Stockton/Malone played 18 seasons together and were eliminated in the 1st round 9 times

[Professor Emeritus]

And the 80s Jazz were better. Watched some of their games. That same Jazz team plays in the 90s, they would have done better.

The big context I don't think anyone has mentioned so far is that the Expansion Era changed everything. NBA added two teams for the 88/89 season, two teams for the 89/90 season, and two teams for the 95/96 season. Six new squads in just 7 years so talent gets diluted, three different expansion drafts and your own picks being knocked down by 6 spots. Because of that it took less to succeed in 1996 than it had in 1988.

Add in the end of the Lakers dynasty, the end of the Celtics dynasty, the end of the Pistons "dynasty", Duncan not getting drafted until the '98 season and Phil Jackson not joining the Lakers until the '00 season, and there was a real void. The old Jazz were one of the teams that filled that void. They were top-heavy so the expansion didn't impact them as much, they retained their main talent past when all the other squads did, and so they were able to slip to the top.

But no one gonna convince me that a team whose #2/#3 options were a 35yo Hornacek and 36yo Stockton averaging just 11ppg each was some great squad. Their #4 option was Bryon Russell, their #5 option was Shandon Anderson, their #6 option was Howard Eisley. Greg Foster started 16 playoff games and Adam Keefe started 10 playoff games even though both were complete non-factors on offense and not particularly good at defense either. Greg Ostertag's 17 mpg were #7 on the team yet he only averaged 3ppg and 4rpg.

This is a Jazz squad that got ROLLED 4-1 in 1999 by a Blazers' team whose top two scorers were Isaiah Rider and Brian Grant (Duncan's Spurs swept those Blazers in the next round with Portland only averaging 76ppg). They weren't that good. They were just lucky to catch a void.

 

[NYC Rebel]

Everyone was in their prime on that team except Kobe.

I think that’s a very big deal. Do you think I’m a clown? Because Kobe not being in his prime yet means little to you? :mjlol

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

T-Mac is another guy who I could see being way better at the 3-ball if it was more emphasized. He was all over the place. For his career the numbers look bad at 34%. But he had years of 37% and 38%. One of his highest volume years in Orlando where he took 6 threes a game he shot close to 40%, He was already a "difficult shot" maker from all over the court. There was just no emphasis on it for most of these guys careers. They didn't play for it.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

I think that’s a very big deal. Do you think I’m a clown? Because Kobe not being in his prime yet means little to you? :mjlol

No you're a clown because Shaq was in his prime as was Horry, Fox, Elden Campbell and they had Eddie Jones and Van Exel as all-stars. They still got washed in several seasons. That's why you're a clown.

 

[NYC Rebel]

No you're a clown because Shaq was in his prime as was Horry, Fox, Elden Campbell and they had Eddie Jones and Van Exel as all-stars. They still got washed in several seasons. That's why you're a clown.

None of those players are Kobe

Prime Kobe is a big deal to the Lakers winning than any of those names mentioned

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You're just cherry picking people. My point wasn't that "everyone" could do it. My point was that some most certainly would if they had to.

shyt.. Vince Carter was a career 37% from three and nobody would ever say he was a pure 3 point shooter.

Vince Carter hit 41% of his threes his 3rd year of college (when he turned pro), and 40% his 2nd and 3rd years in the NBA. He always had skill as a shooter even though he needed some work when drafted, that's a weird example.


Hell, there was a brief period in 2000 when I thought Vince Carter was the best (and my favorite) player in the game when after winning the GOAT dunk contest he did this:



then this:




just a week apart from each other, THEN dunked on Houston for the win and over Weis that summer. He was the all-around package already.

 

[bigde09]

That Laker team wasnt in their prime.

And the 80s Jazz were better. Watched some of their games. That Jazz team in the 90s would have done better.

Maybe. But you're selling 96-98 Jazz short.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Vince Carter hit 41% of his threes his 3rd year of college (when he turned pro), and 40% his 2nd and 3rd years in the NBA. He always had skill as a shooter even though he needed some work when drafted, that's a weird example.

How's it a weird example when he was never consistent? The only reason he wasn't consistent is because the game was played differently. That's the whole fukking point we are discussing here. He wasn't known as a "great three point shooter" in his era even though he had the skill to be.

That's LITERALLY the discussion we are having here.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

None of those players are Kobe

Prime Kobe is a big deal to the Lakers winning than any of those names mentioned

What are you really saying here? Kobe is a top 5 player of all time. If that's what prime Shaq and the rest of that cast needed is a top 5 player ever then that doesn't say much for the group. It doesn't say much for Shaq.

 

[NYC Rebel]

Maybe. But you're selling 96-98 Jazz short.

Short of what?

The team with Eaton, Thurl Bailey,and Jeff Malone was better than the 90s squads in terms of style of play.

 

[NYC Rebel]

What are you really saying here? Kobe is a top 5 player of all time. If that's what prime Shaq and the rest of that cast needed is a top 5 player ever then that doesn't say much for the group. It doesn't say much for Shaq.

Im saying you admitted to Kobe not being in his prime yet think Nick, Horry, Eddie made up for it and the Lakers were whole.

 

[bigde09]

Short of what?

The team with Eaton, Thurl Bailey,and Jeff Malone was better than the 90s squads in terms of style of play.

I'm not disagreeing with you breh I do think late 90s Jazz had a better bench.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

How's it a weird example when he was never consistent? The only reason he wasn't consistent is because the game was played differently. That's the whole fukking point we are discussing here. He wasn't known as a "great three point shooter" in his era even though he had the skill to be.

That's LITERALLY the discussion we are having here.

He's a 37.1% career three-point shooter who never once shot under 34% in the 15 seasons between when he was 23 and when he was 37. Ten of those 15 seasons he shot between 36% and 39%. He averaged 3 to 5 attempts basically every single year.

Sounds pretty damn consistent to me.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

He's a 37.1% career three-point shooter who never once shot under 34% in the 15 seasons between when he was 23 and when he was 37. Ten of those 15 seasons he shot between 36% and 39%. He averaged 3 to 5 attempts basically every single year.

Sounds pretty damn consistent to me.

I already said he was a career 37%. But thanks for agreeing with me that prime Vince Carter would have no issue in this era. Another 90s/early 2000s player that would flourish

 

[KidJSoul]

Every other combo we have seen of 2 of the 5 best ever at their position playing together were more successful than Stockton and Malone

Bron Wade
Curry Durant
Oscar Kareem
Jerry Wilt
Kobe Shaq

Wow