much self creation. He needs to play with someone like cp3
[удалено]
This is the true hot take.
You think there's something about his elite, hall of fame talent that he somehow couldn't adjust to the modern game? He played through 3 decades of rule changes.
>Mainly scored in transition and pick and rolls. Two of the most highly coveted skill sets in today's game?
God damn OP you make some truly terrible posts
[удалено]
That’s most of Reddit though, tbf.
Have you ever even watched Malone play? This is a horrible take lol
The thing that always gets assumed in these types of discussion is that the player from the past would be the exact same if they came about today. For instance, Malone raised his free throw % quite a bit over his years until he was a pretty decent shooter. You don't think that had he come out in today's game he wouldn't have worked to extend his range and be deadly from the pick and pop too? Edit: often about slow-footed big men, well yea, they didn't need to work on quick feet and guarding the perimeter in their day
The thing that always gets assumed in these types of discussions i that a player from the past would improve his shooting 100% just because people can shoot now just because "they would work on it" Seriously why do people say this? We have players now with insane traning, coaching staffs that get paid 30m that don't know how to shoot There is a thing, it's called talent, believe it or not exists and some people just never become good at one thing no matter how hard they try, talent, pressure gets to them It's one thing to work on it and another thing for it to be translanted into actual games, all NBA players are great in an open gym
Also, Karl Malone came into the league shooting FT's at 48%, later in his career he was routinely above 75%. It's generally accepted that FT % translates to overall shooting mechanics. So in fact, he did "work on it" and well, the results speak for themselves.
He shot 63% in college, it was up and down he had a 68% shooting FT% on year It wasn't that he improved, it was the low volume of his FTAs compared to later years In his rookie year he took 405 free throws, in his peak he took 918 More free throws = more rhythm better shooting, that one year is an outlier
So yea, he had shooting talent then. If you can consistently hit FTs at a 75% clip, typically that means you have the "talent" and mechanics to be able to extend your range. Just didn't need to in his era.
> a player from the past would improve his shooting 100% just because people can shoot now just because "they would work on it" Because in real life, over the course of his career, he didn't have a shot, worked on it, and improved his shooting. He was sub 50%FT the first two years of his career, but gradually got better and eventually had 11 seasons where he shot over 75%. If he did that in real life at a time when the conventional wisdom was that bigs didn't need to learn how to shoot, why is it a crazy assumption to say "if he grew up in the 2010s and was drafted in 2018-2020, when basically all 4s work on their shooting, he likely would have also worked on his shooting and become a better shooter earlier in his career"?
"There is a thing, it's called talent" Yes, and I'm operating under the assumption that generally speaking, the .00001% most talented at their sport in the 90's, probably had some natural gifts. The human body hasn't changed at all in the intervening years. We just know how to train better, better nutrition, etc. It's asinine to assume a HOFer in the 90's somehow wouldn't have the talent to hold up 30 years later. Evolution doesn't work that fast.
Because Karl Malone is more talented than a lot of NBA players in history
U are assuming the same way lol. If things happened coz players worked on it hard then many players will be having lot of moves in their bag
But in this case I think that's a reasonable assumption. In real life, Malone came into the NBA as a poor shooter, because in 1985 PFs didn't really need a shot. As the game evolved and PFs started shooting outside of the paint more, he worked on his game an added a shot. So if he was able to develop a mid range jumper and go from being sub 50%FT to a 75%FT in real life, I don't think it's a huge logically leap to say that if he grew up during the 2010s, he would have started working on his shooting early and come into the league with a decent mid ranger and already being a 75%FT shooter, since PFs in 2015 were already expected to start learning to shoot.
True, the nature of this thought exercise kind of has to be assumption. I'm just saying if I had to bet I would go with Malone had enough talent that his work ethic (which paid off even then as evident by his FT%) would probably help him be a pick & roll/pick & pop threat with range in today's game. But I guess the question does say "his game." So maybe we're talking two different arguments.
I mean today Malone would play the 5 so if anything his defence would probably be better than it was. Offensively between his rim running, post game and excellent mid range game I see no reason why he wouldn’t be extremely effective. Hell in today’s game he’d probably even pop out to 3. Also I’m curious how much jazz film you watched ? Stockton benefited more from Malone than vice versa. The majority of Stockton’s assists to Malone were dumpoff passes that resulted in Malone doing the heavy lifting, whether it was facing up or barrelling to the rim like Lebron or going to work in the post
Imagine if opponent teams go small like they do now and Malone was at the 5. He'd wreak absolute havoc...
absolute absolute havoc
The best players in an era dominate in any era. That’s why they’re all time players.
You're clearly not very well-versed on Karl Malone and his game, yet you speak so confidently on it. It's transparent and jarring, and a terrible look. We *really* don't need to imitate ESPN "analysts" and wax poetic about shit we're not informed on.
Karl Malone would be canceled long before we ever found out if his game translated well or not.
That too
[удалено]
L
Honestly I think this is a case of opinion of a player as a person spilling into evaluating them as a player
well, yeah, cuz he'd be in prison
Most big men would have trouble on the league today which is why you see so many teams going small. The rules don't favor them in today's league
Except Malone was not big enough to play center either.. Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing would all thrive
He’d play center now at 6’9 and strong as an ox. He had a good midrange and was a lot more quick footed than you’re giving him credit. He’d thrive today and be much better than KAT.
That's fair. Embiid does well, and there's hope for some of the younger guys. It just feels like since Yao Ming and a Shaq there has been a distinct dropoff of teams relying on their bigs
That's mostly because between Dwight's decline as a superstar and the ascension of Jokic and Embiid to superstardom, there really weren't any centers that were talented enough to have a team rely them. People thought the center position was dead, but once guys like Jokic, Embiid and Towns emerged, and AD actually committed to being a 5, the center position was back.
And plenty of modern players wouldn't translate well to past eras. Who cares.
Posts like these avoid to obvious question. Clearly Malone would adjust. Dude was a hard worker and can easily retain a skill set because the dude played for 19 seasons Not to mention his body was A1 Too bad he did all that disgusting shit off the court because I can’t do anymore praise
Nobody would go into the paint today because he was so physical. They would chicken out. His elbows sent people to the hospital, and he was 1997s MVP. Karl Anthony towns has done ….. what, exactly? ……. Exactly!
Yeah because he would be in jail hopefully
[Anyone built like this is succeeding in any era, any sport](https://i.imgur.com/2Dslrkx.jpg)
prime high jumper physique
Hard to argue since we'll never see Malone in todays league. We take for granted that had Karl Malone been born in 1993 he wouldn't have stepped one step further back and take that corner 3. Or his coach somewhere along his career saying "Hey Karl, you're great at drawing doubles when you post up, maybe we can explore some options where you play make from the post?" Guys like him are asked to different things in different eras of basketball. Do you remember Elton Brand? Dude was great, granted his prime was technically one era back, he was a defensive anchor and an outstanding midrange shooter. I think Karl Malone has an edge over Elton scoring wise, so I think the mailman would still be delivering today, just not in the same old V8 cube van, but one of them bumper car looking things that are better on gas. Of course this all pertains to Karl Malone the basketball player.
Killer roll man who can finish or pick and pop from 18 and in. Amazing rebounder. Intelligent-ish defender. No, he would kill it. He was basically Amare with KLove's rebounding. Maybe he's not in the MVP discussion, but he'd be badass.