As for strength of competition, I'll go with the late 80's over the late 90's without hesitation. Team record isn't the only indicator of how good a team was, because it doesn't factor in level of competition (last year, the cavs won 66 games but failed to make the finals, losing to a 59 win team).

there were 6 expansion teams for the Bulls to feast on in 96 that didn't exist when the Celts, Lakers, Bulls and Pistons were duking it out in Zeke's prime. I'm of the opinion that the Jazz teams that made the finals in 97/98 weren't any better than the teams from the early 90's that couldn't get past the 2nd round; they, like the Bulls, only looked better because the rest of the league had gotten worse. It's ridiculous to pretend the Bulls teams that the Pistons beat en route to the title weren't tough teams; personally I'll take the first 3-peat bulls over the second any day.

And who's to say those Jazz players didn't see their % rise due to playing with Malone, rather than Stockton?

As Luke mentioned, the Jazz teams that faced the Jordan Bulls at their zenith had to face a much tougher opponent than the Pistons faced. When the Pistons won their back-to-backs, the league power Celtics and Lakers were in decline and Pistons slipped into the void. The Jazz faced off against a Bulls team that won 69 regular season games.

The 2 years the Jazz made it to the Finals, they won 64 and 62 games. The Pistons won 63 add 59 games and the teams they beat won 57 and 59 games, rather low for a team in the Finals.

Additionally, you are making 2 questionable assumptions:

1) Malone was a better player than Stockton

2) Thomas was the best player on the Pistons.

In 1990, Thomas was fourth on the team in Win Shares, behind Dumars, Rodman and Laimbeer. In 1989, he was tied for third with Dumars.

Stockton's Win Shares were second to Malone's both years (on a rate basis. Stockton missed 14 games in 1998 yet still managed 8 Win Shares). but I think it fair to say that the reason Malone's Win Share totals were so high was because Stockton was so good at gettig him high percentage shots.

Stockton did that for everyone. After Hornacek got traded to Utah, his FG% shot up 50 points. Adam Keefe went from .455 in Atlanta to .577 in Utah. Antoine Carr went from .488 to .531. Tyrone Corbin was shooting .401 in Milwaukee, got traded to Utah after 11 games and shot .504 the rest of the year and .503 the following year.

Malone and Stockton helped each other but I think Stockton helped Malone more than vice versa.

Isiah Thomas was a great player, but if I wanted someone to lead my team and run my offense, I'd take Stockton. (And I'd take Magic Johnson over both of them. And possibly Jason Kidd, just to start a few more arguments...)

Per min stats might be useful for judging role-players, but when it comes to superstars like these two, the ACTUAL stats are what matter, not what a player MIGHT have averaged if he had played more min. I asked before why a supposedly great scorer like Stock didn't shoot more; well, we can also ask why such a great player didn't play more minutes; 31.8 mpg isn't alot.

How many min you play is a good indicator of how valuable you are to your team; that's the problem with PER, it penalizes players who are asked to carry their teams with big minutes (like Russell, who ranks a dismal #82 on the all-time PER list). Peace.