Barkley: I'm better than Malone [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

ShaqAttack3234

06-27-2012, 06:28 PM

Charles is right, Malone never reached the level Barkley was at from '88-'93.

Charles was a better scorer, passer and rebounder, plus he was more athletic and more versatile. Charles was just the better and more dominant offensive player, that's why he was double teamed so often. In fact, out of players in Barkley's era or later, the only players I can think of who were doubled teamed as much as Charles was in his prime are Shaq and Hakeem. It's always been surprising to me how dominant he was in the post with his power game at only 6'5"-6'6". He's easily among the greatest power players of all time, and played both forward positions during his career. He played small forward in '90 and '91 alongside Mike Gminski and Rick Mahorn, and later at times when he played with AC Green in Phoenix.

Malone was definitely a better defensive player than Barkley, he developed until a great post defender around '94 or so. Remember Malone shutting down Robinson in the playoffs? He also developed into a very good passer around that same time, and he improved his jump shot while also becoming more polished in the post.

I actually really like Malone's game from '94-'00, but he was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, even when he became more polished. And Charles is right that be benefited greatly from Stockton, particularly late 80's/early 90's Malone. Though the same can be said about Stockton.

Malone got a lot of easy baskets running the floor, in screen/rolls with Stockton, and early on from lob passes over the top when defenders fronted him. Even the more skilled version of Malone was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, while Barkley showed quite a bit more dominance in the playoffs. Malone had more team success, but Charles was only on 1 contending team in his prime back in '93.

Late 80's/early 90's Karl Malone was still one of the league's best players, though. His post game was effective based on his quickness and strength. He was a great power player, and he did already have a jump shot, plus no 4 ran the floor better.

There's a common misconception about Barkley that he lacked longevity, but that's not true, we can't forget that he turned 30 in the '93 season, most players start to decline a bit shortly after that. He didn't remain at his prime level consistently due to injuries, and perhaps age, but he was still the second best power forward, and easily a top 10 player in '94 and '95. And he showed dominance even before his prime started in '88. Despite being raw in his second year in '86, he already probably established himself among the top players in the league.

His conditioning is also a misconception, his weight was not really an issue after his first year or 2 until he got to Houston. And even in Houston in '97, he averaged about 19/14/5 while sharing the ball with Olajuwon and Drexler and having his offensive game limited by the system. He was averaging 20/15 the first 2 months before injuries.

Malone's longevity was just superhuman, it was really only rivaled by Kareem and Robert Parish.

This isn't to say that Barkley didn't have his flaws as well. it's common knowledge that he was not exactly fond on playing defense, and he also had a habit of holding the ball too much which often led to turnovers because he'd leave his feet for cross court passes because he had trouble seeing over the double at times. He cut down on holding the ball by the time he got to Phoenix, and also improved his jumper. Though I don't think he had the same explosiveness despite getting in the best shape of his career and still being a very good athlete.

keep-itreal

06-27-2012, 06:35 PM

I remmeber on the dream team documentary

Karl Malone-"CHAARRLS, yeah hes a great talent, do I think hes better than me? HELL NOO, SO LET'S DO THIS 0_0"
:oldlol:

BlackVVaves

06-27-2012, 06:43 PM

Does KG's ring (the year he was DPOY), or Dirk's ring (only player out of the Top 2-7 PFs of recent memory to win a ring as the undisputable main guy) put them over the likes of Barkley or Malone?

Punpun

06-27-2012, 06:47 PM

Dirk is withotu a doubt the best shooter of the three.

Round Mound

06-27-2012, 08:42 PM

Charles is right on one part:

Anyone who watched the NBA in the 80s and early mid 90s knows Barkley was Better :confusedshrug: Nothing Knew...

Charles is wrong on part two:

Malone was not a Better Scorer he just Shot like 6-7 FGAs PG more. Charles had a Higher FG% Per Shot...Much Higher Two-Point FG (Near Shaq Level).

Shep

06-27-2012, 10:08 PM

barkley is an overrated crybaby. top 20? :roll: maybe top 35

malone was the best power forward in nba history until tim duncan came around. barkley isn't even better than the likes of kevin garnett, bob pettit, elvin hayes, or dirk nowitzki

Bigsmoke

06-27-2012, 10:34 PM

the battle of the ringless

how boring. :sleeping

Round Mound

06-27-2012, 10:38 PM

More like Charles Barkley was the Undisputed Best Powerfwer Forward Ever for 10 Years in a Row (1985-1995) Untill his Body Began to Decline in 1994-95 (1st his Back Problems then Knee Problems). :confusedshrug:

And NO :no: Malone was Never a More Dominant Offensive Force than Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region.

This is how they Both Worked...Malone Shooting More and Less Effective. Incredible Less Effective with THE GOAT CREATOR: John Stockton

Season:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg

Malone shot 51.9% Tw-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG

Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG

BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

Malone Needed STOCKTON To Score..NEVER IN THE LEVEL OF BARKLEY...Especially Play-Offs!!!

tpols

06-27-2012, 11:24 PM

LOL at you discounting 3s of which Charles chucked thousands of.. while Malone didnt shoot them. What a horribly skewed comparison. :oldlol:

Shep

06-27-2012, 11:35 PM

More like Charles Barkley was the Undisputed Best Powerfwer Forward Ever for 10 Years in a Row (1985-1995) Untill his Body Began to Decline in 1994-95 (1st his Back Problems then Knee Problems).
:lol barkley was only better than malone in 1986, '87, '88, '89, '90, and '93 (6 years)
malone was better than barkley in 1991, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99
(8 years)
and then you take into consideration all the games that were missed by barkley..

And NO Malone was Never a More Dominant Offensive Force than Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region.
maybe, maybe not. but there is a 3 point line in basketball, and over the combination of inside and outside games, malone wins this one.

This is how they Both Worked...Malone Shooting More and Less Effective. Incredible Less Effective with THE GOAT CREATOR: John Stockton

Season:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg

Malone shot 51.9% Tw-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG

Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG

BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

Malone Needed STOCKTON To Score..NEVER IN THE LEVEL OF BARKLEY...Especially Play-Offs!!!
nobody cares about 2point fg%. it wasn't malone's fault that barkley was lazy and often settled for 3 pointers that had no chance going in, so this can't be used against him.

as for playoff failings - barkley failed more times if not more than malone.
barkley's playoff failings:
1987 - lost in first round of the playoffs, barkley was the most disappointing player in the series (4.4to), almost getting outplayed by mo cheeks, and other players stepped up alot more.
maurics cheeks stepped up with 17.6ppg, 2.6rpg, 8.8apg, 1.8spg, 0.8bpg
julius erving had 18.2ppg, 5.0rpg, 3.4apg, 1.4spg, 1.2bpg
(1988 did not even make the playoffs :oldlol: )
1989 - swept in the first round :lol
barkley was 2nd most disappointing behind hersey hawkins in this series, and wasn't even his teams best player in the series, mo cheeks was.
cheeks had 17.7ppg, 3.7rpg, 13.0apg, 2.3spg, and 0.3bpg
even ron anderson stepped up his game more than barkley in this one.
1990 - barely get by the .500 cavs, then get destroyed by the bulls in the second round.
again doesn't step up to the plate like a best player on a team should. hersey hawkins steps up the most here: 23.5ppg, 3.1rpg, 3.6apg, 1.2spg, 0.7bpt
(1992 did not even make the playoffs :oldlol: )
1996 - destroyed in the first round of the playoffs
1997 - now the second best player on the team, almost gets outplayed by the third best player on the team (drexler)
1998 - loses in first round, almost outplayed by matt maloney
1999 - destroyed in the first round

Round Mound

06-28-2012, 12:41 AM

Who Was a Better Post Player and Inside Scorer? Barkley 58.13% Two-Point FG vs 51.9% and 55.13% vs 46.6% Two-Point FG

Barkley

- Malone Shot Over 50% FG ONLY TWICE in the Play-Offs.

- For Barkley it was Rare for Him To Shoot Below 50% FG and that was when he was Injured 95 on.

Who was a Better Mid Range Shooter? Barkley

Who was a Better Rebounder? Barkley

Who was a Better Creator? Barkley

Who was a Better Passer? Barkley

Who was the Better Ballhandler? Barkley

Who had More Skills? Barkley

Who was a Better Clutch Performer? Barkley

Who was the Better Floor Defender and Stealer? Barkley

Who was the Better Shot Blocker? Barkley

------------------------------------------
Malone was Only Better at FT Shooting and Longevity (which isnt a Skill)
THATS IT!!!

OH I FORGOT?

STOCKTON CREATING FOR MALONE and still he Could Not Shoot 50% FG in the Play-Offs but TWICE IN HIS LIFE

Round Mound

06-28-2012, 12:45 AM

LOL at you discounting 3s of which Charles chucked thousands of.. while Malone didnt shoot them. What a horribly skewed comparison. :oldlol:

It shows which was a Better More Dangerous Inside and Post Scorer...BARKLEY THY NAME :sleeping

JtotheIzzo

06-28-2012, 12:52 AM

So Malone had Stockton, Hornacek and a bunch of scrubs.

Barkley in Philly had Moses Malone(late 20's early 30's), Dr J(past prime), Cheeks(late 20's and early 30's), then had young Hawkins and Cliff Robinson.
Barkley in Phoenix had Kevin Johnson, Majerle, Ainge, Chambers, Manning.

Besides Stockton and Hornacek, Malone played with a lot of scrubs and was able to get to two Finals. Barkley played with more Hall of Famers and better role players, yet only managed to play in one Finals.

Malone is better.

Worst analysis ever, buy a f*ckin clue retard. The fact that you think Barkley, in any way, had better teammates in Philly, IS F*CKIN DUMB AS SHIT!

Barkley had Malone for his rookie and sophomore seasons, and Dr. J for 2/3 of one more. By year 4 Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson were the #2 and 3 scorers for Philly. Fact is, Philly never built a proper team around him, and Barkley wasted much of his prime toiling with scrubs.

In Phoenix, while Barkley was on the downhill side of his prime (despite the MVP 'for past work', Magic stole his MVP in 1990 because too many media members had it in for Charles) they still made two nice runs in the playoffs. By the time CB hit Houston he was a shell.

Malone has longevity, THAT'S IT! Prime Barkley takes a shit on prime Malone.

And what is this shit about Chuck being lazy? he was the hardest working man on the floor for much of his career.

Kobe 4 The Win

06-28-2012, 01:21 AM

Both great. Barkley is better in my opinion. Malone has longevity over him but Barkley was more dominant. My only gripe with Charles is that he thought he was a good 3 point shooter and he proceded to shoot more of them than he should have. Used to piss me off.

WillyJakk

06-28-2012, 01:24 AM

Charles is right, he was better than Malone.

Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.

WillyJakk

06-28-2012, 01:25 AM

Charles is right, he was better than Malone.

Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.

Quoted myself for truth.

Bigsmoke

06-28-2012, 01:30 AM

Charles is right, he was better than Malone.

Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.

MJ always been better.

FACT!

StateOfMind12

06-28-2012, 01:30 AM

And what is this shit about Chuck being lazy? he was the hardest working man on the floor for much of his career.
The fact that he was frequently out of shape or enter the season out of shape and just work his way into shape during the regular season.

The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter.

I don't know about you but I'm a big fan of consistency and Malone was spectacular at that. Comparing Malone to Barkley is almost like comparing LeBron to Wade to me with LeBron being Malone and Wade being Barkley.

Barkley wasn't much of a leader either compared to Malone. As I had stated, Malone was someone who gave you his all night in and night out, and had a contagious work-ethic. However, Barkley was someone who didn't have as strong of a work-ethic and was a pretty bad leader for the most part. He was a head case who fought his teammates in the locker-room, went out drinking all the time, was out of shape frequently, etc.

I personally want my star to be looking up upon, not down upon which is why I give Malone the edge over Barkley.

Malone wasn't more individually talented than Barkley but he was somewhat close in that area and I believe the intangibles such as leadership skills, defense, work-ethic, etc. ultimately make Malone better than Barkley.

Bigsmoke

06-28-2012, 01:32 AM

The fact that he was frequently out of shape or enter the season out of shape and just work his way into shape during the regular season.

The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter.
.

I just think its because Malone chokes alot.

i would worry about Barkley running out of energy before even thinking about Malone

AK47DR91

06-28-2012, 01:40 AM

Worst analysis ever, buy a f*ckin clue retard. The fact that you think Barkley, in any way, had better teammates in Philly, IS F*CKIN DUMB AS SHIT!

Barkley had Malone for his rookie and sophomore seasons, and Dr. J for 2/3 of one more. By year 4 Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson were the #2 and 3 scorers for Philly. Fact is, Philly never built a proper team around him, and Barkley wasted much of his prime toiling with scrubs.

In Phoenix, while Barkley was on the downhill side of his prime (despite the MVP 'for past work', Magic stole his MVP in 1990 because too many media members had it in for Charles) they still made two nice runs in the playoffs. By the time CB hit Houston he was a shell.

Malone has longevity, THAT'S IT! Prime Barkley takes a shit on prime Malone.

And what is this shit about Chuck being lazy? he was the hardest working man on the floor for much of his career.
Didn't the Sixers win the championship just two years before Barkley was drafted? I believe they did. He was actually drafted into the perfect situation. Two Hall of Famers in Moses and Dr. J and a 4-time All-Star in Cheeks. Still better than any situation Malone ever had.

G.O.A.T

06-28-2012, 01:49 AM

Shep

06-28-2012, 01:51 AM

eliteballer

06-28-2012, 01:57 AM

Barkley was more dominant in the playoffs for the same reason he himself stated he was better. It's because he was much better at creating his own offense.

ShaqAttack3234

06-28-2012, 02:37 AM

:lol barkley was only better than malone in 1986, '87, '88, '89, '90, and '93 (6 years)
malone was better than barkley in 1991, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99
(8 years)
and then you take into consideration all the games that were missed by barkley..

I agree with almost all of your rankings, except Barkley was better than Malone in '91. Charles was the 3rd best player that year behind only Michael and Magic. He was right up there with Jordan, Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge for the scoring title the first few months and having easily his best scoring season before injuries averaging 30.8 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 59.6 FG% over his first 35 games and Philly was 21-14, they went just 2-5 between his return, and ultimately went 39-28 when he played, and just 5-10 without him showing his impact. Barkley still finished at 27.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57 FG%. Despite a mediocre cast, which Barkley was used to in his prime, they made it to the second round, and Charles had a respectable playoff run individually, while Malone was far more underwhelming in the playoffs. I've only seen 1 game from the Milwaukee series, but the entire Chicago series. Charles averaging 23.7 ppg, 11 rpg, 7 apg, 2.7 spg on 52%. Not much he could've done in the Chicago series. He averaged 25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg on 64%, but MJ was in his prime, or arguably at his peak playing nearly flawless ball, Pippen really emerged in the second half and the playoffs becoming arguably the best small forward in the game, the Bulls adjusted to the triangle and the supporting cast had become pretty solid.

But other than our disagreement on '91, you're listing Barkley as better during every other year in his prime from '88-'93 and there was not a big difference between the 2 in '94 and '95. Charles was playing better ball before his injuries averaging 24.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 52.7 FG% and Phoenix was 22-6. He was not the same after that, and really looked incapable of consistently reaching his prime level by the Houston series when Otis Thorpe often looked to be outplaying him before Thorpe's own injury. So that's why I'd probably lean towards Malone in '94. And '94 was the start of Malone being a more complete player.

Charles started the season late in '95, but worked his way back and came on strong averaging 26.1 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in the second half of the season, though injuries took their toll again by the Houston series. He was really laboring in that memorable game 7 despite a 47/12 game earlier in the postseason to close out Portland. Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.

The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter.

Nah, I think it's because Barkley's game translated much better to the playoffs. The playoffs are often when we see playerswho put up big numbers in the regular season, but have holes in their game, or play a style that doesn't work as well in the playoffs get exposed. I can cite numerous examples. But Barkley didn't have that problem because he was just one of those dominant players.

Barkley wasn't much of a leader either compared to Malone. As I had stated, Malone was someone who gave you his all night in and night out, and had a contagious work-ethic. However, Barkley was someone who didn't have as strong of a work-ethic and was a pretty bad leader for the most part. He was a head case who fought his teammates in the locker-room, went out drinking all the time, was out of shape frequently, etc.

Malone did have unbelievable work ethic, that's evidenced by his remarkable conditioning and longevity. Phil Jackson also mentioned how eager Malone was to learn the triangle. Many veterans struggle to learn the offense, but Karl was a very good fit, imo. Compare him to Payton that same year who was much younger, but lost in the offense, or other veterans like Glen Rice in 2000 who was a terrible fit and reportedly didn't care too much to learn it, and Phil also said that Mitch Richmond didn't get playing time in '02 for similar seasons.

Malone also played in an offense that takes a while to learn in Utah when Sloan ran the flex offense, and Malone was of course the perfect fit.

I personally want my star to be looking up upon, not down upon which is why I give Malone the edge over Barkley.

Fair points, but I'd rather have the guy who I'm confident will show up and dominate a playoff game.

Sometimes I am amazed at your recollection of events and the stunning objectivity you bring to them. I'd add in support of Barkley's conditioning not being a major issue how well he played in 1999 and the shape he was in to start the season. He matched or outlasted all his peers except Stockton/Malone in terms of longevity.

One of the changes I've made to my revamped list this year already is Barkley over Malone. As much as Malone's career numbers are better, I always thought Barkley was greater at his best and never believed in Malone. I may be biased, but it feels right.

Thanks, I appreciate it. And I always enjoy your posts as well. it's good to see posters who put a lot into their posts and love the game. I was shocked at how well Barkley played in that '99 series vs LA in particular, he was doing it a lot by backing in, but I recall a few vintage Barkley plays where he went coast to cast, just without the monster dunks. Charles averaged 23.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.8 apg, 52.6 FG% in the series. That Houston team was interesting, obviously a disappointment with Pippen not fitting in, but lost in all of that was Hakeem's comeback season after all of the injuries in '98. Despite the problems, even that old big 3 could've been dangerous. We saw how capable Barkley still could be, and Pippen was still one of the most capable all around small forwards as he showed in 2000 with Portland. It could've been an interesting series if Pippen and Olajuwon played up to their capability. Of course, Olajuwon was 36 and going up against a 27 year old Shaq.

Then again, I may be somewhat biased myself. I've been a big Barkley fan since I was a kid. As simple as it sounds, my uncle moved to Phoenix for a few years around the time Barkley got there and he talked about him quite a bit, so I ended up following his career. Malone on the other hand is a guy whose game I appreciate, but I find him to be a despicable human being. But I honestly don't think that comes into play for me when I rank him.

StateOfMind12

06-28-2012, 03:04 AM

Nah, I think it's because Barkley's game translated much better to the playoffs. The playoffs are often when we see playerswho put up big numbers in the regular season, but have holes in their game, or play a style that doesn't work as well in the playoffs get exposed. I can cite numerous examples. But Barkley didn't have that problem because he was just one of those dominant players.
It's a combination of both to be honest. I think Barkley coasting through the regular season definitely gave him extra energy and stamina to play in the playoffs and his game was a pretty good fit for the post-season as well.

Barkley had a fair amount of chokes himself though which is why I don't understand everybody constantly highlighting Malone's chokes but then completely ignoring Barkley's.

Just to cite a few examples of Barkley's post-season chokes

Charles Barkley who blew two 2-0 series leads (one 3-1 lead), with seven of those fourteen games shooting under 45% from the field? The same Barkley that had four of those games also under 40% shooting, including an infamous 5 points on 0-10 shooting. He blamed it on it being an "afternoon game.." He only shot better than 50% in four of those fourteen games against the Rockets in both these series..

magnax1

06-28-2012, 03:25 AM

Shep

06-28-2012, 03:41 AM

I agree with almost all of your rankings, except Barkley was better than Malone in '91. Charles was the 3rd best player that year behind only Michael and Magic
actually he was 9th. behind jordan, scottie pippen, magic, david robinson, john stockton, hakeem olajuwon, karl malone, and clyde drexler.

He was right up there with Jordan, Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge for the scoring title the first few months and having easily his best scoring season before injuries averaging 30.8 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 59.6 FG% over his first 35 games and Philly was 21-14, they went just 2-5 between his return, and ultimately went 39-28 when he played, and just 5-10 without him showing his impact. Barkley still finished at 27.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57 FG%. Despite a mediocre cast, which Barkley was used to in his prime, they made it to the second round, and Charles had a respectable playoff run individually, while Malone was far more underwhelming in the playoffs. I've only seen 1 game from the Milwaukee series, but the entire Chicago series. Charles averaging 23.7 ppg, 11 rpg, 7 apg, 2.7 spg on 52%. Not much he could've done in the Chicago series. He averaged 25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg on 64%, but MJ was in his prime, or arguably at his peak playing nearly flawless ball, Pippen really emerged in the second half and the playoffs becoming arguably the best small forward in the game, the Bulls adjusted to the triangle and the supporting cast had become pretty solid.
although i'll admit barkley had slightly the better playoff, malone had a much better regular season, and this is the difference here.

malone averaged 29.0ppg, 11.8rpg, 3.3apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg, and 3.0topg on 53%fg on a 54 win team
barkley averaged 27.6ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.6spg, 0.5bpg, and 3.1topg on 57%fg on a 44 win team

malone deserved 1st team all-nba honors, while barkley only deserved to be named to the 3rd team.

as for an underwelming supporting cast?
hersey hawkins was the third best shotting guard in the nba only behind jordan and drexler. hawkins stepped up his level of play in the playoffs more than barkley, and averaged 20.9ppg, 5.8rpg, 3.4apg, 2.5spg, and 1.3bpg, while shooting 47% from the field and 54% from the 3 point line, and they had fine role players like gilliam, mahorn, and anderson.

But other than our disagreement on '91, you're listing Barkley as better during every other year in his prime from '88-'93 and there was not a big difference between the 2 in '94 and '95. Charles was playing better ball before his injuries averaging 24.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 52.7 FG% and Phoenix was 22-6. He was not the same after that, and really looked incapable of consistently reaching his prime level by the Houston series when Otis Thorpe often looked to be outplaying him before Thorpe's own injury. So that's why I'd probably lean towards Malone in '94. And '94 was the start of Malone being a more complete player.
yeh barkley was better than malone most years of his prime because malone hadn't entered his yet.

Charles started the season late in '95, but worked his way back and came on strong averaging 26.1 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in the second half of the season, though injuries took their toll again by the Houston series. He was really laboring in that memorable game 7 despite a 47/12 game earlier in the postseason to close out Portland. Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.
barkley had a better playoff than malone in '95, and it did make it close, but not close enough to combat malone's regular season domination.

at the end of the day malone and barkley were individually ranked based on what they did on the court, what isn't taken into consideration when ranking individual seasons is games played. if barkley played in as many games consistently as malone did, then he'd be alot closer in the all time rankings (which take into consideration percentage of games played). unfortunately for barkley and his teams, he was off the court alot of the time, which was obviously of no value to his teams. and finally, malone was voted as the nba's most valuabe player in a season in which wasn't one of his best 8 in the league. how many players can you say that about?

eliteballer

06-28-2012, 04:09 AM

actually he was 9th. behind jordan, scottie pippen, magic, david robinson, john stockton, hakeem olajuwon, karl malone, and clyde drexler.

Just laughable:wtf:

Dragonyeuw

06-28-2012, 04:13 AM

Barkley is one of the few players who when playing against prime MJ in the late 80s/early 90s, actually looked like the dominant player on the floor at times. That's how good he was in his heyday.

ShaqAttack3234

06-28-2012, 05:13 AM

It's a combination of both to be honest. I think Barkley coasting through the regular season definitely gave him extra energy and stamina to play in the playoffs and his game was a pretty good fit for the post-season as well.

I don't necessarily disagree, but even in a season like '93 after playing for the Dream Team(which seemed to take it's toll on other players such as Pippen, Drexler and even MJ), and then a regular season where he was motivated and busted his ass after a subpar '92 season when he was lazy and unhappy, he dominated in the postseason in '93. Several of his games in that run are among the best I've seen him play such as games 2 and 5 vs the Spurs and games 5 and 7 vs Seattle.

But what seasons did you think Barkley coasted in from '88-'93 except for '92 when he didn't make the playoffs?

In Charles '90 season, which many consider his best, I wouldn't say he broke down in the playoffs. He had three 30/20 games in 10 playoff games, though I will say that he had an uneven series vs Chicago and should've capitalized on game 4 when Pippen was out attending his father's funeral and Philly had a chance to tie the series at home. The Sixers had comparable talent to the Bulls in general, much less without Pippen. Then again, Jordan at his peak playing perfect basketball made it difficult. They gave him the outside shot, and MJ burned him all series long, mostly on jumpers, but exploited his size advantage on Hawkins in the post when he felt like it as well. But Charles should've played better and some of his struggles can be attributed to his poor free throw shooting that series.

Barkley had a fair amount of chokes himself though which is why I don't understand everybody constantly highlighting Malone's chokes but then completely ignoring Barkley's.

In his prime? Not really, and compare his postseason play to Malone's. It's obvious to me that they aren't comparable in that regard.

Just to cite a few examples of Barkley's post-season chokes

Can't argue with the Houston series, and Phoenix did have more talent than Houston, imo. Phoenix did have their interior defense exposed big time by Hakeem and Thorpe in the '94 season, though. That was their biggest weakness, and one of the negatives of having Barkley at power forward.

But Barkley was already looking like not quite the player he had been in that '94 series, and Barkley was talking about retiring after '94 because of his back.

And I'll never forget the image of Barkley hobbling around in game 7.

Those are choke jobs, partially by the whole Suns team....except KJ who was fantastic in both series, but at least this wasn't prime '88-'93 Barkley.

actually he was 9th.

Barkley was never as low as 9th any season from '87 through '95.

behind jordan

Yep

scottie pippen

No chance, Pippen was great in the second half and postseason, but he wasn't there yet. As much as I like Scottie, and despite it being probably his second best playoff run and a breakout year, Pippen probably wasn't top 10 yet, and certainly not better than Barkley. Though Pippen did enter the top 10 in '92 and I'd be tempted to rank him above Charles that season.

magic

Correct, he was number 2 as I mentioned.

david robinson

Nah, but he has a case due to his defensive impact. But his 55 win Spurs were upset by the 44 win Warriors as they neutralized Robinson's impact, and David failed to really put his stamp on the series and dominate a tiny Warrirs team who were terrible defensively. Definitely a team he should have dominated.

This selection isn't outrageous, though, so I don't have a problem with it, just definitely disagree.

john stockton

Stockton was never better than Barkley in any season until he was a Rocket. John was a terrific pure point guard and an excellent sidekick/complementary player, but at his best, he was borderline top 10. Just didn't have the true MVP-caliber ability to dominate a game that a guy like Barkley did. '91 may have been his best year, though, so if I'm feeling generous, I may give him the 9th ranking that you have Barkley, purely due to KJ being injured and unable to perform up to his standard in the playoffs. The same way KJ outplaying Stockton in the playoffs sealed his spot over Stockton in my '90 rankings.

hakeem olajuwon

Nah, Hakeem was typically close to Barkley from '88-'92, and passed him after, but Hakeem missed 26 games, and when he returned, he was in a reduced offensive role averaging just 18 ppg upon returning to the lineup with Kenny Smith leading them in scoring and Houston succeeding with an up tempo style, outside shooting and screen/rolls as opposed to Dream carrying them in the post. Houston went 20-7 with Dream in the reduced offensive role, and they had a winning record for once with Dream out of the lineup going 16-10. This was a down year for Hakeem. He definitely wasn't better than Barkley this season.

karl malone

No as I covered before. '92 was the only year from Barkley's prime when Malone was better, and that's because Barkley was a notch below prime level that year.

clyde drexler.

Not a chance. Drexler had a very nice all around game, but was a guy who benefited greatly from transition opportunities and wasn't the type of dominant half court offensive player that Barkley he was. He wasn't the same type of player who would alter a team's entire defense, cause constant doubles and impose his will on a game. Besides, Clyde had the most talented team in the league, and they were upset by the Lakers. There's a visible difference between Drexler and Barkley when watching them. Out of their entire careers, Drexler was only better than Barkley in '98.

although i'll admit barkley had slightly the better playoff, malone had a much better regular season, and this is the difference here.

Nah, Barkley had the better regular season too.

malone averaged 29.0ppg, 11.8rpg, 3.3apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg, and 3.0topg on 53%fg on a 54 win team
barkley averaged 27.6ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.6spg, 0.5bpg, and 3.1topg on 57%fg on a 44 win team

Barkley's team won 44 games because they were weak, they went just 5-10 without him. Charles scored almost as much on better efficiency while not being the beneficiary of Stockton's countless assists. Malone relying on easy baskets, particularly at that stage of his career is why his efficiency plummeted as usual to 42.4% in the semifinals when Portland knocked them out and 45.5% for the entire playoffs.

Barkley was also the vastly superior passer at that time.

At least Malone was arguably a top 5 player himself, but regardless of how close their rankings were, the gap in ability was still clear in '91.

malone deserved 1st team all-nba honors, while barkley only deserved to be named to the 3rd team.

Nah, and if you did have a case for that statement, it'd be due to missed games, but 15 isn't enough. And 3rd team is way too low. Malone was the only forward besides Barkley who was even top 10 that year.

as for an underwelming supporting cast?
hersey hawkins was the third best shotting guard in the nba only behind jordan and drexler. hawkins stepped up his level of play in the playoffs more than barkley, and averaged 20.9ppg, 5.8rpg, 3.4apg, 2.5spg, and 1.3bpg, while shooting 47% from the field and 54% from the 3 point line, and they had fine role players like gilliam, mahorn, and anderson.

Hawkins was a nice player who could certainly score, but in no way was he a top 3 shooting guard. In addition to Jordan and Drexler, Hawkins also finds himself behind Dumars, Richmond, Reggie Lewis and possibly Reggie Miller.

Gilliam was a talented post scorer, but he was a bad fit in Philly. This was because his game did not fit with Barkley's. Anderson was a nice bench scorer, and Mahorn was indeed solid. But that's not much depth, and precisely why they struggled to a 5-10 record without him

yeh barkley was better than malone most years of his prime because malone hadn't entered his yet.

Fair point. :cheers: Malone's prime started unusually late, and he may be the only all-time great to peak as late as 34 years old.

barkley had a better playoff than malone in '95, and it did make it close, but not close enough to combat malone's regular season domination.

No arguments here, we're on the same page.

at the end of the day malone and barkley were individually ranked based on what they did on the court, what isn't taken into consideration when ranking individual seasons is games played. if barkley played in as many games consistently as malone did, then he'd be alot closer in the all time rankings (which take into consideration percentage of games played). unfortunately for barkley and his teams, he was off the court alot of the time, which was obviously of no value to his teams. and finally, malone was voted as the nba's most valuabe player in a season in which wasn't one of his best 8 in the league. how many players can you say that about?

For me it's simple, you ask me who I'm taking between '89-'93 Barkley and '94-'98 Malone, and I'm taking Barkley without thinking twice.

That is interesting that Malone was voted MVP in a season that was nowhere near his best, though part of that speaks to the lack of quality seasons in the lockout year. And while I don't care about awards given out in a 50 game season, I'd have chosen Duncan.

And I thought about it, and I agree that Malone's '99 season wasn't even one of his top 8.

senelcoolidge

06-28-2012, 06:48 AM

I agree Barkley was better than Malone..Jeff Malone.

Harison

06-28-2012, 09:12 AM

Barkley didnt played a lick of defense, therefore his advantage as a bit better go to guy doesnt give your team any advantage if you get outscored due to no defense :oldlol:

A lot of people miss this point for some reason, basketball isnt just about scoring (and Malone scored more as well, in Playoffs too), and Mailman was considerably better defensive player. He actually played both sides of the floor, while Charles was just coasting on D, saving all his energy for offense, and still he didnt reached Karl's scoring volume.

Speaking about Playoffs, Charles had better teammates overall, and yet he had less Playoffs success than Malone. No advantage for Barkley here either.

And lets not even touch work ethics... one treats his body like a temple, and another like a bag you can throw all junk food in. :facepalm

No GM would pick Charles over Mailman, simple as that.

2LeTTeRS

06-28-2012, 09:46 AM

Didn't the Sixers win the championship just two years before Barkley was drafted? I believe they did. He was actually drafted into the perfect situation. Two Hall of Famers in Moses and Dr. J and a 4-time All-Star in Cheeks. Still better than any situation Malone ever had.

Do you mean a better situation for getting #s or better for winning? Barkley's situation was definitely better for winning, but nowhere near as good to amass stats.

JtotheIzzo

06-28-2012, 11:05 AM

Speaking about Playoffs, Charles had better teammates overall, and yet he had less Playoffs success than Malone. No advantage for Barkley here either.

why do people keep spewing this BS, Barkley's prime in Philly he had NO ONE, having Malone in years 1 & 2 and an old broke Dr. J for 2/3 of a season after is not great teammates. Unless you think Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson are stars, because they were the #2 and #3 scorers on Barkley led teams.

Malone played with a top 5 PG of all time for his entire prime, Barkley had Hersey Hawkins. The f*ck out with this nonsense.

NugzHeat3

06-28-2012, 11:28 AM

I tend to go back and forth on Barkley and Malone. It's hard to ignore that Malone was a top 10 player for about 15 years, but it is true that Barkley was considerably better at his best, and in terms of offensive impact I'm not sure if there are 10 guys you can point to who were better then Barkley at his very best. Excluding his tendency to sometimes shoot questionable 3s and long 2s he played offensively almost exactly how you'd want a superstar to. Scored extremely efficiently, but he usually looked to improve his team mates chances as much as anything. I think more often then not those 3s he took were to try and get the defense to run him off the line and get more looks in the paint too, but I still dont like them.

Well he had a big part in them losing game 5 by a couple points. It's one of the best examples of why he struggled in the clutch so often. As the defense got tighter at the end of the game, he just couldn't get good shots or position and basically threw a couple possessions away because of it. I think the only time he scored in the final 5 minutes was on a prayer 3 pointer, despite having most of the plays run for him.
Either way though, Houston was equally, or more talented and Hakeem's Rocket teams were built perfectly to exploit a couple of the mid 90's Jazz biggest holes. A very weak center position (Though Antoine Carr was great in some respects) and Utah's poor perimeter D at the time.
I agree with your initial point but disagree with the bolded. I don't think he did.

The Jazz built a 82-75 lead with about 5 min to go in the quarter. After they did that, they tried running the clock down which ultimately led to the demise. Malone was getting double teamed in the post and if you get double teamed, you make the right play and the right play was hitting the open shooter and Malone just did exactly that. The guy they were helping off of, David Benoit, couldn't nail the threes. Malone was forced to take a couple of shots with the clock running down. That was bad strategy on their behalf since it was too early to play the clock game.

You can see the Desert News blames the loss on the lack of 3 pt shooting down the stretch as well.

If you thought the Rockets' defensive scheme down the stretch looked familiar, you were right.
It was the same thing we've seen all season - double-team on Karl Malone, man-to-man coverage on everyone else except David Benoit, who was virtually ignored. That's why Benoit had a chance to shoot three open threes in the fourth quarter. If he'd made one of those, there's a good chance it would have been the Rockets committing desperation fouls in the final couple of minutes, instead of the Jazz.No one came right out and criticized Benoit afterward, but there were some comments that seemed to come close.
"We had some opportunities in the fourth quarter; we just didn't make baskets," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan.
"To their (the Rockets) credit, they hit most of their outside shots," said Jazz guard Jeff Hornacek.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/419738/CRUNCH-TIME-DEFENSE-PUT-BENOIT-ON-THE-SPOT.html?pg=all

Also, the Jazz were also very well built to exploit Houston's biggest holes BTW. That team was awful at guarding elite PGs yet Stockton didn't have as great of a series as he should've and they traded away Otis Thorpe and Carl Herrera was injured so they had no PF. Malone was guarded by Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown and Charles Jones for the most part and that's a major edge for anybody and it's not surprising he was able to have a dominant series getting to the foul line and forcing double teams. Horry didn't switch to the 4 until the PHX series.

Charles is right, Malone never reached the level Barkley was at from '88-'93.

Charles was a better scorer, passer and rebounder, plus he was more athletic and more versatile. Charles was just the better and more dominant offensive player, that's why he was double teamed so often. In fact, out of players in Barkley's era or later, the only players I can think of who were doubled teamed as much as Charles was in his prime are Shaq and Hakeem. It's always been surprising to me how dominant he was in the post with his power game at only 6'5"-6'6". He's easily among the greatest power players of all time, and played both forward positions during his career. He played small forward in '90 and '91 alongside Mike Gminski and Rick Mahorn, and later at times when he played with AC Green in Phoenix.

Malone was definitely a better defensive player than Barkley, he developed until a great post defender around '94 or so. Remember Malone shutting down Robinson in the playoffs? He also developed into a very good passer around that same time, and he improved his jump shot while also becoming more polished in the post.

I actually really like Malone's game from '94-'00, but he was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, even when he became more polished. And Charles is right that be benefited greatly from Stockton, particularly late 80's/early 90's Malone. Though the same can be said about Stockton.

Malone got a lot of easy baskets running the floor, in screen/rolls with Stockton, and early on from lob passes over the top when defenders fronted him. Even the more skilled version of Malone was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, while Barkley showed quite a bit more dominance in the playoffs. Malone had more team success, but Charles was only on 1 contending team in his prime back in '93.

Late 80's/early 90's Karl Malone was still one of the league's best players, though. His post game was effective based on his quickness and strength. He was a great power player, and he did already have a jump shot, plus no 4 ran the floor better.

There's a common misconception about Barkley that he lacked longevity, but that's not true, we can't forget that he turned 30 in the '93 season, most players start to decline a bit shortly after that. He didn't remain at his prime level consistently due to injuries, and perhaps age, but he was still the second best power forward, and easily a top 10 player in '94 and '95. And he showed dominance even before his prime started in '88. Despite being raw in his second year in '86, he already probably established himself among the top players in the league.

His conditioning is also a misconception, his weight was not really an issue after his first year or 2 until he got to Houston. And even in Houston in '97, he averaged about 19/14/5 while sharing the ball with Olajuwon and Drexler and having his offensive game limited by the system. He was averaging 20/15 the first 2 months before injuries.

Malone's longevity was just superhuman, it was really only rivaled by Kareem and Robert Parish.

This isn't to say that Barkley didn't have his flaws as well. it's common knowledge that he was not exactly fond on playing defense, and he also had a habit of holding the ball too much which often led to turnovers because he'd leave his feet for cross court passes because he had trouble seeing over the double at times. He cut down on holding the ball by the time he got to Phoenix, and also improved his jumper. Though I don't think he had the same explosiveness despite getting in the best shape of his career and still being a very good athlete.
Great post. I agree on all counts. Barkley definitely had a better prime. I don't think he really cut down on holding the ball in PHX though. If anything, I'd say he increased it since he'd isolate a lot operating in the triple threat, holding the ball and often forcing longer, tougher jumpshots and he'd often look to exploit the illegal defense rule as well.

DCL

06-28-2012, 12:43 PM

chuck had the all-around game that the mailman never had.

they were both strong but both really played differently.

as heavy as chuck was, he had guard skills/ but he hung with all the bigs as well and often even destroyed them completely.

karl had more overall points, but he wasn't as skilled as chuck in creative scoring. with chuck, you can give him the ball at the top of the key and then clear the *** out. no pick and roll bullsht needed.

magnax1

06-28-2012, 03:25 PM

I agree with your initial point but disagree with the bolded. I don't think he did.

The Jazz built a 82-75 lead with about 5 min to go in the quarter. After they did that, they tried running the clock down which ultimately led to the demise. Malone was getting double teamed in the post and if you get double teamed, you make the right play and the right play was hitting the open shooter and Malone just did exactly that. The guy they were helping off of, David Benoit, couldn't nail the threes. Malone was forced to take a couple of shots with the clock running down. That was bad strategy on their behalf since it was too early to play the clock game.

It's very true that Benoit had an awful end to that game, but Malone had just as big of a part. I think I actually broke the last couple minutes of the game down for you once, and I'd do it again, but it seems the channel on youtube that had the game in its entirety has been taken down. The general problem wasn't that they were playing the clock. They actually continued to run their normal plays most of the time, but Malone almost always got into position with little time left on the clock, or just didn't get in a position where he could get the ball in the first place. Sloan after a while actually started to run some plays for Antoine Carr after a bit IIRC, and had better success, but switched back for whatever reason. So a lot of the shots off double teams players were getting were with very little time left on the clock, and they were doubling Malone farther out then they should have been which made it easy to play defense out of those doubles. Either way, Benoit had a couple open shots he should have hit though.

Also, the Jazz were also very well built to exploit Houston's biggest holes BTW. That team was awful at guarding elite PGs yet Stockton didn't have as great of a series as he should've and they traded away Otis Thorpe and Carl Herrera was injured so they had no PF. Malone was guarded by Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown and Charles Jones for the most part and that's a major edge for anybody and it's not surprising he was able to have a dominant series getting to the foul line and forcing double teams. Horry didn't switch to the 4 until the PHX series.
Malone really didn't dominate the series. He was good no doubt, but dominant is a huge exaggeration. Either way, it just wasn't as big of an edge as having to double Hakeem every time down the floor because their Front court was built of two 6'8 players, or Drexler having like a 5 inch height and 30 inch vertical leap advantage on Hornacek lol. Carr was actually a good defender in the post, especially in some matchups (he did a fantastic job on Shaq) but it was still an awful matchup problem since Hakeem just shot right over the top of him.
Stockton had a good series excluding the last game. He had two 25+ point games and averaged 18 ppg for the whole series on a good shooting %. However he was not going to dominate a team offensively by 95 in almost any matchup, because he had lost quite a bit of his ability to get inside, which is where he was capable of doing damage in terms of scoring. Houston just played way off him to make sure he couldn't do that, and let him shoot 3s and long 2s, which he tended only to do as a last resort.

heavensdevil

06-28-2012, 03:44 PM

Sir Charles, all day!

Round Mound

06-28-2012, 07:28 PM

karl malone vs charles barkley head to head in the regular season:

malone: 23.7ppg, 10.1rpg 3.2apg, 1.3spg, 0.8bpg, 3.0topg, 52%fg
barkley: 18.4ppg, 10.1rpg, 3.8apg, 1.4spg, 0.5bpg, 3.2topg, 47%fg

malone: 23 wins
barkley: 16 wins

karl malone vs charles barkley head to head in the playoffs:

malone: 24.3ppg, 11.7rpg, 2.2apg, 1.4spg, 1.3bpg, 2.9topg, 44%fg
barkley: 13.3ppg, 8.7rpg, 2.7apg, 1.0spg, 0.3bpg, 2.3topg, 45%fg

malone: 6 wins
barkley: 4 wins

:oldlol: :roll: :no: :facepalm :rolleyes:

This Guy is Funny as Hell

Barkley owned Malone for 10-11 Years. Clearly from 85 to 95 I have the stats

The Only Time Malone could Guard Barkley and do a Good Job was when Chuck was In Houston Overweight and Lost His Leaping Ability, Agility and Explosion at Age 33...Filled With Back and Knee Problems All Over

Barkley Owned Malone from 1985 to 1995.
Malone got the Better of Barkley from 96-2000.

Round Mound

06-28-2012, 07:35 PM

Don`t Forget Malone Played with the Best Rim Protector and Shot Blocker Ever. 7`4 Mark Eaton for 9-10 Years...

Infact the 1988 Jazz > Any 90s Jazz

Shep

06-29-2012, 12:53 AM

Just laughable
:oldlol:

Barkley was never as low as 9th any season from '87 through '95
well that is flat out wrong, considering he was 9th in 1991. and then there was 1988 where he was 10th, and then 11th in 1989, and then 10th in 1990, and then finally 16th in 1992.

No chance, Pippen was great in the second half and postseason, but he wasn't there yet. As much as I like Scottie, and despite it being probably his second best playoff run and a breakout year, Pippen probably wasn't top 10 yet, and certainly not better than Barkley. Though Pippen did enter the top 10 in '92 and I'd be tempted to rank him above Charles that season.
lol pippen was easily better than barkley, and top 2 overall.
17.8ppg, 7.3rpg, 6.2apg, 2.4spg, 1.1bpg on a 61 win team in the regular season
21.6ppg, 8.9rpg, 5.8apg, 2.5spg, 1.1bpg on a team that went 15-2 in the playoffs and obviously won the championship, including 32 points, 13 rebounds, 7 assists, 5 steals, and 1 block in the championship clinching game 5 on the road.

Correct, he was number 2 as I mentioned.
he was third behind pippen

Nah, but he has a case due to his defensive impact. But his 55 win Spurs were upset by the 44 win Warriors as they neutralized Robinson's impact, and David failed to really put his stamp on the series and dominate a tiny Warrirs team who were terrible defensively. Definitely a team he should have dominated.

This selection isn't outrageous, though, so I don't have a problem with it, just definitely disagree.
robinson did have a disappointing playoffs (even though he did average 25.8ppg, 13.5rpg, 2.0apg, 1.5spg, 3.75bpg, on 69%fg), and he was demoted in the overall rankings due to that, but we can't totally discount his fantastic regular season. robinson was the second most valuable player in the nba, only behind michael jordan in that regard, and averaged 25.6ppg, led the league with 13.0rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5spg, and 3.9bpg, on 55%fg while leading the spurs to a 55-27 mark.

Stockton was never better than Barkley in any season until he was a Rocket. John was a terrific pure point guard and an excellent sidekick/complementary player, but at his best, he was borderline top 10. Just didn't have the true MVP-caliber ability to dominate a game that a guy like Barkley did. '91 may have been his best year, though, so if I'm feeling generous, I may give him the 9th ranking that you have Barkley, purely due to KJ being injured and unable to perform up to his standard in the playoffs. The same way KJ outplaying Stockton in the playoffs sealed his spot over Stockton in my '90 rankings.
on top of '91, stockton was also better than barkley in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1992. fantastic floor general and leader, stockton was everything you could possibly ask out of your point guard. he could score, but he wouldn't shoot too much, he led the league in assists 9 straight seasons, was always in the top 5 is steals, and he shot the ball at a delicious clip from the field, 3 point, and free throw.
as for 1990 rankings stockton is still ahead of kj despite kj having the better playoff run due to stockton's far superior regular season. are you going to rank kj ahead of magic johnson in 1990 aswell considering johnson beat magic's lakers 4-1 :rolleyes:

Nah, Hakeem was typically close to Barkley from '88-'92, and passed him after, but Hakeem missed 26 games, and when he returned, he was in a reduced offensive role averaging just 18 ppg upon returning to the lineup with Kenny Smith leading them in scoring and Houston succeeding with an up tempo style, outside shooting and screen/rolls as opposed to Dream carrying them in the post. Houston went 20-7 with Dream in the reduced offensive role, and they had a winning record for once with Dream out of the lineup going 16-10. This was a down year for Hakeem. He definitely wasn't better than Barkley this season.
14 out of those 26 games were at home
of those 16 wins 3 were against the timberwolves (2 at home) who finished 29-53
2 wins were against the worst team in the nba (nuggets)
1 win was at home to the clippers (31-51)
2 wins against the cavs (33-49)

in 26 games they only ended up beating 3 teams with winning records. olajuwon then came back in and joined a team that was 9 over .500 and they finished 22 over .500.

No as I covered before. '92 was the only year from Barkley's prime when Malone was better, and that's because Barkley was a notch below prime level that year.
destroyed

Not a chance. Drexler had a very nice all around game, but was a guy who benefited greatly from transition opportunities and wasn't the type of dominant half court offensive player that Barkley he was. He wasn't the same type of player who would alter a team's entire defense, cause constant doubles and impose his will on a game. Besides, Clyde had the most talented team in the league, and they were upset by the Lakers. There's a visible difference between Drexler and Barkley when watching them. Out of their entire careers, Drexler was only better than Barkley in '98.
slightley better in the regular season, and easily better in the playoffs. drexler led his team to the best record in the nba, and the conference finals. drexler was just superb in the playoffs, with averages of 21.7ppg, 8.1rpg, 8.1apg, 2.1spg, and 1.0bpg

Nah, Barkley had the better regular season too.
:oldlol:

Barkley's team won 44 games because they were weak, they went just 5-10 without him
well obviously barkley should have been playing, otherwise they might not have went 5-10

Charles scored almost as much on better efficiency while not being the beneficiary of Stockton's countless assists. Malone relying on easy baskets, particularly at that stage of his career is why his efficiency plummeted as usual to 42.4% in the semifinals when Portland knocked them out and 45.5% for the entire playoffs.

Barkley was also the vastly superior passer at that time.

At least Malone was arguably a top 5 player himself, but regardless of how close their rankings were, the gap in ability was still clear in '91.
baskets are baskets, easy baskets or difficult baskets. i know i'd rather have my power forward being in the right spots for layups than shooting fade away 3s with 15 seconds left on the shot clock.

malone was aslo the vastly superior defender at that time.

Nah, and if you did have a case for that statement, it'd be due to missed games, but 15 isn't enough. And 3rd team is way too low. Malone was the only forward besides Barkley who was even top 10 that year.
it will be due to games missed and 15 games is a bit chunk of the season. pippen was another forward in the top 10 that year, infact he was ranked 2nd. and as for forwards in the all-nba teams 1st team should've been malone and pippen. second team dominique wilkins and chris mullin. third team would be larry nance and charles barkley

Hawkins was a nice player who could certainly score, but in no way was he a top 3 shooting guard. In addition to Jordan and Drexler, Hawkins also finds himself behind Dumars, Richmond, Reggie Lewis and possibly Reggie Miller.
firstly reggie lewis was a small forward. dumars was nice but not on the level of hawkins in this one particular season, the others are nowhere in the vicinity.

Gilliam was a talented post scorer, but he was a bad fit in Philly. This was because his game did not fit with Barkley's. Anderson was a nice bench scorer, and Mahorn was indeed solid. But that's not much depth, and precisely why they struggled to a 5-10 record without him
or was it because barkley had the type of game that was hard to adjust to as a teammate? i know for example that kj was on pace to be one of the great all-time guards before barkley decided to force a trade to the 56 win suns team..and his career fizzled not long after.

For me it's simple, you ask me who I'm taking between '89-'93 Barkley and '94-'98 Malone, and I'm taking Barkley without thinking twice.
its quite simple for me aswell i am taking malone 100 times out of 10.

That is interesting that Malone was voted MVP in a season that was nowhere near his best, though part of that speaks to the lack of quality seasons in the lockout year. And while I don't care about awards given out in a 50 game season, I'd have chosen Duncan.
i also have duncan as league mvp, but it is just an interesting thought.

Shep

06-29-2012, 12:55 AM

This Guy is Funny as Hell

Barkley owned Malone for 10-11 Years. Clearly from 85 to 95 I have the stats

The Only Time Malone could Guard Barkley and do a Good Job was when Chuck was In Houston Overweight and Lost His Leaping Ability, Agility and Explosion at Age 33...Filled With Back and Knee Problems All Over

Barkley Owned Malone from 1985 to 1995.
Malone got the Better of Barkley from 96-2000.
:roll: this clown again :roll: i have already destroyed this filth

barkley - fat and bald, no defense, cried and got traded to dominant teams and still lost
malone - incredible work ethic, never missed games, defensive genius

Shep

06-29-2012, 12:56 AM

Don`t Forget Malone Played with the Best Rim Protector and Shot Blocker Ever. 7`4 Mark Eaton for 9-10 Years...

Infact the 1988 Jazz > Any 90s Jazz
don't forget barkley played with hall of famers hakeem olajuwon, scottie pippen, clyde drexler, moses malone, julius erving, andrew toney, and maurice cheeks :applause:

D.J.

06-29-2012, 01:32 AM

Going by their peaks and individual skills, Barkley was better than Malone. Better at creating, more efficient scorer, more versatile, better rebounder, better passer, and better in the clutch. A common misconception is that Barkley was a terrible defender. Barkley wasn't a terrible defender at all. He was however, a very lazy defender. He took many plays off on D. He also wasn't big on conditioning, unlike Malone, who was a gym rat.

Now as far as teammates. Some like to say that Barkley had way more help. Not true. Barkley's only real help was his rookie year, where he had Moses(25/13), Dr. J(20/5), Toney(18/5), and Cheeks(13/6), and reached the ECF.

In '86, Moses didn't play at all in the playoffs. Chuck led the way, averaging 25/16/6 with Dr. J playing respectably, but clearly declining...and Mo Cheeks putting up 21/7/5 in the playoffs and they were 1 win away from the ECF.

In '87, Moses was gone, Dr. J was on his last legs, and Toney was a bench player. Cheeks was the only other real dependable player.

Then from '88 on, no Moses or Dr. J and Cheeks left in '89. His sources of help were Cliff Robinson, Mike Gminski, Hersey Hawkins, Ron Anderson, and Johnny Dawkins.

There were 3 years where the 76ers greatly overachieved solely because of Barkley's play. The 1st one was in '86 where Moses didn't play at all in the playoffs and they came within 1 win of the ECF with Barkley averaging 25/16/6 in the playoffs. The 2nd one was in '90 where Barkley led the 76ers to 53 wins and was robbed of MVP. The 3rd one was in '91 where the 76ers swept Milwaukee in the first round with Barkley averaging 24/11/7/3 on 52% shooting in the three games, including a triple-double in game 2.

Barkley at his best was the best player in the world not named Michael Jordan. As great as Malone was, he was never at that level of greatness. Malone never singlehandedly took over games and led otherwise mediocre teammates to victory like Barkley did. Malone often folded under pressure, something Barkley didn't do. Barkley may have had games where he didn't play as well as he should have, but he never flat out choked. He actually elevated his play in the playoffs. My only issue with Charles was his laziness. He took many plays off and that is something Malone didn't do. The better player was clearly Charles Barkley. The better career however, was clearly Karl Malone.

PJR

06-29-2012, 01:54 AM

I would take the Mailman over Barkley everytime. Barkely tool way took many plays off defensively for my liking.

M.Bustly15A5RU8

06-29-2012, 01:57 AM

:roll: this clown again :roll: i have already destroyed this filth

barkley - fat and bald, no defense, cried and got traded to dominant teams and still lost
malone - incredible work ethic, never missed games, defensive genius

:roll: :roll:

eliteballer

06-29-2012, 02:02 AM

Barkley wasn't a terrible defender at all. He was however, a very lazy defender. He took many plays off on D.

They are one in the same. Having the ability but not putting it to use is irrelevant. The net effect on the court is: bad defender.

Barkley at his best was the best player in the world not named Michael Jordan. As great as Malone was, he was never at that level of greatness

You could definitely make that argument for malone in 97 and 98.

D.J.

06-29-2012, 02:05 AM

They are one in the same. Having the ability but not putting it to use is irrelevant.

They're not the same at all. Being a terrible defender would mean that even when putting in the effort, he would still suck. That would be like Steve Nash, who could put all the effort in the world into defense and he would still stuck. When Charles put in the effort, he was a very good defender. Philadelphia announcers made notice of this around '90-'91. They specifically mentioned Chuck was lazy on D, but was very good when he put in the effort. Chuck actually bitched to them when they made the comments.

You could definitely make that argument for malone in 97 and 98.

Just because he was the best player after Jordan doesn't mean he was on Barkley's peak level.

eliteballer

06-29-2012, 02:07 AM

They're not the same at all. Being a terrible defender would mean that even when putting in the effort, he would still suck. That would be like Steve Nash, who could put all the effort in the world into defense and he would still stuck. When Charles put in the effort, he was a very good defender. Philadelphia announcers made notice of this around '90-'91. They specifically mentioned Chuck was lazy on D, but was very good when he put in the effort. Chuck actually bitched to them when they made the comments.

The net effect on the court is: terrible defense. Ability is irrelevant. All that matters is the actual result on the court.

joeyjoejoe

06-29-2012, 02:09 AM

Both alltime greats, both ran into a wall that was mj, i'd go with malone

D.J.

06-29-2012, 02:09 AM

The net effect on the court is: terrible defense. Ability is irrelevant. All that matters is the actual result on the court.

Ability is not irrelevant. Not all players have the ability, Chuck did. And Chuck did provide evidence(even if only in brief stretches) that he was a good defender when he didn't take plays off. I watched games of Chuck. I watched him lock players down and provide weak side defense. I'm not blind. And I also very clearly remember him playing in the late 80s and early 90s.

PJR

06-29-2012, 02:11 AM

I still remember Scottie Pippen absolutely BLASTING Barkely when they were with the Rockets, for his questionable dedication to working hard. Said he was just all about his numbers...

D.J.

06-29-2012, 02:13 AM

I still remember Scottie Pippen absolutely BLASTING Barkely when they were with the Rockets, for his questionable dedication to working hard. Said he was just all about his numbers...

That has to do with his laziness, which anyone who watched Barkley play will admit to. Chuck was very lazy, but there's not many guys you would pick over him if you needed a big performance in a game 7.

ShaqAttack3234

06-29-2012, 03:32 AM

well that is flat out wrong, considering he was 9th in 1991. and then there was 1988 where he was 10th, and then 11th in 1989, and then 10th in 1990, and then finally 16th in 1992.

He was 4th or 5th in '88 behind Bird, MJ, Magic and possibly Hakeem.

He was 3rd in '89 behind Jordan and Magic.

He was 4th in '90 beind Jordan, Magic and Ewing.

He fell out of the top 5 in '92, but 16 is way too low.

he was third behind pippen

Pippen was nowhere near a top 2 player in '91 or Magic Johnson's level.

robinson did have a disappointing playoffs (even though he did average 25.8ppg, 13.5rpg, 2.0apg, 1.5spg, 3.75bpg, on 69%fg), and he was demoted in the overall rankings due to that, but we can't totally discount his fantastic regular season. robinson was the second most valuable player in the nba, only behind michael jordan in that regard, and averaged 25.6ppg, led the league with 13.0rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5spg, and 3.9bpg, on 55%fg while leading the spurs to a 55-27 mark.

Robinson wasn't terrible in the Warriors series, I'm not saying that, and his numbers look great out of context, but they're largely a product of playing a team like Don Nelson's Warriors. But the numbers weren't really a consideration, just from watching that series, I can say that he didn't dominate it like he should have(we seem to be in agreement on that part).

As far as regular season, come to think of it, Robinson would be high on my list behind Jordan. It's between Magic and David Robinson for 2nd, though Magic had a deeper, more talented team that didn't deal with the same injuries that Robinson's Spurs did.

I don't have a big issue with you taking Robinson over Barkley as I said before. Robinson's defense is a major advantage, but Barkley's offensive dominance gives him the edge for me.

on top of '91, stockton was also better than barkley in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1992. fantastic floor general and leader, stockton was everything you could possibly ask out of your point guard. he could score, but he wouldn't shoot too much, he led the league in assists 9 straight seasons, was always in the top 5 is steals, and he shot the ball at a delicious clip from the field, 3 point, and free throw.

You're definitely overrating Stockton. He did do a brilliant job of running Utah's offense, and he was a nice defensive player as well. Solid shooter, pretty good off the dribble, and he was a capable scorer. But he wasn't a great scorer due to both mentality and creativity. He lacked the superstar ability to create off the dribble and was often overly passive when Utah needed him to step up and score more. He had very few big scoring games throughout his career, I appreciate his consistency, but even Jerry Sloan called him out at times for passing up shots he should have taken, and being too passive.

as for 1990 rankings stockton is still ahead of kj despite kj having the better playoff run due to stockton's far superior regular season. are you going to rank kj ahead of magic johnson in 1990 aswell considering johnson beat magic's lakers 4-1 :rolleyes:

KJ is ahead of Stockton due to his ability to take over a game and dominant, while also being a pretty damn good passer. The Suns up tempo style probably helped his numbers a bit, but he was a nightmare with his crossover and automatic pull up mid-range shot. His scoring was a major advantage over Stockton's. He also led the league's 3rd best offense, who did have a lot of talent, but struggled mightily when KJ was out. KJ and Stockton were relatively close, which is why the playoffs seal the deal for me. KJ was considered by most to be the second best PG in the league that year. In a GM survey from before the playoffs, KJ finished second in best PG rankings behind Magic, and actually got quite a few votes for best PG, and he probably would have received more after his Suns upset the Lakers.

Magic Johnson had his 2nd or 3rd best year and was just in a different class than either KJ or Stockton. His dominant post game, and proficient 3 point shooting that season allowed him to control a game so much offensively in addition to the fact that he was arguably the best passer of all time, and the Lakers were now able to run their offense through magic in the post. Magic had become an excellent passer out of double teams and when he was guarded 1 on 1, he scored most of the time.

And the Suns upsetting the Lakers is different because I wouldn't say KJ even outplayed Magic. The Suns won because Dan Majerle primarily guarded Magic 1 on 1, and Magic made him pay with 30 ppg for the series and back to back 43 point games. But this strategy also proved very effective because it prevented the other Laker players from having success because they were used to feeding off Magic's double teams. And it also hurt the Lakers that Tom Chambers did a surprisingly good job defensively on Worthy.

KJ did have a good series vs a fine defender in Byron Scott, though, and I will assign some blame to Magic. Magic got burned defensively by Jeff Hornacek's shooting because Magic was never a good defender, and his habit of roaming often allowed shooters to go off.

14 out of those 26 games were at home
of those 16 wins 3 were against the timberwolves (2 at home) who finished 29-53
2 wins were against the worst team in the nba (nuggets)
1 win was at home to the clippers (31-51)
2 wins against the cavs (33-49)

in 26 games they only ended up beating 3 teams with winning records. olajuwon then came back in and joined a team that was 9 over .500 and they finished 22 over .500.

Very nice work, you got me there. That does explain the mystery of Houston's success without Olajuwon that year, but Barkley still had a significant offensive advantage over Hakeem, and played 11 more games. Houston's success with Hakeem averaging only 18 ppg after his return just shows the difference between Hakeem in the mid 90's under Rudy T when he became a fantastic passer, and late 80's/early 90's Hakeem.

slightley better in the regular season, and easily better in the playoffs. drexler led his team to the best record in the nba, and the conference finals. drexler was just superb in the playoffs, with averages of 21.7ppg, 8.1rpg, 8.1apg, 2.1spg, and 1.0bpg

I'd expect the best record with a cast of Terry Porter, Kevin Duckworth, Buck Williams, Clifford Robinson, Jerome Kersey and Danny Ainge.

well obviously barkley should have been playing, otherwise they might not have went 5-10

Players get injured, but there will also be a limit to how many games you're going with a team that loses twice as many games as they win when you're out.

baskets are baskets, easy baskets or difficult baskets. i know i'd rather have my power forward being in the right spots for layups than shooting fade away 3s with 15 seconds left on the shot clock.

I'd be fine with it if this style proved anywhere near as successful in the playoffs. I didn't penalize Lebron this year for living on transition baskets because he kept getting them in the playoffs.

malone was aslo the vastly superior defender at that time.

True, but not the great defender he'd become so this didn't make enough of a difference to offset Barkley's offensive advantage.

it will be due to games missed and 15 games is a bit chunk of the season. pippen was another forward in the top 10 that year, infact he was ranked 2nd. and as for forwards in the all-nba teams 1st team should've been malone and pippen. second team dominique wilkins and chris mullin. third team would be larry nance and charles barkley

Pippen came on strong in the second half, enough to make one of my all-nba teams if I made them, but however high I end up ranking him for the entire season will also have quite a bit to do with his playoffs. He just wasn't considered to be on rkley's level yet.

Barkley definitely ranks over Mullin, not only was he the more dominant scorer, but he gave you a lot more rebounding, and defense isn't a determing factor between these 2, I'd use the same argument for Nique.

firstly reggie lewis was a small forward. dumars was nice but not on the level of hawkins in this one particular season, the others are nowhere in the vicinity.

Dumars was better than Hawkins, in addition to his defense, he was also a 20+ ppg scorer and capable of playing point guard, which he did when Isiah was out, as well as sometimes alternating roles with Isiah playing off the ball. He averaged around 22/7 when Isiah was out, iirc.

or was it because barkley had the type of game that was hard to adjust to as a teammate? i know for example that kj was on pace to be one of the great all-time guards before barkley decided to force a trade to the 56 win suns team..and his career fizzled not long after.

KJ had a ton of injuries around that time, look at how many games he missed. But when he was healthier in '94, he had another great season.

Round Mound

06-29-2012, 04:32 PM

don't forget barkley played with hall of famers hakeem olajuwon, scottie pippen, clyde drexler, moses malone, julius erving, andrew toney, and maurice cheeks :applause:

You forget Barkley was INJURED AND OVERWIGHT AGES 33 on
Hakeem was 33, Drexler was 34..PASSED THEIR PRIMES.

Moses Malone left for the 1985-86 Play-Offs so He Only Played with Him for a 1 SEASON as "Barkley Starting" while Malone had STOCKTON IN HIS OWN PRIME AND HIS PRIME...AND EATON IN HIS PRIME FOR 9 YEARS OR SO.

Dr J was 35-37 YEARS OLD AND PASSED HIS PRIME

And...Andrew Tone SUFFERED A CAREER ENDING INJURY in the 1985-86 SEASON.

CHEEKS? BETTER THAN STOCKTON? :no:

Its a Fact Barkley was Better than Malone for 10 Years in a Row

HIGHER EFF
HIGHER PER
HIGHER +/-
HIGHER SHOT MADE/MISSED DIFERENTIAL

MALONE COULD NEVER PLAY LIKE THIS IN THE PLAY-OFFS...HE NEVE WAS BIG IN THE PLAY-OFFS...BARKLEY WAS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi-oVrsJ_20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTMFTQFvO_8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs-XO5h5bAg

Round Mound

06-29-2012, 04:39 PM

Deuce Bigalow

06-29-2012, 04:39 PM

Round Mound, I don't think you ever replied to this post

Why does Kobe have 3 Playoff runs to the NBA Finals where he shot more efficiently than Barkley in his lone Playoff run to the NBA Finals?

Barkley '93 Playoffs: .488 eFG%, .552 TS%

Kobe '08 Playoffs: .514 eFG%, .577 TS%
Kobe '09 Playoffs: .492 eFG%, .564 TS% (won Championship)
Kobe '10 Playoffs: .506 eFG%, .567 TS% (won Championship)

Round Mound

06-29-2012, 04:47 PM

Round Mound, I don't think you ever replied to this post

It gets quite EASy when you Play with the 2nd BEST CF in the League Pau Gasol IN YOU PRIME AND HIS PRIME. The 2-3rd Best Center in the League IN HIS PRIME AND YOUYR PRIME (Barkley neve had a Great Center in his OWN PRIME) in Bynum and the Best 6thman in the League Odom.

How About You Respond to This:

Barkley Higher PER Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher EFF Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher +/- Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher Made/Missed Shot Diferential Season and Play-Offs> Bryant
Barkley Higher WS Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher OWS Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant

BARKLEY WAS THE 2ND OR 3D MOST DOMINANT PLAYER FROM 1985-1995 AFTER MJ AND MAYBE HAKEEM

WAS KOBE EVER DOUBLED THE WAY BARKLEY WAS? :no:

Deuce Bigalow

06-29-2012, 04:53 PM

It gets quite EASy when you Play with the 2nd BEST CF in the League Pau Gasol IN YOU PRIME AND HIS PRIME. The 2-3rd Best Center in the League IN HIS PRIME AND YOUYR PRIME (Barkley neve had a Great Center in his OWN PRIME) in Bynum and the Best 6thman in the League Odom.

How About You Respond to This:

Barkley Higher PER Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher EFF Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher +/- Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher Made/Missed Shot Diferential Season and Play-Offs> Bryant
Barkley Higher WS Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant
Barkley Higher OWS Season and Play-Offs than > Bryant

BARKLEY WAS THE 2ND OR 3D MOST DOMINANT PLAYER FROM 1985-1995 AFTER MJ AND MAYBE HAKEEM

WAS KOBE EVER DOUBLED THE WAY BARKLEY WAS? :no:
:wtf: :roll:

What does Gasol and Bynum have to do with it?

Answer the question.

Round Mound

06-29-2012, 05:04 PM

:wtf: :roll:

What does Gasol and Bynum have to do with it?

Answer the question.

I did.

It gets quite easy when Gasol is Doubled and Bynum is in the Middle for Open Bryant Shots.

Bryant is and was Great but He Wasn`t and Isn`t a More Dominant Player than Barkley was. He wasn`t Close to as Doubled as Prime Barkley was. Prime Barkley was the 2nd Most Doubled Player Prior to Shaq

Shep

06-30-2012, 11:43 PM

He was 4th or 5th in '88 behind Bird, MJ, Magic and possibly Hakeem.

He was 3rd in '89 behind Jordan and Magic.

He was 4th in '90 beind Jordan, Magic and Ewing.

He fell out of the top 5 in '92, but 16 is way too low.
in '88 the players ranked higher than barkley were michael jordan, magic johnson, larry bird, hakeem olajuwon, john stockton, isiah thomas, fat lever, james worthy, and dominique wilkins

in '89 the players ranked higher than barkley were jordan, johnson, olajuwon, thomas, kevin johnson, stockton, patrick ewing, worthy, tom chambers, and larry nance

in '90 the players ranked higher than barkley were jordan, david robinson, olajuwon, johnson, ewing, thomas, clyde drexler, stockton, and bird

in '92 barkley did not have the team success or individual success to be considered in the best 15 players in the nba.

Pippen was nowhere near a top 2 player in '91 or Magic Johnson's level.
pippen's play in the playoffs proved he was the second best player in the nba

Robinson wasn't terrible in the Warriors series, I'm not saying that, and his numbers look great out of context, but they're largely a product of playing a team like Don Nelson's Warriors. But the numbers weren't really a consideration, just from watching that series, I can say that he didn't dominate it like he should have(we seem to be in agreement on that part).
yeh he definately did not dominate that series like he should have, and was demoted from the second best player in the regular season to fourth best player after the playoffs because of it.

As far as regular season, come to think of it, Robinson would be high on my list behind Jordan. It's between Magic and David Robinson for 2nd, though Magic had a deeper, more talented team that didn't deal with the same injuries that Robinson's Spurs did.
yeh magic did not make the top 5 most valuabe players in the regular season. after jordan and robinson it was stockton, pippen, and drexler rounding out the top 5.

I don't have a big issue with you taking Robinson over Barkley as I said before. Robinson's defense is a major advantage, but Barkley's offensive dominance gives him the edge for me.
there was no real offensive advantage there. there was a massive defensive advantage to robinson, and offensively there was barely any advantage at all.

25.6ppg on 16.7fg, or 1.53 points per shot
compared to
27.6ppg on 17.4fg, or 1.59 points per shot

in the playoffs barkley stayed the same and robinson scored at a rate of over 2 points per shot

barkley had more assists because the ball was constantly in his hands

You're definitely overrating Stockton. He did do a brilliant job of running Utah's offense, and he was a nice defensive player as well. Solid shooter, pretty good off the dribble, and he was a capable scorer. But he wasn't a great scorer due to both mentality and creativity. He lacked the superstar ability to create off the dribble and was often overly passive when Utah needed him to step up and score more. He had very few big scoring games throughout his career, I appreciate his consistency, but even Jerry Sloan called him out at times for passing up shots he should have taken, and being too passive.
you do not want your point guard to do all the scoring. he averaged the perfect number of points per game in 17.2, you do not want your point guard to shoot the ball all the time, he averaged 11.9fga per game. just because he doesn't score the ball at an all time level, he could contribute in alot more ways unlike barkley who if he wasn't scoring the ball he would be rendered useless.

KJ is ahead of Stockton due to his ability to take over a game and dominant, while also being a pretty damn good passer. The Suns up tempo style probably helped his numbers a bit, but he was a nightmare with his crossover and automatic pull up mid-range shot. His scoring was a major advantage over Stockton's. He also led the league's 3rd best offense, who did have a lot of talent, but struggled mightily when KJ was out. KJ and Stockton were relatively close, which is why the playoffs seal the deal for me. KJ was considered by most to be the second best PG in the league that year. In a GM survey from before the playoffs, KJ finished second in best PG rankings behind Magic, and actually got quite a few votes for best PG, and he probably would have received more after his Suns upset the Lakers.
yeh at a top 4 pace in the league, kj definately was benefited from that high paced offense. stockton would average 18 points and 15 assists in that offense. the suns also had alot more help that season with depth that consisted of tom chambers, jeff hornacek, mark west (huge in the playoffs), dan majerle, and eddie johnson.
lol@gm survey's. there was magic and stockton, then there was kj and isiah thomas after the regular season. after the playoffs kj had slipped to fourth after magic, thomas, and stockton.

Magic Johnson had his 2nd or 3rd best year and was just in a different class than either KJ or Stockton. His dominant post game, and proficient 3 point shooting that season allowed him to control a game so much offensively in addition to the fact that he was arguably the best passer of all time, and the Lakers were now able to run their offense through magic in the post. Magic had become an excellent passer out of double teams and when he was guarded 1 on 1, he scored most of the time.
magic was the best, just ahead of thomas.

And the Suns upsetting the Lakers is different because I wouldn't say KJ even outplayed Magic. The Suns won because Dan Majerle primarily guarded Magic 1 on 1, and Magic made him pay with 30 ppg for the series and back to back 43 point games. But this strategy also proved very effective because it prevented the other Laker players from having success because they were used to feeding off Magic's double teams. And it also hurt the Lakers that Tom Chambers did a surprisingly good job defensively on Worthy.
magic just did not have a good playoffs, not for someone of his standards anyway, especially after the regular season he and the lakers had, and if he was any sort of defensive player would've been matched with kj. in any case he was still the best point guard and top 4 overall that season.

I'd expect the best record with a cast of Terry Porter, Kevin Duckworth, Buck Williams, Clifford Robinson, Jerome Kersey and Danny Ainge.
lots of teams have hopes of having the best record, only 1 ended up with it. clyde drexler was that teams best player.

Players get injured, but there will also be a limit to how many games you're going with a team that loses twice as many games as they win when you're out.
malone didn't get injured. his team got full value out of him and didn't have to pay him to sit on the bench.

I'd be fine with it if this style proved anywhere near as successful in the playoffs. I didn't penalize Lebron this year for living on transition baskets because he kept getting them in the playoffs.
this style was easily more successful than barkley's style in the playoffs.

True, but not the great defender he'd become so this didn't make enough of a difference to offset Barkley's offensive advantage.
there is no advantage

Pippen came on strong in the second half, enough to make one of my all-nba teams if I made them, but however high I end up ranking him for the entire season will also have quite a bit to do with his playoffs. He just wasn't considered to be on rkley's level yet.
:lol

Barkley definitely ranks over Mullin, not only was he the more dominant scorer, but he gave you a lot more rebounding, and defense isn't a determing factor between these 2, I'd use the same argument for Nique.
wilkins is easily over barkley here.
25.9ppg, 9.0rpg, 3.3apg, 1.5spg, 0.8bpg, 47%fg, 81 games, 43 wins, huge margin between him and his next best player
mullin, also is easily over barkley
25.7ppg, 5.4rpg, 4.0apg, 2.1spg, 0.8bpg, 54%fg, 82 games, 44 wins

barkley might have been the better player, but games played plays a bit part in these all-nba teams for me, as you are not much use sitting out injured or suspended when your team needs you out on the court contributing.

Dumars was better than Hawkins, in addition to his defense, he was also a 20+ ppg scorer and capable of playing point guard, which he did when Isiah was out, as well as sometimes alternating roles with Isiah playing off the ball. He averaged around 22/7 when Isiah was out, iirc.
there was no aspect dumars was better than hawkins in this particular season, besides on ball defense.

Deuce Bigalow

06-30-2012, 11:53 PM

I did.

It gets quite easy when Gasol is Doubled and Bynum is in the Middle for Open Bryant Shots.

Bryant is and was Great but He Wasn`t and Isn`t a More Dominant Player than Barkley was. He wasn`t Close to as Doubled as Prime Barkley was. Prime Barkley was the 2nd Most Doubled Player Prior to Shaq
Gasol and Bynum got doubled in '08-'10 Playoffs??

:roll: :roll: :roll:

fjjkk102

07-01-2012, 12:17 AM

You can say Barkley was better than Malone in the year of 1992.

But after that, Malone's better.

B/c Barkley always out of shape to start the season. Malone always in great shape.

BTW they both suck in crunch time.
Malone always shrink.
And Barkley thought he can take over the game the way MJ did. but always end up with stupid three-pointer.

ShaqAttack3234

07-01-2012, 12:56 AM

in '88 the players ranked higher than barkley were michael jordan, magic johnson, larry bird, hakeem olajuwon, john stockton, isiah thomas, fat lever, james worthy, and dominique wilkins

You're correct on your first 4, and that may even be the correct order.

Nique was close, I'd rank him 6th, this was probably his 2nd or 3rd best season. The others don't really have a case.

in '89 the players ranked higher than barkley were jordan, johnson, olajuwon, thomas, kevin johnson, stockton, patrick ewing, worthy, tom chambers, and larry nance

Correct on Jordan and Magic, the top 2 in that order. Nobody would argue against those 2 in their prime. Hakeem was close, I have him just behind at 4th, but had to think about it, so no big argument here.

Ewing? No, he might be top 5, but he wasn't better than Barkley yet.

I can't see a case for any of those players mentioned other than the Michael and Magic who were better, and Olajuwon who you could make a case for.

in '90 the players ranked higher than barkley were jordan, david robinson, olajuwon, johnson, ewing, thomas, clyde drexler, stockton, and bird

Correct about Jordasn, Magic and Ewing in that order, but no more. Hakeem and Robinson were relatively close. The others weren't even debatable. I can't see a case for any of them.

in '92 barkley did not have the team success or individual success to be considered in the best 15 players in the nba.

Barkley did have individual success. 23/11/4 on 55% shooting. How many can do that? Despite a lazy season, Barkley's talent still put him above enough players to comfortably make the top 10.

You're literally putting Barkley below quite a few players, I've never once heard anyone claim were as good as Barkley, much less better.

pippen's play in the playoffs proved he was the second best player in the nba

Nah, I'm as big of a Pippen fan as anyone, and his playoff run was excellent, but he was a tier below the guys like Jordan, Magic, Barkley, Robinson, Malone, Ewing and probably still Olajuwon despite the 26 missed games. And even a guy like Drexler who had similar weaknesses to Pippen still seemed to be the better player, and was widely regarded as such.

yeh he definately did not dominate that series like he should have, and was demoted from the second best player in the regular season to fourth best player after the playoffs because of it.

yeh magic did not make the top 5 most valuabe players in the regular season. after jordan and robinson it was stockton, pippen, and drexler rounding out the top 5.

I'm really having trouble seeing how you end up putting Stockton in the class of the top 5 players, when he was very good at what he did, but didn't have the dominance to be put in that group, and certainly not to compete with Magic. Stockton wasn't even the MVP of his own team(though he was closer to Malone from '88-'91 than he was after).

Drexler's value on a basketball court wasn't comparable. And Pippen couldn't impact a game like Magic either, and case for MVP is clearly worse considering he was on the same team as the MVP and the best player ever who was arguably at his peak.

there was no real offensive advantage there. there was a massive defensive advantage to robinson, and offensively there was barely any advantage at all.

25.6ppg on 16.7fg, or 1.53 points per shot
compared to
27.6ppg on 17.4fg, or 1.59 points per shot

Barkley was a much better offensive player. He was almost impossible to deal with when he had his back to the basket which is why he was probably getting doubled and receiving more defensive attention than anyone in the league. And he was a better passer, particularly at that point. Robinson became one of the league's best passing centers around '93-'96, and also improved his jump shot around then.

Regardless of Barkley having better numbers, he was simply the better offensive player at that end, while Robinson never achieved offensive dominance. This was because he never had a go to move with his back to the basket, didn't really have the right build for being a post player, lacked good footwork and just seemed awkward and uncomfortable backing his man down. This is why his scoring average usually dropped dramatically despite scoring a lot in the regular season due to his unmatched ability to run the floor, being a perfect target for alley oops, being too quick for opposing centers to deal with when he faced up(though he always attacked the basket less in the postseason) and later, adding a decent jump shot. But Robinson was a dominant defensive player and a good to very good offensive player. Barkley was a dominant offensive player.

in the playoffs barkley stayed the same and robinson scored at a rate of over 2 points per shot

Barkley played 2 series, and didn't face Don Nelson's Warriors. When a slightly past his prime Barkley faced Nelson's Warriors(who had a better frontcourt in '94) he averaged 37/13/6/3 on 61 FG%. Opponents numbers vs Nelson's Warriors were almost always inflated.

barkley had more assists because the ball was constantly in his hands

He was a better passer too, not that assists sum up passing ability.

you do not want your point guard to do all the scoring. he averaged the perfect number of points per game in 17.2, you do not want your point guard to shoot the ball all the time, he averaged 11.9fga per game. just because he doesn't score the ball at an all time level, he could contribute in alot more ways unlike barkley who if he wasn't scoring the ball he would be rendered useless.

I appreciate Stockton's game, he did the job of a pure PG extremely well, but I also want my point guard to step up and carry a team when necessary. Stockton just wasn't comfortable doing that. And that's why he was never a first tier, top 5 player and MVP candidate. Even a guy like Jason Kidd who wasn't the most talented scorer, would step up, assert himself and carry a team when he had to.

yeh at a top 4 pace in the league, kj definately was benefited from that high paced offense. stockton would average 18 points and 15 assists in that offense. the suns also had alot more help that season with depth that consisted of tom chambers, jeff hornacek, mark west (huge in the playoffs), dan majerle, and eddie johnson.
lol@gm survey's. there was magic and stockton, then there was kj and isiah thomas after the regular season. after the playoffs kj had slipped to fourth after magic, thomas, and stockton.

I don't think KJ benefited from the Suns pace anymore than Stockton benefited from Sloan's system and having a team who fit perfect with him in Malone.

Besides, I'm not basing my selection of KJ over Stockton primarily on numbers. KJ's explosiveness and duel threat of taking over a game with scoring or setting up his teammates as well as his superior playoff run is why I chose KJ. It's not a big gap for me, but I'm confident in choosing KJ that year.

And while the Suns did looked loaded on paper, and they clearly had some great players like Chambers, Eddie Johnson and Hornacek, their offense wasn't looking so hot when KJ was out. With them, they're a prolific offensive team that's almost impossible to stop.

magic just did not have a good playoffs, not for someone of his standards anyway, especially after the regular season he and the lakers had, and if he was any sort of defensive player would've been matched with kj. in any case he was still the best point guard and top 4 overall that season.

He controlled the game too much offensively with his post game, outside shot, transition game, and of course, his passing from anywhere on the court to be ranked anywhere less than 2nd despite Ewing's dominant year.

I agree about Magic's defense, but he probably had his 2nd best year in '90, behind only '87 and possibly '89.

lots of teams have hopes of having the best record, only 1 ended up with it. clyde drexler was that teams best player.

And only one team had the talent Portland had.

malone didn't get injured. his team got full value out of him and didn't have to pay him to sit on the bench.

I'm not going to deny that Malone's durability is an advantage, but he wasn't better out on the basketball court, and Barkley's injuries exposed his cast as limited.

this style was easily more successful than barkley's style in the playoffs.

Absolutely not.

there is no advantage

That's just laughable, all one has to do is watch a few games from both players that year to see Barkley's superiority offensively. Not even a peak '98 Karl Malone can compete with prime '88-'93 Barkley offensively.

wilkins is easily over barkley here.
25.9ppg, 9.0rpg, 3.3apg, 1.5spg, 0.8bpg, 47%fg, 81 games, 43 wins, huge margin between him and his next best player
mullin, also is easily over barkley
25.7ppg, 5.4rpg, 4.0apg, 2.1spg, 0.8bpg, 54%fg, 82 games, 44 wins

barkley might have been the better player, but games played plays a bit part in these all-nba teams for me, as you are not much use sitting out injured or suspended when your team needs you out on the court contributing.

I'm not going to argue with your criteria for all-nba teams since you acknowledge Barkley was the better player.

there was no aspect dumars was better than hawkins in this particular season, besides on ball defense.

Dumars was also clearly the better passer and playmaker. Hawkins has the edge as a scorer, but I don't think the gap is that big.

Reggie Lewis was a shooting guard by the way. Kevin Gamble was the small forward in the starting lineup, and Bird was the small forward when McHale came into the game.

Round Mound

07-01-2012, 04:14 AM

Barkley Was Better than Malone for 10 Seasons.

From 85 to 95

Higher PER: Top 10 All Time Season and Play-Offs!!!
Higher WS
Higher OWS
Higher OS
Higher +/-: Top 5 All Time!!!
Higher Shot Made/Missed Diferential: Top 4 All Time!!!

Malone Was Better For Barkley`s Last 5-6 Seasons: When He Whent to Houston as a Crippled Overweight Knee Broken and Back Aching Shell Former of Himself (Injuries, Gained Weight, Lost Agility, Lost Explosivness, Lost Potence, Lost Leaping Ability)

Linspired

07-01-2012, 04:24 AM

in '88 the players ranked higher than barkley were michael jordan, magic johnson, larry bird, hakeem olajuwon, john stockton, isiah thomas, fat lever, james worthy, and dominique wilkins

wait a minute? what? fat friggin lever over barkley? :roll:

in 1988-1989

barkley had
25.8/12.5/3.9/1.9stl/.8blk .579%

hakeem had
24.8/13.5/1.8/2.6stl/3.4blk .508%

pretty damn comparable IMO. barkley was no doubt top 7 that year as far as production goes

D.J.

07-01-2012, 02:42 PM

Fat Lever over Charles Barkley??? :facepalm What is ISH coming to? I had to do a double take because I thought my eyes were deceiving me.

Round Mound

07-01-2012, 04:46 PM

wait a minute? what? fat friggin lever over barkley? :roll:

in 1988-1989

barkley had
25.8/12.5/3.9/1.9stl/.8blk .579%

hakeem had
24.8/13.5/1.8/2.6stl/3.4blk .508%

pretty damn comparable IMO. barkley was no doubt top 7 that year as far as production goes

Shep is the Biggest Barkley Hater on the ISHs :rolleyes: :facepalm

I bet he is a Jazz Fan. Cause Most Barkley Haters are Cockriding Stockton-To-Malone`s :roll:

Shep

07-02-2012, 02:20 AM

correct on your first 4, and that may even be the correct order.

Nique was close, I'd rank him 6th, this was probably his 2nd or 3rd best season. The others don't really have a case.
the others easily have a better case.
stockton: 14.7ppg, 2.9rpg, 13.8apg, 3.0spg, 57%fg, 36%3p, 84%ft.
utah's record: 47-35
playoff record: 6-5, conference simifinalists

in his first season as a starter, stockton is top 4 in the league in field goal percentage (the fact he was fourth in the entire league is astounding as a point guard), top 2 in steals per game, led the nba in assists per game by almost 2 assists (and recorded the second highest assists per game average in nba history), was his teams best player in the regular season, and he also stepped up huge in the playoffs.

the jazz demolished the heavily favoured portland trail blazers in the first round, before succumbing to the eventual champion lakers in the conference semi finals in 7 games.

stockton's averages in the playoffs you ask? only 19.8ppg, 4.1rpg, 14.8apg, 3.4spg, all on 51%fg, including 29 points, 20 assists, and 5 steals in the game 7 loss to the lakers.

isiah thomas: 19.5ppg, 3.4rpg, 8.4apg, 1.7spg
detroit's record: 54-28 (second best record in the eastern conference)
playoff record: 14-9, nba finalists

thomas was the piston's best player in the regular season, and out of every player who participated in the playoffs, he stepped up the most.

after a tough first round against the malone's of washington, the pistons destroyed the best player in the nba and his chicago bulls in 5 games. before bullying the defending eastern conference champion boston celtics to take that series in 6, winning 2 games on the road in the process.
they then came within 3 points off pulling off one of the biggest upsets in nba history, losing game 7 to the 62 win laker outfit away from home.

thomas's averages in the playoffs: 21.9ppg, 4.7rpg, 8.7apg, 2.9spg

fat lever: 18.9ppg, 8.1rpg, 7.8apg, 2.7spg
denvers record: 54-28 (second best record in the western conference)
playoff record: 5-6, conference finalists

fat was the nuggets best player in the regular season, and the playoffs. he was also named to the all defensive second team and was one of the best all-round players in the league. if it wasn't for him missing some playoff games they probably would have taken dallas out, and made the conference finals.

lever's averages in the playoffs: 17.0ppg, 9.3rpg, 7.0apg, 1.9spg

james worthy: 19.7ppg, 5.0rpg, 3.9apg, 1.0spg, 0.7bpg, 53%fg
la's record: 62-20 (best in the nba)
playoff record: 15-9, champions

worthy was the lakers third best player in the regular season, but because his superb playoffs he was regarded as their second best by the end of the playoffs, and he stepped up just as much as magic johnson. and he stepped up huge when it mattered most. in 3 game 7 wins by the lakers in the postseason, worthy averaged 29ppg, 9.7rpg, 6.3apg, and 2.3spg.

worthy's averages in the playoffs: 21.1ppg, 5.8rpg, 4.4apg, 1.4spg, 0.8bpg, 52%fg

nique is easy aswell, barkley has no case over any of these players.

Correct on Jordan and Magic, the top 2 in that order. Nobody would argue against those 2 in their prime. Hakeem was close, I have him just behind at 4th, but had to think about it, so no big argument here.

Ewing? No, he might be top 5, but he wasn't better than Barkley yet.

I can't see a case for any of those players mentioned other than the Michael and Magic who were better, and Olajuwon who you could make a case for.

no case can be made for barkley over any players here.

Correct about Jordasn, Magic and Ewing in that order, but no more. Hakeem and Robinson were relatively close. The others weren't even debatable. I can't see a case for any of them.
no case can be made for barkley over any players here.

Barkley did have individual success. 23/11/4 on 55% shooting. How many can do that? Despite a lazy season, Barkley's talent still put him above enough players to comfortably make the top 10.

You're literally putting Barkley below quite a few players, I've never once heard anyone claim were as good as Barkley, much less better.
what is 23/11/4 if you aren't making the playoffs. nice kevin love season here from barkley.

Nah, I'm as big of a Pippen fan as anyone, and his playoff run was excellent, but he was a tier below the guys like Jordan, Magic, Barkley, Robinson, Malone, Ewing and probably still Olajuwon despite the 26 missed games. And even a guy like Drexler who had similar weaknesses to Pippen still seemed to be the better player, and was widely regarded as such.
no case can be made for anyone over pippen that year besides jordan.

I'm really having trouble seeing how you end up putting Stockton in the class of the top 5 players, when he was very good at what he did, but didn't have the dominance to be put in that group, and certainly not to compete with Magic. Stockton wasn't even the MVP of his own team(though he was closer to Malone from '88-'91 than he was after).
not sure where you are getting this from. stockton was easily the best and most valuable player on his team, he was also top 3 most valuabe player in '88.

Drexler's value on a basketball court wasn't comparable. And Pippen couldn't impact a game like Magic either, and case for MVP is clearly worse considering he was on the same team as the MVP and the best player ever who was arguably at his peak.
there is alot of individual sacrifice you have to make as a second best player on a championship team, or a team with the best record in the nba. so with this in mind pippen was ranked correctly.

Barkley was a much better offensive player. He was almost impossible to deal with when he had his back to the basket which is why he was probably getting doubled and receiving more defensive attention than anyone in the league. And he was a better passer, particularly at that point. Robinson became one of the league's best passing centers around '93-'96, and also improved his jump shot around then.
where is the results of being a MUCH better offensive player? there is no results, barkley lost time and time again due to his selfishness and bone headed decisions.

Regardless of Barkley having better numbers
:roll:

he was simply the better offensive player at that end
destroyed

while Robinson never achieved offensive dominance. This was because he never had a go to move with his back to the basket, didn't really have the right build for being a post player, lacked good footwork and just seemed awkward and uncomfortable backing his man down. This is why his scoring average usually dropped dramatically despite scoring a lot in the regular season due to his unmatched ability to run the floor, being a perfect target for alley oops, being too quick for opposing centers to deal with when he faced up(though he always attacked the basket less in the postseason) and later, adding a decent jump shot. But Robinson was a dominant defensive player and a good to very good offensive player. Barkley was a dominant offensive player.
lol at this offensive dominance. barkley never achieved any dominance ever. except for 1 or 2 good seasons his career was a disappointment. it was a pity he never had any work ethic at all, because after 1986 where barkley proved himself to be one of the best 5 players in the nba after only 2 years in the nba, his career fizzled..its just sad he couldn't keep that momentum going or else he might have been considered among the all time greats.

Shep

07-02-2012, 02:21 AM

Barkley played 2 series, and didn't face Don Nelson's Warriors. When a slightly past his prime Barkley faced Nelson's Warriors(who had a better frontcourt in '94) he averaged 37/13/6/3 on 61 FG%. Opponents numbers vs Nelson's Warriors were almost always inflated.
offensive dominance :sleeping

appreciate Stockton's game, he did the job of a pure PG extremely well, but I also want my point guard to step up and carry a team when necessary. Stockton just wasn't comfortable doing that. And that's why he was never a first tier, top 5 player and MVP candidate. Even a guy like Jason Kidd who wasn't the most talented scorer, would step up, assert himself and carry a team when he had to.
when did he not carry the team? he was a top 5 player a number of years, and also top mvp candidate a number of years, including top 3 in '88.

I don't think KJ benefited from the Suns pace anymore than Stockton benefited from Sloan's system and having a team who fit perfect with him in Malone.
stockton would have definately benefited from playing at a high pace team, with a number of potential 20 ppg scorers rather than 1.

Besides, I'm not basing my selection of KJ over Stockton primarily on numbers. KJ's explosiveness and duel threat of taking over a game with scoring or setting up his teammates as well as his superior playoff run is why I chose KJ. It's not a big gap for me, but I'm confident in choosing KJ that year.
fair enough. despite kj's better playoff, i'd still take stockton due to the gap being massive in the regular season.

And only one team had the talent Portland had.
they had all of the key players "talent" there 2 years earlier and they finished below .500

I'm not going to deny that Malone's durability is an advantage, but he wasn't better out on the basketball court, and Barkley's injuries exposed his cast as limited.
actually he was easily better out on the basketball court

Absolutely not.
:facepalm

That's just laughable, all one has to do is watch a few games from both players that year to see Barkley's superiority offensively. Not even a peak '98 Karl Malone can compete with prime '88-'93 Barkley offensively.
i've watched more than a few games.

Dumars was also clearly the better passer and playmaker. Hawkins has the edge as a scorer, but I don't think the gap is that big.
dumars was nice, but hawkins stepped up more than barkley and was huge. really can't imagine dumars having games like 26/10/6/6, 30/5/7 etc.

lets compare the two in their respective series' vs chicago in 1991

hawkins: 19.8ppg, 5.8rpg, 3apg, 1.4spg, 1.4bpg

dumars: 12.5ppg, 2rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5spg, 0.25bpg, 35%fg

ya..dumars was the man!:roll:

ShaqAttack3234

07-02-2012, 07:46 AM

the others easily have a better case.
stockton: 14.7ppg, 2.9rpg, 13.8apg, 3.0spg, 57%fg, 36%3p, 84%ft.
utah's record: 47-35
playoff record: 6-5, conference simifinalists

in his first season as a starter, stockton is top 4 in the league in field goal percentage (the fact he was fourth in the entire league is astounding as a point guard), top 2 in steals per game, led the nba in assists per game by almost 2 assists (and recorded the second highest assists per game average in nba history), was his teams best player in the regular season, and he also stepped up huge in the playoffs.

the jazz demolished the heavily favoured portland trail blazers in the first round, before succumbing to the eventual champion lakers in the conference semi finals in 7 games.

stockton's averages in the playoffs you ask? only 19.8ppg, 4.1rpg, 14.8apg, 3.4spg, all on 51%fg, including 29 points, 20 assists, and 5 steals in the game 7 loss to the lakers.

Utah played at the 6th fastest pace in '88, and we saw many point guards throughout the 80's put up video game assist numbers becasuse of all the easy baskets in transition.

Stockton also had the power forward who ran the floor better than anyone at his position, and finished as well as anyone, which certainly didn't hurt his assist numbers on a running team.

And as far as team success, well there was Karl Malone of course, but equally important is that Utah was the best defensive team in the league, but only the 16th best offensive team out of 23 teams. So how much of Utah's team success can be attributed to Stockton? Some certainly, but he wasn't carrying this team, he was a fine defensive point guard, but he wasn't anchoring that defense, Mark Eaton was.

In fact, Barkley's Sixers were a much better offensive team than Utah.

The game isn't all about stats, but Barkley averaged 28.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.3 bpg, 58.7 FG%, 66.5 TS%.

isiah thomas: 19.5ppg, 3.4rpg, 8.4apg, 1.7spg
detroit's record: 54-28 (second best record in the eastern conference)
playoff record: 14-9, nba finalists

thomas was the piston's best player in the regular season, and out of every player who participated in the playoffs, he stepped up the most.

after a tough first round against the malone's of washington, the pistons destroyed the best player in the nba and his chicago bulls in 5 games. before bullying the defending eastern conference champion boston celtics to take that series in 6, winning 2 games on the road in the process.
they then came within 3 points off pulling off one of the biggest upsets in nba history, losing game 7 to the 62 win laker outfit away from home.

thomas's averages in the playoffs: 21.9ppg, 4.7rpg, 8.7apg, 2.9spg

Isiah was too streaky to be compared with Barkley. He shot 46.3% in the regular season and 43.7% in the playoffs. Barkley as you know shot 58.7%.

And how much of Detroit's success was due to their top 2 defense and the fact that they outrebounded opponents by 3 rpg?

Or the team's depth? Isiah's cast was Adrian Dantley, Dennis Rodman, Joe Dumars, Bill Laimbeer, Vinnie Johnson, James Edwards, Rick Mahorn and John Salley.

I'm not sure why beating Chicago is that significant. They did not have much surrounding Jordan.

Detroit beat Boston because they didn't have a bench and Bird shot 35%.

fat lever: 18.9ppg, 8.1rpg, 7.8apg, 2.7spg
denvers record: 54-28 (second best record in the western conference)
playoff record: 5-6, conference finalists

fat was the nuggets best player in the regular season, and the playoffs. he was also named to the all defensive second team and was one of the best all-round players in the league. if it wasn't for him missing some playoff games they probably would have taken dallas out, and made the conference finals.

lever's averages in the playoffs: 17.0ppg, 9.3rpg, 7.0apg, 1.9spg

Fat was also not an elite player. The numbers had a lot to do with Denver's unbelievable pace when they played for Doug Moe, and the rebounding was not only helped by the pace, but also the fact that Denver was a pathetic rebounding team.

I wouldn't say that a guy who averaged 18.9 ppg and 7.8 apg on 47.3% shooting on a team with the fastest pace has any case over a legend who was approaching or entering his prime.

Lever didn't have any devastating moves, he didn't seem like an elite shooter, and he didn't seem to stand out as one of the best passers in the league.

james worthy: 19.7ppg, 5.0rpg, 3.9apg, 1.0spg, 0.7bpg, 53%fg
la's record: 62-20 (best in the nba)
playoff record: 15-9, champions

worthy was the lakers third best player in the regular season, but because his superb playoffs he was regarded as their second best by the end of the playoffs, and he stepped up just as much as magic johnson. and he stepped up huge when it mattered most. in 3 game 7 wins by the lakers in the postseason, worthy averaged 29ppg, 9.7rpg, 6.3apg, and 2.3spg.

worthy's averages in the playoffs: 21.1ppg, 5.8rpg, 4.4apg, 1.4spg, 0.8bpg, 52%fg

Worthy was the Lakers second best player in both the regular season and playoffs. He always did step up big in the playoffs, hence the nickname "Big Game James", but being fortunate enough to play on a stacked team with a top 10 player of all time in his prime, who got him a lot of easy baskets doesn't make him a better player than Barkley.

what is 23/11/4 if you aren't making the playoffs. nice kevin love season here from barkley.

Even when Barkley wasn't motivated like in '92, he was much better than Love could dream of being. Love isn't elite at getting his own shot, and doesn't have to be doubled constantly like Barkley, Love doesn't shoot 55%, and Love is an even worse defender than Barkley. Plus, Love hasn't even won 35 games.

What happened to the Sixers after Barkley left? They had the same players plus an excellent addition Jeff Hornacek and a solid rookie Clarence Weatherspoon, but they dropped to 26-56.

I can drop Barkley due to him being unmotivated and causing problems with trade demands and trashing teammates, but there's a limit. He's obviously behind Jordan, Ewing, Malone, Robinson, Hakeem and you could argue that dropped below Pippen.

there is alot of individual sacrifice you have to make as a second best player on a championship team, or a team with the best record in the nba. so with this in mind pippen was ranked correctly.

Pippen didn't sacrifice all that much, when he improved and entered his prime, he was capable of putting up similar numbers when he was winning titles in '92, '96 and '97 as he was when Jordan was gone in '94 and '95.

where is the results of being a MUCH better offensive player? there is no results, barkley lost time and time again due to his selfishness and bone headed decisions.

Barkley got to the finals as the best player on his team, something Robinson never did.

lol at this offensive dominance. barkley never achieved any dominance ever. except for 1 or 2 good seasons his career was a disappointment. it was a pity he never had any work ethic at all, because after 1986 where barkley proved himself to be one of the best 5 players in the nba after only 2 years in the nba, his career fizzled..its just sad he couldn't keep that momentum going or else he might have been considered among the all time greats.

Barkley wasn't one of the top 5 players in '86, and he did get significantly better after that, he was raw in '86 compared to his prime. He was at his best from '88-'93. And Barkley is considered one of the all time greats.

when did he not carry the team? he was a top 5 player a number of years, and also top mvp candidate a number of years, including top 3 in '88.

Stockton almost never carried the team. He was either too reluctant to take over a game or incapable. He had just 11 games in the regular season where he scored 30 or more points, and never more than 34. And in the playoffs he had just two, 34 points and 30 points. And not surprisingly, they were both vs Nelson's Warriors in losses.

stockton would have definately benefited from playing at a high pace team, with a number of potential 20 ppg scorers rather than 1.

I can't see Stockton being in a better situation for his game and mentality.

fair enough. despite kj's better playoff, i'd still take stockton due to the gap being massive in the regular season.

I don't think the regular season gap is massive, but I don't have a problem with anyone taking Stockton. That's why I said I don't think the gap is big.

they had all of the key players "talent" there 2 years earlier and they finished below .500

Which just says that they underachieved.

dumars was nice, but hawkins stepped up more than barkley and was huge. really can't imagine dumars having games like 26/10/6/6, 30/5/7 etc.

lets compare the two in their respective series' vs chicago in 1991

hawkins: 19.8ppg, 5.8rpg, 3apg, 1.4spg, 1.4bpg

dumars: 12.5ppg, 2rpg, 2.5apg, 1.5spg, 0.25bpg, 35%fg

ya..dumars was the man!:roll:

That's only one series. For the entire season Hawkins averaged 22.1 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.7 TO, 2.2 spg on 47.2 FG%/59.2 TS%, while Dumars averaged 20.4 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2.4 TO, 1.1 spg on 48.1 FG%/55.2 TS%

So numbers are similar, though Dumars stats also came on a stacked team.

And Dumars averaged 21.8 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 7.1 apg, 2.9 TO, 1 spg, 46.7 FG%, 53.9 TS% in 33 games as the point guard without Isiah, and Detroit was 19-14 in those games.

But I don't see how Hawkins is better when Dumars is relatively close as a scorer, but much better as a defensive player, much more versatile, and a much better playmaker who is a proven winner.

SacJB Shady

07-02-2012, 08:02 PM

Malone was in the best shape of the NBA. Go to google and look at his conditioning. 1 hour on the stairmaster at a level 12, stadium stairs, sprints, 1 hour of weights, then 1 hour hair more of the stairmaster.

Some days he would do 6 hours of labor in his barn. The guy was a freak. Very ripped.

Shep

07-03-2012, 03:21 AM

Utah played at the 6th fastest pace in '88, and we saw many point guards throughout the 80's put up video game assist numbers becasuse of all the easy baskets in transition.
i actually have the jazz ranked 8th in terms of fastest pace, and pace adjustment is taken into consideration when ranking players, but i did not see anyone in the 80's rack up 13.8 assists per game besides one john stockton, and isiah thomas (thomas did it when his team had a top 2 pace).

Stockton also had the power forward who ran the floor better than anyone at his position, and finished as well as anyone, which certainly didn't hurt his assist numbers on a running team.
to get assists you need players who can put the ball in the basket, this is elementary.

And as far as team success, well there was Karl Malone of course, but equally important is that Utah was the best defensive team in the league, but only the 16th best offensive team out of 23 teams. So how much of Utah's team success can be attributed to Stockton? Some certainly, but he wasn't carrying this team, he was a fine defensive point guard, but he wasn't anchoring that defense, Mark Eaton was.
stockton was accounting for 43.7 of the jazz 108.5 points in the regular season or 40% of the teams offense in the regular season, and then 51.2 of the jazz 103.4 points in the playoffs or 49% of the teams offense in the regular season.
no sure about this offensive rating and defensive rating bs, but i know the jazz shot the ball at a higher clip than any team not named celtics, lakers, or pistons.

In fact, Barkley's Sixers were a much better offensive team than Utah.

The game isn't all about stats, but Barkley averaged 28.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.3 bpg, 58.7 FG%, 66.5 TS%.
offensive rating bs. the sixers shot the 8th worst field goal percentage in the entire league. in any case, what is the point of being ranked among the top in offensive rating if you couldn't break 40 wins and sniff the playoffs? i'm sure they will say at the end of the season, hey who cares about the playoffs? we were ranked high in offensive rating..and thats all that matters :rolleyes:

nice numbers by karles lovely there, but did he make the playoffs?

Isiah was too streaky to be compared with Barkley. He shot 46.3% in the regular season and 43.7% in the playoffs. Barkley as you know shot 58.7%.
thats ok, i'd take 46% and 44%fg and a game 7 of the nba finals appearance over 59% and not participating in the playoffs due to winning only 36 games.

And how much of Detroit's success was due to their top 2 defense and the fact that they outrebounded opponents by 3 rpg?
isiah thomas was that teams best player by a country mile. as you will know the teams best player will get alot of the praise that comes with winning, as well as a teams best player will get alot of the flak that comes with losing..and rightfully so. as nice it is to have defense and rebounding, that roster will be lucky if it scraped into the playoffs with no isiah thomas.

Or the team's depth? Isiah's cast was Adrian Dantley, Dennis Rodman, Joe Dumars, Bill Laimbeer, Vinnie Johnson, James Edwards, Rick Mahorn and John Salley.
they definately had depth. depth that would be swept in the first round if they were lucky if thomas hadn't been there.

I'm not sure why beating Chicago is that significant. They did not have much surrounding Jordan.
the pistons only won 4 more games during the regular season. beating the worlds greatest player isn't significant? the pistons made jordan seem human, a feat that no other team could achieve. meanwhile thomas averaged 20.4ppg, 4rpg, 10.4apg, and 2 steals and was the best and most valuable player of the series. the pistons average winning margin was 15 in the 4-1 demolition job.

Detroit beat Boston because they didn't have a bench and Bird shot 35%.
the celtics had the best record in the east with 57 wins, and were coming off a finals appearance. thomas averaged 23ppg, 5.2rpg, 8.3apg, and 2.7spg as was the best and most valuable player of the series.

Fat was also not an elite player. The numbers had a lot to do with Denver's unbelievable pace when they played for Doug Moe, and the rebounding was not only helped by the pace, but also the fact that Denver was a pathetic rebounding team.
fat was the best player on a team with the second best record in the west. denver did lead the league and pace and this was considered, but his play just could not go without recognition. denver's playoff record proves how much he meant to the team
without fat: 0-4 (the 4 games were lost by an average of 12 points)
with fat: 5-2
in the conference semifinals: nuggets up 2-1 before he went down, then proceded to lose the next 3 games

I wouldn't say that a guy who averaged 18.9 ppg and 7.8 apg on 47.3% shooting on a team with the fastest pace has any case over a legend who was approaching or entering his prime.
if one of them won 54 games and played well in the playoffs and the other one only won thirty something i would definately say the loser has no case. winning games matters to me afterall.

Lever didn't have any devastating moves, he didn't seem like an elite shooter, and he didn't seem to stand out as one of the best passers in the league.
yet he was his teams best player in the regular season and playoffs, and they won 54 games in the regular season, and had a 5-2 record with him in the playoffs

Worthy was the Lakers second best player in both the regular season and playoffs
he was third after the regular season and second after the playoffs

He always did step up big in the playoffs, hence the nickname "Big Game James"
lol thanks for the info

but being fortunate enough to play on a stacked team with a top 10 player of all time in his prime, who got him a lot of easy baskets doesn't make him a better player than Barkley.
james worthy won finals mvp over that same top 10 player of all time, which alone makes him a better player than lovely.

Even when Barkley wasn't motivated like in '92, he was much better than Love could dream of being. Love isn't elite at getting his own shot, and doesn't have to be doubled constantly like Barkley, Love doesn't shoot 55%, and Love is an even worse defender than Barkley. Plus, Love hasn't even won 35 games.
love was ranked 17 this year and barkley was ranked 16 in 1992. :rockon:

What happened to the Sixers after Barkley left? They had the same players plus an excellent addition Jeff Hornacek and a solid rookie Clarence Weatherspoon, but they dropped to 26-56.
well jeff hornacek wasn't as good as charles barkley, i'll give you that... they just wanted to get rid of him at any cost, thats how much they hated him, so they took hornacek (who was gone a year later). but key contributers armon gilliam and johnny dawkins also had large drop offs in production. gilliam went from 17/8/2 to 12/6/2 and dawkins went from 12/3/7 to 9/2/5. with the team tanking they still manage to only win 9 less games than they did the previous year.

I can drop Barkley due to him being unmotivated and causing problems with trade demands and trashing teammates, but there's a limit. He's obviously behind Jordan, Ewing, Malone, Robinson, Hakeem and you could argue that dropped below Pippen.
yeh pippen. also drexler, stockton, larry nance, horace grant, brad daugherty, larry bird, kevin johnson, tim hardaway, and reggie lewis.

Pippen didn't sacrifice all that much, when he improved and entered his prime, he was capable of putting up similar numbers when he was winning titles in '92, '96 and '97 as he was when Jordan was gone in '94 and '95.
pippen was in his peak in 1991, better than any other year. who knows what kind of numbers he would've put up given a situation where he was the best player.

Barkley got to the finals as the best player on his team, something Robinson never did.
so 1 year is the result of being a much better offensive player? :oldlol:

Barkley wasn't one of the top 5 players in '86, and he did get significantly better after that, he was raw in '86 compared to his prime. He was at his best from '88-'93. And Barkley is considered one of the all time greats.
if you consider top 35 in the all-time greats. and barkley's '86 was his second best season in the league.

Stockton almost never carried the team. He was either too reluctant to take over a game or incapable. He had just 11 games in the regular season where he scored 30 or more points, and never more than 34. And in the playoffs he had just two, 34 points and 30 points. And not surprisingly, they were both vs Nelson's Warriors in losses.
who cares how many times he scored 30 points? that wasn't his role in the offense to take the most shots and score the most points. how many times did ben wallace score 30 points? oh he never did? must mean he was trash.

I can't see Stockton being in a better situation for his game and mentality.
we will never know :(

I don't think the regular season gap is massive, but I don't have a problem with anyone taking Stockton. That's why I said I don't think the gap is big.
i will take stockton

Which just says that they underachieved.
:lol

That's only one series. For the entire season Hawkins averaged 22.1 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.7 TO, 2.2 spg on 47.2 FG%/59.2 TS%, while Dumars averaged 20.4 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2.4 TO, 1.1 spg on 48.1 FG%/55.2 TS%
yes so hawkins was not only much more dominant facing the chicago bulls in the playoffs, but all throughout the regular season too...this was the point you are trying to make isn't it?

ShaqAttack3234

07-03-2012, 05:16 AM

i actually have the jazz ranked 8th in terms of fastest pace, and pace adjustment is taken into consideration when ranking players, but i did not see anyone in the 80's rack up 13.8 assists per game besides one john stockton, and isiah thomas (thomas did it when his team had a top 2 pace).

I'm not saying that what Stockton did was easy, just that the pace helped those numbers.

stockton was accounting for 43.7 of the jazz 108.5 points in the regular season or 40% of the teams offense in the regular season, and then 51.2 of the jazz 103.4 points in the playoffs or 49% of the teams offense in the regular season.
no sure about this offensive rating and defensive rating bs, but i know the jazz shot the ball at a higher clip than any team not named celtics, lakers, or pistons.

The reason their offensive wasn't as effective as their FG% suggests is because they were average/mediocre in 3s and free throws, and only 3 teams turned the ball over more often.

offensive rating bs. the sixers shot the 8th worst field goal percentage in the entire league. in any case, what is the point of being ranked among the top in offensive rating if you couldn't break 40 wins and sniff the playoffs? i'm sure they will say at the end of the season, hey who cares about the playoffs? we were ranked high in offensive rating..and thats all that matters :rolleyes:

FG% doesn't factor in turnovers, 3s and free throws which are all relevant in putting up points. They made more free throws than any other team, were 7th in 3 pointers made, and while they were also a high turnover team, they didn't turn the ball over as much as Utah.

Charles needed a team to make the playoffs, both Charles and Stockton impacted the game primarily at the offensive end, and Charles was on the better offensive team. The Sixers missed the playoffs because of defense, and while Barkley can make your interior defense weaker, I don't see them having that problem if they have Mark Eaton in the paint like Stockton did.

thats ok, i'd take 46% and 44%fg and a game 7 of the nba finals appearance over 59% and not participating in the playoffs due to winning only 36 games.

And I'll take Isiah's team over Barkley's team in a heartbeat.

isiah thomas was that teams best player by a country mile. as you will know the teams best player will get alot of the praise that comes with winning, as well as a teams best player will get alot of the flak that comes with losing..and rightfully so. as nice it is to have defense and rebounding, that roster will be lucky if it scraped into the playoffs with no isiah thomas.

Detroit's teams were always known for their depth and talent, the '88 team wasn't as good as '89 and '90, but Isiah was one of the more fortunate players in the league when it comes to his supporting cast.

they definately had depth. depth that would be swept in the first round if they were lucky if thomas hadn't been there.

Maybe, who knows? We both know that Isiah helped his team a lot, but I also know that his team was miles beyond what Charles was playing with. And even having a team that will make the playoffs without you is pretty damn good for a star.

the pistons only won 4 more games during the regular season. beating the worlds greatest player isn't significant? the pistons made jordan seem human, a feat that no other team could achieve. meanwhile thomas averaged 20.4ppg, 4rpg, 10.4apg, and 2 steals and was the best and most valuable player of the series. the pistons average winning margin was 15 in the 4-1 demolition job.

The Bulls won 50 games because Jordan was basically a 1 man show with some help from Oakley. A cast of Oakley, Dave Corzine, Sam Vincent, John Paxson, Brad Sellers, and Pippen and Grant in their rookie years isn't too formidable

the celtics had the best record in the east with 57 wins, and were coming off a finals appearance. thomas averaged 23ppg, 5.2rpg, 8.3apg, and 2.7spg as was the best and most valuable player of the series.

Again, Bird's 35% shooting and Boston's lack of a bench had a lot to do with it.

fat was the best player on a team with the second best record in the west. denver did lead the league and pace and this was considered, but his play just could not go without recognition. denver's playoff record proves how much he meant to the team
without fat: 0-4 (the 4 games were lost by an average of 12 points)
with fat: 5-2
in the conference semifinals: nuggets up 2-1 before he went down, then proceded to lose the next 3 games

That's nice, but you can't always point to one player for a team's success. Particularly when this player is just not in the same tier as Barkley.

if one of them won 54 games and played well in the playoffs and the other one only won thirty something i would definately say the loser has no case. winning games matters to me afterall.

Winning does matter, but not if the players are on completely different levels. All this tells me is that Charles wasn't playing on a good team, and Fat Lever was on a good team.

yet he was his teams best player in the regular season and playoffs, and they won 54 games in the regular season, and had a 5-2 record with him in the playoffs

Alex English had a case, he was averaging 25 ppg for them.

he was third after the regular season and second after the playoffs

You think Byron Scott was better than Worthy in the regular season?

james worthy won finals mvp over that same top 10 player of all time, which alone makes him a better player than lovely.

Finals MVP was questionable, and guys like Dumars, Jo Jo White, Billups, Cedric Maxwell and Tony Parker have been voted finals MVP.

And who is "lovely"? :wtf:

love was ranked 17 this year and barkley was ranked 16 in 1992. :rockon:

Love's ranking seems to be in the correct range, but Barkley? Abour 8-9 spots too low.

well jeff hornacek wasn't as good as charles barkley, i'll give you that... they just wanted to get rid of him at any cost, thats how much they hated him, so they took hornacek (who was gone a year later). but key contributers armon gilliam and johnny dawkins also had large drop offs in production. gilliam went from 17/8/2 to 12/6/2 and dawkins went from 12/3/7 to 9/2/5. with the team tanking they still manage to only win 9 less games than they did the previous year.

The players may have performed worse because they didn't have teams focusing their defense on Barkley every night.

yeh pippen. also drexler, stockton, larry nance, horace grant, brad daugherty, larry bird, kevin johnson, tim hardaway, and reggie lewis.

Horace Grant? :wtf: He was a solid power forward who defended well, rebounded well, was a great finisher and ran the floor very well, but he was more or less a guy who would score by being set up around the basket or hitting an open jumper. He wasn't a very good post player and couldn't really get his own offense. He was maybe one level above role player status.

Lewis was a very nice player, but not better than even an unmotivated Barkley. Same with Nance. Daugherty was great, but not there either. KJ was relatively close, and Stockton and Tim Hardaway probably weren't that far off, but that's still a stretch.

Larry Bird missed 37 games and could barely play in the playoffs. He has no case over Barkley in '92.

I'll give you Drexler, but only for that particular year.

pippen was in his peak in 1991, better than any other year. who knows what kind of numbers he would've put up given a situation where he was the best player.

He wasn't even close to his peak. His peak was '94, would've probably been '96 if not for the injuries in the second half of the season.

He improved basically every aspect of his game after '91. His outside shot improved a lot, he became a smarter, even better defensive player, he became a better rebounder, he became a better facilitator who did an excellent job in the point forward role from '92 and beyond, and he added a post game later.

He was pretty close by '92. He was the team's primary facilitator by that point and doing an excellent job, his outside shot was much more consistent, and his overall play was more consistent.

so 1 year is the result of being a much better offensive player? :oldlol:

That was the only year that Barkley had a contending team in his prime. They were starting to put together a nice team around him in Philly in '90, but that team quickly fell apart.

if you consider top 35 in the all-time greats. and barkley's '86 was his second best season in the league.

Not even close. It wasn't even top 5. He was better every year from '87-'95 at least, might even say '96.

who cares how many times he scored 30 points? that wasn't his role in the offense to take the most shots and score the most points. how many times did ben wallace score 30 points? oh he never did? must mean he was trash.

Nobody is comparing Wallace to Barkley. And Utah could've used more scoring from Stockton at times. See the 1st round loss to Phoenix in '90, the loss to Portland in '92, the loss to Seattle in '93, the elimination game vs Houston in '95, and the Seattle series in '96.

The point is that Stockton didn't show the ability to take over games like a true superstar and top 5 caliber player. The elite point guards who were also MVP-caliber plays did show that ability.

yes so hawkins was not only much more dominant facing the chicago bulls in the playoffs, but all throughout the regular season too...this was the point you are trying to make isn't it?

Hawkins was definitely not better throughout the regular season.

I LUV KOBE

07-03-2012, 05:44 AM

Barkley is better.. Replace Malone with prime Barkley in those 97,98 stacked Jazz team and there's no doubt they will beat the bulls and won the championship.. Then replace Barkley with Prime Malone in 93 and they're lucky to even make it to wcf at worst 1st round exit..

Barkley > Malone...

joeyjoejoe

07-03-2012, 06:21 AM

What a joke, the bulls were a better team when utah faced them in the finals then when they faced pheonix

Owl

07-03-2012, 09:08 AM

I'd take Malone over Barkley.

Reasons why:

Malone has a huge longevity edge.
Barkley was considerably worse as a defender.
Barkley's peak stats came in a higher pace era, advanced stats which elimate that factor suggests their peaks were identical. Without a superior peak (or statistical peak, and then add D in) there is little case for Barkley.
Barkley's conditioning was considered to be an issue, perhaps not throughout his career but certainly on entering the league, and at Phoenix (and Pippen's later shots at him suggest problems in the Houston years too). Barkley was also considered a negative influence on Oliver Miller (this from Rick Barry's Annual Scouting Handbooks "Basketball Bible"). Obviously Malone wasn't a picnic to get along with but his work ethic was legendary (for example http://sports.jrank.org/pages/2988/Malone-Karl-Malone-Inspiration.html).
Despite excellent passing ability Barkley could be a ball stopper.

To some specific arguments I've seen here, why would you isolate 2 point% unless the argument is specifically about shooting 2s. Charles took dumb threes which hurt his teams. That's part of who he was.

It's not a huge gap (for example I don't see them trading places making much difference, though Sloan coaching Barkley could have been interesting) but for me it has to be Malone.

D.J.

07-03-2012, 04:13 PM

Then replace Barkley with Prime Malone in 93 and they're lucky to even make it to wcf at worst 1st round exit..

Barkley > Malone...

Remember the Suns lost the first 2 games to the Lakers in the first round. With Malone, no way are they getting past the Lakers. Malone would have folded.

Round Mound

07-03-2012, 07:03 PM

Karl in the Play-Offs shot ONLY 46.3% FG on 19.3 FGAs PG

Thats "Like a SG" =Allen Iverson etc.... NOT a GREAT INSIDE POST PLAYER.

Barkley Shot 51.1% FG for 23.0 PPG (1 Bucket or 2 FTs Less) on 15.9 FGAs PG

*Won`t Go Into The 2-Point FG% and PPG on 2-Point FGs: Charles Was SHAQ-LIKE:

Barkley Was a Better Post Player & Pure Scorer
Barkley Was a Better Mid Range Shooter
Barkley Was a Better Rebounder
Barkley Was a Better Passer
Barkley Was a Better Creator
Barkley Was a Better Stealer
Barkley Was a Better Shot Blocker
Barkley Was Doubled WAY MORE in His Prime
Barkley Was a Better Team Defender
Barkley Was a Better Ballhandler
Barkley Had More Skills
Barkley Was Clutcher
etc

Barkley Top 10 PER All Time (Season and Play-Offs)
Barkley Top 10 EFF All Time
Barkley Top 5 All Time in +/-
Barkley Top 4 All Time in Shot Made/Missed Diferential
Barkley 2nd To Magic as Higher ORT Per High Usage & Ball Possesion All Time
etc etc

Barkley was Better than Malone

Shep

07-03-2012, 10:38 PM

I'm not saying that what Stockton did was easy, just that the pace helped those numbers.
ofcourse it is easier to put up more numbers in a high paced environment rather than a slow paced environment, this always is taken into consideration when ranking players

The reason their offensive wasn't as effective as their FG% suggests is because they were average/mediocre in 3s and free throws, and only 3 teams turned the ball over more often.
:confusedshrug:

FG% doesn't factor in turnovers, 3s and free throws which are all relevant in putting up points. They made more free throws than any other team, were 7th in 3 pointers made, and while they were also a high turnover team, they didn't turn the ball over as much as Utah.
so the sixers were a better offensive team, so they should've won more games, but they ended up with a paltry 36 wins instead.

Charles needed a team to make the playoffs, both Charles and Stockton impacted the game primarily at the offensive end, and Charles was on the better offensive team. The Sixers missed the playoffs because of defense, and while Barkley can make your interior defense weaker, I don't see them having that problem if they have Mark Eaton in the paint like Stockton did.
barkley would have been less effective on the offensive end with eaton clogging the paint and barkley would most likely get him traded because he was preventing him from scoring 25 points.

And I'll take Isiah's team over Barkley's team in a heartbeat.
yeh. but barkley and his ego would not fit on that roster, so no point putting him there.

Detroit's teams were always known for their depth and talent, the '88 team wasn't as good as '89 and '90, but Isiah was one of the more fortunate players in the league when it comes to his supporting cast.
excuses. how far a team goes will depend on their best player. championships matter, and people are judges by what they acheive. nobody cares about people who don't acheive, and excuses will not be made for why they did not acheive. you play the game to win.

Maybe, who knows?
exactly. who knows. nobody knows, so they will be judged by what they achieved.

We both know that Isiah helped his team a lot, but I also know that his team was miles beyond what Charles was playing with. And even having a team that will make the playoffs without you is pretty damn good for a star.
pretty damn good. which is why barkley was drafted to a team 1 season removed from a championship and he still didn't win. barkley then forced a trade to a team that made it to the conference semi finals and was expected to win it all..he didn't. he then forced another trade to a team 1 year removed from winning a championship and was expected to win it all..and you guessed it he still didn't. barkley was handed multiple rosters to win it all on a silver platter and he just could not get it done.

The Bulls won 50 games because Jordan was basically a 1 man show with some help from Oakley. A cast of Oakley, Dave Corzine, Sam Vincent, John Paxson, Brad Sellers, and Pippen and Grant in their rookie years isn't too formidable
the pistons won only 4 more regular season games than the bulls, and they destroyed them 4-1 with the average winning margin of 15 points.

Again, Bird's 35% shooting and Boston's lack of a bench had a lot to do with it.
the celtics still were heavily favoured and that supposed lack of bench did not restrict them in the regular season

That's nice, but you can't always point to one player for a team's success. Particularly when this player is just not in the same tier as Barkley.

agreed, lever is on a higher tier than barkley

Winning does matter, but not if the players are on completely different levels. All this tells me is that Charles wasn't playing on a good team, and Fat Lever was on a good team.
agreed, lever is on a much higher level to barkley. barkley would have clashed with alex english over who was taking the most shots every night, hence causing a trade and the nuggets languishing at the bottom of the league.

Alex English had a case, he was averaging 25 ppg for them.

english has no case at all here. english was a nice scorer, a top 5 small forward, and not much else. lever was superb all-round, second team all-defense, and the second best shooting guard in the nba.

You think Byron Scott was better than Worthy in the regular season?
yes, byron scott was the lakers second best player in the regular season.

Finals MVP was questionable, and guys like Dumars, Jo Jo White, Billups, Cedric Maxwell and Tony Parker have been voted finals MVP.
questionable or not, to even be anywhere close to a top 10 all time level player on the biggest stage of them all speaks volumes of his impact on that particular series.

And who is "lovely"?
karles lovely :D

Love's ranking seems to be in the correct range, but Barkley? Abour 8-9 spots too low.
:oldlol:

The players may have performed worse because they didn't have teams focusing their defense on Barkley every night.
or perhaps all motivation is lost. their star player just dissed the franchise and up and left for a team that was already in the conference semi finals without him.

Shep

07-03-2012, 10:38 PM

Horace Grant? He was a solid power forward who defended well, rebounded well, was a great finisher and ran the floor very well, but he was more or less a guy who would score by being set up around the basket or hitting an open jumper. He wasn't a very good post player and couldn't really get his own offense. He was maybe one level above role player status.
this is peak horace grant. the bulls had 3 good players, and grant was one of them. he helped the bulls to 67 wins, a 15-7 record in the playoffs, and a championship. in limited opportunities on offense he averaged 14.2ppg, led the bulls with 10.0rpg, 2.7apg, 1.2spg, 1.6bpg, and only 1.2topg, all on 58%fg. grant knew his role and he executed it perfectly.

Lewis was a very nice player, but not better than even an unmotivated Barkley. Same with Nance. Daugherty was great, but not there either. KJ was relatively close, and Stockton and Tim Hardaway probably weren't that far off, but that's still a stretch.
all these players won games and participated in the playoffs. players are rewarded for winning games.

Larry Bird missed 37 games and could barely play in the playoffs. He has no case over Barkley in '92.
games missed does not come into play when ranking players in single seasons. despite it being his last season and him being 35 years old, bird's impact was still much greater than barkley's. the celtics went only 20-17 in those missed games anyway, and 31-14 with him.

He wasn't even close to his peak. His peak was '94, would've probably been '96 if not for the injuries in the second half of the season.

'94? :oldlol: his peak season's rank like this: '91, '92, '96, '97, '93/'98, '94.

He improved basically every aspect of his game after '91. His outside shot improved a lot, he became a smarter, even better defensive player, he became a better rebounder, he became a better facilitator who did an excellent job in the point forward role from '92 and beyond, and he added a post game later.
he improved on offense so much huh? howcome he never shot the ball better?
howcome he never played better in the playoffs? 21.6ppg, 8.9rpg, 5.8apg, 2.5spg, 1.1bpg
howcome he never played better in the finals? 20.8ppg, 9.4rpg, 6.6apg, 2.4spg, 1.0bpg, including a monster close out game 5 in which he recorded 32points, 13rebounds, 7assists, and 5steals, all while guarding magic johnson at the other end for most of the finals.

He was pretty close by '92. He was the team's primary facilitator by that point and doing an excellent job, his outside shot was much more consistent, and his overall play was more consistent.
yeh he was close to his '91 self in '92, but his play in the '91 playoffs separates the two seasons.

That was the only year that Barkley had a contending team in his prime. They were starting to put together a nice team around him in Philly in '90, but that team quickly fell apart.
robinson never had a contending team in his prime..infact he had the worst supporting cast of any of the top 10 players in the league every season.

Not even close. It wasn't even top 5. He was better every year from '87-'95 at least, might even say '96.
:roll:

Nobody is comparing Wallace to Barkley
you are comparing a primary scorer on a team to a primary playmaker on a team

And Utah could've used more scoring from Stockton at times. See the 1st round loss to Phoenix in '90, the loss to Portland in '92, the loss to Seattle in '93, the elimination game vs Houston in '95, and the Seattle series in '96.
i could say the same about barkley, except barkley was the primary scorer on these teams so it was more important for him to score the ball than it was stockton.
1987 - loses in the first round, cheeks steps up more than barkley, as do erving and hinson. in the series deciding game 5 barkley ends up with another paltry game: 12 points, 13 rebounds, 1 assist, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 4 turnovers, 5-16fg
1988 - does not make the playoffs, should have contributed more.
1989 - swept in the first round. gets outplayed by cheeks.
1990 - again doesn't step up the most. hawkins and dawkins both step up more in the po's, only 17 points in the elimination game.
1992 - did not make the playoffs, should have contributed more.
1995 - kj and green step up more, suns lose a 3-1 lead to the rockets. barkley shoots 7-16 and is outscored by danny ainge in game 7. kj goes for 46 and 10 assists.
1997 - shoots 43% in the playoffs. again does not step up while others around him are.

The point is that Stockton didn't show the ability to take over games like a true superstar and top 5 caliber player. The elite point guards who were also MVP-caliber plays did show that ability.
you have no point here

Hawkins was definitely not better throughout the regular season.
he was still better, it was alot closer in the regular season..but hawkins tore up the playoffs and as a result was easily better overall. dumars was top 4 shooting guard tho.

joeyjoejoe

07-03-2012, 11:13 PM

Malone was slightly better on offense and way better on d, has mote credentials 2nd points allstars all nba 1sts all d's mvp's, MALONE>>>> BARKLEY

Round Mound

07-04-2012, 12:35 AM

Malone was slightly better on offense and way better on d, has mote credentials 2nd points allstars all nba 1sts all d's mvp's, MALONE>>>> BARKLEY

:roll: :oldlol: :applause: :bowdown: To...The Idiot.

Slightly Better On Offense?

He Scored 1 More Bucket or 2 FTs Per Game More than Barkley on 46.3% FG. While Barkley Shot 51%. Play-Offs: An Area Where Malone ALWAYS DECLINED.

*Barkley Shot Almost 9% Better 2-Point FG in the Play-Offs ( Common Great SG 45% and a Great PF 54%)

2-Point FG: Post Game & Mid Range Game

Season:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg

Malone shot 51.9% Tw-Point FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS DECLINED:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG

Better Offensive Player? What Are You On Cocaine? Acids? Mushrooms?

-Barkley Was the Better Offensive Player (Mid Range and Post): Play-Offs Especially
-Barkley Was the Better Rebounder
-Barkley Was the Better Passer and Creator
-Barkley Was Doubled More: "The Zone Buster"
-Barkley Was the More Skilled Player: Shooting, Dribbling, Fundamentals..etc
-Barkley Was the Better Shot Blocker: Avg 1.5 BPG at One Time
-Barkley Was the Better Stealer
-Barkley Was the Better Full Court Defender and Team Defender
-Higher ORT; Higher PER; Higher EFF, Higher +/-, Higher Shot Made/Missed Diferential...
etc

Only Thing Malone Was Better than Barkley is FT Shooting, Having Stockton and Post D: Which Wasn Great Either...He is No Garnett or Duncan.:sleeping

joeyjoejoe

07-04-2012, 02:28 AM

So yes better on offense ever so slightly, way better on d, longevity and awards there ya go would ya look at that

Chalkmaze

07-04-2012, 02:58 PM

http://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/john_stockton_game_6.jpg

Kiddlovesnets

07-04-2012, 03:00 PM

Its really difficult to compare this two though, the difference is by a hair.

Round Mound

07-04-2012, 03:54 PM

Some People Just Can`t Handle the Evidence :sleeping

BallsOut

07-04-2012, 04:03 PM

Its really difficult to compare this two though, the difference is by a hair.

Neither player has hair. Which makes it even more difficult

Chalkmaze

07-04-2012, 04:36 PM

Neither player has hair. Which makes it even more difficult

In his prime, Karl's hair was clearly more fuller-bodied and stylish than sir premature baldness's.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/1003/rare.charles.barkley.photos/images/charles-barkley-243179.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1008/karl.malone.rare.photos/images/malone-weights.jpg

ShaqAttack3234

07-04-2012, 07:36 PM

so the sixers were a better offensive team, so they should've won more games, but they ended up with a paltry 36 wins instead.

Defense was the problem. And it still would have been the problem if Stockton was on the Sixers.

barkley would have been less effective on the offensive end with eaton clogging the paint and barkley would most likely get him traded because he was preventing him from scoring 25 points.

Barkley in his 2nd year averaged 20 with Moses Malone.

yeh. but barkley and his ego would not fit on that roster, so no point putting him there.

How do you know? He played with a lot of talent in Phoenix, and Houston.

excuses. how far a team goes will depend on their best player. championships matter, and people are judges by what they acheive. nobody cares about people who don't acheive, and excuses will not be made for why they did not acheive. you play the game to win.

Detroit weren't a team that relied on 1 or 2 stars every night to the extent later championship teams like the Bulls, Rockets and Lakers did.

exactly. who knows. nobody knows, so they will be judged by what they achieved.

They should be judged on the level they played at, since their teams aren't remotely comparable.

pretty damn good. which is why barkley was drafted to a team 1 season removed from a championship and he still didn't win. barkley then forced a trade to a team that made it to the conference semi finals and was expected to win it all..he didn't. he then forced another trade to a team 1 year removed from winning a championship and was expected to win it all..and you guessed it he still didn't. barkley was handed multiple rosters to win it all on a silver platter and he just could not get it done.

Yeah, he was drafted to one, didn't have that team in his prime, they fell apart quickly as players aged and retired or were traded.

He got to Phoenix in '93, and took them all the way to the finals.

The '94 and '95 Suns should have won, but age and injuries clearly took him down a little from his prime level.

Charles turned 34 before the '97 playoffs and was clearly past his prime.

the pistons won only 4 more regular season games than the bulls, and they destroyed them 4-1 with the average winning margin of 15 points.

Because they were deep, not a 1 man team.

the celtics still were heavily favoured and that supposed lack of bench did not restrict them in the regular season

I didn't read any predictions about the series so I don't know if they were favored, but I did watch all 6 games, and I don't remember it being referred to as an upset. And considering Detroit almost beat Boston the previous year, it wouldn't make that much sense.

Their bench may have not held them back in the regular season, but most agreed that it clearly had them tired. Boston was coming off of 3 consecutive deep playoff runs to the finals.

Boston didn't have one notable bench player. Detroit had Vinnie Johnson, Dennis Rodman, James Edwards and John Salley on their bench. Players who could start.

agreed, lever is on a higher tier than barkley

:oldlol:

agreed, lever is on a much higher level to barkley. barkley would have clashed with alex english over who was taking the most shots every night, hence causing a trade and the nuggets languishing at the bottom of the league.

On that Denver team, there were plenty of shots to go around. They had kiki Vandeweghe and English both averaging 25-30 points on the same team a few years earlier.

english has no case at all here. english was a nice scorer, a top 5 small forward, and not much else. lever was superb all-round, second team all-defense, and the second best shooting guard in the nba.

I don't think either player was all that great, so I don't care much to argue about one over the other.

questionable or not, to even be anywhere close to a top 10 all time level player on the biggest stage of them all speaks volumes of his impact on that particular series.

Not really, Cedric Maxwell had a nice series, and the voters robbed Bird. Didn't make me overly impressed with Maxwell.

karles lovely :D

Still don't really get it, or why you're calling Charles "Karles".

or perhaps all motivation is lost. their star player just dissed the franchise and up and left for a team that was already in the conference semi finals without him.

And that has nothing to do with Barkley's ability as a basketball player.

this is peak horace grant. the bulls had 3 good players, and grant was one of them. he helped the bulls to 67 wins, a 15-7 record in the playoffs, and a championship. in limited opportunities on offense he averaged 14.2ppg, led the bulls with 10.0rpg, 2.7apg, 1.2spg, 1.6bpg, and only 1.2topg, all on 58%fg. grant knew his role and he executed it perfectly.

Grant had limited opportunities on offense because his offense was pretty much limited to hitting open mid-range jumpers and finishing around the rim.

I appreciate what Grant did. He was a strong rebounder, a very good defender, a reliable mid-range shooter, a strong finisher, he ran the floor well, he was a smart player, and he was a good passer.

Pretty much an ideal complementary player, but you also don't want him to be more than your 3rd best player if you expect to contend. Top 15 players should at least be first or second option type players,

all these players won games and participated in the playoffs. players are rewarded for winning games.

Because they had teams. Nance was the 3rd best player on the Cavs. How is winning as the 3rd best player comparable to being the best player?

games missed does not come into play when ranking players in single seasons. despite it being his last season and him being 35 years old, bird's impact was still much greater than barkley's. the celtics went only 20-17 in those missed games anyway, and 31-14 with him.

I'm not going to tell you what your criteria should be, but I don't rank players who don't play at least 50 games between regular season and playoffs. But I'm not sure how you can compare what a player did in 45 games to what another did in 75.

'94? :oldlol: his peak season's rank like this: '91, '92, '96, '97, '93/'98, '94.

Pretty much everyone including Pippen himself called '94 his best year. Led them to 55 wins without Jordan and a pretty limited cast. They went 51-21 with Pippen, and 44-16 with Pippen and Grant. Scottie added a 3 point shot, improved his scoring, stepped up his defense and rebounding, and took the Ewing/Riley Knicks to 7 who had challenged the Bulls even with Jordan the past 2 years. And even as a Knick fan, I can acknowledge that they got screwed on the Hue Hollins call.

he improved on offense so much huh?

The Bulls won 67 games compared to 61 in '91. Pippen had more responsibility as the team's point forward, improved his outside shot noticeably and became a much more consistent player. Went from 17.8 ppg to 21 ppg while his shooting percentage only fell from 52% to 51%, but his free throw shooting went from 71% to 76% which makes up for that. His rebounding went up a little despite the Bulls becoming a better rebounding team. His assists went up from 6.2 per game to 7 per game, the most ever in the triangle offense, and the Bulls beat better competition in the playoffs. Pippen was a monster in the closeout games. 31/8/5 with 2 blocks on 12/23 shooting and 7/8 from the line to close out Miami. A triple double of 17/11/11 with 3 steals on 7/11 shooting to close out the Knicks in a game 7 no less. One of Pippen's class games to close out the Cavs in 6 with 29/12/5 with 4 steals and 4 blocks. Pippen was arguably the MVP of that series. And 26/5/4 on 9/17 shooting with 2 threes and 6/6 free throw shooting including the huge comeback to close out the Blazers in game 6. he was the second best player in the finals behind Michael Jordan.

Jordan guarded Magic in most of the '91 finals too. Pippen was only the primary defender on Magic in game 2 after Jordan got in foul trouble. And Pippen's '92 finals were better than '91.

And Pippen's '92 finals and playoffs were better than '91.

robinson never had a contending team in his prime..infact he had the worst supporting cast of any of the top 10 players in the league every season.

Well, I'd call '93-'96 his prime, but he was already very good as a rookie and he had quite a bit of talent around him in Terry Cummings, who was as much of the 1st option as Robinson and led them in playoff scoring, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland, and Sean Elliott. With that being said, that was one of the years I thought Robinson played well in the playoffs.

His '93 team wasn't bad either, though. But that was the other year I thought he played well in the playoffs.

His team in '95 was good. '96 team was the same minus Rodman, but Elliott and Johnson stepped up and had career years.

i could say the same about barkley

You're right about that game 5, but he was only in his 3rd year. He played great in the '88 season. He was fine in '89, iirc, have to re-watch that series, but Cheeks did not outplay him. Agreed on '92, he had a subpar year. '95? He was 32 and injured in the Houston series. He was disappointing in the '90 series outside of the two 30/20 games, and they should have definitely won game 4.

Charles was a much better playoff performer and a more dominant player than Stockton, though, that's for sure.

you have no point here

Of course I do, Stockton was never a top 5 player due to his inability to take over games. It's a reason why the Jazz didn't win a championship.

Round Mound

07-04-2012, 07:50 PM

ShaqAttack3234

Shep is a Barkley Hater and Cockloving Jazz-Fan of Stockton-to-Malone
Shep brings in "Opinions" NOT FACTS or EVIDENCE...Save that For Me...

Its A Waste of Time To Discuss With Him...He Put`s Barkley as a Top 10-15 Player from 85 to 95 when he was clearly Top 2 and 3 after MJ and Late Hakeem from 87-95

Barkley on Bad Teams Shot 60% FG and 62-65% Two-Point FG on Over 23-24 PPG for 4-5 Years...That is While Doubled More than Any Other Player NOT NAMED SHAQ and Was the TOTAL FOCUS off the Offense on Bad Teams.

Barkley from 1985-86 to 1994-95 Was Better Than Malone In His Whole Stat Padding Career

OH, and Others Barkley Haters can`t Handle the Evidence I Put. They Just Hate to Remember how a 6`4 3/4 PF Just Took a Dump and Every Other PF and Let Them Know It Too.

Shep

07-05-2012, 02:43 AM

Defense was the problem. And it still would have been the problem if Stockton was on the Sixers.
but stockton was much better than barkley, so that would have made them a more successful team as a result.

Barkley in his 2nd year averaged 20 with Moses Malone.
yeh but barkley in his 2nd year was better than any other year besides '93

How do you know? He played with a lot of talent in Phoenix, and Houston.
because this was barkley at his most selfish. he would refuse to play defense, be put on the bench because of this, and then most likely force a trade. i can see a similar drop off of production to that of mark aguirre's when he joined the pistons, except aguirre accepted his lesser role..barkley would not.

Detroit weren't a team that relied on 1 or 2 stars every night to the extent later championship teams like the Bulls, Rockets and Lakers did.
isiah thomas was the only star on that roster, and they did rely on his production greatly.

They should be judged on the level they played at, since their teams aren't remotely comparable.
nobody remembers losers for a reason

Yeah, he was drafted to one, didn't have that team in his prime, they fell apart quickly as players aged and retired or were traded.
you don't regard a players second best year as part of his prime? they should have won a championship in 1985 barkley's rookie season. their team consisted of a top 2 center, a top 4 power forward, a top 2 small forward, and a top 5 point guard. how much more help could you possibly wish for? in '86 they still had a top 4 center, a top 2 power forward, and a top 4 point guard. they didn't go anywhere.

He got to Phoenix in '93, and took them all the way to the finals.
well you would expect him to..considering they had been conference semifinalists the previous season.

The '94 and '95 Suns should have won, but age and injuries clearly took him down a little from his prime level.
:cry:

Charles turned 34 before the '97 playoffs and was clearly past his prime.
he was still a top 2 power forward. houston also had a top 2 center, and a top 2 shooting guard.

Because they were deep, not a 1 man team.
they were deep in the regular season too, and only won 4 more games.

I didn't read any predictions about the series so I don't know if they were favored, but I did watch all 6 games, and I don't remember it being referred to as an upset. And considering Detroit almost beat Boston the previous year, it wouldn't make that much sense.
i would definately refer to it as an upset considering the celtics had home court advantage, the best record in the eastern conference, and had been to the nba finals every year since 1983 (4 consecutive years).

Their bench may have not held them back in the regular season, but most agreed that it clearly had them tired. Boston was coming off of 3 consecutive deep playoff runs to the finals.
aww they were tired were they :( :sleeping

Boston didn't have one notable bench player. Detroit had Vinnie Johnson, Dennis Rodman, James Edwards and John Salley on their bench. Players who could start.
they made up for that with one of the best starting 5's in nba history.

On that Denver team, there were plenty of shots to go around. They had kiki Vandeweghe and English both averaging 25-30 points on the same team a few years earlier.
that team was a much faster team than the '88 nuggets

I don't think either player was all that great, so I don't care much to argue about one over the other.
lever was great. top 7 overall infact.

Not really, Cedric Maxwell had a nice series, and the voters robbed Bird. Didn't make me overly impressed with Maxwell.
the difference here is that worthy stepped up just as much as magic throughout the playoffs, where as bird stepped up alot more than any other celtic in terms of the playoffs as a whole in 1981.

Still don't really get it, or why you're calling Charles "Karles".

hybrid of kevin love and charles barkley since their games are similar

And that has nothing to do with Barkley's ability as a basketball player.
but it has to do with barkley's legacy and what he meant to franchises

Grant had limited opportunities on offense because his offense was pretty much limited to hitting open mid-range jumpers and finishing around the rim.

I appreciate what Grant did. He was a strong rebounder, a very good defender, a reliable mid-range shooter, a strong finisher, he ran the floor well, he was a smart player, and he was a good passer.

Pretty much an ideal complementary player, but you also don't want him to be more than your 3rd best player if you expect to contend. Top 15 players should at least be first or second option type players,
all players need to be on the same page if a team is expected to contend. grant perfected his role on offense and defense and was an integral part of a 67 win team that only lost 7 games on its way to a championship romp. once again winning plays a huge part in rankings, and no other player outside that top 14 could have done what grant did without disrupting chemistry and still had the same results.

Shep

07-05-2012, 02:44 AM

Because they had teams. Nance was the 3rd best player on the Cavs. How is winning as the 3rd best player comparable to being the best player?
nance was actually the cavs best player

I'm not going to tell you what your criteria should be, but I don't rank players who don't play at least 50 games between regular season and playoffs. But I'm not sure how you can compare what a player did in 45 games to what another did in 75.
thats fine..and cut off in rankings is different from player to player. if a player only plays 45 games and has minimal impact then i will not rank him, but if he has a major impact like larry bird did i will definately rank him accordingly.

Pretty much everyone including Pippen himself called '94 his best year. Led them to 55 wins without Jordan and a pretty limited cast. They went 51-21 with Pippen, and 44-16 with Pippen and Grant. Scottie added a 3 point shot, improved his scoring, stepped up his defense and rebounding, and took the Ewing/Riley Knicks to 7 who had challenged the Bulls even with Jordan the past 2 years. And even as a Knick fan, I can acknowledge that they got screwed on the Hue Hollins call.
pippen also called lebron the greatest player of all time before he had won a championship.
bj armstrong stepped up and was an all-star in '94. horace grant had a career year in points, rebounds, and assists, and then they had toni kukoc come and and be one of the best 6th men in the entire league.
you expected pippen to put up more numbers with no mj around..but he had even less of an impact. they almost went .500 while pippen was injured so the roster wasn't even that bad. he also had minimal impact on the playoffs averaging almost 4 turnovers and 43%fg and then there was that decision to take himself out of the game in the final moments and sulk because a play wasn't run for him.

The Bulls won 67 games compared to 61 in '91. Pippen had more responsibility as the team's point forward, improved his outside shot noticeably and became a much more consistent player. Went from 17.8 ppg to 21 ppg while his shooting percentage only fell from 52% to 51%, but his free throw shooting went from 71% to 76% which makes up for that. His rebounding went up a little despite the Bulls becoming a better rebounding team. His assists went up from 6.2 per game to 7 per game, the most ever in the triangle offense, and the Bulls beat better competition in the playoffs. Pippen was a monster in the closeout games. 31/8/5 with 2 blocks on 12/23 shooting and 7/8 from the line to close out Miami. A triple double of 17/11/11 with 3 steals on 7/11 shooting to close out the Knicks in a game 7 no less. One of Pippen's class games to close out the Cavs in 6 with 29/12/5 with 4 steals and 4 blocks. Pippen was arguably the MVP of that series. And 26/5/4 on 9/17 shooting with 2 threes and 6/6 free throw shooting including the huge comeback to close out the Blazers in game 6. he was the second best player in the finals behind Michael Jordan.

Jordan guarded Magic in most of the '91 finals too. Pippen was only the primary defender on Magic in game 2 after Jordan got in foul trouble. And Pippen's '92 finals were better than '91.

And Pippen's '92 finals and playoffs were better than '91.
'92 pippen was better in the regular season, but he was easily better in the playoffs in '91.

the knicks, 76ers, pistons, and lakers are much tougher than
the heat, knicks, cavs, and blazers

19.7ppg, 8.7rpg, 5.0apg, 3.3spg, 1.3bpg, 50%fg in a 3-0 sweep of the knicks

23.4ppg, 9.4rpg, 6.0apg, 1.6spg, 0.6bpg, 57%fg in a 4-1 win over the sixers

22.0ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.3apg, 3.0spg, 2.0bpg, 48%fg in a 4-0 sweep over the defending champion pistons

20.8ppg, 9.4rpg, 6.6apg, 2.4spg, 1.0bpg, in a 4-1 domination over the defending western conference champion lakers

Well, I'd call '93-'96 his prime, but he was already very good as a rookie and he had quite a bit of talent around him in Terry Cummings, who was as much of the 1st option as Robinson and led them in playoff scoring, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland, and Sean Elliott. With that being said, that was one of the years I thought Robinson played well in the playoffs.

His '93 team wasn't bad either, though. But that was the other year I thought he played well in the playoffs.

His team in '95 was good. '96 team was the same minus Rodman, but Elliott and Johnson stepped up and had career years.
avery johnson and sean elliott are d-leaguers without david robinson. johnson was cut by about 5 teams, and just look at what elliott did with the pistons when he was traded and how quickly he came crying back.

Charles was a much better playoff performer and a more dominant player than Stockton, though, that's for sure
howcome barkley had teammates step up more than he did with regularity?

Of course I do, Stockton was never a top 5 player due to his inability to take over games. It's a reason why the Jazz didn't win a championship.
stockton was a top 5 player in '88, and '91. the same amount of years barkley was a top 5 player.

ShaqAttack3234

07-05-2012, 12:40 PM

but stockton was much better than barkley, so that would have made them a more successful team as a result.

The Sixers would get worse, and a point guard isn't changing a terrible defensive team to a good one.

yeh but barkley in his 2nd year was better than any other year besides '93

How can you watch a game from '86 and see Barkley so raw without the same short/mid-range jumper, with more questionable decision making(hence the high turnovers), without as good ball-handling ability, or all of the same moves and determine that he was better in his 2nd year than he was in his prime? And none of the numbers back this up either.

because this was barkley at his most selfish. he would refuse to play defense, be put on the bench because of this, and then most likely force a trade. i can see a similar drop off of production to that of mark aguirre's when he joined the pistons, except aguirre accepted his lesser role..barkley would not.

Where is this coming from? Barkley didn't seem selfish, and he got along well with Moses, and fine with Dr. J.

Detroit nearly won a title with Adrian Dantley, and he was more selfish than Barkley.

isiah thomas was the only star on that roster, and they did rely on his production greatly.

They were among the teams that won and relied on a star the least due to their depth and balance. Dantley was a star too even though I think he's overrated.

nobody remembers losers for a reason

People still remember great players even if they don't win a title.

you don't regard a players second best year as part of his prime? they should have won a championship in 1985 barkley's rookie season. their team consisted of a top 2 center, a top 4 power forward, a top 2 small forward, and a top 5 point guard. how much more help could you possibly wish for? in '86 they still had a top 4 center, a top 2 power forward, and a top 4 point guard. they didn't go anywhere.

I do consider Barkley's 2nd best year his prime, of course, that year occurred sometime between '89-'93. I've rarely seen players who are in their prime in their 2nd season.

Barkley was a rookie in '85 averaging 14/9 in 29 mpg, I'm not going to judge a superstar based on what he did when he wasn't even an all-star.

I hold that against their best player Moses Malone.

Regarding '86, that top 4 center was out for the playoffs.

well you would expect him to..considering they had been conference semifinalists the previous season.

Regardless, he had a great season and playoff run in Phoenix, plus KJ missed 33 games and he was limited compared to previous years.

he was still a top 2 power forward. houston also had a top 2 center, and a top 2 shooting guard.

I thought Barkley played fine, and regardless of how good he was, he was a shell of his former self and old for basketball at 34.

they were deep in the regular season too, and only won 4 more games.

The Bulls overachieved because Jordan had developed into arguably the best player in the league already, but they clearly didn't have the talent to win when it mattered.

i would definately refer to it as an upset considering the celtics had home court advantage, the best record in the eastern conference, and had been to the nba finals every year since 1983 (4 consecutive years).

It's not hard to see Why Detroit beat them. Boston was a phenomenal offensive team, but not a great defensive team by that point. While Detroit was elite defensively, and they had more than enough weapons to be very good offensively. They were deeper and more well rounded by that point.

they made up for that with one of the best starting 5's in nba history.

Detroit had a very formidable starting 5 themselves in addition to the great bench.

that team was a much faster team than the '88 nuggets

The '84 Nuggets were significantly faster, but not only did they have Vandeweghe averaging over 29 and English averaging over 26, but there were still enough shots for Dan Issel to average almost 20.

hybrid of kevin love and charles barkley since their games are similar

They aren't similar when you watch them, just compare their offensive ability.

all players need to be on the same page if a team is expected to contend. grant perfected his role on offense and defense and was an integral part of a 67 win team that only lost 7 games on its way to a championship romp. once again winning plays a huge part in rankings, and no other player outside that top 14 could have done what grant did without disrupting chemistry and still had the same results.

Very solid complementary player as I said, but he wasn't a legitimate all-star, much less bordering on superstar level, which most players who are top 15 are.

nance was actually the cavs best player

Nance was very good, but he wasn't as good as Daugherty or Price.

bj armstrong stepped up and was an all-star in '94. horace grant had a career year in points, rebounds, and assists, and then they had toni kukoc come and and be one of the best 6th men in the entire league.

BJ did have a good season, but he was one of the most questionable all-stars I can think of. And that had to be one of, if not the weakest all-star teams in the East that year.

Grant did have a very good year, but I don't expect a team to contend like the Bulls did with Grant as their second best player and BJ Armstrong as the 3rd best player. Not unless you have an exceptionally deep team and 5-6 players at least close to that level, which the Bulls did not.

Pippen himself wasn't a big scorer, he was a good scorer, but limited in some regards. Good for 22 ppg, but Grant isn't a second option type player, and BJ was a good offensive player, but more of a shooter than anything. Kukoc was their second most talented offensive player, but he was often too 1 on 1 oriented for the triangle. They had a few decent role players after that.

I expect a team like that to make the playoffs, but even Phil Jackson only expected them to drop off by at least 15 games.

you expected pippen to put up more numbers with no mj around..but he had even less of an impact. they almost went .500 while pippen was injured so the roster wasn't even that bad. he also had minimal impact on the playoffs averaging almost 4 turnovers and 43%fg and then there was that decision to take himself out of the game in the final moments and sulk because a play wasn't run for him.

4-6 is not good. Pippen raised his scoring while he also shot about the same percentage. In fact, his scoring average not only went up from 18.6 ppg to 22 ppg, but his shooting % went up from 47% to 49%, and that's while making almost 1 three per game, while he had never made a noticeable amount before then, so his eFG% was 51.5% compared to 48.2% in '93 and 51.1% in '92. It was higher at 52.9% in '91, but Pippen was scoring 4.2 extra ppg, Chicago's pace had slowed down so less transition opportunities for one of the best open court players, and there was no Michael Jordan around to receive most of the defensive attention anymore.

'92 pippen was better in the regular season, but he was easily better in the playoffs in '91.

Nah he impressed me more in the '92 playoffs, only series he struggled in was the Knicks series, but he didn't face a defense like that in '91. Detroit was the closest. The 2 playoff runs were close, though. But Pippen not only had better season in '92, he was an improved player.

the knicks, 76ers, pistons, and lakers are much tougher than
the heat, knicks, cavs, and blazers

Most of the series are debatable(though the Cavs and Blazers put up much tougher fights than the Pistons and Lakers(both had key injuries). But the '92 Knicks were much tougher than the '91 Sixers.

avery johnson and sean elliott are d-leaguers without david robinson. johnson was cut by about 5 teams, and just look at what elliott did with the pistons when he was traded and how quickly he came crying back.

Avery Johnson knew how to run the offense, was a tough guard, and while he wasn't a scorer, he did make himself decent since he could penetrate and make those hook type shots, and had worked on his 15-18 foot jumper until he could knock them down when he was wide open(though Robinson had a part in getting him open looks). He ended up among the leaders in assists some years.

Elliott was a good outside shooter, he was productive when they iso'd him in the mid-post area, a good defender, and an athletic player with excellent size for his position who excelled in the open court. He was definitely a solid player, and he made 2 all-star teams.

He also had Dennis Rodman with those 2 guys on the '95 team. Dennis was the best rebounder in the league, and an excellent defender, though he sometimes slacked off by that point to get rebounds, particularly in the Houston series. Though he was still good enough to make the all-nba 3rd team despite missing 33 games, and the Spurs were on pace for 67 wins with him(40-9) and just a 55 win pace without him(22-11). Chuck Person was also an 11 ppg bench scorer in just 25 mpg and a dangerous shooter.

That's good support. The '93 team had Elliott in his first all-star year, Dale Ellis was still an elite shooter and another legit scoring threat on the perimeter. And they also had Antoine Carr who had averaged 20 ppg 2 years earlier when he got more minutes and was still giving them 13 in just 27 mpg. And they had some solid role players like Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Jr Reid ect.

howcome barkley had teammates step up more than he did with regularity?

I don't agree that he did.

Poetry

07-05-2012, 12:53 PM

http://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/john_stockton_game_6.jpg

I was rooting for the Jazz, but i still maintain former CBA player Matt Maloney cost the Rockets that series.

Shep

07-06-2012, 05:27 AM

The Sixers would get worse, and a point guard isn't changing a terrible defensive team to a good one.
aquiring a better player for a worse one will definately benefit your team. lets say stockton was the sixers starting point guard and cheeks and barkley weren't there and someone of equal value of cheeks was in barkley's spot. jack sikma for example. that would make the sixers best 5:
C Mike Gminski (16.9ppg, 10.5rpg, 1.8apg, 0.8spg, 1.8bpg)
PF Jack Sikma (16.5ppg, 8.6rpg, 3.4apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg)
SF Cliff Robinson (19.0ppg, 6.5rpg, 2.1apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg)
SG Gerald Henderson/David Wingate
PG John Stockton (14.7ppg, 2.9rpg, 13.8apg, 3.0spg)

now tell me this team would not win any more than 36 games :oldlol: i could see them easily making atleast fifth seed and possibly making the conference semifinals.

How can you watch a game from '86 and see Barkley so raw without the same short/mid-range jumper, with more questionable decision making(hence the high turnovers), without as good ball-handling ability, or all of the same moves and determine that he was better in his 2nd year than he was in his prime? And none of the numbers back this up either.
barkley was at his defensive peak in 1986. in the limited energy he had he was able to spread it over both ends of the court, unlike later on in his career when he began to rest on defense. he was the best player on a 54 win team that was eventually eliminated to the higher seed milwaukee bucks in 7 games. barkley, for once, played exceptionally well in the playoffs while the sixers were without their number 1 scorer and top 4 center in moses malone throughout the playoffs. barkley recorded what would be his highest averages in his playoff career for rebounds and assists. and ended up with averages of 25.0ppg, 15.8rpg, 5.6apg, 2.3spg, and 1.3bpg.

Where is this coming from? Barkley didn't seem selfish, and he got along well with Moses, and fine with Dr. J.

Detroit nearly won a title with Adrian Dantley, and he was more selfish than Barkley.
ask scottie pippen. barkley not playing defense because he wanted to conserve energy for offense is selfish personified.

They were among the teams that won and relied on a star the least due to their depth and balance. Dantley was a star too even though I think he's overrated.
if dantley was a star then there were about 70 stars in the nba at that point. in any case the difference between thomas and the rest of the pistons was obvious in terms of star power..about as obvious as it was between magic and the rest of the lakers.

People still remember great players even if they don't win a title.
they will be alot easier to remember if they win games.

I do consider Barkley's 2nd best year his prime, of course, that year occurred sometime between '89-'93. I've rarely seen players who are in their prime in their 2nd season.
:oldlol:

Barkley was a rookie in '85 averaging 14/9 in 29 mpg, I'm not going to judge a superstar based on what he did when he wasn't even an all-star.
in a team with that many people among the top at their position they should win regardless of rookies.

I thought Barkley played fine, and regardless of how good he was, he was a shell of his former self and old for basketball at 34.
you are not old for basketball when you are top 2 in your position in the entire world. and his averages dipped from 19/14/5 and 48%fg to 18/12/3 and 43%

The Bulls overachieved because Jordan had developed into arguably the best player in the league already, but they clearly didn't have the talent to win when it mattered.
because the isiah thomas led pistons made them look pedestrian

It's not hard to see Why Detroit beat them. Boston was a phenomenal offensive team, but not a great defensive team by that point. While Detroit was elite defensively, and they had more than enough weapons to be very good offensively. They were deeper and more well rounded by that point.
detroid beat them because the isiah thomas led pistons made them look pedestrian

Detroit had a very formidable starting 5 themselves in addition to the great bench
the celtics had the better starting 5 and the best record in the conference

The '84 Nuggets were significantly faster, but not only did they have Vandeweghe averaging over 29 and English averaging over 26, but there were still enough shots for Dan Issel to average almost 20.
so yes, they were significantly faster

They aren't similar when you watch them, just compare their offensive ability.
they both score and rebound well on pitiful teams.

Very solid complementary player as I said, but he wasn't a legitimate all-star, much less bordering on superstar level, which most players who are top 15 are.
grant was definately bordering on superstar level in 1992. alot of these so called "superstars" would have to have their numbers drastically decrease to be able to fit in with chicago's schemes and not discrupt chemistry.

Nance was very good, but he wasn't as good as Daugherty or Price.

nance was better in the regular season and playoffs than both daugherty and price.

BJ did have a good season, but he was one of the most questionable all-stars I can think of. And that had to be one of, if not the weakest all-star teams in the East that year.
thats ok, he was still an all-star

Shep

07-06-2012, 05:28 AM

Grant did have a very good year, but I don't expect a team to contend like the Bulls did with Grant as their second best player and BJ Armstrong as the 3rd best player. Not unless you have an exceptionally deep team and 5-6 players at least close to that level, which the Bulls did not.
you obviously underrated horace grant and bj armstrong then

Pippen himself wasn't a big scorer, he was a good scorer, but limited in some regards. Good for 22 ppg, but Grant isn't a second option type player, and BJ was a good offensive player, but more of a shooter than anything. Kukoc was their second most talented offensive player, but he was often too 1 on 1 oriented for the triangle. They had a few decent role players after that.

I expect a team like that to make the playoffs, but even Phil Jackson only expected them to drop off by at least 15 games.
it was very fortunate that grant could sustain his play from the previous season, bj could show that massive improvement, and they could add a talented youngster such as kukoc along with nice role players such as longley and myers.

4-6 is not good
the losses were all against powerful outfits, only 1 came against a sub .500 team and that was on the road.

Pippen raised his scoring while he also shot about the same percentage. In fact, his scoring average not only went up from 18.6 ppg to 22 ppg, but his shooting % went up from 47% to 49%, and that's while making almost 1 three per game, while he had never made a noticeable amount before then, so his eFG% was 51.5% compared to 48.2% in '93 and 51.1% in '92. It was higher at 52.9% in '91, but Pippen was scoring 4.2 extra ppg, Chicago's pace had slowed down so less transition opportunities for one of the best open court players, and there was no Michael Jordan around to receive most of the defensive attention anymore.
c'mon the greatest scorer in nba history up and leaves and the best you can do is average 3 more points? as the second best player on the team he definately should have stepped up and scored atleast 25ppg on that roster that was so desperate for offense.

Nah he impressed me more in the '92 playoffs, only series he struggled in was the Knicks series, but he didn't face a defense like that in '91. Detroit was the closest. The 2 playoff runs were close, though. But Pippen not only had better season in '92, he was an improved player.

the bulls not only were alot more dominant in '91, they also faced tougher competition, and pippen was more productive. pippen also got better as the bulls progressed throughout, and asserted himself alot more.

Most of the series are debatable(though the Cavs and Blazers put up much tougher fights than the Pistons and Lakers(both had key injuries). But the '92 Knicks were much tougher than the '91 Sixers.
they only put up tougher fights because the bulls were less dominant, jordan wasn't as good, and pippen wasn't as good.

Avery Johnson knew how to run the offense, was a tough guard, and while he wasn't a scorer, he did make himself decent since he could penetrate and make those hook type shots, and had worked on his 15-18 foot jumper until he could knock them down when he was wide open(though Robinson had a part in getting him open looks). He ended up among the leaders in assists some years.
robinson made johnson. johnson was a journeyman until he ended up in san antonio. nobody wanted him. even the spurs didn't want him. they let him walk to the golden state warriors in 1993, then he came crying back in 1994 once he realised he sucked, and he would never see another nba paycheck if he didn't jump on robinson's coattails again.

Elliott was a good outside shooter, he was productive when they iso'd him in the mid-post area, a good defender, and an athletic player with excellent size for his position who excelled in the open court. He was definitely a solid player, and he made 2 all-star teams.
elliott was more of the same. absolute filth without robinson. he was so valuable to san antonio that they traded him for a guy that never played a game for the spurs :roll: all you gotta do is look what sort of player he was in 1994 with no robinson in that 1 year with the pistons to realise that he was trash.

He also had Dennis Rodman with those 2 guys on the '95 team. Dennis was the best rebounder in the league, and an excellent defender, though he sometimes slacked off by that point to get rebounds, particularly in the Houston series. Though he was still good enough to make the all-nba 3rd team despite missing 33 games, and the Spurs were on pace for 67 wins with him(40-9) and just a 55 win pace without him(22-11). Chuck Person was also an 11 ppg bench scorer in just 25 mpg and a dangerous shooter.

oh yeh..another valuable piece..so valuable infact that they traded him for freakin will perdue in the offseason and only lost 3 more games. will freakin perdue.

That's good support
destroyed

The '93 team had Elliott in his first all-star year, Dale Ellis was still an elite shooter and another legit scoring threat on the perimeter. And they also had Antoine Carr who had averaged 20 ppg 2 years earlier when he got more minutes and was still giving them 13 in just 27 mpg. And they had some solid role players like Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Jr Reid ect.

antoine carr and his 5.5 rebounds per game in 27 minutes was pretty good :oldlol: ellis is a one dimentional shooter..and the other guys are d-leaguers.

I don't agree that he did.
lol ok :facepalm

ShaqAttack3234

07-06-2012, 01:22 PM

aquiring a better player for a worse one will definately benefit your team. lets say stockton was the sixers starting point guard and cheeks and barkley weren't there and someone of equal value of cheeks was in barkley's spot. jack sikma for example. that would make the sixers best 5:
C Mike Gminski (16.9ppg, 10.5rpg, 1.8apg, 0.8spg, 1.8bpg)
PF Jack Sikma (16.5ppg, 8.6rpg, 3.4apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg)
SF Cliff Robinson (19.0ppg, 6.5rpg, 2.1apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg)
SG Gerald Henderson/David Wingate
PG John Stockton (14.7ppg, 2.9rpg, 13.8apg, 3.0spg)

now tell me this team would not win any more than 36 games :oldlol: i could see them easily making atleast fifth seed and possibly making the conference semifinals.

Who is going to score on that team? Acquiring a better player than Barkley in '88 would help, unfortunately there were only 4 of them. Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Hakeem Olajuwon.

barkley was at his defensive peak in 1986. in the limited energy he had he was able to spread it over both ends of the court, unlike later on in his career when he began to rest on defense. he was the best player on a 54 win team that was eventually eliminated to the higher seed milwaukee bucks in 7 games. barkley, for once, played exceptionally well in the playoffs while the sixers were without their number 1 scorer and top 4 center in moses malone throughout the playoffs. barkley recorded what would be his highest averages in his playoff career for rebounds and assists. and ended up with averages of 25.0ppg, 15.8rpg, 5.6apg, 2.3spg, and 1.3bpg.

Barkley was never a consistent game changer defensively anyway.

I do know that Barkley's only prime year averaging less than 25 ppg was 23 ppg in '92 while he averaged an even 20 ppg in '86. I also know that Barkley never averaged over 4 turnovers in his prime while he averaged 4.4 in '86. And aside from '88, he never averaged more turnovers than assists in his prime, while he averaged 0.5 more TO in '86. And you could argue that his prime was more '89-'93 anyway.

ask scottie pippen. barkley not playing defense because he wanted to conserve energy for offense is selfish personified.

It's actually common for stars who are expected to carry the team offensively and play with limited talent. I remember the Scottie Pippen comments, that shit was hyped to no end, but why is that you disregard Pippen's opinion when it comes to his best season, but now cite his quote about Barkley?

if dantley was a star then there were about 70 stars in the nba at that point. in any case the difference between thomas and the rest of the pistons was obvious in terms of star power..about as obvious as it was between magic and the rest of the lakers.

I'm no Dantley fan, but you think he wasn't even top 50? Supporting casts aren't all about star power. How many championship teams, or even finals teams since then can you name that relied on a star less than Detroit?

in a team with that many people among the top at their position they should win regardless of rookies.

You can blame Moses for dropping from 24.6 ppg and 13.1 rpg on 46.9% shooting in the season to 18.2 ppg and 13.4 rpg on 40.5% shooting. Moses was the guy to blame for a Sixer team with probably the most talented team in the East, if not the league only managing 1 win vs a Celtic team with Bird limited by injuries and only averaging 20.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg and 6 apg on 41.9% shooting compared to his season averages of 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg and 6.6 apg on 52.2% in the season.

After all, Moses was the same leader of the '84 Sixers who not only failed to get back to the finals after being one of the greatest teams ever the previous year, but were upset in the 1st round with the most talented team in the East.

you are not old for basketball when you are top 2 in your position in the entire world. and his averages dipped from 19/14/5 and 48%fg to 18/12/3 and 43%

34 is old for this sport. A player's prime usually ends between 30-32 years old.

because the isiah thomas led pistons made them look pedestrian

Everyone thought Jordan's cast looked pedestrian.

detroid beat them because the isiah thomas led pistons made them look pedestrian

Isiah had nothing to do with arguably the game's greatest player shooting 35%. Bird did play well from an all around standpoint, rebounded and passed extremely well as usual and both his individual defense on Dantley and help defense were very good. But he was also missing many shots he usually makes, and also rushing some shots and take a few uncharacteristic shots. He was just off, and it's tough to win when you get 30 ppg on 53/41/92 shooting for the season, and he drops 10 ppg and down to 35%.

the celtics had the better starting 5 and the best record in the conference

Pistons were more complete.

grant was definately bordering on superstar level in 1992. alot of these so called "superstars" would have to have their numbers drastically decrease to be able to fit in with chicago's schemes and not discrupt chemistry.

:facepalm

nance was better in the regular season and playoffs than both daugherty and price.

:oldlol:

you obviously underrated horace grant and bj armstrong then

Nah, BJ was a good shooter, and Grant was a very good all around power forward who teams would love to have as their 3rd best player.

it was very fortunate that grant could sustain his play from the previous season, bj could show that massive improvement, and they could add a talented youngster such as kukoc along with nice role players such as longley and myers.

They were very fortunate that Pippen could raise his game to help a team with limited talent overachieve. They were very fortunate that Pippen was the best perimeter defender, became a better scorer and rebounder that season and was also such a smart player and good playmaker who knew the triangle offense so well. Because they had to rely on the triangle more with their limited offensive talent.

the losses were all against powerful outfits, only 1 came against a sub .500 team and that was on the road.

Still a pretty small sample size to call them a good team.Pippen still kept them above .500 without Grant in both the '94 season for the stretch he was out, and the entire '95 season even before Jordan came back when grant was in Orlando. And the Bulls without Grant or Jordan were very limited with huge flaws.

c'mon the greatest scorer in nba history up and leaves and the best you can do is average 3 more points? as the second best player on the team he definately should have stepped up and scored atleast 25ppg on that roster that was so desperate for offense.

Pippen wasn't really a 25 ppg scorer. That wasn't his game, that wasn't what made Pippen one of the great all around players. They overachieved as much as you could expect.

the bulls not only were alot more dominant in '91, they also faced tougher competition, and pippen was more productive. pippen also got better as the bulls progressed throughout, and asserted himself alot more.

'91 Knicks and '92 Hear are virtually even. The '92 Knicks were much better than the '91 Sixers. The '91 Pistons with a healthy Isiah may have been better than the '92 Cavs, but because Isiah wasn't healthy, I'm going with the Cavs team that won 7 more games. And a healthy '91 Lakers were better, but with Worthy's injured from the WCF and Scott's injury, Portland was at least as tough, if not tougher in '92.

they only put up tougher fights because the bulls were less dominant, jordan wasn't as good, and pippen wasn't as good.

:oldlol: No, Jordan was virtually the same player and played basically the same in the 3 seasons from '90-'92, and very close in '93. Pippen improved noticeably each year from '90-'92, same with Grant. Cartwright and Paxson fell off a bit, but Armstrong improved.

The Bulls went 67-15 and were not only more comfortable in the triangle from te start having played 2 years in it and Pippen having assumed the point forward role from the start making them an even better offensive team, but they stepped up their defense too. Pippen and especially Grant got better at that end, and Jordan had arguably his best defensive season in '92.

robinson made johnson. johnson was a journeyman until he ended up in san antonio. nobody wanted him. even the spurs didn't want him. they let him walk to the golden state warriors in 1993, then he came crying back in 1994 once he realised he sucked, and he would never see another nba paycheck if he didn't jump on robinson's coattails again.

Yeah, Robinson walks on water, he turns water into wine. :oldlol:

oh yeh..another valuable piece..so valuable infact that they traded him for freakin will perdue in the offseason and only lost 3 more games. will freakin perdue.

Look at their record in '95 when he was out compared to when he played, they lost 2 more games in 16 fewer games without him, and you're diminshing his imapct? And what about Person?

That's quite a few quality players, Del Negro was also a nice role player for your 6th best player or whatever.

antoine carr and his 5.5 rebounds per game in 27 minutes was pretty good :oldlol: ellis is a one dimentional shooter..and the other guys are d-leaguers.

He still had 2 legitimate scoring options on the perimeter in Ellis and Elliott, in addition to a 3rd capable scoring option in Carr. How many scoring options does a team need? Ellis was one-dimensional, but he did that one thing extremely well. 17 ppg on 50% from the field and 40% on 3s as a 2nd/3rd option and 10th in made 3s is good.

Shep

07-08-2012, 12:41 AM

Who is going to score on that team?
4 out of 5 guys were averaging 15 points. any one of the 4 could step up and score 25 on any given night.

Acquiring a better player than Barkley in '88 would help, unfortunately there were only 4 of them. Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Hakeem Olajuwon.
you forgot the other 5 that were also better than barkley: john stockton, isiah thomas, fat lever, james worthy, and dominique wilkins.

Barkley was never a consistent game changer defensively anyway.

thats ok. i would rather him play better defense and put more effort like in '86 in than be lazy and not not care.

It's actually common for stars who are expected to carry the team offensively and play with limited talent. I remember the Scottie Pippen comments, that shit was hyped to no end, but why is that you disregard Pippen's opinion when it comes to his best season, but now cite his quote about Barkley?
easy. because players aren't good judges of who the best players are..whereas pippen had inside knowledge on the barkley situation in houston.

I'm no Dantley fan, but you think he wasn't even top 50? Supporting casts aren't all about star power. How many championship teams, or even finals teams since then can you name that relied on a star less than Detroit?
dantley was top 48. to have your third best player not even one of the best 47 players in the nba and to still make a game 7 of the nba finals speaks volumes about thomas

You can blame Moses for dropping from 24.6 ppg and 13.1 rpg on 46.9% shooting in the season to 18.2 ppg and 13.4 rpg on 40.5% shooting. Moses was the guy to blame for a Sixer team with probably the most talented team in the East, if not the league only managing 1 win vs a Celtic team with Bird limited by injuries and only averaging 20.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg and 6 apg on 41.9% shooting compared to his season averages of 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg and 6.6 apg on 52.2% in the season.
whoever dropped off in production isn't really the point here. the point is that barkley had alot of help in his career.

After all, Moses was the same leader of the '84 Sixers who not only failed to get back to the finals after being one of the greatest teams ever the previous year, but were upset in the 1st round with the most talented team in the East.
yeh, malone, like barkley was one of the most overrated players in nba history.

34 is old for this sport. A player's prime usually ends between 30-32 years old.
he was definately still in his prime, and top 2 at his position.

Everyone thought Jordan's cast looked pedestrian.
jordan and his cast were good enough for only 4 less wins in the regular season, and they ended up getting demolished by the pistons in 5.

Isiah had nothing to do with arguably the game's greatest player shooting 35%. Bird did play well from an all around standpoint, rebounded and passed extremely well as usual and both his individual defense on Dantley and help defense were very good. But he was also missing many shots he usually makes, and also rushing some shots and take a few uncharacteristic shots. He was just off, and it's tough to win when you get 30 ppg on 53/41/92 shooting for the season, and he drops 10 ppg and down to 35%.
arguably the games greates player? bird wasn't even top 2 in 1988. the celtics lost because the piston's best player outplayed the celtics best player. thomas averaged 23.0ppg, 5.2rpg, 8.3apg, and 2.7spg. besides, bird's scoring output and shooting percentages didn't even have much of an effect on the outcome of games. in the only 2 wins the celtics had against the pistons he averaged 19 points on 37%.

Pistons were more complete.
celtics better over 82 games

:facepalm
:confusedshrug:

:oldlol:
:roll:

Nah, BJ was a good shooter, and Grant was a very good all around power forward who teams would love to have as their 3rd best player.
awesome, well rounded players who stepped up huge to pick up the slack with no mj. bj was an all-star, and grant a top 4 power forward.

They were very fortunate that Pippen could raise his game to help a team with limited talent overachieve. They were very fortunate that Pippen was the best perimeter defender, became a better scorer and rebounder that season and was also such a smart player and good playmaker who knew the triangle offense so well. Because they had to rely on the triangle more with their limited offensive talent.
pippen didn't raise his game at all. with the greatest scorer in the game leaving, the second best scorer on the team needed to elevate his scoring more than anything else.

Still a pretty small sample size to call them a good team.Pippen still kept them above .500 without Grant in both the '94 season for the stretch he was out, and the entire '95 season even before Jordan came back when grant was in Orlando. And the Bulls without Grant or Jordan were very limited with huge flaws.
how many good teams did they beat without grant in '94? you would imagine that bulls team in '95 to be around .500 anyway. especially with kukoc stepping up into a bigger role and averaging 16/5/5, along with bj's continued steady play.

Pippen wasn't really a 25 ppg scorer. That wasn't his game, that wasn't what made Pippen one of the great all around players. They overachieved as much as you could expect.
pippen needed to be a 25 ppg scorer. superstars do what the team requires, when they require it.

'91 Knicks and '92 Hear are virtually even. The '92 Knicks were much better than the '91 Sixers. The '91 Pistons with a healthy Isiah may have been better than the '92 Cavs, but because Isiah wasn't healthy, I'm going with the Cavs team that won 7 more games. And a healthy '91 Lakers were better, but with Worthy's injured from the WCF and Scott's injury, Portland was at least as tough, if not tougher in '92.
the knicks had a better regular season, weren't a expansion team playing in its first ever playoff series. the knicks had patrick ewing who had a great regular season with 27/11/3/1/3. the heat lost the regular season series to the bulls 0-4 and averaging losing margin was over 17 points per game.

the sixers were better than the knicks also. even tho the knicks won more games in the regular season, the sixers won 3 out of 4 regular season games against the bulls, whereas the knicks went a paltry 0-4 against the bulls in the '92 regular season.

the pistons were easily better than the cavs. they were the defending 2 time champion and the bulls bogey team..and to destroy them like they did..well nothing else really needs to be said here.

the lakers were also much better than the trailblazers coming off a decade of dominance and boasting the best point guard in the nba a top 3 small forward, a top 4 center, and a top 5 power forward.

No, Jordan was virtually the same player and played basically the same in the 3 seasons from '90-'92, and very close in '93. Pippen improved noticeably each year from '90-'92, same with Grant. Cartwright and Paxson fell off a bit, but Armstrong improved.
jordan was at his peak in '91 due to his playoff performance so that easily separated him from any other year. pippen was closer to his '91 self than jordan was, but still wasn't as good. the only player that was better in '92 was horace grant.

The Bulls went 67-15 and were not only more comfortable in the triangle from te start having played 2 years in it and Pippen having assumed the point forward role from the start making them an even better offensive team, but they stepped up their defense too. Pippen and especially Grant got better at that end, and Jordan had arguably his best defensive season in '92.
both jordan and pippen had the better regular season in 1992, but once again, the playoffs were the difference. the bulls lost only 1 games, and jordan and pippen both played amazing ball.

Yeah, Robinson walks on water, he turns water into wine.
:rolleyes:

Look at their record in '95 when he was out compared to when he played, they lost 2 more games in 16 fewer games without him, and you're diminshing his imapct? And what about Person?

That's quite a few quality players, Del Negro was also a nice role player for your 6th best player or whatever.
yeh what about their 12th best player julius nwosu in his 23 games was a nice impact player, he averaged 13 points and 10 rebounds per 36 minutes! why would you trade rodman for filth if he was of any worth to your team?

He still had 2 legitimate scoring options on the perimeter in Ellis and Elliott, in addition to a 3rd capable scoring option in Carr. How many scoring options does a team need? Ellis was one-dimensional, but he did that one thing extremely well. 17 ppg on 50% from the field and 40% on 3s as a 2nd/3rd option and 10th in made 3s is good.
oh ya, n don't forget about corey crowder and how well he played in his 7 games for the spurs.

ShaqAttack3234

07-08-2012, 02:37 AM

4 out of 5 guys were averaging 15 points. any one of the 4 could step up and score 25 on any given night.

That Sixer team didn't have particularly good offensive players outside of Barkley.

you forgot the other 5 that were also better than barkley: john stockton, isiah thomas, fat lever, james worthy, and dominique wilkins.

:oldlol:

thats ok. i would rather him play better defense and put more effort like in '86 in than be lazy and not not care.

And I'd rather have a far more skilled Barkley who wasn't a turnover machine.

easy. because players aren't good judges of who the best players are..whereas pippen had inside knowledge on the barkley situation in houston.

Some players are good judges of players, but Pippen is more qualified than anyone to judge what his best season was.

dantley was top 48. to have your third best player not even one of the best 47 players in the nba and to still make a game 7 of the nba finals speaks volumes about thomas

Teams have won titles with 3rd best players who weren't top 50. And I'm not sure Dantley was that low.

whoever dropped off in production isn't really the point here. the point is that barkley had alot of help in his career.

Not in his prime except '93. He did have good rosters in his first 2 years(though Moses was injured in '86), and Phoenix and Houston. Too bad they didn't come earlier when he was at the top of his game. look what happened in the one prime year that he had a legit contending team in, he got all the way to the finals.

yeh, malone, like barkley was one of the most overrated players in nba history.

Disagree on Barkley. Not sure if I'd call Moses overrated, at times I thought so, but he was the best player in the league for 2 years in '82 and '83. And he led one of the great teams of all time with a 65-17 record and a 12-1 playoff record. I definitely don't see why Moses gets into some top 10 lists. He was probably the biggest black hole I've seen. I was surprised to see him constantly hold the ball instead of passing when doubled, and then go to a drop step or something and force up a shot against 2 men. That's probably why he had such a horrible assist/turnover ratio. And he didn't seem to be the defensive anchor that the other great centers were considering Houston was often among the worst defensive teams and at times were the worst or 2nd worst. Outside of '81 and '83, his playoff career was disappointing too, and he underachieved with incredibly talented rosters in '84 and '85 including a 1st round upset loss in '84. He was one of the all-time great rebounders and a very good scorer, though. Regardless, outside of the first tier top 5 centers(Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt), I often wonder if he was really a more effective center than some of the other great centers.

he was definately still in his prime, and top 2 at his position.

:roll: Now I've heard it all. Barkley was in his prime in Houston? He hadn't been in his prime since '93!

jordan and his cast were good enough for only 4 less wins in the regular season, and they ended up getting demolished by the pistons in 5.

This is useless, are you really claiming that the Bulls had a comparable team to Detroit in '88?

arguably the games greates player? bird wasn't even top 2 in 1988. the celtics lost because the piston's best player outplayed the celtics best player. thomas averaged 23.0ppg, 5.2rpg, 8.3apg, and 2.7spg. besides, bird's scoring output and shooting percentages didn't even have much of an effect on the outcome of games. in the only 2 wins the celtics had against the pistons he averaged 19 points on 37%.

Bird definitely had a case for best player in '88. An incredibly well rounded player who averaged 30/9/6 on shooting percentages of 53/41/92 and probably should have been voted MVP.

celtics better over 82 games

Right, because that always proves who the better team is. I forgot that Bird also shot just 35% over 82 games.

awesome, well rounded players who stepped up huge to pick up the slack with no mj. bj was an all-star, and grant a top 4 power forward.

I wouldn't call BJ an "awesome well rounded player". Haven't made a list for '94 yet, but I have some doubts about Grant being a top 4 PF. In fact, I know he wasn't. There was Malone, Barkley, Kemp and Coleman.

pippen didn't raise his game at all. with the greatest scorer in the game leaving, the second best scorer on the team needed to elevate his scoring more than anything else.

Revisionist history at it's finest.

how many good teams did they beat without grant in '94? you would imagine that bulls team in '95 to be around .500 anyway. especially with kukoc stepping up into a bigger role and averaging 16/5/5, along with bj's continued steady play.

Kukoc was playing out of position at PF, yet they were still an elite defensive team. Pippen's all around play was just unbelievable in '94 and '95.

pippen needed to be a 25 ppg scorer. superstars do what the team requires, when they require it.

:rolleyes: Pippen did do what the team required, hence their 55-27 record, only 2 fewer wins than in '93 with Jordan. And they took the Eastern Conference champion Knicks to 7, and probably would have won the series if not for the ridiculous call by Hue Hollins. '91 Pippen doesn't have that team winning 50 games or contending for a championship.

the knicks had a better regular season, weren't a expansion team playing in its first ever playoff series. the knicks had patrick ewing who had a great regular season with 27/11/3/1/3. the heat lost the regular season series to the bulls 0-4 and averaging losing margin was over 17 points per game.

They were a 38-44 team, the Bulls demolition of the Knicks shows how much the Knicks were struggling as much as it shows how good the Bulls struggled.

the sixers were better than the knicks also. even tho the knicks won more games in the regular season, the sixers won 3 out of 4 regular season games against the bulls, whereas the knicks went a paltry 0-4 against the bulls in the '92 regular season.

:wtf:

the pistons were easily better than the cavs. they were the defending 2 time champion and the bulls bogey team..and to destroy them like they did..well nothing else really needs to be said here.

With a healthy Isiah, I might agree. With the Isiah Detroit had in the '91 playoffs, I'm not sure. The Cavs were extremely talented with great players like Daugherty, Price and Nance in addition to another excellent post scorer in Hot Rod Williams.

the lakers were also much better than the trailblazers coming off a decade of dominance and boasting the best point guard in the nba a top 3 small forward, a top 4 center, and a top 5 power forward.

So Vlade Divac was now a top 4 center in '91? :oldlol: Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem and Daugherty have something to say about that.

I liked Vlade, and Perkins for that matter, I doubt Sam was a top 5 PF too. Worthy wasn't a top 3 SF.

jordan was at his peak in '91 due to his playoff performance so that easily separated him from any other year. pippen was closer to his '91 self than jordan was, but still wasn't as good. the only player that was better in '92 was horace grant.

Pippen and Grant were clearly better in '92. It's not even close or debatable. Jordan's '91 season was very close to '90 and '92. The difference vs '90 was that Jordan had teammates who improved a lot, and he faced a Detroit team that was nowhere near as strong as '90. His level of play and skills were every bit as good in '90, and he had to do even more for that team.

both jordan and pippen had the better regular season in 1992, but once again, the playoffs were the difference. the bulls lost only 1 games, and jordan and pippen both played amazing ball.

Jordan's level of play in both the regular season and playoffs were comparable both years. Pippen had comparable playoff runs both years, but his regular season and overall skills and level of play were too much to make '91 even comparable.

And the '92 Bulls were clearly better than the '91 Bulls.

yeh what about their 12th best player julius nwosu in his 23 games was a nice impact player, he averaged 13 points and 10 rebounds per 36 minutes! why would you trade rodman for filth if he was of any worth to your team?

they thought Rodman was a cancer, and he didn't get along with Robinson. But you can't ignore a 40-9 record with him compared to just 22-11 without him. And Dennis went on to win 3 more titles after Chicago had just lost to Orlando.

oh ya, n don't forget about corey crowder and how well he played in his 7 games for the spurs.

Are you pretending that guys like Elliott, Rodman, Avery Johnson, Chuck Person and Del Negro, or Dale Ellis and Antoine Carr weren't quality players? Del Negro was the worst, but good for a role player.

eliteballer

07-08-2012, 02:46 AM

shep either trolling, is stupid, or didnt actually watch ball back then by the stuff he's saying

Round Mound

07-08-2012, 03:01 AM

Shep is a Jazz Fan and Hates It When People Give CLEAR Evidence on Barkley > Malone or Stockton-To-Malone. :confusedshrug:

Its a Fact that for 10-11 Years Barkley Outplayed and Owned Malone. Malone Got the Better on Barkley from 1995-96 On Cause of Injuries and Loosing the Potence, Agility, Quickness and Leaping Ability He Once Had. NEVER BEFORE

Fat Lever Better than Barkley? :facepalm :rolleyes: GTFO Lost Creability Right There

D.J.

07-08-2012, 03:04 PM

Shep is just trolling. Fat Lever better than Barkley? :facepalm I've heard it all.

Shep

07-09-2012, 04:49 AM

That Sixer team didn't have particularly good offensive players outside of Barkley.
with stockton and sikma they would've had a much more potent offense with alot more options which in turn would be harder to defend.

:oldlol:
:rockon:

And I'd rather have a far more skilled Barkley who wasn't a turnover machine.
how far did those skills get his teams?

Some players are good judges of players, but Pippen is more qualified than anyone to judge what his best season was.
he would've said '94 was his best season so people would think he was at his best when mj wasn't there which was hardly the case at all considering all the season's i've mentioned that he was better than he was in '94..all of those season's playing alongside jordan.

Teams have won titles with 3rd best players who weren't top 50. And I'm not sure Dantley was that low.
how many teams? i am certain he was the 48th best player in 1988.

Not in his prime except '93. He did have good rosters in his first 2 years(though Moses was injured in '86), and Phoenix and Houston. Too bad they didn't come earlier when he was at the top of his game. look what happened in the one prime year that he had a legit contending team in, he got all the way to the finals.
how can the second best year of his career not be included in his prime?

Disagree on Barkley. Not sure if I'd call Moses overrated, at times I thought so, but he was the best player in the league for 2 years in '82 and '83. And he led one of the great teams of all time with a 65-17 record and a 12-1 playoff record. I definitely don't see why Moses gets into some top 10 lists. He was probably the biggest black hole I've seen. I was surprised to see him constantly hold the ball instead of passing when doubled, and then go to a drop step or something and force up a shot against 2 men. That's probably why he had such a horrible assist/turnover ratio. And he didn't seem to be the defensive anchor that the other great centers were considering Houston was often among the worst defensive teams and at times were the worst or 2nd worst. Outside of '81 and '83, his playoff career was disappointing too, and he underachieved with incredibly talented rosters in '84 and '85 including a 1st round upset loss in '84. He was one of the all-time great rebounders and a very good scorer, though. Regardless, outside of the first tier top 5 centers(Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt), I often wonder if he was really a more effective center than some of the other great centers.
lol moses malone wasn't even top 4 in '82, i agree with him being the best player in the nba in '83 tho. and outside that tier you mentioned still above malone on the all time center's list is david robinson, george mikan, and patrick ewing. he is, however, ranked higher than charles barkley :oldlol: .

Now I've heard it all. Barkley was in his prime in Houston? He hadn't been in his prime since '93!
so according to you his prime was from 1993 until 1993? that is the only plausible explanation here.

This is useless, are you really claiming that the Bulls had a comparable team to Detroit in '88?
they were the number 2 and number 3 seed in the eastern conference playoff picture. obviously they did have a comparable team to detroit to only win 4 less games than the pistons over an 82 game season.

Bird definitely had a case for best player in '88. An incredibly well rounded player who averaged 30/9/6 on shooting percentages of 53/41/92 and probably should have been voted MVP.
:oldlol: that was easily michael jordan's mvp. infact it was closer bird and fourth most valuable player clyde drexler than it was between bird and jordan.

Right, because that always proves who the better team is. I forgot that Bird also shot just 35% over 82 games.
yeh it usually proves who the better team is, and then its the players who step up the most is what determines how far a team gets in the playoffs.

I wouldn't call BJ an "awesome well rounded player". Haven't made a list for '94 yet, but I have some doubts about Grant being a top 4 PF. In fact, I know he wasn't. There was Malone, Barkley, Kemp and Coleman.
the playoff's proved grant was better than coleman (40%fg, 5topg, destroyed in the first round)

Revisionist history at it's finest.
:lol :wtf:

Kukoc was playing out of position at PF, yet they were still an elite defensive team. Pippen's all around play was just unbelievable in '94 and '95.
not as unbelievable as in other years, especially 1991

Pippen did do what the team required, hence their 55-27 record, only 2 fewer wins than in '93 with Jordan. And they took the Eastern Conference champion Knicks to 7, and probably would have won the series if not for the ridiculous call by Hue Hollins. '91 Pippen doesn't have that team winning 50 games or contending for a championship.
'91 pippen probably wouldn't have pouted and they probably make the conference finals and puts up alot healthier numbers than the 21.7ppg, 7.7rpg, 4.7apg, 2.0spg, 0.6bpg, 3.3topg, and 41%fg he put up in the knicks series.

They were a 38-44 team, the Bulls demolition of the Knicks shows how much the Knicks were struggling as much as it shows how good the Bulls struggled.
the bulls turned the all-nba second team center into the most disappointing player of the entire playoffs. who was the heat's best player? rony seikaly? :roll:

With a healthy Isiah, I might agree. With the Isiah Detroit had in the '91 playoffs, I'm not sure. The Cavs were extremely talented with great players like Daugherty, Price and Nance in addition to another excellent post scorer in Hot Rod Williams.
talented, but not the defending 2 time nba champion

So Vlade Divac was now a top 4 center in '91? Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem and Daugherty have something to say about that.
daugherty wasn't better than divac. daugherty could barely break the .400 mark and did not participate in playoff action. meanwhile divac was the lakers third best player in the regular season and playoffs and averaged 18.2ppg, 8.8rpg, 2.0apg, 1.8spg, 2.4bpg, and 57%fg in the nba finals while daugherty was getting fat sitting on his couch watching.

I liked Vlade, and Perkins for that matter, I doubt Sam was a top 5 PF too. Worthy wasn't a top 3 SF.
they both were, no need for doubts here you can trust me

Pippen and Grant were clearly better in '92. It's not even close or debatable. Jordan's '91 season was very close to '90 and '92. The difference vs '90 was that Jordan had teammates who improved a lot, and he faced a Detroit team that was nowhere near as strong as '90. His level of play and skills were every bit as good in '90, and he had to do even more for that team.
grant was clearly better, the other two were better in 1991. jordan by a huge margin.

Jordan's level of play in both the regular season and playoffs were comparable both years. Pippen had comparable playoff runs both years, but his regular season and overall skills and level of play were too much to make '91 even comparable.

And the '92 Bulls were clearly better than the '91 Bulls.
jordan's playoff was easily better in 1991. as for pippen, his play in the playoff's proved that he was better in 1991 also.

they thought Rodman was a cancer, and he didn't get along with Robinson. But you can't ignore a 40-9 record with him compared to just 22-11 without him. And Dennis went on to win 3 more titles after Chicago had just lost to Orlando.
they won 59 games the next year after trading rodman for a bag of dirt :roll: robinson also went on to win 2 more titles :bowdown:

Are you pretending that guys like Elliott, Rodman, Avery Johnson, Chuck Person and Del Negro, or Dale Ellis and Antoine Carr weren't quality players? Del Negro was the worst, but good for a role player.
robinson's main teammates were proven to be d-league talent without him

ShaqAttack3234

07-10-2012, 10:38 AM

with stockton and sikma they would've had a much more potent offense with alot more options which in turn would be harder to defend.

Except they'd still suck defensively. That's why they were a losing team. Stockton had just as many scorers in Utah, including a star player who was a perfect fit with him, and Utah was still a mediocre offensive team, and worse than Philly. They can thank Mark Eaton and the defense for their 47 wins.

how far did those skills get his teams?

Funny you mention it, Charles won almost as many games(53) with less talent than he did in '86, and he got just as far in the playoffs(second round). While being a better player, who put up much better numbers.

So '86 Barkley has absolutely no case over '90 Barkley based on level of play, team success and numbers, pretty much everything anyone would use to rank a player.

And '91 Barkley was right on par with '90 Barkley. He won less games partially because he played less. And you've said that games played aren't a factor in ranking players. The '91 Sixers were 39-28 with Barkley, a 48 win pace. And they were clearly worse than his '90 team because he had the same team on paper entering the season, but he pretty much lost Johnny Dawkins for the year(played 4 games), and Mike Gminski declined(13.7 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 45.7 FG% in '90 vs 9.1 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 38.4 FG%).

So Barkley clearly had less help, yet they were 19-11 with Gminski, a 52 win pace, right on par with '90 or '86, despite no Dawkins and Gminski playing like trash.

But they got worse with the Gminski for Gilliam trade because Gilliam didn't fit on the team. So the '91 Sixers were much worse than '90 and Barkley missed 15 games explaining the drop in wins.

But he still got just as far in the playoffs as he did in '90 or '86, making the second round.

There's no case for his '86 season over '90 or '91.

he would've said '94 was his best season so people would think he was at his best when mj wasn't there which was hardly the case at all considering all the season's i've mentioned that he was better than he was in '94..all of those season's playing alongside jordan.

:oldlol: Nice theory, except pretty much everyone said it, and the people who didn't chose '95 or '96 as his best....except you apparently.

how many teams? i am certain he was the 48th best player in 1988.

I don't have top 50 rankings, but probably the '91 Bulls. The only year that I'm pretty sure Grant would make top 50 is '92. I'm unsure about '93.

After Hakeem and Thorpe, who could make top 50 on the '94 Rockets? And Horry played the best ball of his career in the '95 playoffs, but I'm not sure he was at a top 50 level.

I don't see a 3rd best player on the '99 Spurs who is top 50. Neither Avery Johnson or Sean Elliott seem good enough in that stage of their career.

I'm positive that the 3 Laker championship teams from '00-'02 didn't have a 3rd best player who was top 50.

I'm not sure the '03 Spurs did either. The '06 Heat didn't.

how can the second best year of his career not be included in his prime?

Because it's not even remotely close to the second best year of his career.

lol moses malone wasn't even top 4 in '82, i agree with him being the best player in the nba in '83 tho. and outside that tier you mentioned still above malone on the all time center's list is david robinson, george mikan, and patrick ewing. he is, however, ranked higher than charles barkley :oldlol: .

I'd give Moses best player in '82 because there doesn't seem to be anyone else. Kareem was a bit past his prime, though I'm not fully convinced Moses was better yet. Bird had some injuries that affected his play, I believe inthe season and playoffs and he wasn't really in his prime yet.

Dr. J didn't seem to have lost that much, but probably wasn't at his best anymore, and we saw that Moses was clearly better the next year when they played together.

It's tough having not seen an '82 Rockets game, I just have an idea of how Moses played from his other prime years, and have read a bit about his '82 season. I know he had a disappointing playoff series.

He seems to be the best by default.

so according to you his prime was from 1993 until 1993? that is the only plausible explanation here.

His prime clearly started in '88 or '89 and ended after '93.

they were the number 2 and number 3 seed in the eastern conference playoff picture. obviously they did have a comparable team to detroit to only win 4 less games than the pistons over an 82 game season.

:oldlol: that was easily michael jordan's mvp. infact it was closer bird and fourth most valuable player clyde drexler than it was between bird and jordan.

:oldlol: at Bird being closer to Drexler.

Bird definitely had a case over Jordan for MVP. He had a better team, but won 7 more games, and had Boston not rested their best players like Bird and McHale in the last couple of games, they probably win 59 games and keep the Bulls at 49 wins.

Bird was a better passer, and a more mature and unselfish player who was playing a style that seemed to fit better with talent and had a great impact on his teammates than Jordan.

He was getting 9 rpg, a less ball-dominant forward who averaged more assists than Jordan and still averaged 30 ppg with an unbelievable shooting season of 53/41/92. And I'm sure Bird could have scored more had he wanted to/had to.

Jordan was less polished in '88 and not nearly as smart or fundamentally sound defensively so the difference wasn't as great as it'd be later.

Both had a legitimate case for best player and MVP.

yeh it usually proves who the better team is, and then its the players who step up the most is what determines how far a team gets in the playoffs.

Many teams, especially contenders don't go all out in the playoffs.

the playoff's proved grant was better than coleman (40%fg, 5topg, destroyed in the first round)

You really love putting 3rd option types over stars, don't you?

not as unbelievable as in other years, especially 1991

:roll:

'91 pippen probably wouldn't have pouted and they probably make the conference finals and puts up alot healthier numbers than the 21.7ppg, 7.7rpg, 4.7apg, 2.0spg, 0.6bpg, 3.3topg, and 41%fg he put up in the knicks series.

The part about '91 Pippen not pouting is based on nothing. '91 Pippen wasn't the primary focus of opposing defenses and he never faced a defensive team anything like the '94 Knicks who arguably had the toughest defense ever.

The numbers you listed are fine. Shooting % is a bit low, but consider the opponent. He was one horrendous call from taking a 3-2 lead back to Chicago.

'91 Pippen would have to worry about making the playoffs with the '94 team, and he isn't getting out of the first round.

the bulls turned the all-nba second team center into the most disappointing player of the entire playoffs. who was the heat's best player? rony seikaly? :roll:

Do you only judge teams by their best player? Miami also had Glen Rice. Who did the Knicks have around Ewing.

talented, but not the defending 2 time nba champion

And Detroit wasn't at that level by '91 anymore. It was the end of an era, the Knicks knocked them out in the 1st round just the next season.

daugherty wasn't better than divac. daugherty could barely break the .400 mark and did not participate in playoff action. meanwhile divac was the lakers third best player in the regular season and playoffs and averaged 18.2ppg, 8.8rpg, 2.0apg, 1.8spg, 2.4bpg, and 57%fg in the nba finals while daugherty was getting fat sitting on his couch watching.

:oldlol: at comparing team success between a player who was the 4th or 5th best player on his team to a star player.

grant was clearly better, the other two were better in 1991. jordan by a huge margin.

There is really no way to argue that Pippen was better in '91 than '92. There's no way to argue that Pippen was better in '91 than any year from '92-'97.

And there was never a huge margin separating any of Jordan's 3 years from '90-'92, and not a huge difference separating any of his prime years from '89-'93 for that matter.

jordan's playoff was easily better in 1991. as for pippen, his play in the playoff's proved that he was better in 1991 also.

they won 59 games the next year after trading rodman for a bag of dirt :roll: robinson also went on to win 2 more titles :bowdown:

Worse team than with Rodman, and they failed to make it back to the conference finals.

robinson's main teammates were proven to be d-league talent without him

Wow, the D-League is better than I thought, I have to start watching it. Thanks!

Shep

07-13-2012, 03:44 AM

Except they'd still suck defensively. That's why they were a losing team. Stockton had just as many scorers in Utah, including a star player who was a perfect fit with him, and Utah was still a mediocre offensive team, and worse than Philly. They can thank Mark Eaton and the defense for their 47 wins.
utah had nowhere near as many scorers. stockton was a perfect fit for malone because he had the type of unselfish game that would suit playing alongside anyone offensive minded and would only made them a better player because of it. stockton attempted less than 10 field goals per game and scored almost 15 points, and shot at 57% from the field, best among point guards and fourth in the entire league. the jazz still remained one of the best defensive teams in the nba once eaton had been rendered useless a couple of years later.

Funny you mention it, Charles won almost as many games(53) with less talent than he did in '86, and he got just as far in the playoffs(second round). While being a better player, who put up much better numbers.

So '86 Barkley has absolutely no case over '90 Barkley based on level of play, team success and numbers, pretty much everything anyone would use to rank a player.
1990 was barkley's third best year in the nba, and it was relatively close, but if you looked into it it becomes clear.
i will give you the barkley's regular season in 1990 over his in 1986, but only by the smallest of amounts. but then you have to look into what happened in the playoffs.
barkley in the 1986 playoffs:
team record: 6-5
playoff production: 25.0ppg, 15.8rpg, 5.6apg, 2.3spg, 1.3bpg, 58%fg

took the powerful 57 win milwaukee bucks to a 7th game on their home floor that went down to the wire (113-112), all without moses malone and his 24/12, who missed the entire playoffs.

barkley in the 1990 playoffs:
team record: 4-6 (barely scrape past the cavaliers (gets outscored by hersey hawkins for the series), destroyed in the second round).

the sixers required a huge series clinching game 5 against 7th seed cleveland from hersey hawkins who had 39 points meanwhile barkley finished with only 18 on 7/15 fg.

playoff production: 24.7ppg, 15.5rpg, 4.3apg, 0.8spg, 0.7bpg, 54%fg

in 1986 he stepped up the most out of anyone on his team, in 1990 hersey hawkins stepped up more, as did johnney dawkins.

with all this in mind it is and easy decision to make - 1986 barkley was clearly the better player than 1990 barkley.

And '91 Barkley was right on par with '90 Barkley. He won less games partially because he played less. And you've said that games played aren't a factor in ranking players. The '91 Sixers were 39-28 with Barkley, a 48 win pace. And they were clearly worse than his '90 team because he had the same team on paper entering the season, but he pretty much lost Johnny Dawkins for the year(played 4 games), and Mike Gminski declined(13.7 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 45.7 FG% in '90 vs 9.1 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 38.4 FG%).

So Barkley clearly had less help, yet they were 19-11 with Gminski, a 52 win pace, right on par with '90 or '86, despite no Dawkins and Gminski playing like trash.

But they got worse with the Gminski for Gilliam trade because Gilliam didn't fit on the team. So the '91 Sixers were much worse than '90 and Barkley missed 15 games explaining the drop in wins.

But he still got just as far in the playoffs as he did in '90 or '86, making the second round.

There's no case for his '86 season over '90 or '91.
i don't use missed games, but i also don't use the record with them/without them due to the fact that he should be out on the court at all times for his team, so if the team does not so well without them then he will be also held accountable for this.

it is very close between barkley in 1990 and 1991. in 1990 he was better in the regular season, but in 1991 he was better in the playoffs. overall he was better in 1990 due to his very strong regular season. hersey hawkins also elevated his game huge in 1991 and was the third best shooting guard in the nba, only behind jordan and drexler. gilliam came in and provided some spark, and overall i'd say they had a slightly deeper team with the likes of mahorn, anderson, green, turner, and bol.

Nice theory, except pretty much everyone said it, and the people who didn't chose '95 or '96 as his best....except you apparently.
:confusedshrug: don't care what everyone says :confusedshrug:

I don't have top 50 rankings
well i'm not going to discuss this if you don't have a list to back up your statements.

Because it's not even remotely close to the second best year of his career.
:hammerhead:

I'd give Moses best player in '82 because there doesn't seem to be anyone else. Kareem was a bit past his prime, though I'm not fully convinced Moses was better yet. Bird had some injuries that affected his play, I believe inthe season and playoffs and he wasn't really in his prime yet.

Dr. J didn't seem to have lost that much, but probably wasn't at his best anymore, and we saw that Moses was clearly better the next year when they played together.

It's tough having not seen an '82 Rockets game, I just have an idea of how Moses played from his other prime years, and have read a bit about his '82 season. I know he had a disappointing playoff series.

He seems to be the best by default.
better players than moses malone in 1982 were magic johnson, kareem abdul-jabbar, larry bird, and julius erving.

His prime clearly started in '88 or '89 and ended after '93.
but his peak 2 season's were 1993, then 1986

at Bird being closer to Drexler.
:oldlol: at bird being close to jordan

Bird definitely had a case over Jordan for MVP. He had a better team, but won 7 more games, and had Boston not rested their best players like Bird and McHale in the last couple of games, they probably win 59 games and keep the Bulls at 49 wins.

Bird was a better passer, and a more mature and unselfish player who was playing a style that seemed to fit better with talent and had a great impact on his teammates than Jordan.

He was getting 9 rpg, a less ball-dominant forward who averaged more assists than Jordan and still averaged 30 ppg with an unbelievable shooting season of 53/41/92. And I'm sure Bird could have scored more had he wanted to/had to.

Jordan was less polished in '88 and not nearly as smart or fundamentally sound defensively so the difference wasn't as great as it'd be later.

Both had a legitimate case for best player and MVP.
jordan had the bulls improved 10 games from the season prior with more or less the same roster, played all 82 games, and averaged 35.0ppg, 5.5rpg, 5.9apg, 3.2spg, 1.6bpg, on 54%fg and won 50 games. his second best player probably wasn't in the top 10 at his position. jordan was named defensive player of the year, and led the league in minutes played, field goals, free throws, steals, and points.

Many teams, especially contenders don't go all out in the playoffs.
:wtf:

You really love putting 3rd option types over stars, don't you?
just as much as you love putting losers over winners

The part about '91 Pippen not pouting is based on nothing. '91 Pippen wasn't the primary focus of opposing defenses and he never faced a defensive team anything like the '94 Knicks who arguably had the toughest defense ever.

The numbers you listed are fine. Shooting % is a bit low, but consider the opponent. He was one horrendous call from taking a 3-2 lead back to Chicago.

'91 Pippen would have to worry about making the playoffs with the '94 team, and he isn't getting out of the first round.
'91 pippen would definately step up in the playoffs rather than step down and increase his level of productivity and do what the team needed him to do to be successful. '91 pippen was better than anyone in the '94 league not named hakeem and they more than likely make it back to the finals.

Do you only judge teams by their best player? Miami also had Glen Rice. Who did the Knicks have around Ewing.
no, but i'd definately rather face a franchise playing in its first ever playoff series than a guy coming off a top 6 season. the knicks also had tough seasoned veteran's such as charles oakley, maurice cheeks, and gerald wilkins.

And Detroit wasn't at that level by '91 anymore. It was the end of an era, the Knicks knocked them out in the 1st round just the next season.
the 1991 bulls officially ended that era

at comparing team success between a player who was the 4th or 5th best player on his team to a star player.
divac was actually the third best player on the lakers in the regular season and the playoffs. daugherty could only dream about putting up those numbers in the playoffs..instead he didn't even make them :oldlol:

There is really no way to argue that Pippen was better in '91 than '92. There's no way to argue that Pippen was better in '91 than any year from '92-'97.
i've already destroyed this about 10 times

And there was never a huge margin separating any of Jordan's 3 years from '90-'92, and not a huge difference separating any of his prime years from '89-'93 for that matter.
see above

Worse team than with Rodman, and they failed to make it back to the conference finals.
so the difference between rodman and perdue is 3 wins

Wow, the D-League is better than I thought, I have to start watching it. Thanks!
not really, it is filled with filth. but put any of those guys on a roster with prime robinson and he would make it work.

ShaqAttack3234

07-15-2012, 01:12 AM

utah had nowhere near as many scorers. stockton was a perfect fit for malone because he had the type of unselfish game that would suit playing alongside anyone offensive minded and would only made them a better player because of it. stockton attempted less than 10 field goals per game and scored almost 15 points, and shot at 57% from the field, best among point guards and fourth in the entire league. the jazz still remained one of the best defensive teams in the nba once eaton had been rendered useless a couple of years later.

Utah had 4-5 scorers outside of Stockton, one of them being a superstar and one of the league's top scorers, the other Thurl Bailey being a better scorer than any of Barkley's teammates.

And Utah's defense did decline significantly after Eaton declined, though they remained good, until '93.

1990 was barkley's third best year in the nba, and it was relatively close, but if you looked into it it becomes clear.
i will give you the barkley's regular season in 1990 over his in 1986, but only by the smallest of amounts.

I don't see it as remotely close, but at least we're on the same page about which is the better regular season.

but then you have to look into what happened in the playoffs.

The Cavs being a 7th seed is deceptive. Daugherty missed 41 games and Nance missed 20. With those 2 healthy, as they were in the playoffs in addition to Price, Williams and Ehlo, that's easily a 50+ win team, and more talented than the Sixers. Much more formidable than the '86 Bullets.

regarding game 5 vs the Cavs, Barkley also had 19 rebounds, and I've seen that game, he played well.

As far as the Milwaukee series, their best player Sidney Moncrief only played 3 games in the series, and Milwaukee won all 3 of the games that Moncrief played, so that also takes away from how impressive taking the Bucks to 7 was.

I have been critical of Barkley for not tying the series 2-2 with Pippen out for a game 4 in Phildelphia, particularly since Barkley didn't play that well in the series outside of game 1 and 3, and I thought the Bulls and Sixers had pretty comparable rosters to begin with. But I can't be too critical considering prime/peak Jordan was playing flawless basketball, as well as an individual can play.

with all this in mind it is and easy decision to make - 1986 barkley was clearly the better player than 1990 barkley.

I don't see how 10-11 games would be enough to overcome the clearly superior regular season. I'm not denying that his '86 playoff run was better, I can't say for sure having seen more '90 games than '86 playoff games, but the numbers are very close, and that's with a faster pace in '86.

i don't use missed games, but i also don't use the record with them/without them due to the fact that he should be out on the court at all times for his team, so if the team does not so well without them then he will be also held accountable for this.

This doesn't make sense to me because injuries happen, and you can't play through them all. I don't think Barkley is helping his team by playing when limited instead of letting the injury heal so he can be 100% in the playoffs.

Plus, seeing the team have twice as many losses as wins when he was out, and then a very respectable record with him shows how much of a positive impact Charles made on his team.

it is very close between barkley in 1990 and 1991. in 1990 he was better in the regular season, but in 1991 he was better in the playoffs. overall he was better in 1990 due to his very strong regular season. hersey hawkins also elevated his game huge in 1991 and was the third best shooting guard in the nba, only behind jordan and drexler. gilliam came in and provided some spark, and overall i'd say they had a slightly deeper team with the likes of mahorn, anderson, green, turner, and bol.

I can agree with your reasoning, and probably would lean towards '90 over '91 as well. Also because he just impressed me more watching '90 Barkley games vs '91 games. But there's no doubt in my mind that his '91 team was worse.

better players than moses malone in 1982 were magic johnson, kareem abdul-jabbar, larry bird, and julius erving.

Kareem and Bird do have a case, so I can't really argue with either, but Moses did seem to be the dominant player of the year.

Magic definitely wasn't as good as Moses yet, though. He had not added his outside shot or post game, 2 things which made him a really good half court player, but in '82, he still relied on transition opportunities, which is why he's below these other 4.

but his peak 2 season's were 1993, then 1986

'93 has a case for being his best season, I think I could make a solid case for that. It's tough to separate his years from '89-'93, his level of play was remarkably consistent with the exception of '92. His 2 peak seasons are somewhere there. '88 isn't that far behind.

jordan had the bulls improved 10 games from the season prior with more or less the same roster, played all 82 games, and averaged 35.0ppg, 5.5rpg, 5.9apg, 3.2spg, 1.6bpg, on 54%fg and won 50 games. his second best player probably wasn't in the top 10 at his position. jordan was named defensive player of the year, and led the league in minutes played, field goals, free throws, steals, and points.

Jordan had a tremendous season, but so did Bird.

Jordan was probably the more dominant and explosive scorer by that point, bur Bird averaged 30 points himself. And he did so on as amazing of a shooting season as you'll see. 53% from the field, 41% on 3s and 92% from the line.

Bird played better without the ball at that point, he was the better shooter from all areas, was crafty in the post and a more effective post player at that point and was scoring in a role where he had to fit in more with all of the other weapons on the team instead of being the team.

Bird was also the best rebounder at his position. He averaged 9 boards while playing with Robert Parish, who averaged 12.5 rpg the next season without Bird, and Kevin McHale, who was a solid rebounding power forward.

And Bird was not only the best passer at his position by far, but one of the best passers in the league. Outside of Magic, and maybe Stockton, who else could you say was a better passer. Bird averaged more assists as a forward with a less ball-dominant role than Jordan did as a guard.

It's close, I'm not arguing that Bird was better, just that it's close, because I'm not sure who I'd choose yet. But I can see a teamhaving a better chance to win a title with Bird than Jordan at that point in their careers.

Larry also won 57 games, and probably would have won 59 if Bird and other starters didn't rest/sit out on the last 2 games which meant nothing. And without his second best player Kevin McHale, Bird led the Celtics to a 10-3 record, and a 9-2 record excluding the games Bird played limited minutes in.

'91 pippen would definately step up in the playoffs rather than step down and increase his level of productivity and do what the team needed him to do to be successful. '91 pippen was better than anyone in the '94 league not named hakeem and they more than likely make it back to the finals.

'94 Pippen was arguably the second best player in the league. I'm laughing at the thought of '91 Pippen as the primary focus of the legendary '94 Knicks defense. Not that he'd have probably gotten to the second round in the 1st place.

no, but i'd definately rather face a franchise playing in its first ever playoff series than a guy coming off a top 6 season. the knicks also had tough seasoned veteran's such as charles oakley, maurice cheeks, and gerald wilkins.

Both were poor teams, no matter how good Ewing was. the Knicks were a 39-43 team and Miami were a 38-44 team, both teams were swept.

the 1991 bulls officially ended that era

Yeah, and it helped that Isiah was injured throughout the year and Detroit had gone from 63 wins in '89 and 59 in '90 to just 50 in '91. And then a 48 win team that lost in the 1st round in '92.

divac was actually the third best player on the lakers in the regular season and the playoffs. daugherty could only dream about putting up those numbers in the playoffs..instead he didn't even make them :oldlol:

:oldlol: Are you serious? Daugherty could only dream of putting up 13.3 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 1.1 apg, 2.2 TO, 2.2 bpg, 1.4 spg, 56.4 FG%? Vlade did that in 19 games, just the next season, Daugherty put up 21.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 2.2 TO, 1 bpg, 52.8 FG% absolutely destroying Vlade's numbers from '91.

so the difference between rodman and perdue is 3 wins

Not at all. The Spurs were on a phenomenal 67 win pace with Rodman in '95 at 40-9, and just a 55 win pace without him at 22-11. They lost 2 more games in 16 fewer games. He made the all-nba 3rd team while playing just 49 games.

not really, it is filled with filth. but put any of those guys on a roster with prime robinson and he would make it work.

When Robinson went down for the final 14 games of the '92 season, Elliott raised his game to 18 ppg on 49% shooting 20 ppg on 48% in the playoffs. Cummings and Carr raised their games as much in that or much more in Cummings case. Strickland kept up his solid play.

So it doesn't look like any of his best players on the '92 team, including Elliott, struggled to produce without him.

fpliii

07-15-2012, 01:14 AM

nothing to contribute, but this is a ridiculous back and forth

so fvcking intense here, holy sh*t

Shep

07-16-2012, 02:58 AM

Utah had 4-5 scorers outside of Stockton, one of them being a superstar and one of the league's top scorers, the other Thurl Bailey being a better scorer than any of Barkley's teammates.

And Utah's defense did decline significantly after Eaton declined, though they remained good, until '93.
4 out of 5 guys were averaging 15 points. any one of the 4 could step up and score 25 on any given night.

eaton was a non factor from 1990 onwards and they still won 55+ games

I don't see it as remotely close, but at least we're on the same page about which is the better regular season.
only by the smallest of amounts tho

The Cavs being a 7th seed is deceptive. Daugherty missed 41 games and Nance missed 20. With those 2 healthy, as they were in the playoffs in addition to Price, Williams and Ehlo, that's easily a 50+ win team, and more talented than the Sixers. Much more formidable than the '86 Bullets.
the main reason the cavaliers struggled so much during the regular season was because they traded away a top 2 shooting guard in ron harper for filth. daugherty and price were nice players, but this wasn't a powerful team by any stretch of the imagination, especially with the fact that they hadn't been together all year with people missing time due to injury.
daugherty and nance were average all season long, and nance played even worse in that series, dipping to 12 points and 5 rebounds per game. price was consistant, but even he wasn't top 5 at his position.

the bullets were one of the best defenses in the league and althought they might not have had the talent that cleveland did, what they did do was every player played out of their skins to take those sixers to 5 games.

manute bol went from 3.7ppg, 6.0rpg, 0.3apg, 0.4spg, 5.0bpg
to 4.6ppg, 7.6rpg, 0.2apg, 0.6spg, 5.8bpg

gus williams went from 13.5ppg, 2.2rpg, 5.9apg, 1.2spg, 0.2bpg
to 18.2ppg, 2.0rpg, 6.6apg, 2.2spg, 0.0bpg

cliff robinson went from 18.7ppg, 8.7rpg, 2.4apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg
to 21.4ppg, 8.6rpg, 3.4apg, 2.0spg, 0.6bpg

jeff malone went from 22.4ppg, 3.6rpg, 2.4apg, 0.9spg, 0.2bpg
to 22.0ppg, 3.2rpg, 3.4apg, 1.4spg, 0.6bpg

dan roundfield went from 11.6ppg, 8.1rpg, 2.1apg, 0.5spg, 0.6bpg
to 14.0ppg, 9.2rpg, 2.0apg, 0.4spg, 0.8bpg

regarding game 5 vs the Cavs, Barkley also had 19 rebounds, and I've seen that game, he played well.
hawkins played better, and played more like a star player. 39/4/2/4 14/26 fg 4/6 3p 7/8 ft. barkley 7/15 fg 0/3 3p 4/7 ft.

As far as the Milwaukee series, their best player Sidney Moncrief only played 3 games in the series, and Milwaukee won all 3 of the games that Moncrief played, so that also takes away from how impressive taking the Bucks to 7 was.
pressey and cummings were the bucks two best players and they were there for all 7 games.

I don't see how 10-11 games would be enough to overcome the clearly superior regular season. I'm not denying that his '86 playoff run was better, I can't say for sure having seen more '90 games than '86 playoff games, but the numbers are very close, and that's with a faster pace in '86.
pace is already taken into consideration here. and 12 playoff games are enough to overcome a regular season in this case due to:
1. the regular season being almost inseparable, and
2. his 1986 playoff's being easily superior

This doesn't make sense to me because injuries happen, and you can't play through them all. I don't think Barkley is helping his team by playing when limited instead of letting the injury heal so he can be 100% in the playoffs.
injuries happen, but players who miss more games than players who don't miss games are less valuable to their respective teams.

Plus, seeing the team have twice as many losses as wins when he was out, and then a very respectable record with him shows how much of a positive impact Charles made on his team.
so he holds more responsibility for the losses

Kareem and Bird do have a case, so I can't really argue with either, but Moses did seem to be the dominant player of the year.

Magic definitely wasn't as good as Moses yet, though. He had not added his outside shot or post game, 2 things which made him a really good half court player, but in '82, he still relied on transition opportunities, which is why he's below these other 4.
magic johnson led the lakers to second best record in the nba and championship, where he also won finals most valuable player. magic led the lakers to a 12-2 playoff record, and stepped up the most out of all players who participated in the playoffs averaging close to a triple double with 17.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 9.3apg, 2.9spg, on 53%fg and 83%ft after completing a regular season with averages of 18.6ppg, 9.6rpg, 9.5apg, 2.7spg on 54%fg and 76%ft.

'93 has a case for being his best season, I think I could make a solid case for that. It's tough to separate his years from '89-'93, his level of play was remarkably consistent with the exception of '92. His 2 peak seasons are somewhere there. '88 isn't that far behind.
1993 was his peak by a huge margin. followed by 1995, 1986, 1994, 1990, 1991, 1997, 1987, 1988, and 1996.

Shep

07-16-2012, 02:58 AM

Jordan had a tremendous season, but so did Bird.

Jordan was probably the more dominant and explosive scorer by that point, bur Bird averaged 30 points himself. And he did so on as amazing of a shooting season as you'll see. 53% from the field, 41% on 3s and 92% from the line.

Bird played better without the ball at that point, he was the better shooter from all areas, was crafty in the post and a more effective post player at that point and was scoring in a role where he had to fit in more with all of the other weapons on the team instead of being the team.

Bird was also the best rebounder at his position. He averaged 9 boards while playing with Robert Parish, who averaged 12.5 rpg the next season without Bird, and Kevin McHale, who was a solid rebounding power forward.

And Bird was not only the best passer at his position by far, but one of the best passers in the league. Outside of Magic, and maybe Stockton, who else could you say was a better passer. Bird averaged more assists as a forward with a less ball-dominant role than Jordan did as a guard.

It's close, I'm not arguing that Bird was better, just that it's close, because I'm not sure who I'd choose yet. But I can see a teamhaving a better chance to win a title with Bird than Jordan at that point in their careers.

Larry also won 57 games, and probably would have won 59 if Bird and other starters didn't rest/sit out on the last 2 games which meant nothing. And without his second best player Kevin McHale, Bird led the Celtics to a 10-3 record, and a 9-2 record excluding the games Bird played limited minutes in.
larry bird was playing alongside 3 other hall of famers beside himself (including a top 2 power forward), where as jordan's next best teammate's consisted of a top 8 power forward, and dave corzine, yet the bulls still managed to only win 7 less games than the mighty celtics with a good enough record for third in the east. jordan also did not need to rest/sit out games.

jordan was the best offensive player in the league, and the best defensive player in the league. he led the bulls in points(almost tripling the second best scorers average), assists, minutes, steals, blocks, field goal percentage, and free throw percentage. there was no team that relied on 1 player more in the league..maybe even all time.

'94 Pippen was arguably the second best player in the league. I'm laughing at the thought of '91 Pippen as the primary focus of the legendary '94 Knicks defense. Not that he'd have probably gotten to the second round in the 1st place.
pippen wasn't even top 4 in '94. 1991 pippen averaged 22.0ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.3apg, 3.0spg, 2.0bpg, 48%fg against the great defense of detroit in 1991. with the ball in his hands alot more i can see him easily scoring atleast 5 more points per game.

Both were poor teams, no matter how good Ewing was. the Knicks were a 39-43 team and Miami were a 38-44 team, both teams were swept.
the knicks were a tougher matchup for the bulls

Yeah, and it helped that Isiah was injured throughout the year and Detroit had gone from 63 wins in '89 and 59 in '90 to just 50 in '91. And then a 48 win team that lost in the 1st round in '92.
who cares what happened in 1992? we saw detroit win consecutive championships and then get swept out of the playoff's the next season by the chicago bulls with its 2 best players at their respective peaks.

Are you serious? Daugherty could only dream of putting up 13.3 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 1.1 apg, 2.2 TO, 2.2 bpg, 1.4 spg, 56.4 FG%? Vlade did that in 19 games, just the next season, Daugherty put up 21.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 2.2 TO, 1 bpg, 52.8 FG% absolutely destroying Vlade's numbers from '91.
we were talking about divac's performance in the finals. saving the best for last and stepping up the most against the best competition, divac averaged 18.2ppg, 8.8rpg, 2.0apg, 1.8spg, and 2.4bpg, on 57%fg

Not at all. The Spurs were on a phenomenal 67 win pace with Rodman in '95 at 40-9, and just a 55 win pace without him at 22-11. They lost 2 more games in 16 fewer games. He made the all-nba 3rd team while playing just 49 games.
lol@that all nba team selection. give me vin baker and larry johnson on my third team easily over rodman, not to mention countless others. the wins amounted to nothing and they'd rather have a bag of dirt rather than him, proving his real worth to that franchise.

When Robinson went down for the final 14 games of the '92 season, Elliott raised his game to 18 ppg on 49% shooting 20 ppg on 48% in the playoffs. Cummings and Carr raised their games as much in that or much more in Cummings case. Strickland kept up his solid play.

So it doesn't look like any of his best players on the '92 team, including Elliott, struggled to produce without him.
5-9 over those games. give me a bigger sample size, like hmm..maybe 82 games in for example 1994 tho? how did elliott fare this time around.

Dragonyeuw

07-16-2012, 08:44 AM

you forgot the other 5 that were also better than barkley: john stockton, isiah thomas, fat lever, james worthy, and dominique wilkins.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ioASlOLSz10/T-TmHh8V1wI/AAAAAAAAAZw/RfQlIUQLcf8/s1600/Implied-Facepalm.jpg

The things I read on this board.....:hammerhead:

willds09

07-16-2012, 08:45 AM

barkley needs to shut tha fuhk up:rolleyes:

D.J.

07-16-2012, 02:35 PM

barkley needs to shut tha fuhk up:rolleyes:

Shep first.

ShaqAttack3234

07-16-2012, 06:22 PM

4 out of 5 guys were averaging 15 points. any one of the 4 could step up and score 25 on any given night.

And look at Stockton's own roster in Utah. Malone was averaging 28 per game, forget about 25 on any given night, he was giving you 25+ virtually every night. Far beyond anyone Stockton would have in that utah lineup. Then there was Thurl Bailey, averaging about 20 per game, raised that to 23 per game in the playoffs, and was only Utah's second best scorer, but better than any scorer Stockton would have in Philly. Darrell Griffith averaged 11 ppg in just 20 mpg off the bench, 15 per game in the 11 games he started and two seasons removed from a 23 ppg season as a starter. They also had Kelly Tripucka who was in a limited role in Utah, but he had averaged 20 per game prior to being traded there, and he would averaged 23 per game the very next season when he left Utah.

Stockton clearly had 4 teammates capable of 25 on any given night in those guys, yet Utah was an inferior offensive team to Philly.

eaton was a non factor from 1990 onwards and they still won 55+ games

And did they still have the best defensive team in the league statistically like they did in '88 or '89(Eaton's DPOY season)? No. They didn't approach it. They kept winning partially because both Malone and Stockton improved, and they also retooled their roster, first with Jeff Malone and later, Jeff Hornacek.

Eaton couldn't be called a non-factor until '93 either. He was still a great shot blocker and presence. It should come as no surprise that when Eaton's minutes were limited to 18 during his final season in '93, the Jazz dropped from a 55 win team and top 7 defensive team in '92 to a 47 win team and the 13th best defensive team in '93.

only by the smallest of amounts tho

Doesn't look small to me.

the main reason the cavaliers struggled so much during the regular season was because they traded away a top 2 shooting guard in ron harper for filth. daugherty and price were nice players, but this wasn't a powerful team by any stretch of the imagination, especially with the fact that they hadn't been together all year with people missing time due to injury.
daugherty and nance were average all season long, and nance played even worse in that series, dipping to 12 points and 5 rebounds per game. price was consistant, but even he wasn't top 5 at his position.

Ron Harper was not a top 2 shooting guard. And Mark Price was a top 5 point guard. one of the players from that era that gets underrated the most. Only Magic Johnson, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton were better at that position.

The obvious reason that the Cavs struggled was simply injuries. Pretty much the same team won 57 games when healthy in '92 and got to the ECF.

the bullets were one of the best defenses in the league and althought they might not have had the talent that cleveland did, what they did do was every player played out of their skins to take those sixers to 5 games.

manute bol went from 3.7ppg, 6.0rpg, 0.3apg, 0.4spg, 5.0bpg
to 4.6ppg, 7.6rpg, 0.2apg, 0.6spg, 5.8bpg

gus williams went from 13.5ppg, 2.2rpg, 5.9apg, 1.2spg, 0.2bpg
to 18.2ppg, 2.0rpg, 6.6apg, 2.2spg, 0.0bpg

cliff robinson went from 18.7ppg, 8.7rpg, 2.4apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg
to 21.4ppg, 8.6rpg, 3.4apg, 2.0spg, 0.6bpg

jeff malone went from 22.4ppg, 3.6rpg, 2.4apg, 0.9spg, 0.2bpg
to 22.0ppg, 3.2rpg, 3.4apg, 1.4spg, 0.6bpg

dan roundfield went from 11.6ppg, 8.1rpg, 2.1apg, 0.5spg, 0.6bpg
to 14.0ppg, 9.2rpg, 2.0apg, 0.4spg, 0.8bpg

And I'd much rather face that team than a team with, not only a star duo of Price/Daugherty, but a big 3 with Nance. Not many teams have 4th best players as good as Hot Rod Williams.

hawkins played better, and played more like a star player. 39/4/2/4 14/26 fg 4/6 3p 7/8 ft. barkley 7/15 fg 0/3 3p 4/7 ft.

Why are you posting Hawkins' entire stats, and just Barkley's shooting numbers? And I'm not seeing the point here. Hawkins having a great game shouldn't take away from Barkley. Charles played well too, and had some big games that series.

pressey and cummings were the bucks two best players and they were there for all 7 games.

Since when are those 2 players better than Sidney Moncrief. It's probably no coincidence that the Sixers did not beat the Bucks with Moncrief in the lineup.

pace is already taken into consideration here. and 12 playoff games are enough to overcome a regular season in this case due to:
1. the regular season being almost inseparable, and
2. his 1986 playoff's being easily superior

The regular season is actually what's easily superior, and the playoffs seem close.

injuries happen, but players who miss more games than players who don't miss games are less valuable to their respective teams.

If we were talking about regular season MVP voting, I might agree, but we're talking about best player, which includes the playoffs.

so he holds more responsibility for the losses

:oldlol: No. it shows Barkley was good enough to carry a weak team to a solid record and the playoffs.

magic johnson led the lakers to second best record in the nba and championship, where he also won finals most valuable player. magic led the lakers to a 12-2 playoff record, and stepped up the most out of all players who participated in the playoffs averaging close to a triple double with 17.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 9.3apg, 2.9spg, on 53%fg and 83%ft after completing a regular season with averages of 18.6ppg, 9.6rpg, 9.5apg, 2.7spg on 54%fg and 76%ft.

Actually, Kareem led that team. He was their 1st option, their best scorer, go to player in the clutch, the guy on the team who drew double teams and far more of an impact player defensively than Magic with his 3 blocks per game, while Magic was never a good defender.

Magic before adding the outside shot, as well as the post game, simply wasn't a good enough half court player to be in this discussion.

1993 was his peak by a huge margin. followed by 1995, 1986, 1994, 1990, 1991, 1997, 1987, 1988, and 1996.

:oldlol: Where the **** did '95 come from? I thought you were claiming '86 to be his second best. Both are laughable.

'90, '91 and '93 are his top 3, put them in whatever order you like. '89 was his 4th best season, and he was pretty much as good as those other 3 seasons. '88 is 5th.

:oldlol: at '97 Barkley being better than prime '89 Barkley.

larry bird was playing alongside 3 other hall of famers beside himself (including a top 2 power forward), where as jordan's next best teammate's consisted of a top 8 power forward, and dave corzine, yet the bulls still managed to only win 7 less games than the mighty celtics with a good enough record for third in the east. jordan also did not need to rest/sit out games.

jordan was the best offensive player in the league, and the best defensive player in the league. he led the bulls in points(almost tripling the second best scorers average), assists, minutes, steals, blocks, field goal percentage, and free throw percentage. there was no team that relied on 1 player more in the league..maybe even all time.

the 7 win margin is deceptive because the Bulls probably don't win 50 and the Celtics probably win 58-59 if Bird and their other best palyers don't rest the final 2 games.

:oldlol: at '88 Jordan being the best defensive player in the league. It's very debatable whether he was a better overall offensive player than '88 Bird who was a great scorer himself, a better shooter from all areas than '88 Jordan, better without the ball, the better post player and the superior passer

pippen wasn't even top 4 in '94. 1991 pippen averaged 22.0ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.3apg, 3.0spg, 2.0bpg, 48%fg against the great defense of detroit in 1991. with the ball in his hands alot more i can see him easily scoring atleast 5 more points per game.

Pippen had prime/peak MJ as the '91 Pistons' focus. And their defense paled in comparison to the '94 Knicks.

It's just a laughable argument that can't be backed up. '91 wasn't even one of Pippen's top 5 seasons.

the knicks were a tougher matchup for the bulls

Not the '91 team. the '91 Knicks lost all 4 games in the regular season to Chicago, 3 of them by 10 points.

who cares what happened in 1992? we saw detroit win consecutive championships and then get swept out of the playoff's the next season by the chicago bulls with its 2 best players at their respective peaks.

Their '92 season is as relevant to '91 as their championship seasons are. Peak '94 Pippen on the '91 Bulls would have been devastating, I guess the '92 team was relatively close to that.

we were talking about divac's performance in the finals. saving the best for last and stepping up the most against the best competition, divac averaged 18.2ppg, 8.8rpg, 2.0apg, 1.8spg, and 2.4bpg, on 57%fg

Daugherty has put up better numbers for an entire 17 game playoff run, and entire seasons, much less a 5 game losing series.

lol@that all nba team selection. give me vin baker and larry johnson on my third team easily over rodman, not to mention countless others. the wins amounted to nothing and they'd rather have a bag of dirt rather than him, proving his real worth to that franchise.

And they failed to get back to the conference finals without him in '96 like they did in '95.

5-9 over those games. give me a bigger sample size, like hmm..maybe 82 games in for example 1994 tho? how did elliott fare this time around.

'94 was in a completely different team and system, as well as a losing atmosphere.

Round Mound

07-16-2012, 06:34 PM

[B]Shep Constantly Avoids the Statistical Evidence I Pointed To.

Barkley was the Best PF Ever for Nearly 11 Years...Where Yes, He Owned Malone for Those.

Malone Got the Better of Barkey when Charles himself said "I Thank Houston For Treating Me Like An All Star Even Though I Couldn`t Play Anymore"

Shaqattack Shep

tontoz

07-16-2012, 06:37 PM

Barkley was a better go to scorer for sure but Malone was easily a better defender. Not an easy call. I am not sure who i would take, probably Malone due to the defense. But Malone's lack of 1 on 1 offense definitely hurt him in the playoffs.

Round Mound

07-16-2012, 06:59 PM

Shep

07-17-2012, 01:48 AM

And look at Stockton's own roster in Utah. Malone was averaging 28 per game, forget about 25 on any given night, he was giving you 25+ virtually every night. Far beyond anyone Stockton would have in that utah lineup. Then there was Thurl Bailey, averaging about 20 per game, raised that to 23 per game in the playoffs, and was only Utah's second best scorer, but better than any scorer Stockton would have in Philly. Darrell Griffith averaged 11 ppg in just 20 mpg off the bench, 15 per game in the 11 games he started and two seasons removed from a 23 ppg season as a starter. They also had Kelly Tripucka who was in a limited role in Utah, but he had averaged 20 per game prior to being traded there, and he would averaged 23 per game the very next season when he left Utah.

Stockton clearly had 4 teammates capable of 25 on any given night in those guys, yet Utah was an inferior offensive team to Philly.
lol, yes lets mention kelly tripucka and his 7 points per contest..huge contributer that man was.

stockton had 2 scorers on the jazz, put him and sikma on the sixers in place of barkley and cheeks and you have a line up like this:

C Mike Gminski (16.9ppg, 10.5rpg, 1.8apg, 0.8spg, 1.8bpg)
PF Jack Sikma (16.5ppg, 8.6rpg, 3.4apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg)
SF Cliff Robinson (19.0ppg, 6.5rpg, 2.1apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg)
SG Gerald Henderson/David Wingate
PG John Stockton (14.7ppg, 2.9rpg, 13.8apg, 3.0spg)

so that is 4 out of 5 starters capable of putting up big offensive numbers on any given night. then you factor in 5 or 6 more field goals per night and everybody is scoring more, and the sixers are winning more due to the fact that they are much harder to defend with so many offensive weapons.

stockton also increased his playoff scoring to 19.5ppg.

And did they still have the best defensive team in the league statistically like they did in '88 or '89(Eaton's DPOY season)? No. They didn't approach it. They kept winning partially because both Malone and Stockton improved, and they also retooled their roster, first with Jeff Malone and later, Jeff Hornacek.

Eaton couldn't be called a non-factor until '93 either. He was still a great shot blocker and presence. It should come as no surprise that when Eaton's minutes were limited to 18 during his final season in '93, the Jazz dropped from a 55 win team and top 7 defensive team in '92 to a 47 win team and the 13th best defensive team in '93.
they missed eaton so much that the year after he left they replaced him with felton spencer, got much better defensively, won 6 more games, and made the conference finals :roll:

Doesn't look small to me.
:lol

Ron Harper was not a top 2 shooting guard. And Mark Price was a top 5 point guard. one of the players from that era that gets underrated the most. Only Magic Johnson, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton were better at that position.
yes, ron harper was a top 2 shooting guard, only behind michael jordan at that point. also better than mark price in 1990 was terry porter.

The obvious reason that the Cavs struggled was simply injuries. Pretty much the same team won 57 games when healthy in '92 and got to the ECF.
they weren't the same. 1992 larry nance does not average 12 points and 5 rebounds per game in 1990. daugherty and nance were better in 1992 by a huge margin, and the cavs easily handle the sixers.

And I'd much rather face that team than a team with, not only a star duo of Price/Daugherty, but a big 3 with Nance. Not many teams have 4th best players as good as Hot Rod Williams.
lol at this star duo. first of all price and williams were the cavaliers best 2 players, daugherty was trash all year. daugherty was the cavs fourth best player.

i'd rather face a team in which its third best player struggles all series and puts up 12/5 than face a team in which every one of their best 5 players steps up and plays huge.

Why are you posting Hawkins' entire stats, and just Barkley's shooting numbers? And I'm not seeing the point here. Hawkins having a great game shouldn't take away from Barkley. Charles played well too, and had some big games that series.
the best player is the one that steps up in huge games..and in this particular case it wasn't barkley, but hawkins who stepped up.

Since when are those 2 players better than Sidney Moncrief. It's probably no coincidence that the Sixers did not beat the Bucks with Moncrief in the lineup.
since 1986. not really any coincidence there, considering any team that loses a third best player on your roster who is also 1st team all defense is going to struggle, especially in the playoffs. having moncrief didn't seem to have any impact in the celtics series - getting swept with him playing 3 of 4 games.

The regular season is actually what's easily superior, and the playoffs seem close.
:roll:

If we were talking about regular season MVP voting, I might agree, but we're talking about best player, which includes the playoffs.
yes, best player is what we are talking about - this is correct.

No. it shows Barkley was good enough to carry a weak team to a solid record and the playoffs.
not good enough to carry it to more wins and a better playoff showing tho

Shep

07-17-2012, 01:49 AM

Actually, Kareem led that team. He was their 1st option, their best scorer, go to player in the clutch, the guy on the team who drew double teams and far more of an impact player defensively than Magic with his 3 blocks per game, while Magic was never a good defender.

Magic before adding the outside shot, as well as the post game, simply wasn't a good enough half court player to be in this discussion.
:oldlol: the man won finals mvp and he's not good enough to be in this discussion :roll:

magic was easily their best player. top 3 in mvp voting, led the league in steals, almost averaged a triple double for an entire year, scored 18.6ppg and shot 54%. kareem played like an old man that year and could not even manage 9 boards per game - he was outrebounded by a guard :oldlol: and had more turnovers than blocks.

in the playoffs magic and norm nixon stepped up big for the lakers, where as kareem dipped his scoring to a paltry 20.4ppg.

Where the **** did '95 come from? I thought you were claiming '86 to be his second best. Both are laughable.
1986 was his second best season (due to him only missing 2 games all year), but 1995 was his second most peak season.

'90, '91 and '93 are his top 3, put them in whatever order you like.
1993, 1995, 1986

'89 was his 4th best season, and he was pretty much as good as those other 3 seasons. '88 is 5th.
:oldlol:

at '97 Barkley being better than prime '89 Barkley.
swept in first round :roll:

the 7 win margin is deceptive because the Bulls probably don't win 50 and the Celtics probably win 58-59 if Bird and their other best palyers don't rest the final 2 games.
well they shouldn't have rested the final 2 games

at '88 Jordan being the best defensive player in the league. It's very debatable whether he was a better overall offensive player than '88 Bird who was a great scorer himself, a better shooter from all areas than '88 Jordan, better without the ball, the better post player and the superior passer
yet jordan dominated in much more categories, won defensive player of the year, won mvp, and carried more on his shoulders than any other player in the history of the league.

Pippen had prime/peak MJ as the '91 Pistons' focus. And their defense paled in comparison to the '94 Knicks.

It's just a laughable argument that can't be backed up. '91 wasn't even one of Pippen's top 5 seasons.
'91 pippen was easily better than '94 pippen. his peak season's rank like this: '91, '92, '96, '97, '93/'98, '94. '91 pippen with the opportunity to have the ball in hands any time he wanted it = finals.

Not the '91 team. the '91 Knicks lost all 4 games in the regular season to Chicago, 3 of them by 10 points.
the knicks had a better regular season, weren't a expansion team playing in its first ever playoff series. the knicks had patrick ewing who had a great regular season with 27/11/3/1/3. the heat lost the regular season series to the bulls 0-4 and averaging losing margin was over 17 points per game.

Their '92 season is as relevant to '91 as their championship seasons are. Peak '94 Pippen on the '91 Bulls would have been devastating, I guess the '92 team was relatively close to that.
peak '91 pippen on the '91 bulls was devastating. they only lost 2 games all post season!

Daugherty has put up better numbers for an entire 17 game playoff run, and entire seasons, much less a 5 game losing series.
what are daugherty's finals stats tho

And they failed to get back to the conference finals without him in '96 like they did in '95.
they would have preferred to considering they traded him for filth

'94 was in a completely different team and system, as well as a losing atmosphere.
lots more opportunities to shine..take over a franchise and lead it in the right direction.
[QUOTE]Shep Constantly Avoids the Statistical Evidence I Pointed To.

Barkley was the Best PF Ever for Nearly 11 Years...Where Yes, He Owned Malone for Those.

Malone Got the Better of Barkey when Charles himself said "I Thank Houston For Treating Me Like An All Star Even Though I Couldn`t Play Anymore"

Shaqattack Shep

joeyjoejoe

07-17-2012, 02:44 AM

Lol like the head to head stats, so much for malone getting owned by barkley

ShaqAttack3234

07-17-2012, 03:42 AM

lol, yes lets mention kelly tripucka and his 7 points per contest..huge contributer that man was.

The man could score, when you have other scorers, they don't always get opportunities. I never said he was a great all around player, for example, he was just a terrible defender, and didn't do anything other than score. But if you wanted scoring, he could give you that. Cliff Robinson didn't do anything other than

stockton had 2 scorers on the jazz,

You're denying that Darrell Griffith could score too?

put him and sikma on the sixers in place of barkley and cheeks and you have a line up like this:

C Mike Gminski (16.9ppg, 10.5rpg, 1.8apg, 0.8spg, 1.8bpg)
PF Jack Sikma (16.5ppg, 8.6rpg, 3.4apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg)
SF Cliff Robinson (19.0ppg, 6.5rpg, 2.1apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg)
SG Gerald Henderson/David Wingate
PG John Stockton (14.7ppg, 2.9rpg, 13.8apg, 3.0spg)

so that is 4 out of 5 starters capable of putting up big offensive numbers on any given night. then you factor in 5 or 6 more field goals per night and everybody is scoring more, and the sixers are winning more due to the fact that they are much harder to defend with so many offensive weapons.

stockton also increased his playoff scoring to 19.5ppg.

I'm aware of this hypothetical lineup you created, I've seen it several times now and I'm not impressed. It doesn't look as potent as Stockton's Utah offense(well, actually Malone's Utah offense), and that wasn't a good offense. Then you go from the top ranked defense to roughly bottom 4, and I'm convinced they're not

they missed eaton so much that the year after he left they replaced him with felton spencer, got much better defensively, won 6 more games, and made the conference finals :roll:

Eaton was an 18 mpg player by his last season. Although Utah's success in '94 is not surprising, that's around the time we really started seeing Malone's game become complete when he was becoming an excellent passer, post defender and mid-range shooter. They also added Jeff Hornacek and Tom Chambers(though Chambers didn't give them much in the postseason).

yes, ron harper was a top 2 shooting guard, only behind michael jordan at that point. also better than mark price in 1990 was terry porter.

:oldlol: at Harper being better than Drexler in '89. Terry Porter was not better than Price. He was a better defender, but Price was clearly the better passer, shooter and ball handler(how many could split traps like Price)? I liked Porter's game too. He's in my top 25 list for 1990.

they weren't the same. 1992 larry nance does not average 12 points and 5 rebounds per game in 1990. daugherty and nance were better in 1992 by a huge margin, and the cavs easily handle the sixers.

Of course, because Daugherty and Nance were healthy in the '92 seasons. :hammerhead: Just like they were healthy in the '90 playoffs, Nance had a down series, but Daugherty was back playing at prime level.

lol at this star duo. first of all price and williams were the cavaliers best 2 players, daugherty was trash all year. daugherty was the cavs fourth best player.

Williams was not a better player than a healthy Brad Daugherty. I didn't rank Daugherty in '90 because he didn't qualify in games played, but he was back putting up 23/10/4 on 59 FG%.

i'd rather face a team in which its third best player struggles all series and puts up 12/5 than face a team in which every one of their best 5 players steps up and plays huge.

Nance had a down series, but they still had Daugherty(23/10/4, 59 FG%), Price(20/3/9, 53 FG%) and Williams (19/9, 56 FG%). The Bullets didn't have that kind of talent, not even close.

the best player is the one that steps up in huge games..and in this particular case it wasn't barkley, but hawkins who stepped up.

Barkley played well in that game, I don't care if Hawkins stepped up with a huge game. You know that a team's second best player can outplay the best player every now and then. It's not a big deal.

since 1986. not really any coincidence there, considering any team that loses a third best player on your roster who is also 1st team all defense is going to struggle, especially in the playoffs. having moncrief didn't seem to have any impact in the celtics series - getting swept with him playing 3 of 4 games.

Yeah and the '86 Celtics are arguably the best team ever, getting dominated by them means nothing. But if you're discrediting the Bucks with Moncrief for that, then it doesn't say as much about the feat of Barkley taking them to 7 without winning 1 of the games Moncrief played.

not good enough to carry it to more wins and a better playoff showing tho

I wouldn't expect a player to do anything more with that roster. Certainly not contend for a title.

the man won finals mvp and he's not good enough to be in this discussion :roll:

Right, because everyone who is voted finals MVP belongs in the best player discussion.

magic was easily their best player. top 3 in mvp voting, led the league in steals, almost averaged a triple double for an entire year, scored 18.6ppg and shot 54%. kareem played like an old man that year and could not even manage 9 boards per game - he was outrebounded by a guard :oldlol: and had more turnovers than blocks.

What do I care if Magic led the league in steals? He was still a mediocre defender. Maybe if Magic had an outside shot back then, or a post game I'd consider it.

I'll take the dominant post player averaging 24 ppg on 58% shooting and blocking almost 3 shots per game. The guy who was drawing double teams and could score at any point in the game.

Magic didn't even have a case for being better than Kareem until '84 when he started to show more of an outside shot, but it was still debatable. Why do you think Pat Riley waited until the '86-'87 season to make Magic the 1st option?

in the playoffs magic and norm nixon stepped up big for the lakers, where as kareem dipped his scoring to a paltry 20.4ppg.

20.4 ppg is paltry? :oldlol: He was also averaging almost 9 boards and almost 4 assists with over 3 blocks per game.

And it's not all about stats. Kareem was clearly better than Magic for being so much better as a scorer, a guy who you have to double(unlike '82 Magic) and a real defensive presence and shot blocker(unlike Magic).

1986 was his second best season (due to him only missing 2 games all year), but 1995 was his second most peak season.

:wtf:

1993, 1995, 1986

:roll:

swept in first round :roll:

:oldlol: at you once again comparing team success in completely different roles and situations. Serious question, have you watched any '89 and '97 Barkley games? Because if you did, you might want to use what you saw in those games to rank his best years instead of whatever criteria leads to such huge mistakes.

well they shouldn't have rested the final 2 games

yet jordan dominated in much more categories, won defensive player of the year, won mvp, and carried more on his shoulders than any other player in the history of the league.

Yes he was voted MVP and DPOY, and I don't have a problem with the MVP, I might go with Bird, but Jordan has a great case, but '88 Jordan simply shouldn't have been voted DPOY. He was definitely not at his own defensive peak, and it's hard enough to justify a perimeter player getting the award.

Jordan didn't dominate more categories. He was a better scorer and defender. Bird was the better rebounder and passer.

'91 pippen was easily better than '94 pippen. his peak season's rank like this: '91, '92, '96, '97, '93/'98, '94. '91 pippen with the opportunity to have the ball in hands any time he wanted it = finals.

'91 Pippen in '94= 1st round exit or lottery team.

Pippen's 5 best seasons in order: '94, '95, '96, '92, '97

the knicks had a better regular season, weren't a expansion team playing in its first ever playoff series. the knicks had patrick ewing who had a great regular season with 27/11/3/1/3. the heat lost the regular season series to the bulls 0-4 and averaging losing margin was over 17 points per game.

The Knicks had a better regular season by 1 win. Both teams were overmatched by the Bulls. This is really pointless.

peak '91 pippen on the '91 bulls was devastating. they only lost 2 games all post season!

Peak '94 Pippen helped the Bulls only fall off by 2 wins after Jordan retired, helped Chicago overachieve greatly to 55-27(51-21 w/ Pippen and 44-16 w/ Pippen and Grant), took a Knick team that had challenged the Jordan Bulls to 7, the same team that was a shot away from the '94 title, were probably prevented from a finals appearance by only the horrendous Hue Hollins call.

what are daugherty's finals stats tho

Sorry, he didn't have the luxury of playing with Magic and Worthy on a team with a very deep frontcourt and 5-6 scoring options overall.

they would have preferred to considering they traded him for filth

So they preferred winning less?

lots more opportunities to shine..take over a franchise and lead it in the right direction.

No, his minutes dropped significantly. And as long as we're talking about Elliott without the Spurs, how about the Spurs without Elliott? They're in the semifinals with him in '93, he leaves and they lose in the 1st round with Karl Malone humiliating David Robinson, Elliott returns and they're in the conference finals with a franchise record at the time of 62 wins.

willds09

07-17-2012, 06:52 AM

Shep first.
both shud:rolleyes:

Dragonyeuw

07-17-2012, 08:18 AM

:
'91 pippen was easily better than '94 pippen. his peak season's rank like this: '91, '92, '96, '97, '93/'98, '94. '91 pippen with the opportunity to have the ball in hands any time he wanted it = finals.

:biggums:

Are you honestly typing that with a straight face? There is NO WAY IN HELL 91 Pippen was better than 94 Pippen. Not only that, but you rank 94 Pippen last out of his peak years? Oh I get it, you're trolling. Good job.

Round Mound

07-17-2012, 09:41 AM

Lol like the head to head stats, so much for malone getting owned by barkley

:no: :facepalm :banghead: :hammerhead:

Shep included those years where Barkley was constantly injured and a Role Player in Houston from 1996 to 2000 that is 30% of their Last Meetings

I have Stats from 1986 to 1996...Over 70% of their 1st Meetings and Barkley Owned Malone

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135370

AAckley1

07-17-2012, 01:45 PM

D.J.

07-17-2012, 06:59 PM

:biggums:

Are you honestly typing that with a straight face? There is NO WAY IN HELL 91 Pippen was better than 94 Pippen. Not only that, but you rank 94 Pippen last out of his peak years? Oh I get it, you're trolling. Good job.

Seriously. '94 Pippen was an MVP candidate. '91 Pippen didn't get a single vote. Hell even '92 Pippen was only 9th in MVP voting.

joeyjoejoe

07-17-2012, 07:23 PM

That seemed pretty even to me, also cherry pickin years for barkleys prime and not malones, charles prime 88-93 karls 94-00 thats like putting kobe pre 00 stats against some1 in their prime, im not a barkley hater there both massive favourites of mine

Round Mound

07-17-2012, 08:30 PM

Barkley Clearly Outplayed Malone from 1986 to 1996: The Stats Do Not Count the 85-86 Season but Now They are Also Found and Those the Matchups Also Favor Barkley. It wasn`t till Barkley left for the Rockets as a Role Player that Malone took Over as the Best PF.

Before Barkley used to Dominate Those Matchups. Even Bill Walton Mentioned It in the 97 WCFs.

I Don`t Hate Malone...Infact I Consider Him The Best Catch and Finish Player of All Time (Better than Barkley as a Reciever) Regarding that He had Stockton the Best Creator and Passer of All Time. He was Physically Imposing, Great Finisher, Solid Defender but He Wasn`t as Skilled as Barkley at Nothing But FT Shooting. He Later on Developed a Better Post Game but Never in the Level of Sir Charles Who Was Shaq-like Inside the 3-Pointline.

The Choken One

07-17-2012, 08:47 PM

We'll never see another Barkley...sad sad truth.

:(

Shep

07-18-2012, 09:49 AM

The man could score, when you have other scorers, they don't always get opportunities. I never said he was a great all around player, for example, he was just a terrible defender, and didn't do anything other than score. But if you wanted scoring, he could give you that. Cliff Robinson didn't do anything other than
lol just give up. he scored 7 points per game. nothing more needs to be said...and you are comparing him to cliff robinson? what a joke this conversation is becoming. cliff robinson was the equilivent of today's danny granger. how many small forwards could rebound better than robinson?

You're denying that Darrell Griffith could score too?
he wasn't a mid-range type scorer

I'm aware of this hypothetical lineup you created, I've seen it several times now and I'm not impressed. It doesn't look as potent as Stockton's Utah offense(well, actually Malone's Utah offense), and that wasn't a good offense. Then you go from the top ranked defense to roughly bottom 4, and I'm convinced they're not
i've seen your argument for barkley, and i'm not impressed. the opposing teams offense would be tired anyway due to having to defend so many options, directly improving the sixers defense.

Eaton was an 18 mpg player by his last season. Although Utah's success in '94 is not surprising, that's around the time we really started seeing Malone's game become complete when he was becoming an excellent passer, post defender and mid-range shooter. They also added Jeff Hornacek and Tom Chambers(though Chambers didn't give them much in the postseason).
:sleeping excuses. you bring statements, i destroy them, and you proceed to make excuses. story of the thread.

at Harper being better than Drexler in '89
:oldlol: drexler couldn't even lead his team to a .500 record and was swept in the first round.

Terry Porter was not better than Price. He was a better defender, but Price was clearly the better passer, shooter and ball handler(how many could split traps like Price)? I liked Porter's game too. He's in my top 25 list for 1990.
porter was bigger and stronger than price, price would get walked over by most point guards in the league.
porter was the blazers second best player, the blazers ended up with the second best record in the nba, and made the nba finals. porter averaged 17.6ppg, 3.4rpg, 9.1apg, 1.9spg on 46/37/89 in the regular season and 20.6ppg, 2.9rpg, 7.4apg, 1.3spg on 46/39/84 in the playoffs. clearly better than price.

Of course, because Daugherty and Nance were healthy in the '92 seasons. Just like they were healthy in the '90 playoffs, Nance had a down series, but Daugherty was back playing at prime level.
to have a player of nance's caliber have a series like that would be quite detrimental to the teams success.

Williams was not a better player than a healthy Brad Daugherty. I didn't rank Daugherty in '90 because he didn't qualify in games played, but he was back putting up 23/10/4 on 59 FG%.
williams was better than daugherty in that particular season

Nance had a down series, but they still had Daugherty(23/10/4, 59 FG%), Price(20/3/9, 53 FG%) and Williams (19/9, 56 FG%). The Bullets didn't have that kind of talent, not even close.
they didn't have that kind of talent, but they all stepped up their games, nobody had a down series.

Barkley played well in that game, I don't care if Hawkins stepped up with a huge game. You know that a team's second best player can outplay the best player every now and then. It's not a big deal.
in a deciding game of a series to get outplayed by that much is a issue here.

Yeah and the '86 Celtics are arguably the best team ever, getting dominated by them means nothing. But if you're discrediting the Bucks with Moncrief for that, then it doesn't say as much about the feat of Barkley taking them to 7 without winning 1 of the games Moncrief played.
losing playoff games with a small sample size without one of your best players means nothing.

I wouldn't expect a player to do anything more with that roster. Certainly not contend for a title.
if thats all they can do they will be ranked accordingly

Right, because everyone who is voted finals MVP belongs in the best player discussion.
a top 8 player all time winning finals mvp will be more than likely the best player in the league.

What do I care if Magic led the league in steals? He was still a mediocre defender. Maybe if Magic had an outside shot back then, or a post game I'd consider it.
leading the league means you are the best out of every player in the league at a certain aspect of the game. this definately means alot.

I'll take the dominant post player averaging 24 ppg on 58% shooting and blocking almost 3 shots per game. The guy who was drawing double teams and could score at any point in the game.
have him. i'll take the best player in the nba. like 24ppg is such a huge number anyway :oldlol: its like 21ppg in today's league, and about 7 rebounds too. abdul-jabber led the lakers scoring in the finals once out of 5 games

Magic didn't even have a case for being better than Kareem until '84 when he started to show more of an outside shot, but it was still debatable. Why do you think Pat Riley waited until the '86-'87 season to make Magic the 1st option?
1982 was the first season magic was better than kareem. magic was a point guard, it is unhealthy to make a point guard your first option, especially as magic could dominate your team in a number of different ways other than scoring.

20.4 ppg is paltry? He was also averaging almost 9 boards and almost 4 assists with over 3 blocks per game.

And it's not all about stats. Kareem was clearly better than Magic for being so much better as a scorer, a guy who you have to double(unlike '82 Magic) and a real defensive presence and shot blocker(unlike Magic).
magic stepped up alot more, as did norm nixon. kareem struggled rebounding the ball, even at 7-2, and often got outmuscled down low.

at you once again comparing team success in completely different roles and situations. Serious question, have you watched any '89 and '97 Barkley games? Because if you did, you might want to use what you saw in those games to rank his best years instead of whatever criteria leads to such huge mistakes.
:roll: i don't make mistakes. and yes, i have watched alot of barkley games.

Yes he was voted MVP and DPOY, and I don't have a problem with the MVP, I might go with Bird, but Jordan has a great case, but '88 Jordan simply shouldn't have been voted DPOY. He was definitely not at his own defensive peak, and it's hard enough to justify a perimeter player getting the award.

Jordan didn't dominate more categories. He was a better scorer and defender. Bird was the better rebounder and passer.
:sleeping

'91 Pippen in '94= 1st round exit or lottery team.
'94 pippen in '91 = do not make finals

Pippen's 5 best seasons in order: '94, '95, '96, '92, '97
'91, '92, '96, '97, '93

The Knicks had a better regular season by 1 win. Both teams were overmatched by the Bulls. This is really pointless.
why are you still typing then

Peak '94 Pippen helped the Bulls only fall off by 2 wins after Jordan retired, helped Chicago overachieve greatly to 55-27(51-21 w/ Pippen and 44-16 w/ Pippen and Grant), took a Knick team that had challenged the Jordan Bulls to 7, the same team that was a shot away from the '94 title, were probably prevented from a finals appearance by only the horrendous Hue Hollins call.
he never shot the ball better than '91, he never played better in the playoff's than '91, and he never played better in the finals than '91

Sorry, he didn't have the luxury of playing with Magic and Worthy on a team with a very deep frontcourt and 5-6 scoring options overall.
neither did pete maravich, lets rank him as one of the best ever players based on what could have happened :hammerhead:

So they preferred winning less?
if it meant they wouldn't have to deal with all the bullshit that he brings with him

No, his minutes dropped significantly. And as long as we're talking about Elliott without the Spurs, how about the Spurs without Elliott? They're in the semifinals with him in '93, he leaves and they lose in the 1st round with Karl Malone humiliating David Robinson, Elliott returns and they're in the conference finals with a franchise record at the time of 62 wins.
why didn't his minutes increase in detroit? surely they should have known this star player needs minutes? :roll: elliott couldn't even manage to be a top 4 player on the second worst team in the league.

without elliott the spurs won 6 more games. and robinson was the most disappointing player in the playoffs, but having the 5th best player on the second worst team in the nba wouldn't have won the spurs anymore games tho.

ShaqAttack3234

07-19-2012, 12:34 AM

lol just give up. he scored 7 points per game. nothing more needs to be said...and you are comparing him to cliff robinson? what a joke this conversation is becoming. cliff robinson was the equilivent of today's danny granger. how many small forwards could rebound better than robinson?

I'm not saying Tripucka was a great all around player, but he could score. He averaged 23 ppg the next season in Charlotte.

he wasn't a mid-range type scorer

Adding more qualifications now that you realize Stockton had more than 2 scorers? :lol

i've seen your argument for barkley, and i'm not impressed. the opposing teams offense would be tired anyway due to having to defend so many options, directly improving the sixers defense.

And I've seen Stockton and I know he couldn't dominate a game like Barkley. Give Barkley Eaton to patrol the paint and I'm sure their defense is just fine.

:sleeping excuses. you bring statements, i destroy them, and you proceed to make excuses. story of the thread.

The story of the thread is you making outrageous claims that are nothing short of shocking.

:oldlol: drexler couldn't even lead his team to a .500 record and was swept in the first round.

:oldlol: Drexler was the better scorer, shooter, rebounder and passer. Clyde averaged 27/8/6, 2.7 spg, 50 FG%, 80 FT%. Harper averaged 19/5/5, 2.3 spg, 51 FG%.

The Cavs had a nice regular season, and Price, Daugherty and Nance, three of the best players at their position deserve a lot of credit, but they were upset by a Bulls team that won 10 fewer games and were still largely a 1 man show. That's how far Harper got with the Cavs best player Mark Price injured.

porter was bigger and stronger than price, price would get walked over by most point guards in the league.
porter was the blazers second best player, the blazers ended up with the second best record in the nba, and made the nba finals. porter averaged 17.6ppg, 3.4rpg, 9.1apg, 1.9spg on 46/37/89 in the regular season and 20.6ppg, 2.9rpg, 7.4apg, 1.3spg on 46/39/84 in the playoffs. clearly better than price.

Porter was the better defender and more capable of playing like a 2 guard, but Price was the better shooter, ball handler and passer. Three things I value more in a point guard. Price averaged 19.6 ppg and 9.1 apg on 46/41/89 shooting while leading the league 2.1 made 3s per game and just 2.9 turnovers. His postseason was right there as well at 20 ppg and 8.8 apg on 53% shooting while making all 30 of his free throws. Keep in mind, he was playing on a half court team, while Porter was on an up tempo team with quite a few athletic players with size.

He led a Cavs team that dealt with some bad injuries to a winning record as well. Porter is on my list for '90, and not far below Price, but below him.

to have a player of nance's caliber have a series like that would be quite detrimental to the teams success.

They had Daugherty back on his game, Price was his usual self and Hot Rod Williams raised his game.

williams was better than daugherty in that particular season

Not any surprise considering Daugherty was affected by injuries and missed half the season.

they didn't have that kind of talent, but they all stepped up their games, nobody had a down series.

They're still not a particularly formidable team, imo.

in a deciding game of a series to get outplayed by that much is a issue here.

He won the game, who cares?

losing playoff games with a small sample size without one of your best players means nothing.

:oldlol: So according to you, it's a coincidence that the Bucks best player plays 3 games, the Bucks win them all, he misses 4 in the series and the Bucks lose 3 of those 4? It's a bigger sample size than the one game vs the Cavs you're talking about.

if thats all they can do they will be ranked accordingly

He swept the Bucks in the first round averaging 24/11/7, 2.7 spg, 52 FG% including a 22/13/10 and then 30/12/6/4 in a 21 blowout win to clinch the series. He also had a solid series vs the Bulls averaging 26/10/5 on 64%. They lost, but were 1 of 2 teams(along with the stacked Lakers) to win a game vs the Bulls.

a top 8 player all time winning finals mvp will be more than likely the best player in the league.

He wasn't in his prime yet, Kareem was closer to his prime(probably 1-2 years removed), and ranks higher all-time, imo.

leading the league means you are the best out of every player in the league at a certain aspect of the game. this definately means alot.

No it doesn't, steals can often come from gambling, and they don't mean you're a good defender. Magic was a pretty good help defender, but a poor individual defender. Magic wasn't contributing much defensively, especially since they had to hide him defensively.

have him. i'll take the best player in the nba. like 24ppg is such a huge number anyway :oldlol: its like 21ppg in today's league, and about 7 rebounds too. abdul-jabber led the lakers scoring in the finals once out of 5 games

Kareem's scoring likely wasn't affected by pace, he almost never ran the floor and scored in transition, he'd likely get at least as many post touches today. Magic lived in transition back then, he'd be affected more. Kareem was the Lakers half court offense. Spacing was also worse back then since 3s weren't a significant part of the game yet.

Kareem's rebounding was ok, the Lakers often let Magic get the rebound so he could start the break just like Kidd in recent years. He was averaging close to 9 per game anyway, not great, but if he was concerned about his numbers, I'm sure he could have gotten the 10 by going out his way to get an extra uncontested rebound they let Magic get.

But beyond his scoring average, he was the best post player in the league with the most unstoppable offensive weapon, the sky hook. Not that he needed them, but he also had counter moves such as the turnaround jumper, left-handed hook and a drop step. The Lakers needed that because when the game slowed down, he was the guy they'd go to, and what other Laker got double teamed consistently? Those double teams created opportunities for teammates since he was an excellent passer. And 24 ppg on 58% and 71% from the line is damn good anyway.

Aside from being their best scorer by far, he was a shot blocking center who averaged 2.7 bpg and 3.2 bpg. A 7'2" presence among the leaders in blocks makes a significant difference, especially compared to Magic's average at best defense.

1982 was the first season magic was better than kareem. magic was a point guard, it is unhealthy to make a point guard your first option, especially as magic could dominate your team in a number of different ways other than scoring.

Magic wasn't better than Kareem until at least the '83-'84 season, and then it was debatable,

And it's fine to have your point guard as your first option if he has the skill set for it. When Pat Riley first made Magic the 1st option in the '86-'87 season, he thrived in the role because he had added a good outside shot, and a post game.

magic stepped up alot more, as did norm nixon. kareem struggled rebounding the ball, even at 7-2, and often got outmuscled down low.

Both Magic and Kareem pretty much played their games. Neither stepped up noticeably to me.

he never shot the ball better than '91, he never played better in the playoff's than '91, and he never played better in the finals than '91

The 4.2 ppg increase in '94, while also not having Jordan to take pressure off of him, playing at a slower pace and making 0.9 threes per game vs 0.3 in '91 more than makes up for 52 to 49 FG%. Scoring, shooting percentage and offensive numbers in general were down significantly in '94 compared to '91.

Pippen did play very well in the '91 finals, but I'd say he was better in the '92 finals,

Of course, just a year and a half ago, you were calling '92 Pippen's peak. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5172628&postcount=4

You were much closer then, just like your previous ranking of 2000 Kobe at 6th rather than 2nd was far closer.

neither did pete maravich, lets rank him as one of the best ever players based on what could have happened :hammerhead:

:oldlol: Pete never had any type of team success, while Daugherty led a 57 win conference finals team just the next season.

if it meant they wouldn't have to deal with all the bullshit that he brings with him

Well, Chicago sure was happy they felt that way.

why didn't his minutes increase in detroit? surely they should have known this star player needs minutes? :roll: elliott couldn't even manage to be a top 4 player on the second worst team in the league.

I don't know why his minutes decreased, or why he had a down year. Admittedly, I didn't watch the Pistons much before Grant Hill, and collecting games, I've only really gotten into the Bad Boys era from '88-'92 and some games from their run and gun era with Isiah.

I'll have to look into that season more, but I have season plenty of Elliott with San Antonio and he was a quality player.

without elliott the spurs won 6 more games. and robinson was the most disappointing player in the playoffs, but having the 5th best player on the second worst team in the nba wouldn't have won the spurs anymore games tho.

And they were out in the 1st round, Sean Elliott comes back in '95 and they not only win 62 games, but get to the conference finals.

Shep

07-19-2012, 04:56 AM

I'm not saying Tripucka was a great all around player, but he could score. He averaged 23 ppg the next season in Charlotte.
:roll: you could probably score 23ppg on a team in which was playing in its first ever season. thats the difference between being able to produce in losing teams, and being able to produce in winning situations. trash can produce in losing teams, anybody can put up empty stats, but its when the production contributes to winning is what makes the difference. tripucka was given a winning situation and the best he could come up with was 7 points, then he was given the worst team in the league playing in its first season and he gave you 23. obviously the hornets management caught on to this and reduced his role and eventually he was out of the league because they knew that he would not contribute if they wanted to be successful into the future.

Adding more qualifications now that you realize Stockton had more than 2 scorers?
:rolleyes: the word "scorers" might mean something different to me than it does to you. cut off will be 15ppg to be labeled as a scorer.

And I've seen Stockton and I know he couldn't dominate a game like Barkley. Give Barkley Eaton to patrol the paint and I'm sure their defense is just fine.
stockton easily dominated more games than barkley, and at a more consistent rate. give stockton moses malone, erving, hawkins, majerle, manning, olajuwon, drexler, and pippen and i'm sure he wins multiple championships.

The story of the thread is you making outrageous claims that are nothing short of shocking.
actually, your excuses are infact the story of this thread.

Drexler was the better scorer, shooter, rebounder and passer. Clyde averaged 27/8/6, 2.7 spg, 50 FG%, 80 FT%. Harper averaged 19/5/5, 2.3 spg, 51 FG%.
emtpy stats on the second fastest paced team in the league, meanwhile cleveland had the third slowest pace in the league.

The Cavs had a nice regular season, and Price, Daugherty and Nance, three of the best players at their position deserve a lot of credit, but they were upset by a Bulls team that won 10 fewer games and were still largely a 1 man show. That's how far Harper got with the Cavs best player Mark Price injured.
first of all price wasn't even in the cavs top 2 best players of the regular season, those places went to nance and harper. secondly price played 4 out of 5 games and played like utter filth. the only players that did anything remotely close to what they produced in the regular season in that series was larry nance, ron harper, and john williams. price dipped to 16/3/6 <39% and fat daugherty, once again proving what a great playoff performer he was went on to produce the stellar line of 11/9/2 <37%fg. as for losing the series, well not much needs to be said when the greatest player of all time puts up 39.8ppg, 5.8rpg, 8.2apg, 3.0spg, 0.4bpg, on 52% on your ass all series long, including the series winning jumper.

Porter was the better defender and more capable of playing like a 2 guard, but Price was the better shooter, ball handler and passer. Three things I value more in a point guard. Price averaged 19.6 ppg and 9.1 apg on 46/41/89 shooting while leading the league 2.1 made 3s per game and just 2.9 turnovers. His postseason was right there as well at 20 ppg and 8.8 apg on 53% shooting while making all 30 of his free throws. Keep in mind, he was playing on a half court team, while Porter was on an up tempo team with quite a few athletic players with size.

He led a Cavs team that dealt with some bad injuries to a winning record as well. Porter is on my list for '90, and not far below Price, but below him.
terry porter could get to the line at will and love mixing it up with the big boys inside. he also had a great post up game and was awesome in transition too on top of being a fantastic defender either on the perimeter or in transition.

price was one of my favourite players, and this was probably his peak season, but he did get outplayed by brad daugherty after being the cavs best player in the regular season. the regular season has porter over price by the smallest of margins, but the playoffs make it clear who was the better player between the two after porter helps the blazers into the nba finals. porter had that massive game 7 to close out david robinson and the san antonio spurs with 36 points on 9/18fg, 4/9 from downtown, and 14/16 from the free throw line, along with 4 rebounds 9 assists and 2 steals.

They had Daugherty back on his game, Price was his usual self and Hot Rod Williams raised his game.
i wouldn't say hot rod raised his game. steve kerr also had no impact

He won the game, who cares?
so if hawkins won finals mvp over barkley had they made the finals...he won the finals, who cares?

So according to you, it's a coincidence that the Bucks best player plays 3 games, the Bucks win them all, he misses 4 in the series and the Bucks lose 3 of those 4? It's a bigger sample size than the one game vs the Cavs you're talking about.
when did paul pressey miss games?

He swept the Bucks in the first round averaging 24/11/7, 2.7 spg, 52 FG% including a 22/13/10 and then 30/12/6/4 in a 21 blowout win to clinch the series. He also had a solid series vs the Bulls averaging 26/10/5 on 64%. They lost, but were 1 of 2 teams(along with the stacked Lakers) to win a game vs the Bulls.
yeh he played well in those playoffs. good enough for 9th best in the league.

He wasn't in his prime yet, Kareem was closer to his prime(probably 1-2 years removed), and ranks higher all-time, imo.
yeh kareem ranks higher all-time. he is top 2. and 1982 was magic's second best year in the nba, ofcourse it is in his prime.

No it doesn't, steals can often come from gambling, and they don't mean you're a good defender. Magic was a pretty good help defender, but a poor individual defender. Magic wasn't contributing much defensively, especially since they had to hide him defensively.
it means you've got great anticipation. and i lol at they had to "hide" him defensively. he was outstanding at forcing turnovers and was an above average defender overall.

Kareem's scoring likely wasn't affected by pace, he almost never ran the floor and scored in transition, he'd likely get at least as many post touches today. Magic lived in transition back then, he'd be affected more. Kareem was the Lakers half court offense. Spacing was also worse back then since 3s weren't a significant part of the game yet.
magic changed the game and how it was played. if magic played today he would force an uptempo offense.

Kareem's rebounding was ok, the Lakers often let Magic get the rebound so he could start the break just like Kidd in recent years. He was averaging close to 9 per game anyway, not great, but if he was concerned about his numbers, I'm sure he could have gotten the 10 by going out his way to get an extra uncontested rebound they let Magic get.
:rolleyes: they let him get the rebound..what a joke. more excuses and what if's. the facts are abdul-jabbar was an average rebounder on both ends, and when you take into consideration that he was 7-2, it becomes even more apparent.

Shep

07-19-2012, 04:57 AM

But beyond his scoring average, he was the best post player in the league with the most unstoppable offensive weapon, the sky hook. Not that he needed them, but he also had counter moves such as the turnaround jumper, left-handed hook and a drop step. The Lakers needed that because when the game slowed down, he was the guy they'd go to, and what other Laker got double teamed consistently? Those double teams created opportunities for teammates since he was an excellent passer. And 24 ppg on 58% and 71% from the line is damn good anyway.

Aside from being their best scorer by far, he was a shot blocking center who averaged 2.7 bpg and 3.2 bpg. A 7'2" presence among the leaders in blocks makes a significant difference, especially compared to Magic's average at best defense.
kareem was a nice player, top 2 in the league infact..but magic was just plain better. on the previous season alone, his numbers took a significant nose dive his free throw percent dropped from 77 to 71, he only managed to get to the free throw line only 5.8 times per game, points were down 26.2 to 23.9, he recorded single digits in rebounds per game for the first time in his career and halved what he averaged just 6 years earlier 10.3 to 8.7, assists went down 3.4 to 3, and blocks went down 2.9 to 2.7. in all, it was obvious that kareem could not produce at the level he did in the 70's and 1980, and it was now magic johnson's team.

Magic wasn't better than Kareem until at least the '83-'84 season, and then it was debatable,
the difference between magic and kareem in 1984 is about the same as the difference between charles barkley and vernon maxwell in 1992.

And it's fine to have your point guard as your first option if he has the skill set for it. When Pat Riley first made Magic the 1st option in the '86-'87 season, he thrived in the role because he had added a good outside shot, and a post game.
although he might not have had the outside shot, magic still had a solid post up game in 1982. and making your point guard first option is not a good idea on most occasions due to the fact that the point guard should be the one setting people up, not setting himself up.

Both Magic and Kareem pretty much played their games. Neither stepped up noticeably to me.
kareem went from 24ppg to 20, and only led the lakers in scoring in the finals 1 game.

The 4.2 ppg increase in '94, while also not having Jordan to take pressure off of him, playing at a slower pace and making 0.9 threes per game vs 0.3 in '91 more than makes up for 52 to 49 FG%. Scoring, shooting percentage and offensive numbers in general were down significantly in '94 compared to '91.
4.2 should have been increased to 8-10 without the greatest scorer of our time around.

Pippen did play very well in the '91 finals, but I'd say he was better in the '92 finals,

Of course, just a year and a half ago, you were calling '92 Pippen's peak. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...28&postcount=4

You were much closer then, just like your previous ranking of 2000 Kobe at 6th rather than 2nd was far closer.
those rankings didn't take postseason play into much consideration, which was wrong. these are now the correct rankings.

Pete never had any type of team success, while Daugherty led a 57 win conference finals team just the next season.
with much more help than pete :rolleyes: /shaqattack3234

Well, Chicago sure was happy they felt that way.
so was san antonio. with a bag of dirt in his place.

And they were out in the 1st round, Sean Elliott comes back in '95 and they not only win 62 games, but get to the conference finals.
a top 5 player on the on the second worst team in the league wouldn't have made any difference to that series.

And they were out in the 1st round, Sean Elliott comes back in '95 and they not only win 62 games, but get to the conference finals.
because of the fifth best player on the second worst team in the nba was back? :roll: david robinson also turned avery johnson from a peice of trash into a top 4 point guard in '95, robinson also decided to show up for the playoffs this time, and overall they had a deeper roster.

ShaqAttack3234

07-20-2012, 04:23 AM

:roll: you could probably score 23ppg on a team in which was playing in its first ever season.

Tripucka also averaged 20 ppg on a 46-36 Piston team right before coming to Utah.

stockton easily dominated more games than barkley, and at a more consistent rate. give stockton moses malone, erving, hawkins, majerle, manning, olajuwon, drexler, and pippen and i'm sure he wins multiple championships.

Stockton rarely dominated games, but you have a history of overrating point guards, especially high assist guys such as Rondo.

Stockton did a great job running the offense, was a pesky defender, and would score here or there, but he almost always failed to step up, assert himself offensively and take over a game with scoring when Utah needed it.

And you're talking about help with Stockton? You're listing players who were either past their primes when they were with Barkley, or Barkley was not in his prime(or remotely close in some cases). Stockton on the otherhand played in his prime with Karl Malone who was one of the best players in the league for Stockton's entire prime, and Eaton, Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey and Jeff Hornacek in or near Stockton's own prime while those players were around their primes.

emtpy stats on the second fastest paced team in the league, meanwhile cleveland had the third slowest pace in the league.

Drexler was the better scorer, shooter, rebounder and passer, that makes it obvious that he was better than Ron Harper.

first of all price wasn't even in the cavs top 2 best players of the regular season

:oldlol: at Price not being a top 2 player on the team, and yeah, Jordan was great, but the Bulls were still largely a 1 man team, the Cavs on the otherhand had at least 4 all-star caliber players.

terry porter could get to the line at will and love mixing it up with the big boys inside. he also had a great post up game and was awesome in transition too on top of being a fantastic defender either on the perimeter or in transition.

Porter is underrated, but his impact was primarily as a scoring and shooting point guard. Price's creativity, ability to split traps and his pure shooting ability make him more than comparable in that regard, though I'd say Porter was more likely to go off for big scoring nights. With Price being the better shooter, ball-handler and passer as well as a comparable scorer, I just can't say Porter was a better player.

price was one of my favourite players, and this was probably his peak season, but he did get outplayed by brad daugherty after being the cavs best player in the regular season. the regular season has porter over price by the smallest of margins, but the playoffs make it clear who was the better player between the two after porter helps the blazers into the nba finals. porter had that massive game 7 to close out david robinson and the san antonio spurs with 36 points on 9/18fg, 4/9 from downtown, and 14/16 from the free throw line, along with 4 rebounds 9 assists and 2 steals.

Porter did have a knack for raising his game in the playoffs, and he was often the Blazer taking the big shot. He did step up more than Clyde through the first 3 rounds, but while the Blazers were more of a stacked team, they were Clyde's team. Team success between a team's best and second best player isn't a fair comparison, imo. Great playoff run or not, I've seen both play, and Price's skill set just made him the better player.

so if hawkins won finals mvp over barkley had they made the finals...he won the finals, who cares?

I didn't care when Duncan wasn't voted Finals MVP in '07 and KG wasn't in '08 among several other examples.

yeh he played well in those playoffs. good enough for 9th best in the league.

3rd best behind Michael and Magic.

yeh kareem ranks higher all-time. he is top 2.

Well, it appears we have the same top 2 at least. :oldlol:

and 1982 was magic's second best year in the nba, ofcourse it is in his prime.

:oldlol: His top 5 years are easy to put in order. '87, '90, '89, '88 and '91.

Players are rarely in their prime at 22 years old, and especially in just their 3rd season, and Magic definitely wasn't one of them considering how much he added to his game later, and how much more his impact increased with added responsibility.

it means you've got great anticipation. and i lol at they had to "hide" him defensively. he was outstanding at forcing turnovers and was an above average defender overall.

They had to hide him because he couldn't guard quick players and he'd get burned by good shooters.

kareem was a nice player, top 2 in the league infact..but magic was just plain better.on the previous season alone, his numbers took a significant nose dive his free throw percent dropped from 77 to 71, he only managed to get to the free throw line only 5.8 times per game, points were down 26.2 to 23.9, he recorded single digits in rebounds per game for the first time in his career and halved what he averaged just 6 years earlier 10.3 to 8.7, assists went down 3.4 to 3, and blocks went down 2.9 to 2.7. in all, it was obvious that kareem could not produce at the level he did in the 70's and 1980

Kareem may have been top 2 behind Moses.

He did decline a bit in '82, there was the ankle injury that kept him out 6 games, Pat Riley's short-lived experiment to have him focus on defense/rebounding and score less, and a midseason slump that had some wondering if he was done. But he finished the season strong, here's what Pat Riley said after Kareem had 41 points, 19 rebounds, 3 assists and 5 blocks on 17/27 shooting including the free throws to send the game into OT, 4 of the 6 Laker points in the 1st OT and 5 of the 11 Laker points in the 2nd OT.

"Kareem, the guy never left, he's never going anywhere," said Los Angeles coach Pat Riley. "It was a difficult game Thursday night. For him to come back tonight showed me the guy's got just about everything he always had."

And here's what Robert Parish said after Kareem scored 35 on 16/20 shooting including 12 in the 4th quarter to help the Lakers come back from down 20 without Magic.

"There's not much you can do when Kareem gets the ball down there. You just try to deny him position, but that's easier said than done," said Celtics center Robert Parish,

Kareem had numerous other big 4th quarters. This was an example of how great the difference was between them as scorers. Kareem was almost always the guy they went to late in games, that usually isn't a case with centers who are easier to double, but Kareem was also a solid foul shooter for his position. Here's Bernard King talking about his team being able to play man to man defense with Kareem out of the lineup.

"Sure, having Kareem out of there made a difference," said Bernard King, who scored 20 of his game-high 33 points in the first half for the Warriors. "With him out we could play real strong man-to-man defense."

That's what I was talking about, despite the Lakers talented, he was still the only Laker who would consistently draw double teams.

And here's Magic talking about where they also missed him.

"They could do a lot of different things when they didn't have to worry about the big guy in there," said the Lakers' Magic Johnson. "They took advantage of that situation by running hard, getting inside and taking advantage of some mismatches."

That's what the 3rd best shot blocker in the league does. There's no way to understate Kareem's advantages as a scorer and defensive player.

The statistical decline isn't that great either. Minutes dropped, scoring was equal to '78 and barely lower than '80. The Lakers were a much better rebounding team in '82 than '81, and assist and block declines were insignificant. His scoring was boosted in '81 by the 45 games when Magic was out and he averaged 28.8 vs the 37 games with Magic when he averaged 22.9. And he was averaging over 25 with Westhead in '82 before Magic cried about Westhead's half court offense and got him fired.

and it was now magic johnson's team.

It's common knowledge that it was Kareem's team until the '86-'87 season.

although he might not have had the outside shot, magic still had a solid post up game in 1982. and making your point guard first option is not a good idea on most occasions due to the fact that the point guard should be the one setting people up, not setting himself up.

Magic did not have a post game yet, that's just a false. Most of the teams that have won a championship with a point guard as their best player have also won with them as their 1st option.

kareem went from 24ppg to 20, and only led the lakers in scoring in the finals 1 game.

The Lakers had a lot of balance, especially with McAdoo playing so well.

4.2 should have been increased to 8-10 without the greatest scorer of our time around.

He stepped up more than enough considering how much his team exceeded even his coaches expectations. Averaging 26-28 just wasn't his game at any point.

those rankings didn't take postseason play into much consideration, which was wrong. these are now the correct rankings.

That explains why those are closer to being accurate, the playoffs have to be considered, but you now go way overboard when comparing to an 82 game season.

david robinson also turned avery johnson from a peice of trash into a top 4 point guard in '95

:oldlol: at you acting like David Robinson was Steve Nash when it comes to making players better.

Round Mound

07-20-2012, 09:21 PM

Career EFF Leaders

Player EFF Seasons

1 Wilt Chamberlain 41.50 14
2 Bill Russell 31.71 13
3 Oscar Robertson 31.61 14
4 Bob Pettit 31.11 11
5 Kareem Abdul-jabbar 30.93 20
6 Larry Bird 29.77 13
7 Elgin Baylor 29.74 14
8 Michael Jordan 29.19 15
9 Magic Johnson 29.10 13
10 Charles Barkley 28.16 16
11 Jerry Lucas 28.13 11
12 LeBron James 28.01 8
13 Hakeem Olajuwon 27.17 18
14 Jerry West 27.10 14
15 David Robinson 26.98 14
16 Karl Malone 26.94 19
17 Walt Bellamy 26.29 14
18 Dave Cowens 26.23 11
19 Shaquille O'neal 26.05 19
20 Kevin Garnett 25.98 16
21 Maurice Stokes 25.75 3
22 Tim Duncan 25.68 14

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating

NBA/ABA

Rank Player PER
1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 27.24
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.70
7. Chris Paul 25.44
8. Bob Pettit* 25.35
9. Tim Duncan 24.75
10. Neil Johnston* 24.63
11. Charles Barkley* 24.63
12. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
13. Magic Johnson* 24.11
14. Karl Malone* 23.90

NBA & ABA Career Playoff Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating

NBA/ABA

Rank Player PER

1. Michael Jordan* 28.60
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 27.10
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.13
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Tim Duncan 25.27
7. Kevin Durant 24.70
8. Dirk Nowitzki 24.68
9. Charles Barkley* 24.18
10. Dwyane Wade 24.06
11. Tracy McGrady 23.70
12. Dwight Howard 23.65
13. Dolph Schayes* 23.29
14. Jerry West* 23.06
15. David Robinson* 23.02
16. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 23.01
17. Magic Johnson* 22.95
18. Wilt Chamberlain* 22.77
19. Amare Stoudemire 22.63
20. Bob Pettit* 22.59
21. Kobe Bryant 22.40
22. Julius Erving* 22.05
23. Elgin Baylor* 21.83
24. Rick Barry* 21.79
25. Russell Westbrook 21.66
26. Moses Malone* 21.57
27. Kevin Garnett 21.49
28. Larry Bird* 21.41
29. Baron Davis 21.36
30. Allen Iverson 21.24
31. George Gervin* 21.17
32. Karl Malone* 21.12

More Fun with Statistical +/-

Posted by Neil Paine on February 27, 2009

The other day, I talked at some length about “statistical plus/minus,” which is just a regression of pure adjusted +/- on the conventional boxscore stats. In that post, I looked into the possibility of predicting the following season using a weighted average of the 3 previous seasons’ SPM scores, but I realize that I sort of skimmed over the statistical +/- metric itself — what are its strengths and weaknesses? What kind of players does it overrate and underrate?

In an effort to better understand the metric and answer these questions, I calculated the career leaders in SPM (combined NBA + ABA, minimum 15,000 career MP) through last Saturday’s games. Here’s the list:

Player Pos G Min SPM
---------------+--+----------+--------+------
michaeljordan G 1072 41013 12.85
wiltchamberlain C 1045 47859 11.59
davidrobinson C 987 34272 10.79
lebronjames F 444 18083 10.00
charlesbarkley F 1073 39330 9.03
k.abdul-jabbar C 1560 57446 9.01
magicjohnson G 906 33245 8.82
larrybird F 897 34443 8.81
juliuserving F 1243 45227 8.57
shaquilleo'neal C 1089 39103 8.21
bobpettit F 792 30690 7.87
clydedrexler G 1086 37537 7.79
oscarrobertson G 1040 43886 7.75
hakeemolajuwon C 1238 44222 7.70
elginbaylor F 846 33863 7.59
karlmalone F 1476 54852 7.50
andreikirilenko F 533 16671 7.37
timduncan F 877 32481 7.30

Shot Made & Missed Diferential Stat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNib-...el_video_title

http://hoopsapedia.webs.com/nbaalltimescorers.htm

SHOT MADE/MISS DIFFERENTIAL STAT-
(minimum 15,000 shot attempts)

Unstoppable shot makers (+1 - infinity):

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +3,367.5
2. Shaquille O'Neal: +3,200.5
3. Wilt Chamberlain: +1,865
4. Charles Barkley: +1,434
5. Robert Parish: +1,314
6. Adrian Dantley: +1,220.5
7. Karl Malone: +888.5
8. Bernard King: +562.5
9. Hakeem Olajuwon: +519.5
10. Walt Bellamy: +488
11. Walter Davis: +443.5
12. Bob Lanier: +431
13. George Gervin: +381.5
14. Alex English: +291
15. Reggie Miller: +263
16. Tim Duncan: +248
17. Dale Ellis: +230.5
18. Larry Bird: +172.5
19. Patrick Ewing: +172.5
20. Michael Jordan: +137.5
21. Kevin Garnett: +0.5

BARKLEY > Malone

Shep

07-22-2012, 01:51 AM

Tripucka also averaged 20 ppg on a 46-36 Piston team right before coming to Utah.
yeh, then they traded him and made a conference, made 3 nba finals, and won 2 championships.

Stockton rarely dominated games, but you have a history of overrating point guards, especially high assist guys such as Rondo.
stockton dominated more games than barkley. and i rate point guards in the correct spot, but you have a history of overrating scorers, especially high scoring point guard.

Stockton did a great job running the offense, was a pesky defender, and would score here or there, but he almost always failed to step up, assert himself offensively and take over a game with scoring when Utah needed it.
lol why does "assert" himself mean scoring alot of points? stockton wasn't utah's primary scorer, or even top 2. he was utah's primary set up guy, it was up to the scorers on the team to score points.

And you're talking about help with Stockton? You're listing players who were either past their primes when they were with Barkley, or Barkley was not in his prime(or remotely close in some cases). Stockton on the otherhand played in his prime with Karl Malone who was one of the best players in the league for Stockton's entire prime, and Eaton, Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey and Jeff Hornacek in or near Stockton's own prime while those players were around their primes.
the guys i mentioned were close to being the best players at their position. stockton had 1 guy near the best at his position, barkley had numerous.

Drexler was the better scorer, shooter, rebounder and passer, that makes it obvious that he was better than Ron Harper.
drexler put up numbers on a sub .500 team. it is much harder to put up numbers on a almost 60 win team than it is on a almost 40 win team.

at Price not being a top 2 player on the team, and yeah, Jordan was great, but the Bulls were still largely a 1 man team, the Cavs on the otherhand had at least 4 all-star caliber players.
:oldlol: and price wasn't even top 3 after the playoffs, daugherty had overtaken him by that stage :oldlol: the greatest player of all time had a legendary series and the series winning field goal. scottie pippen also stepped up his play with 15.0ppg, 8.6rpg, 4.0apg, 1.6spg, 0.8bpg. and horace grant had a huge rebounding series and was great overall, averaging 10.4ppg, 13.0rpg, 2.4apg, 1.2spg, and 1.2bpg.

Porter is underrated, but his impact was primarily as a scoring and shooting point guard. Price's creativity, ability to split traps and his pure shooting ability make him more than comparable in that regard, though I'd say Porter was more likely to go off for big scoring nights. With Price being the better shooter, ball-handler and passer as well as a comparable scorer, I just can't say Porter was a better player.
price was the best player on a team that won 42 games and lost in the first round. porter was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the nba and made the nba finals. then you take into consideration how much better defensively porter was, then you have an easy decision.

Porter did have a knack for raising his game in the playoffs, and he was often the Blazer taking the big shot. He did step up more than Clyde through the first 3 rounds, but while the Blazers were more of a stacked team, they were Clyde's team. Team success between a team's best and second best player isn't a fair comparison, imo. Great playoff run or not, I've seen both play, and Price's skill set just made him the better player.
congrats on being able to see both porter and price play. i too have had the honor of seeing both play. the result of such viewings are that porter was better than price in 1990.

I didn't care when Duncan wasn't voted Finals MVP in '07 and KG wasn't in '08 among several other examples.
both duncan and garnett should have been final's mvp's tho. if hawkins played like that he would have actually deserved finals mvp.

3rd best behind Michael and Magic.
also behind pippen, robinson, stockton, olajuwon, malone, and drexler.

His top 5 years are easy to put in order. '87, '90, '89, '88 and '91.
lol where is 1982? easily his second best season in the nba. atleast your best season is correct :oldlol: the correct order is actually 1987, 1982, 1991, 1985, 1989.

Players are rarely in their prime at 22 years old, and especially in just their 3rd season, and Magic definitely wasn't one of them considering how much he added to his game later, and how much more his impact increased with added responsibility.
barkley was one of them, magic was another one. he averaged career high's in steals and rebounds, was the lakers (and the nba's) best player, led the lakers to 57 wins which was the best record in the west, was the mvp of the playoffs and finals, and had a record of 12-2 in the playoffs en route to the nba championship.

They had to hide him because he couldn't guard quick players and he'd get burned by good shooters.
trash observation here. he was an above average defender.

Kareem may have been top 2 behind Moses.
kareem was easily better than malone, as was bird and erving. magic however, was easily the best player in the league.

The statistical decline isn't that great either. Minutes dropped, scoring was equal to '78 and barely lower than '80. The Lakers were a much better rebounding team in '82 than '81, and assist and block declines were insignificant. His scoring was boosted in '81 by the 45 games when Magic was out and he averaged 28.8 vs the 37 games with Magic when he averaged 22.9. And he was averaging over 25 with Westhead in '82 before Magic cried about Westhead's half court offense and got him fired.
nice quotes. but it doesn't change the fact that kareem wasn't the lakers the best player. now lets check out what kareem did in game 5 of the finals: 6 points :oldlol: 4 rebounds :roll:

It's common knowledge that it was Kareem's team until the '86-'87 season.
magic took over beginning in 1982

Magic did not have a post game yet, that's just a false. Most of the teams that have won a championship with a point guard as their best player have also won with them as their 1st option.
magic might have had a better post game later on in his career, but he still had a nice post game in 1982. how many team's have won a championship with a point guard as the best player?

The Lakers had a lot of balance, especially with McAdoo playing so well.
yeh, mcadoo played so well he outscored abdul-jabbar over the last 4 games in that series :roll:

He stepped up more than enough considering how much his team exceeded even his coaches expectations. Averaging 26-28 just wasn't his game at any point.
it could have been his game. he could have made adjustments to what his game was due to the fact that he would be missing the league's leading scorer.

That explains why those are closer to being accurate, the playoffs have to be considered, but you now go way overboard when comparing to an 82 game season.
although 82 games is longer than the playoffs, you play the whole season to get in a good position to play in the playoffs and its how you play in those important games, games in which only half of the leagues teams are lucky enough to even partake in, is which will utimately determine your rank.

at you acting like David Robinson was Steve Nash when it comes to making players better.
he was easily better than steve nash in that regard.

ShaqAttack3234

07-22-2012, 03:29 AM

yeh, then they traded him and made a conference, made 3 nba finals, and won 2 championships.

Did I ever say that he was a great NBA player? No, I just said he could score. The guy they traded him for(Adrian Dantley) was not only a better scorer, but a significantly better player.

stockton dominated more games than barkley. and i rate point guards in the correct spot, but you have a history of overrating scorers, especially high scoring point guard.

:oldlol: at Stockton dominating games like Barkley, much less more than him. There are plenty of examples where Stockton's inability or unwillingness to take over games prevented his team from advancing in the playoffs. See 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

What's my history of overrating high scoring point guards? The only one I remember even rating that high is Kevin Johnson from about '89-'94.

Examples of you overrating high assist guys are '82 Magic, Stockton of course, Rajon Rondo(I know you had him pretty high in the top 10 in 2010) and old Mavericks Jason Kidd(wasn't he top 10 on your 2011 list?).

lol why does "assert" himself mean scoring alot of points? stockton wasn't utah's primary scorer, or even top 2. he was utah's primary set up guy, it was up to the scorers on the team to score points.

That's because Stockton was limited to that role, great at what he did, but it's why he wasn't as good as the true MVP-caliber players who did take over games.

When Utah's primary scorer Karl Malone was struggling in the playoffs(which happened a fair amount), Utah really would have benefited from Stockton stepping up, and the only occasion I really remember this happening was the '97 WCF.

the guys i mentioned were close to being the best players at their position. stockton had 1 guy near the best at his position, barkley had numerous.

Stockton played with that 1 player throughout his entire prime and beyond, while Malone was in his prime the entire time Stockton was, and beyond. He had a prime that lasted like a decade, he was among the best players in the NBA that whole time.

Playing with 1 isn't worse than changing teams and playing with those guys at various times. Who was the best player Barkley played with in his prime? Kevin Johnson during his worst season from the time he was an elite PG('89-'94)?

I don't think Hersey Hawkins is particularly comparable to Karl Malone.

drexler put up numbers on a sub .500 team. it is much harder to put up numbers on a almost 60 win team than it is on a almost 40 win team.

I'm not even talking about the numbers anymore. Drexler was clearly the better scorer, rebounder, passer and shooter. Do you deny any of those things?

:oldlol: and price wasn't even top 3 after the playoffs, daugherty had overtaken him by that stage :oldlol: the greatest player of all time had a legendary series and the series winning field goal. scottie pippen also stepped up his play with 15.0ppg, 8.6rpg, 4.0apg, 1.6spg, 0.8bpg. and horace grant had a huge rebounding series and was great overall, averaging 10.4ppg, 13.0rpg, 2.4apg, 1.2spg, and 1.2bpg.

Pippen didn't even shoot 40% in the series. Neither Pippen or Grant were all-star caliber players by that point. Hell, Grant barely was in his prime, he made 1 on one of the weakest all-star teams ever, and had somewhat of a case for maybe 1 more in '92.

price was the best player on a team that won 42 games and lost in the first round. porter was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the nba and made the nba finals. then you take into consideration how much better defensively porter was, then you have an easy decision.

I'll take better passing, shooting and ball-handling over better defense at the PG position. Price's team won 42 games because of Daugherty missing over 40 games, and Nance missing around 20, iirc.

congrats on being able to see both porter and price play. i too have had the honor of seeing both play. the result of such viewings are that porter was better than price in 1990.

Nah, the result of viewing these guys play is the conclusion that Price was the better player.

both duncan and garnett should have been final's mvp's tho. if hawkins played like that he would have actually deserved finals mvp.

I'm not sure if KG should have been MVP, he had a case, but I don't feel strongly about any of the big 3 getting finals MVP. I am leaning towards Duncan deserving the '07 award, though.

lol where is 1982? easily his second best season in the nba. atleast your best season is correct :oldlol: the correct order is actually 1987, 1982, 1991, 1985, 1989.

1982 is between his 9th and 10th best season. After the 5 I mentioned, '85 and '86 are about even and his 6th/7th best seasons, then '84 is clearly next followed by '82 and '83, and he was the same player in both those seasons, so they can be placed in either order.

barkley was one of them, magic was another one. he averaged career high's in steals and rebounds, was the lakers (and the nba's) best player, led the lakers to 57 wins which was the best record in the west, was the mvp of the playoffs and finals, and had a record of 12-2 in the playoffs en route to the nba championship.

Barkley was not in his prime until 24/25 in the '87-'88 season or 25/26 in the '88-'89 season. Which is around the normal age a player enters their prime. Magic didn't enter his prime until he was 27 in the '86-'87 season, which is also a normal age to

trash observation here. he was an above average defender.

:oldlol: You may be the first I've heard say that. A great example of Magic's poor defense is the '90 WCSF. They obviously couldn't put them on KJ, so he guarded Hornacek and got torched, which was part of the reason the Suns upset the Lakers in 5 despite Magic averaging 30.

kareem was easily better than malone, as was bird and erving. magic however, was easily the best player in the league.

Moses was doing things nobody else was capable of at those times, see his month of February when he averaged 38.1 ppg and 17.3 rpg including 30+ points in 13 of the 14 games that month, 40+ points 6 times that month and 20+ rebounds six times that month.

Moses had a stretch where he had a game of 53 points(19th in the 4th quarter), 23 rebounds, 4 assists and 1 block on 19/30 FG and 15/18 FT followed by 45 points and 20 rebounds and finally, 47 points, 14 rebounds, 3 assists and 2 blocks on 18/28 FG and 11/15 FT. 2 games later, he had 38 points and 32 rebounds including 21 offensive rebounds, he outrebounded the entire Sonics team.

Around this time, Malone's dominance led the Rockets to a 13-2 stretch. He had another stretch with 3 straight 40+ games in late February/early March including 43 points and 23 rebounds, 44 points and 43 points(14 in the 4th quarter).

2 games later, he had 39 points and 18 rebounds including the offensive rebound and game-winner with 4 seconds remaining. 3 games later he had 49 points and 12 rebounds including 22 points in the 4th quarter. And he another pair of 40 point games in late March including 41 points and 18 rebounds(12 points in the 4th quarter) followed by 46 points.

This dominant stretch that began when February started really didn't slow down until April. He had a 35 game stretch where he scored at least 30 points in 28 out of those games.

Magic was probably the 4th or 5th best player that season.

magic took over beginning in 1982

Go ask Pat Riley or Magic himself.

magic might have had a better post game later on in his career, but he still had a nice post game in 1982.

Nope.

how many team's have won a championship with a point guard as the best player?

Walt Frazier definitely did it in '73, arguably '70. He was certainly the 1st option by '73, but more 1.A/1.B with Reed in '70, maybe slightly behind. Magic did it in '87 and '88, arguably '85, so he was 1st option for 2 out of his 3 championships as the best player. Isiah did it in '89 and '90, he was the 1st option for both championships.

it could have been his game. he could have made adjustments to what his game was due to the fact that he would be missing the league's leading scorer.

It's not that easy, Pippen had a lot of talents, but being a 26-28 ppg scorer wasn't really 1 of them, and it wouldn't have necessarily made him more effective than he was playing the great all around ball he was in '94.

although 82 games is longer than the playoffs, you play the whole season to get in a good position to play in the playoffs and its how you play in those important games, games in which only half of the leagues teams are lucky enough to even partake in, is which will utimately determine your rank.

I agree it matters, but you get more of an idea of what kind of player someone is from the entire season. Raising your game, or declining in the playoffs can impact someone's ranking for my list, but only if they're pretty close as players to begin with, and 1 series doesn't really determine who the better player is.

he was easily better than steve nash in that regard

:roll:

Shep

07-24-2012, 10:36 AM

Did I ever say that he was a great NBA player? No, I just said he could score. The guy they traded him for(Adrian Dantley) was not only a better scorer, but a significantly better player.
the pistons obviously knew if they were to go deeper into the nba playoffs they had to get rid of the deadweight known as tripuke-a.

at Stockton dominating games like Barkley, much less more than him. There are plenty of examples where Stockton's inability or unwillingness to take over games prevented his team from advancing in the playoffs. See 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.
lol out of those playoffs stockton stepped up his game in 1992, 1994, and 1996 leaving only 1990, 1993, and 1995 as the only seasons where he didn't step up. barkley meanwhile did not step up in:
1987 (disgusting showing in the playoffs, his teams most disappointing player, almost outplayed by mo cheeks)
forget 1988, he did not even make the playoffs :roll:
1989 (another disgusting showing, gets outplayed by mo cheeks)
1990 (destroyed in second round)
forget 1992, he did not even make the playoffs :roll:
1996 (destroyed by david robinson and the san antonio spurs in the first round)
1997 (almost outplayed by clyde drexler)
1998 (teams most disappointing player, almost outplayed by matt maloney)
1999 (dominated in the first round after winning 62% of all regular season games)

What's my history of overrating high scoring point guards? The only one I remember even rating that high is Kevin Johnson from about '89-'94.

well you do put a huge emphasis on rating scoring point guards over traditional all-round point guards who are better

Examples of you overrating high assist guys are '82 Magic, Stockton of course, Rajon Rondo(I know you had him pretty high in the top 10 in 2010) and old Mavericks Jason Kidd(wasn't he top 10 on your 2011 list?).
rondo is 5th in 2010 and kidd is 9th in 2011. nothing wrong with these rankings. rondo is the celtics best player in the regular season and playoffs, including a magic johnson like series against the cleveland cavaliers where he averaged 21/6/12/2 on 54%fg. the celtics make it to game 7 of the nba finals.
kidd, while old, still was the mavericks second best player in the regular season and playoffs. while not having mind blowing numbers, kidd showed leadership, and steady play in dallas's quest to become 2011 nba champions. its not all about stats.

That's because Stockton was limited to that role, great at what he did, but it's why he wasn't as good as the true MVP-caliber players who did take over games.
stockton was easily more mvp caliber than barkley

When Utah's primary scorer Karl Malone was struggling in the playoffs(which happened a fair amount), Utah really would have benefited from Stockton stepping up, and the only occasion I really remember this happening was the '97 WCF.
stockton stepped up his game in the playoffs on numerous occasions, such as 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001 (38 years old), 2002 (39 years old).

Stockton played with that 1 player throughout his entire prime and beyond, while Malone was in his prime the entire time Stockton was, and beyond. He had a prime that lasted like a decade, he was among the best players in the NBA that whole time.
barkley obviously could not get it done with star players arounds him

Playing with 1 isn't worse than changing teams and playing with those guys at various times. Who was the best player Barkley played with in his prime? Kevin Johnson during his worst season from the time he was an elite PG('89-'94)?
:oldlol: hakeem olajuwon wasn't good enough?

I don't think Hersey Hawkins is particularly comparable to Karl Malone.
what about hakeem olajuwon

I'm not even talking about the numbers anymore. Drexler was clearly the better scorer, rebounder, passer and shooter. Do you deny any of those things?
how many wins did these things get drexler

Pippen didn't even shoot 40% in the series. Neither Pippen or Grant were all-star caliber players by that point. Hell, Grant barely was in his prime, he made 1 on one of the weakest all-star teams ever, and had somewhat of a case for maybe 1 more in '92.
both pippen and grant stepped up their game in that series.

I'll take better passing, shooting and ball-handling over better defense at the PG position. Price's team won 42 games because of Daugherty missing over 40 games, and Nance missing around 20, iirc.

i'll take better defense, a player who relishes in attacking the basket rather than shoot over a third of his shots behind the arc, great post up game, and who made the nba finals at the pg position.

Nah, the result of viewing these guys play is the conclusion that Price was the better player.
actually you are misinformed here, the real outcome is that porter is the worthier choice.

1982 is between his 9th and 10th best season. After the 5 I mentioned, '85 and '86 are about even and his 6th/7th best seasons, then '84 is clearly next followed by '82 and '83, and he was the same player in both those seasons, so they can be placed in either order.
1987
1982
1991
1985
1989
1988
1983
1990

Barkley was not in his prime until 24/25 in the '87-'88 season or 25/26 in the '88-'89 season. Which is around the normal age a player enters their prime. Magic didn't enter his prime until he was 27 in the '86-'87 season, which is also a normal age to
so barkley is in his prime when he is missing playoff's over deep playoff runs averaging 25/16/6 and 58% :roll: magic isn't even in his prime winning finals mvp's :roll: :roll:

You may be the first I've heard say that. A great example of Magic's poor defense is the '90 WCSF. They obviously couldn't put them on KJ, so he guarded Hornacek and got torched, which was part of the reason the Suns upset the Lakers in 5 despite Magic averaging 30.
who is talking about 1990 here

Moses was doing things nobody else was capable of at those times, see his month of February when he averaged 38.1 ppg and 17.3 rpg including 30+ points in 13 of the 14 games that month, 40+ points 6 times that month and 20+ rebounds six times that month.

Moses had a stretch where he had a game of 53 points(19th in the 4th quarter), 23 rebounds, 4 assists and 1 block on 19/30 FG and 15/18 FT followed by 45 points and 20 rebounds and finally, 47 points, 14 rebounds, 3 assists and 2 blocks on 18/28 FG and 11/15 FT. 2 games later, he had 38 points and 32 rebounds including 21 offensive rebounds, he outrebounded the entire Sonics team.

Around this time, Malone's dominance led the Rockets to a 13-2 stretch. He had another stretch with 3 straight 40+ games in late February/early March including 43 points and 23 rebounds, 44 points and 43 points(14 in the 4th quarter).

2 games later, he had 39 points and 18 rebounds including the offensive rebound and game-winner with 4 seconds remaining. 3 games later he had 49 points and 12 rebounds including 22 points in the 4th quarter. And he another pair of 40 point games in late March including 41 points and 18 rebounds(12 points in the 4th quarter) followed by 46 points.

This dominant stretch that began when February started really didn't slow down until April. He had a 35 game stretch where he scored at least 30 points in 28 out of those games.

Magic was probably the 4th or 5th best player that season.
magic was the best, meanwhile moses was all the way down at the 5 position. moses had a good regular season, and by the end of it was ahead of the likes of erving, and abdul-jabber, but still behind bird, and johnson. his poor playoff showing dropped him down the list, considering he dropped 7 points and a staggering 9 percentage points on field goals, on top of blocking less than a shot per game, and getting beaten in the first round.

Go ask Pat Riley or Magic himself.
i talk to both with great regularity. we all share the same opinion.

Nope.
:sleeping

Walt Frazier definitely did it in '73, arguably '70. He was certainly the 1st option by '73, but more 1.A/1.B with Reed in '70, maybe slightly behind. Magic did it in '87 and '88, arguably '85, so he was 1st option for 2 out of his 3 championships as the best player. Isiah did it in '89 and '90, he was the 1st option for both championships.
so 5 in 60 years?

It's not that easy, Pippen had a lot of talents, but being a 26-28 ppg scorer wasn't really 1 of them, and it wouldn't have necessarily made him more effective than he was playing the great all around ball he was in '94.
the bulls went from averaging 105ppg to 98ppg in 1994, it would have definately made him and the bulls more effective had he picked up the scoring slack.

I agree it matters, but you get more of an idea of what kind of player someone is from the entire season. Raising your game, or declining in the playoffs can impact someone's ranking for my list, but only if they're pretty close as players to begin with, and 1 series doesn't really determine who the better player is.
it can definately determine that. we learn how players react to different situations, situations that could have them fishing the next day. with these things in mind we realise what kind of player he really is and is ranked according to these findings.

:roll:
:roll:

ShaqAttack3234

07-24-2012, 03:07 PM

lol out of those playoffs stockton stepped up his game in 1992, 1994, and 1996 leaving only 1990, 1993, and 1995 as the only seasons where he didn't step up.

'92? Stockton managed just 14.3 ppg and 11.2 apg on a terrible 39.7% compared to a 15.8 ppg, 13.7 apg, 48.2% season. Stockton's numbers are lowered by him being forced to leave sit out the second half of game 5. But in the elimination game, Stockton had 18 points and 12 assists, but on 5/19 shooting and 1/8 on 3s with 5 turnovers.

Stockton was extremely quiet in the '94 WCF. He fell from 15.2 ppg and 12.6 apg on 52.8% in the season to 14.4 ppg and 9.4 apg on 41.5% including quiet games of 17 points/6 assists in a key game 5 that pretty much decided if Utah would make it a series, and an elimination game of 13 points and 9 assists on 6/19 shooting.

In the '96 WCF, Stockton dropped to 9.9 ppg and 7.6 apg on 39.7% compared to his season averages of 14.7 ppg and 11.2 apg on 53.8%.

1987

The Sixers lost in game 1, but Barkley with a sprained ankle had 21 points, 13 rebounds and 6 blocks on 8/15 shooting including the steal and basket to tie the game at 104 with 1:10 remaining.

Barkley led the Sixers with 26 points, 15 rebounds and 3 assists on 9/15 shooting an OT game 2 win. He was the hero in OT with 8 points including a key steal and basket to give the Sixers a 121-120 lead, and then the gamewinner with 11 seconds left.

In game 3, Barkley had 39 points to go along with 9 rebounds on 13/19 shooting and 13/14 from the line, though he did miss a key free throw.

In game 4, Barkley had 25 points, 13 rebounds and 4 assists on 8/10 shooting including 12 points in the 4th quarter.

Though he did have just 12 points and 13 rebounds and 5/19 shooting in game 5. Regardless, it was much better than those Stockton series, and Charles was just a 3rd year player and his play through 4 games was a reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent.

1989

In game 1, he didn't dominate thanks to Oakley's physical defense and Knick double teams, but he did still have 22 points, 12 rebounds and 6 assists on 7/12 shooting.

In game 2, Barkley had 30 points, 12 rebounds and 7 assists on 10/17 shooting and 10/11 from the line, though the Knicks did make a comeback, and won by 1 point on a 3 by Trent Tucker.

In game 3, Barkley had 29 points, 11 rebounds and 3 assists on 12/16 shooting, but they lost by 1 in OT on a gamewinner by Gerald Wilkins with 6 seconds remaining.

They had a chance to win the series, but Barkley's play was a reason they competed with a superior team in all 3 games that were decided late in the games.

1996 (destroyed by david robinson and the san antonio spurs in the first round)

I'd agree more with criticizing Barkley's play in '94 and '95 because he at least had contending teams and was closer to his prime, despite dealing with injuries.

1997 (almost outplayed by clyde drexler)

Barkley played fine, that said, he was 34 by this time with bad knees and a bad back. No longer a dominant force and no longer the franchise player on his team so I didn't really care what he did.

1998 (teams most disappointing player, almost outplayed by matt maloney)

He was done by this point.

1999 (dominated in the first round after winning 62% of all regular season games)

Barkley stepped up a lot.

well you do put a huge emphasis on rating scoring point guards over traditional all-round point guards who are better

Not really, I chose '02 Kidd in a recent thread over '11 Derrick Rose. In fact, Kidd was the best PG in the league from '99-'04 with the exception of '00.

rondo is 5th in 2010 and kidd is 9th in 2011. nothing wrong with these rankings. rondo is the celtics best player in the regular season and playoffs, including a magic johnson like series against the cleveland cavaliers where he averaged 21/6/12/2 on 54%fg. the celtics make it to game 7 of the nba finals.

Rondo was a fine player, and he was the standout player of the Cavs series, but Pierce was probably still the man on that team, and the standout player of the ECF vs Orlando, and would have probably been finals MVP had Boston won. Rondo only really stood out in the ECSF.

Top 5 players are at a different level. The Celtics won because of the strength of their whole team, which was 8 deep with quality players, and their team defense.

kidd, while old, still was the mavericks second best player in the regular season and playoffs. while not having mind blowing numbers, kidd showed leadership, and steady play in dallas's quest to become 2011 nba champions. its not all about stats.

I appreciate what Kidd did for that team with his passing, defense vs bigger players and basketball IQ, as well as his improved 3 point shot, but he was more like a role player by that point. Terry's scoring and clutch play and Chandler's defense and rebounding made them better. Arguably Marion as well.

stockton was easily more mvp caliber than barkley

He never once got serious MVP consideration.

stockton stepped up his game in the playoffs on numerous occasions, such as 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001 (38 years old), 2002 (39 years old).

Already proved you wrong on '92, '94 and '96, which are what I care about more considering they're either Stockton's prime, or pretty close to it. He did finally step up big in '97. And generally did well in a reduced role as he got older, he impressed me in 2000 for example(at least vs Seattle), but the expectations were much lower by this point.

barkley obviously could not get it done with star players arounds him

He did pretty well with even a limited Kevin Johnson in '93.

:oldlol: hakeem olajuwon wasn't good enough?

:oldlol: He was 34 and a shell of his former self, Hakeem declined greatly after that 1 year too. Stockton had Malone for their entire primes.

how many wins did these things get drexler

I don't really care. If you're the better scorer, rebounder, passer and shooter, you're clearly the better passer.

so barkley is in his prime when he is missing playoff's over deep playoff runs averaging 25/16/6 and 58% :roll: magic isn't even in his prime winning finals mvp's :roll: :roll:

The supporting cast matters too.

When Magic has at least as much passing ability as he ever did from '87-'90, a bigger role to produce more as a playmaker, the new found ability to take over a game in a half court situation with his great post game and reliable outside shot, which also made his playmaking even better since the Lakers could run the offense through Magic in the post, it's obvious that he took his game to another level. Those major differences are why that period is Magic's prime.

magic was the best, meanwhile moses was all the way down at the 5 position. moses had a good regular season, and by the end of it was ahead of the likes of erving, and abdul-jabber, but still behind bird, and johnson.

Moses was the dominant player of the regular season by far, it's not particularly close, this is why despite his disappointing playoff performance(which I've discussed in detail before), is not enough to drop him from his spot as the best player in the '82 season.

i talk to both with great regularity. we all share the same opinion.

This quote from Magic proves he does not agree. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6868472&postcount=174 It also mentions Riley, but I can find the video of him saying it directly later.

so 5 in 60 years?

I wasn't going back before the Celtic dynasty since I'm not particularly knowledgeable about that era, nor do I care as much. Although I am aware of the Laker dynasty led by Mikan as well as championship teams led by Dolph Schayes as well as Paul Arizin/Neil Johnston.

All this proves is that the value of point guards is overrated which I suspected due to the ball-dominant nature of the position.

the bulls went from averaging 105ppg to 98ppg in 1994, it would have definately made him and the bulls more effective had he picked up the scoring slack.

Ultimately he did help the Bulls basically match their win total, despite being far less talented with the loss of the greatest player ever, imo. You expect a massive decline after that.

Despite that, Pippen did pick up some of the scoring slack increasing his scoring 3.4 ppg, while he also shot the ball much more efficiently and also stepped up his defense and rebounding. That's even more impressive because he was now the focus of opposing defenses with Jordan not around anymore.

it can definately determine that. we learn how players react to different situations, situations that could have them fishing the next day. with these things in mind we realise what kind of player he really is and is ranked according to these findings.

I do take into consideration when player's games don't translate as well to the postseason, although I usually have an idea of this based on their skill set in general. For example, Karl Malone often benefited from easy baskets, so his offense usually fell off. David Robinson lacked a good back to the basket game and go to move so his offense usually fell off greatly. Lebron was a poor shooter in '07 and '08 and this got exposed each year. Durant's '10 regular season scoring was partially a result of an excessive amount of FTA, which he wasn't getting in the playoffs, hence his decline.

But there's also just bad match ups/slumps that occur, which can still decide a ranking for me when it's close, but won't make a big difference.

FindingTim

07-24-2012, 03:39 PM

Malone has the accolades, but as a player, I don't think it's close. Karl Malone is one of the least impressive "greats" ever. Not once while watching him play did I think, "holy shit this guy is good." Not once. Charles Barkley on the other hand.... that guy was a monster!

Shep

07-28-2012, 05:10 AM

'92? Stockton managed just 14.3 ppg and 11.2 apg on a terrible 39.7% compared to a 15.8 ppg, 13.7 apg, 48.2% season. Stockton's numbers are lowered by him being forced to leave sit out the second half of game 5. But in the elimination game, Stockton had 18 points and 12 assists, but on 5/19 shooting and 1/8 on 3s with 5 turnovers.
overall, stockton had a successful playoffs. the jazz made the conference finals, one of only 4 teams to get to the conference finals, and it was the first time in the history of the franchise they had made it that far.

and why are you mentioning only 1 series? overall he averaged 14.8ppg, 2.9apg, 13.6apg, and 2.1spg. including a masterful 16.0ppg, 3.6rpg, 16.0apg, 2.0spg series against the la clippers, and 14.2ppg, 3.2rpg, 14.0apg, 3.2spg series against gary payton and the seattle supersonics.

as for that final game stockton was playing out of his game by shooting too much because karl malone was being passive, only taking 14 shots.

Stockton was extremely quiet in the '94 WCF. He fell from 15.2 ppg and 12.6 apg on 52.8% in the season to 14.4 ppg and 9.4 apg on 41.5% including quiet games of 17 points/6 assists in a key game 5 that pretty much decided if Utah would make it a series, and an elimination game of 13 points and 9 assists on 6/19 shooting.
again, 1 series. the jazz made the conference finals again, 1 out of only 4 teams to do so, and lost to the eventual champion, and much stronger houston rockets.

they shouldn't have even been in the wcf in the first place, but they destroyed the powerful san antonio spurs in 4 games in the first round without home court advantage, then defeated the team that just got done beating the team with the best record in the nba, all while jeff hornacek was still getting used to his new surroundings.

stockton was once again forced to take shots in game 7 due to other people not stepping up.

In the '96 WCF, Stockton dropped to 9.9 ppg and 7.6 apg on 39.7% compared to his season averages of 14.7 ppg and 11.2 apg on 53.8%.
one series and another wcf appearance :roll: 1 of only 4 teams to do so :oldlol: defeated the san antonio spurs again without homecourt advantage.

stockton didn't have a particularily good wcf, but a main reason behind that was due to him being matched up with the best point guard in the nba, and also one of the best defenders in the league. stockton was only a top 3 point guard by this stage. but lets have a look at what he did in the first 2 rounds:

against portland: 14.2ppg, 2.4rpg, 14.4apg, 1.8spg
against san antonio: 9.8ppg, 4.3rpg, 11.7apg, 1.3spg (no homecourt advantage)

stockton was also his teams best player in the elimination game 7 against seattle, leading the jazz in points, rebounds, assists, and steals.

The Sixers lost in game 1, but Barkley with a sprained ankle had 21 points, 13 rebounds and 6 blocks on 8/15 shooting including the steal and basket to tie the game at 104 with 1:10 remaining.

Barkley led the Sixers with 26 points, 15 rebounds and 3 assists on 9/15 shooting an OT game 2 win. He was the hero in OT with 8 points including a key steal and basket to give the Sixers a 121-120 lead, and then the gamewinner with 11 seconds left.

In game 3, Barkley had 39 points to go along with 9 rebounds on 13/19 shooting and 13/14 from the line, though he did miss a key free throw.

In game 4, Barkley had 25 points, 13 rebounds and 4 assists on 8/10 shooting including 12 points in the 4th quarter.

Though he did have just 12 points and 13 rebounds and 5/19 shooting in game 5. Regardless, it was much better than those Stockton series, and Charles was just a 3rd year player and his play through 4 games was a reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent.
beside points and blocks, barkley decreased in every way. his assists and steals were more than halved, and his rebounding was decreased by 2 per game, along with the drop in field goal percent.

and then, as you mentioned, was his no show for the elimination game.

the main reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent was because the players around barkley stepped up more.

roy hinson went from 14/6/1/1/2 48% to 17/5/1/1/2 60%fg
julius erving went from 17/4/3/1/2 to 18/5/3/1/1
and mo cheeks went from 16/3/8/3/0 to 18/3/9/2/1

In game 1, he didn't dominate thanks to Oakley's physical defense and Knick double teams, but he did still have 22 points, 12 rebounds and 6 assists on 7/12 shooting.

In game 2, Barkley had 30 points, 12 rebounds and 7 assists on 10/17 shooting and 10/11 from the line, though the Knicks did make a comeback, and won by 1 point on a 3 by Trent Tucker.

In game 3, Barkley had 29 points, 11 rebounds and 3 assists on 12/16 shooting, but they lost by 1 in OT on a gamewinner by Gerald Wilkins with 6 seconds remaining.

They had a chance to win the series, but Barkley's play was a reason they competed with a superior team in all 3 games that were decided late in the games.
they got swept in the first round. barkley, again, was nowhere near where the sixers needed him to be, and he was outplayed by maurice cheeks, who showed how a star player should step up in times of crisis.

cheeks averaged 17.7ppg, 3.7rpg, 13.0apg, 2.3spg, and only 1.0to per game.

ron anderson also stepped up more than barkley, averaging 20.7ppg, 5.3rpg, and 4.3apg.

I'd agree more with criticizing Barkley's play in '94 and '95 because he at least had contending teams and was closer to his prime, despite dealing with injuries.
atleast they made it past the first round in '94, and '95 :lol

Barkley played fine, that said, he was 34 by this time with bad knees and a bad back. No longer a dominant force and no longer the franchise player on his team so I didn't really care what he did.
still a top 2 power forward and one of the best 12 players on the planet.

He was done by this point.
...

Barkley stepped up a lot.
:wtf:

Not really, I chose '02 Kidd in a recent thread over '11 Derrick Rose. In fact, Kidd was the best PG in the league from '99-'04 with the exception of '00.
thats funny, considering i have rose over kidd in that argument. gary payton was the best point guard in '99, '00, and '01. it was kidd from '02-'04, and '07.

Rondo was a fine player, and he was the standout player of the Cavs series, but Pierce was probably still the man on that team, and the standout player of the ECF vs Orlando, and would have probably been finals MVP had Boston won. Rondo only really stood out in the ECSF.

Top 5 players are at a different level. The Celtics won because of the strength of their whole team, which was 8 deep with quality players, and their team defense.
:oldlol: pierce wasn't even top 2 on the celtics roster. no way pierce wins finals mvp with his 18/5/3 on 44%fg, especially when rondo is getting 14/6/8/2, including a nice 19/12/10/2 triple double in their game 2 win. kg also probably outplayed pierce in the finals.

Shep

07-28-2012, 05:11 AM

I appreciate what Kidd did for that team with his passing, defense vs bigger players and basketball IQ, as well as his improved 3 point shot, but he was more like a role player by that point. Terry's scoring and clutch play and Chandler's defense and rebounding made them better. Arguably Marion as well.
all nice peices, but kidd was easily their second best player by a wide margin in both the regular season, and playoffs. kidd was alot closer to nowitzki as the mavs best player than any other player was to kidd himself.

He never once got serious MVP consideration.
barkley's highest mvp rank was top 3 once, in 1993. stockton's highest mvp rank was top 3 in 3 years: 1989, 1991, and 1992.

Already proved you wrong on '92, '94 and '96
destroyed

He did pretty well with even a limited Kevin Johnson in '93.
1 of only 5 occasions where he stepped up in the po's

He was 34 and a shell of his former self, Hakeem declined greatly after that 1 year too. Stockton had Malone for their entire primes.
a top 2 center, and top 5 overall player wasn't enough :roll: , throw in a top 2 shooting guard? still not enough :roll: :roll:

I don't really care
:rockon:

The supporting cast matters too.

When Magic has at least as much passing ability as he ever did from '87-'90, a bigger role to produce more as a playmaker, the new found ability to take over a game in a half court situation with his great post game and reliable outside shot, which also made his playmaking even better since the Lakers could run the offense through Magic in the post, it's obvious that he took his game to another level. Those major differences are why that period is Magic's prime.
he was much more effective in 1982 in his youth. he only added those things because he was getting old and losing his physical abilities.

Moses was the dominant player of the regular season by far, it's not particularly close, this is why despite his disappointing playoff performance(which I've discussed in detail before), is not enough to drop him from his spot as the best player in the '82 season.
larry bird and magic johnson were the best 2 players from the regular season after leading their respective teams to the best 2 records in the nba. moses malone dropped from 3rd in the regular season to 5th after the playoffs due to his poor individual, and team showing in the post season. the houston rockets bowed out in the first round, winning only 1 game, and the losing margin being 15, and 21 points in the losses. moses dropped 7 points, and dropped 9 percentage points off his field goals, he also did not manage to block a shot per game, in fact he averaged 3 times more turnovers than blocks for the series. :lol

This quote from Magic proves he does not agree
i'm sorry, what does this quote prove?

I wasn't going back before the Celtic dynasty since I'm not particularly knowledgeable about that era, nor do I care as much
say no more

Ultimately he did help the Bulls basically match their win total, despite being far less talented with the loss of the greatest player ever, imo. You expect a massive decline after that.

Despite that, Pippen did pick up some of the scoring slack increasing his scoring 3.4 ppg, while he also shot the ball much more efficiently and also stepped up his defense and rebounding. That's even more impressive because he was now the focus of opposing defenses with Jordan not around anymore.
but the ball was in his hands alot more, or there was the opportunity to be in his hands, so there was more than ample opportunity to step up his scoring.

I do take into consideration when player's games don't translate as well to the postseason, although I usually have an idea of this based on their skill set in general. For example, Karl Malone often benefited from easy baskets, so his offense usually fell off. David Robinson lacked a good back to the basket game and go to move so his offense usually fell off greatly. Lebron was a poor shooter in '07 and '08 and this got exposed each year. Durant's '10 regular season scoring was partially a result of an excessive amount of FTA, which he wasn't getting in the playoffs, hence his decline.

But there's also just bad match ups/slumps that occur, which can still decide a ranking for me when it's close, but won't make a big difference.
each to their own. the playoffs are where dreams are made and broken, it is why players play the game. i expect big time players to step up big, sometime it will be the difference in determining rankings.

D.J.

07-28-2012, 09:32 PM

barkley's highest mvp rank was top 3 once, in 1993.

Barkley was runner up in 1990.

ShaqAttack3234

07-29-2012, 12:27 AM

and why are you mentioning only 1 series? overall he averaged 14.8ppg, 2.9apg, 13.6apg, and 2.1spg. including a masterful 16.0ppg, 3.6rpg, 16.0apg, 2.0spg series against the la clippers, and 14.2ppg, 3.2rpg, 14.0apg, 3.2spg series against gary payton and the seattle supersonics.

1 series? It's the series that prevented them from getting to the finals. Due to Malone having one of the best series of his career, they had a chance to upset the favored and more talent Blazers, if Stockton had played close to his usual level, but he didn't. And to make matters worse, Porter completely outplayed him, despite not being as good of a player as Stockton in general. I expect much more from a top 10 player in the game.

His seattle series was nothing special, imo, and you forgot to add that he shot 43% in it. Utah won that series primarily because of Karl Malone's dominance and Jeff Malone's 22 ppg on 54% didn't hurt either. The 2 Malones averaged about 52 ppg between them.

Even for the entire run, Stockton's scoring average dropped 1 ppg from the season and assists were about the same, but his shooting % dropped from 48% to 42%, so his overall playoff numbers were worse, but that's not all you have to look at.

again, 1 series. the jazz made the conference finals again, 1 out of only 4 teams to do so, and lost to the eventual champion, and much stronger houston rockets.

they shouldn't have even been in the wcf in the first place, but they destroyed the powerful san antonio spurs in 4 games in the first round without home court advantage, then defeated the team that just got done beating the team with the best record in the nba, all while jeff hornacek was still getting used to his new surroundings.

The Jazz made the conference finals, but once again, Stockton coming up small prevented them from making that series more competitive. Granted, Malone didn't have the best series either(he had food poisoning, iirc), but Malone's improved all around game was the main reason Utah had as much success as they did.

Even for the entire playoffs, Stockton's scoring dropped a bit, assists dropped from nearly 13 per game to not even 10, and his shooting % dropped from almost 53% in the season to a little under 46%.

This, much like '92 qualifies as a playoff failure under my definition, which is losing while playing noticeably below your usual level.

The main reason they beat the Spurs was because Karl Malone shut down David Robinson. The Spurs had a pretty good team around Robinson, but most of them played poorly in the series too.

And that's not some incredible team on paper. Plus they had a joke of a head coach in John Lucas. They overachieved to get 55 wins primarily because David Robinson was a dominant regular season player

one series and another wcf appearance :roll: 1 of only 4 teams to do so :oldlol: defeated the san antonio spurs again without homecourt advantage.

stockton didn't have a particularily good wcf, but a main reason behind that was due to him being matched up with the best point guard in the nba, and also one of the best defenders in the league. stockton was only a top 3 point guard by this stage. but lets have a look at what he did in the first 2 rounds:

against portland: 14.2ppg, 2.4rpg, 14.4apg, 1.8spg
against san antonio: 9.8ppg, 4.3rpg, 11.7apg, 1.3spg (no homecourt advantage)

Malone was easily Utah's best player and the MVP of the Spurs series. He once again shut down Robinson, and much like the '94 series, most of Robinson's teammates followed his lead and played like shit.

I covered his terrible WCF which alone makes it a failure, but even for the entire playoffs, Stockton's scoring dropped almost 4 ppg,his assists dropped and his FG% plummeted from almost 54% to under 46%.

By the way, Penny was the best PG.

beside points and blocks, barkley decreased in every way. his assists and steals were more than halved, and his rebounding was decreased by 2 per game, along with the drop in field goal percent.

I don't care about his steals numbers decreasing in the last and a small drop in FG% is normal from the regular season to the playoffs.

the main reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent was because the players around barkley stepped up more.

The main reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent is because Barkley's level of play was high in general with the only blemishes being his missed FT in game 3 and the elimination game.

they got swept in the first round. barkley, again, was nowhere near where the sixers needed him to be

Nowhere near the player they needed him to be? You see how close each game was? Barkley playing like a superstar and elite player is why they had a chance to win all 3 games vs a better team.

still a top 2 power forward and one of the best 12 players on the planet.

Even if that was true(which it's not), that would only show how remarkable of a player Barkley was in his prime to decline so much and still be that good. But '97 Barkley is nowhere near representative of how good Barkley was during his prime, so it's simply not really a factor for me when ranking him.

thats funny, considering i have rose over kidd in that argument. gary payton was the best point guard in '99, '00, and '01.

it was close between Kidd and Payton all 3 years, so I don't have a problem with you taking Payton.

it was kidd from '02-'04, and '07.

:oldlol: at '07. Nash was by far the best PG and a top 3 player in the entire league behind only Kobe and Duncan. Kidd probably had his best season since '04 and was a top 4 PG behind Nash, Arenas and Baron.

pierce wasn't even top 2 on the celtics roster. no way pierce wins finals mvp with his 18/5/3 on 44%fg, especially when rondo is getting 14/6/8/2, including a nice 19/12/10/2 triple double in their game 2 win. kg also probably outplayed pierce in the finals.

It's tough to compare these 3 players impact considering how different they were. None of these 3 really had a standout series in the finals.

kidd was alot closer to nowitzki as the mavs best player than any other player was to kidd himself

There is no sort of argument that can be made to support this.

barkley's highest mvp rank was top 3 once, in 1993. stockton's highest mvp rank was top 3 in 3 years: 1989, 1991, and 1992.

Barkley was voted MVP in '93, finished 2nd in '90 and would have finished 1st had it not been for several voters leaving him off his ballot. I would have gone with Hakeem in '93 and Jordan in '90, though.

Stockton's highest MVP finish was 7th in '89, he never even had the most MVP votes on his own team. :oldlol:

a top 2 center, and top 5 overall player wasn't enough :roll: , throw in a top 2 shooting guard? still not enough

As I said, I don't really care what '97 Barkley did.

he was much more effective in 1982 in his youth. he only added those things because he was getting old and losing his physical abilities.

:oldlol: he wasn't more effective with such a limited half court skill set. He added an outside shot because it's a basic thing for a perimeter player to have, and he added a post game to became a truly great half court player and take his game to the next level. He couldn't have made the transition to 1st option in '87 and succeeded had he not added to his game.

He didn't add those things when he got old. He started adding the outside shot around '84-'85 when he was only about 24-25 and not even in his prime. He added the post game in '87 when he was only 27, an age when most players are in or near their peaks, and still have several prime years left.

larry bird and magic johnson were the best 2 players from the regular season after leading their respective teams to the best 2 records in the nba. moses malone dropped from 3rd in the regular season to 5th after the playoffs due to his poor individual, and team showing in the post season. the houston rockets bowed out in the first round, winning only 1 game, and the losing margin being 15, and 21 points in the losses. moses dropped 7 points, and dropped 9 percentage points off his field goals, he also did not manage to block a shot per game, in fact he averaged 3 times more turnovers than blocks for the series. :lol

Nobody did anything comparable to Moses in the regular season that year. I liked other player's skill sets better such as Kareem, Bird and possibly Dr. J, but I can't argue with Malone's dominance.

I'm aware of his disappointing playoff series, but Malone ended up such a clear number 1 for the regular season, especially when nobody else really had an outstanding year by best player standards that the playoff disappointment is nowhere near enough to drop him below his number 1 spot. Particularly in a 3 game mini-series, which was an idiotic format. talk about a small sample size.

i'm sorry, what does this quote prove?

:hammerhead: It's Magic talking about the Lakers becoming his team in '87 at Pat Riley's request after having been Kareem's team for all of the years before.

You said Magic and Riley would agree with you, I proved you wrong.

but the ball was in his hands alot more, or there was the opportunity to be in his hands, so there was more than ample opportunity to step up his scoring.

Actually, it wasn't. Pippen didn't become any more ball-dominant after '92. In fact, he may have been less since running the offense and facilitating was split up more. The Bulls also relied on executing the triangle offense even more with less talent in '94 which also prevented ball-dominance.

PP34Deuce

07-29-2012, 04:24 AM

The funny thing is all of you guys are googling stats to downplay certain players to make your point.

Personally I dont thibk you need 9 pages of stats.

Malone was better defensively and disciplined. lead by example but could not carry a team consistently.

Barkley could do everything offensively and more dynamic. When barkley had big games there were high assists involves. Hes also charismatic and you can build around him.

for that I would choose barkley who could score against any defender and be your point forward.

amfirst

07-29-2012, 02:04 PM

Malone is better and I actually watched them both in their prime, not just look up stats.

Round Mound

07-29-2012, 06:00 PM

Barkley was Better I Saw Both Play In Their Primes Also.

Barkley Was Better from 1985 to 1995...Then Malone Took Over as Barkley Declined Through Back and Knee Injuries and Lost His Explosivness and Leaping Ability

Shep

08-04-2012, 04:45 AM

1 series? It's the series that prevented them from getting to the finals. Due to Malone having one of the best series of his career, they had a chance to upset the favored and more talent Blazers, if Stockton had played close to his usual level, but he didn't. And to make matters worse, Porter completely outplayed him, despite not being as good of a player as Stockton in general. I expect much more from a top 10 player in the game.
lol@malone having one of the best series of his career when he had better series' in the previous 2 rounds let alone his career. in any case malone did outplay stockton in 2 of 3 series in that playoff, but he was getting outplayed by karl malone here who was the best power forward in the nba, and a top 8 player overall, he wasn't getting outplayed by maurice cheeks.

His seattle series was nothing special, imo, and you forgot to add that he shot 43% in it. Utah won that series primarily because of Karl Malone's dominance and Jeff Malone's 22 ppg on 54% didn't hurt either. The 2 Malones averaged about 52 ppg between them.
:roll: what a joke. stockton was the mvp and best player in that series.

Even for the entire run, Stockton's scoring average dropped 1 ppg from the season and assists were about the same, but his shooting % dropped from 48% to 42%, so his overall playoff numbers were worse, but that's not all you have to look at.
atleast stockton made the playoffs at all :oldlol:

The Jazz made the conference finals, but once again, Stockton coming up small prevented them from making that series more competitive. Granted, Malone didn't have the best series either(he had food poisoning, iirc), but Malone's improved all around game was the main reason Utah had as much success as they did.

Even for the entire playoffs, Stockton's scoring dropped a bit, assists dropped from nearly 13 per game to not even 10, and his shooting % dropped from almost 53% in the season to a little under 46%.
malone was the jazz' best player by this point. and althought stockton's numbers were down, he still contributed to a winning team and only 3 other teams made it that far. much better than putting up your normal numbers and getting swept in the first round.

This, much like '92 qualifies as a playoff failure under my definition, which is losing while playing noticeably below your usual level.
each to their own definition. playoff failure in my definition is losing in the first round while not stepping up at all, and getting outplayed by role players. i'd much rather win 2 series and then lose in the conference finals than get swept in the first round playing subpar or not make the playoffs at all.

The main reason they beat the Spurs was because Karl Malone shut down David Robinson. The Spurs had a pretty good team around Robinson, but most of them played poorly in the series too.

And that's not some incredible team on paper. Plus they had a joke of a head coach in John Lucas. They overachieved to get 55 wins primarily because David Robinson was a dominant regular season player
the jazz made the conference finals for the second time in their 20 year history and john stockton was their second best player in the regular season and playoffs. much better than getting swept in the first round.

Malone was easily Utah's best player and the MVP of the Spurs series. He once again shut down Robinson, and much like the '94 series, most of Robinson's teammates followed his lead and played like shit.

I covered his terrible WCF which alone makes it a failure, but even for the entire playoffs, Stockton's scoring dropped almost 4 ppg,his assists dropped and his FG% plummeted from almost 54% to under 46%.
malone was clearly the jazz' best player in 1996 so being mvp of a series means little. the best players on teams usually are the mvp of the playoffs except for some anomalies like hersey hawkins being the mvp for the sixers, and mo cheeks as well in separate series.

By the way, Penny was the best PG.
penny was second, behind gary payton

I don't care about his steals numbers decreasing
:facepalm

and a small drop in FG% is normal from the regular season to the playoffs.
so you agree it dropped

The main reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent is because Barkley's level of play was high in general with the only blemishes being his missed FT in game 3 and the elimination game.
generally it wasn't high enough, and while others were able to step up to the occasion, barkley was not.

Nowhere near the player they needed him to be? You see how close each game was? Barkley playing like a superstar and elite player is why they had a chance to win all 3 games vs a better team.
actually mo cheeks stepping up and outplaying barkley was the reason why they had a chance.

Even if that was true(which it's not)
:lol

that would only show how remarkable of a player Barkley was in his prime to decline so much and still be that good. But '97 Barkley is nowhere near representative of how good Barkley was during his prime, so it's simply not really a factor for me when ranking him.
decline so much yet he was still better than he was the previous year, and every year bar 3 before 1993 :oldlol:

at '07. Nash was by far the best PG and a top 3 player in the entire league behind only Kobe and Duncan. Kidd probably had his best season since '04 and was a top 4 PG behind Nash, Arenas and Baron.
nash was top 7 overall in 2007. as for kobe in the top 3? :roll: kobe wasn't even in the top 18. and after kidd and nash, the best point guards were baron davis, and tony parker.

There is no sort of argument that can be made to support this.
no argument can be made for any of your clains so far in this thread.

Barkley was voted MVP in '93
he was actually third most valuable that year

finished 2nd in '90
wasn't even top 7

I would have gone with Hakeem in '93 and Jordan in '90, though.

these are the correct choices.

Stockton's highest MVP finish was 7th in '89, he never even had the most MVP votes on his own team
he was actually third in 3 years: 1989, 1991, and 1992.

As I said, I don't really care what '97 Barkley did.
:(

he wasn't more effective with such a limited half court skill set. He added an outside shot because it's a basic thing for a perimeter player to have, and he added a post game to became a truly great half court player and take his game to the next level. He couldn't have made the transition to 1st option in '87 and succeeded had he not added to his game.

He didn't add those things when he got old. He started adding the outside shot around '84-'85 when he was only about 24-25 and not even in his prime. He added the post game in '87 when he was only 27, an age when most players are in or near their peaks, and still have several prime years left.
magic did what his team needed him to do. in 1982 the lakers had 6 players in double digits averaging almost 110 between those guys. it would be no point in him scoring all these points, infact it would be to the detriment of the team. instead he rebounded better than he ever did in his entire career, did an outstanding job forcing turnovers (league leader in steals), shot the ball at 54%, and added 9.5 assists as a 2 guard. he did have a post game, although not as polished as it was later one in his career, but once again, he did not need this at that point as he was able to dominate, be the best player on the floor and eventually be the best in the league by the end of the playoffs.

Nobody did anything comparable to Moses in the regular season that year. I liked other player's skill sets better such as Kareem, Bird and possibly Dr. J, but I can't argue with Malone's dominance.
bird and magic had the better regular season.

I'm aware of his disappointing playoff series, but Malone ended up such a clear number 1 for the regular season, especially when nobody else really had an outstanding year by best player standards that the playoff disappointment is nowhere near enough to drop him below his number 1 spot. Particularly in a 3 game mini-series, which was an idiotic format. talk about a small sample size.
bird and magic already were better before the playoffs had started. erving was very close behind, kareem was a bit behind but then he helps the lakers dominate the playoffs, only losing 2 games in the process. this makes kareem easily better than malone. and erving gets past larry bird and makes the nba finals, making it an easy decision as to who were the best 4 players that year, infact it was closer between malone and robert parish than it was between malone and any of those 4.

It's Magic talking about the Lakers becoming his team in '87 at Pat Riley's request after having been Kareem's team for all of the years before.

You said Magic and Riley would agree with you, I proved you wrong.
his team meaning number 1 offensive option. he was the best player on that team since 1982

Actually, it wasn't. Pippen didn't become any more ball-dominant after '92. In fact, he may have been less since running the offense and facilitating was split up more. The Bulls also relied on executing the triangle offense even more with less talent in '94 which also prevented ball-dominance.
the opportunity was there to be more ball dominant if he wasn't. and he could have been much more of a scorer, especially since the number 1 scorer in the league was no longer there.

TheBigVeto

08-04-2012, 05:13 AM

Malone used to be better than Barkley.
Then he joined the Lakers.
Automatically he becomes worse than Barkley.

Deuce Bigalow

08-04-2012, 05:19 AM

at '07. Nash was by far the best PG and a top 3 player in the entire league behind only Kobe and Duncan.
as for kobe in the top 3? :roll: kobe wasn't even in the top 18

Barkley was voted MVP in '93
he was actually third most valuable that year

:biggums:

:facepalm :oldlol:

tomtucker

08-04-2012, 05:33 AM

charles barkley was and is, a ****ing asshole......arrogant bastard ......why is this fool on TV.....?....Shaq wants to beat him up everytime they are on the same show

ShaqAttack3234

08-05-2012, 01:24 AM

Barkley Was Better from 1985 to 1995...Then Malone Took Over as Barkley Declined Through Back and Knee Injuries and Lost His Explosivness and Leaping Ability

Barkley was better from '86-'93, except for '92. But Malone surpassed him in '94 due to Chuck's back problems and decline and Malone improving his own skills.

lol@malone having one of the best series of his career when he had better series' in the previous 2 rounds let alone his career. in any case malone did outplay stockton in 2 of 3 series in that playoff, but he was getting outplayed by karl malone here who was the best power forward in the nba, and a top 8 player overall, he wasn't getting outplayed by maurice cheeks.

Considering what he did against Buck Williams, it's definitely up there. I never said his '92 WCF was his best series for sure, just that it's one of his best.

Malone was anywhere from a top 2-4 player, and Barkley never got outplayed by Mo Cheeks except for his rookie year.

:roll: what a joke. stockton was the mvp and best player in that series.

Yeah, that is quite a joke you told.

atleast stockton made the playoffs at all :oldlol:

Ah, the benefits of being a sidekick.

malone was the jazz' best player by this point. and althought stockton's numbers were down, he still contributed to a winning team and only 3 other teams made it that far. much better than putting up your normal numbers and getting swept in the first round.

Malone was always better than him.

If you lose in an earlier round, but play at your usual level, it usually means you came to play, but aren't on a contending team. To me, that is not a playoff failure. But in Stockton's case, he was on a contending team, didn't come to play in the series he got eliminated in, and that is a playoff failure to me. I wasn't overly impressed with his play up to that point either.

each to their own definition. playoff failure in my definition is losing in the first round while not stepping up at all, and getting outplayed by role players. i'd much rather win 2 series and then lose in the conference finals than get swept in the first round playing subpar or not make the playoffs at all.

Barkley doesn't get outplayed by role players.

the jazz made the conference finals for the second time in their 20 year history and john stockton was their second best player in the regular season and playoffs. much better than getting swept in the first round.

Key word, second best player. Barkley didn't have that luxury other than his rookie year and his real decline years in Houston.

malone was clearly the jazz' best player in 1996 so being mvp of a series means little. the best players on teams usually are the mvp of the playoffs except for some anomalies like hersey hawkins being the mvp for the sixers, and mo cheeks as well in separate series.

Malone had clearly been Utah's best player for a while.

penny was second, behind gary payton

Nah, they were relatively close, but Penny's offense was significantly better, imo. Payton was clearly the better defender and the gap in their defense was bigger than offense, but offense is more important at the point guard position. Penny finished 3rd in MVP voting, and led the team to a 20-8 record without Shaq, including a 17-5 start when he was averaging 26.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 6.8 apg, 2 spg, 50.3 FG%, 62.2 TS% showing what he could do as the man.

Payton's defense was clearly better as I mentioned, both help/team defense and man to man defense. But Penny's passing and court vision impressed me more, his mid-range game was better, imo and he was much bigger and much more athletic making him a greater threat driving to the basket and finishing. Just the better overall scorer and passer/playmaker to me.

so you agree it dropped

Yes, and I don't care for the reason I already stated.

generally it wasn't high enough, and while others were able to step up to the occasion, barkley was not.

Barkley's series was impressive to me, especially for a 3rd year player. It doesn't alter his ranking on my list one way or the other, though.

actually mo cheeks stepping up and outplaying barkley was the reason why they had a chance.

Nice imagination.

decline so much yet he was still better than he was the previous year, and every year bar 3 before 1993 :oldlol:

I don't know where you get this shit from. I don't think you're being serious.

nash was top 7 overall in 2007. as for kobe in the top 3? :roll: kobe wasn't even in the top 18. and after kidd and nash, the best point guards were baron davis, and tony parker.

Kobe not in the top 18? Again, you can't be serious. He was the consensus best player. Not only were his individual feats among the greatest ever, but his team overachieved considering their very limited talent level and the injuries to key players.

There was a total of 1 player who had a case to be over Kobe, and that was Tim Duncan. Everyone else was at least 1 tier below.

Nash was top 3, would have been top 4 if Dirk hadn't choked so bad in the first round.

Parker was a nice player, but just top 25

no argument can be made for any of your clains so far in this thread.

Nothing I've said is the least bit surprising, or any sort of stretch. Kidd being top 10 in 2011 and closer to Nowitzki than he was to Chandler or Terry just sounds like a joke or trolling.

Kidd was comparable to Marion as their 4th/5th best player. He was pretty much a role player by that point. A very good one, but role players don't come close to top 10, or top 20 for that matter.

he was actually third most valuable that year

I'd have him second behind Hakeem.

wasn't even top 7

4th best player behind Jordan, Magic and Ewing and probably deserved a top 3 MVP ranking as well over Ewing thanks to the extra wins.

these are the correct choices.

:applause:

he was actually third in 3 years: 1989, 1991, and 1992.

No, he was second on his team. 3rd is underrating him, then again, Mark Eaton and Jeff Malone were pretty good.

magic did what his team needed him to do. in 1982 the lakers had 6 players in double digits averaging almost 110 between those guys. it would be no point in him scoring all these points, infact it would be to the detriment of the team. instead he rebounded better than he ever did in his entire career, did an outstanding job forcing turnovers (league leader in steals), shot the ball at 54%, and added 9.5 assists as a 2 guard. he did have a post game, although not as polished as it was later one in his career, but once again, he did not need this at that point as he was able to dominate, be the best player on the floor and eventually be the best in the league by the end of the playoffs.

Magic did what his team needed him to do, and that team happened to be the most talented in the league. He also did about what he was capable of doing, except he was capable of a bigger playmaking load.

Scoring more would have been a detriment to the team because he didn't have the skill set for it at that point. When he did have the skill set for it with the outside shot and post game, the Lakers had their best record since he joined the Lakers had their best record with him(65-17) and were the first team to win back to back since '69.

Magic was top 5 in '82, but I really can't see him higher.

bird and magic had the better regular season.

Nope, Bird is less crazy, but in the end it doesn't make much sense to say anyone was as good as Moses that year.

bird and magic already were better before the playoffs had started. erving was very close behind, kareem was a bit behind but then he helps the lakers dominate the playoffs, only losing 2 games in the process. this makes kareem easily better than malone. and erving gets past larry bird and makes the nba finals, making it an easy decision as to who were the best 4 players that year, infact it was closer between malone and robert parish than it was between malone and any of those 4.

1.Moses Malone
2.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3.Larry Bird
4.Julius Erving
5.Magic Johnson

Bird has a case over Kareem and Magic has a case over Dr. J, but this order is better. Parish and Gervin would probably be the next player on the list.

his team meaning number 1 offensive option. he was the best player on that team since 1982

'84 at the earliest, but still debatable.

the opportunity was there to be more ball dominant if he wasn't. and he could have been much more of a scorer, especially since the number 1 scorer in the league was no longer there.

Are you forgetting about the triangle offense? That's not an offense that encourages ball-dominance. As it turned out, it was a great idea to rely on the triangle more than ever with much less potential offensively. Pippen played a similar role to what he had been playing except for bringing the ball up a little less and splitting playmaking duties a bit more. He still had a career season setting career highs in scoring(22.0 ppg), rebounding(8.7 rpg), steals and a career high at the time in 3s made(0.9) and 3P%(32%). His team also overachieved at least 15 games by Phil Jackson's estimate.

Round Mound

08-05-2012, 04:20 AM

Malone`s FG% INMENSLY DROPPED In the Play-Offs ALWAYS. Infact he ONLY SHOT 50% FG for 3 of his Play-Off Runs...That is With HELP of a System Designed for Him Through the Pick and Rolls and Stockton as the Creator.

I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.

The 1995-96 Season was When Malone became Better Clearly.

D.J.

08-07-2012, 03:40 PM

Malone`s FG% INMENSY DROPPED In the Play-Offs ALWAYS. Infact he ONLY SHOT 50% FG for 3 of his Play-Off Runs...That is With HELP of a System Designed for Him Through the Pick and Rolls and Stockton as the Creator.

I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.

The 1995-96 Season was When Malone became Better Clearly.

Not only did Malone's FG% drop, but he didn't not come through when his team needed him. Then again, neither did Stockton. Malone is the only superstar player I know(aside from his teammate) where in game 7s(or game 5s in the first round), he had a losing record.

Shep

08-11-2012, 04:33 AM

Considering what he did against Buck Williams, it's definitely up there. I never said his '92 WCF was his best series for sure, just that it's one of his best.

Malone was anywhere from a top 2-4 player, and Barkley never got outplayed by Mo Cheeks except for his rookie year.
malone had better series in the previous two rounds and he was 8th best in the league.

barkley was ouplayed by cheeks in the 1989 playoffs.

Yeah, that is quite a joke you told.
:confusedshrug:

Ah, the benefits of being a sidekick.
actually, he was the best player on a team that made the conference finals

Malone was always better than him.
stockton was better from '88 til '92.

If you lose in an earlier round, but play at your usual level, it usually means you came to play, but aren't on a contending team. To me, that is not a playoff failure. But in Stockton's case, he was on a contending team, didn't come to play in the series he got eliminated in, and that is a playoff failure to me. I wasn't overly impressed with his play up to that point either.
to me to get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and not step up to where your team needs you to, to be in a winning position as a superstar player, and get outplayed and step up less than lesser players is a failure to me.
contending teams are contending teams because of individual performances.

Barkley doesn't get outplayed by role players.
destroyed

Key word, second best player. Barkley didn't have that luxury other than his rookie year and his real decline years in Houston.
what luxury?

Malone had clearly been Utah's best player for a while.
only from 1993, so malone had been the jazz' best player for only 3 years

Nah, they were relatively close, but Penny's offense was significantly better, imo. Payton was clearly the better defender and the gap in their defense was bigger than offense, but offense is more important at the point guard position. Penny finished 3rd in MVP voting, and led the team to a 20-8 record without Shaq, including a 17-5 start when he was averaging 26.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 6.8 apg, 2 spg, 50.3 FG%, 62.2 TS% showing what he could do as the man.

Payton's defense was clearly better as I mentioned, both help/team defense and man to man defense. But Penny's passing and court vision impressed me more, his mid-range game was better, imo and he was much bigger and much more athletic making him a greater threat driving to the basket and finishing. Just the better overall scorer and passer/playmaker to me.
penny was a superstar and only 1 spot separated these two on the official '96 rankings.

hardaway was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the east and got swept in the conference finals.

payton was the best player on a team that had the second best record in the league and lost in the nba finals, the sonics also won 2 games against the bulls in the finals - 1 more than the three teams combined managed before seattle played them, and swept the defending 2 time champion houston rockets in the second round.

payton also was the defensive player of the year, more valuable, and led the league in steals per game, making it an easy decision.

Yes, and I don't care for the reason I already stated.
its ok that you don't care, as long as you agree

Barkley's series was impressive to me, especially for a 3rd year player. It doesn't alter his ranking on my list one way or the other, though.
how many years a player has played doesn't come into consideration when ranking players for me. barkley decreasing his production on many different categories does matter, especially when he is losing in the first round and others around him are stepping up - guys like roy hinson, julius erving, and mo cheeks. and barkley's ranking dropped from 5th after the regular season, to 8th after the playoffs because of this.

Nice imagination.
:facepalm

I don't know where you get this shit from. I don't think you're being serious.
i haven't thought you were serious since your first post in this thread

Kobe not in the top 18? Again, you can't be serious. He was the consensus best player. Not only were his individual feats among the greatest ever, but his team overachieved considering their very limited talent level and the injuries to key players.

There was a total of 1 player who had a case to be over Kobe, and that was Tim Duncan. Everyone else was at least 1 tier below.
kobe had a nice regular season, but he simply did not win enought to be ranked anywhere near the top of the league. he also had a trash playoff series, and was destroyed by a suns outfit who had a top 3 paced offense and was almost outplayed by lamar odom, who stepped up alot more than bryant did.

Nash was top 3, would have been top 4 if Dirk hadn't choked so bad in the first round.

Parker was a nice player, but just top 25
dirk's drop off in the post season wasn't enough for nash to surpass him. nowitzki was still in the top 5. also better than nash were tim duncan, lebron james, tracy mcgrady, jason kidd, and kevin garnett.

parker was top 11 overall

Nothing I've said is the least bit surprising, or any sort of stretch. Kidd being top 10 in 2011 and closer to Nowitzki than he was to Chandler or Terry just sounds like a joke or trolling.

Kidd was comparable to Marion as their 4th/5th best player. He was pretty much a role player by that point. A very good one, but role players don't come close to top 10, or top 20 for that matter.
kidd was actually top 9 in 2011. the mavs had alot of one dimentional players but kidd wasn't one of them. in the regular season he was 6th in points, fifth in rebounds, had twice the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only turned the ball over 2 times per contest in 33 minutes, and had a 3.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the regular season.

in the playoffs he was fourth in points, fourth in rebounts, over two times the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only recorded 2.6 turnovers per game which is a very low number for a point guard, and had a 2.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the playoffs.

Shep

08-11-2012, 04:34 AM

I'd have him second behind Hakeem.
barkley more valuable than jordan :roll: :oldlol: :roll:

4th best player behind Jordan, Magic and Ewing and probably deserved a top 3 MVP ranking as well over Ewing thanks to the extra wins.
10th best player behind jordan, robinson, olajuwon, johnson, ewing, thomas, drexler, stockton, and bird. top 8 mvp ranking behind jordan, robinson, johnson, stockton, malone, olajuwon, and ewing.

No, he was second on his team. 3rd is underrating him, then again, Mark Eaton and Jeff Malone were pretty good.
eaton and jeff malone were pretty good, not as good as stockton tho. they were closer to karl malone than john stockton, and much closer to charles barkley than john stockton.

Magic did what his team needed him to do, and that team happened to be the most talented in the league. He also did about what he was capable of doing, except he was capable of a bigger playmaking load
lol what a joke. he would've easily accepted the bigger playmaking load in 1982, but they already had one of the best point guards in the league in norm nixon there at point guard, and magic playing alongside him made him a better player.

Scoring more would have been a detriment to the team because he didn't have the skill set for it at that point. When he did have the skill set for it with the outside shot and post game, the Lakers had their best record since he joined the Lakers had their best record with him(65-17) and were the first team to win back to back since '69.
another joke. what happened to this "scoring skillset" in just the next season when he dropped to 19.6ppg, which was less than his 21.6ppg in his sophmore season, and only 1 more than he averaged in 1982? :hammerhead:

Magic was top 5 in '82, but I really can't see him higher.
thats ok, not everyone can see the truth. magic was easily the best player in the game at that point.

Nope, Bird is less crazy, but in the end it doesn't make much sense to say anyone was as good as Moses that year.
it actually makes alot of sense to say 4 players were better than moses in 1982 and that he was barely better than robert parish.

1.Moses Malone
2.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3.Larry Bird
4.Julius Erving
5.Magic Johnson

2,3,and 4 are correct, swap 1 and 5 and you have a nice top 5.

Bird has a case over Kareem and Magic has a case over Dr. J, but this order is better. Parish and Gervin would probably be the next player on the list.
bird and kareem are relatively close, bird and erving is the closest. parish, norm nixon, and gus williams are the next best players.

'84 at the earliest, but still debatable.
not debatable as magic was easily better by 1982. 1981 is much more debatable as to who was the better player between the two.

Are you forgetting about the triangle offense? That's not an offense that encourages ball-dominance. As it turned out, it was a great idea to rely on the triangle more than ever with much less potential offensively. Pippen played a similar role to what he had been playing except for bringing the ball up a little less and splitting playmaking duties a bit more. He still had a career season setting career highs in scoring(22.0 ppg), rebounding(8.7 rpg), steals and a career high at the time in 3s made(0.9) and 3P%(32%). His team also overachieved at least 15 games by Phil Jackson's estimate.
pippen had a nice season, but it wasn't up to the standard of the previous seasons, and with the lack of scorers on that team with the absence of mj, he should have picked up the scoring slack to average atleast 25-26ppg

ShaqAttack3234

08-11-2012, 05:17 PM

I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.

I think that Barkley and Malone are debatable in '94 and '95, but Malone did surpass him a little by that point, imo. Although Barkley was clearly better from '86-'93 except for '92.

Not only did Malone's FG% drop, but he didn't not come through when his team needed him. Then again, neither did Stockton. Malone is the only superstar player I know(aside from his teammate) where in game 7s(or game 5s in the first round), he had a losing record.

While Malone deserves blame for his playoff failures, I think he's clearly been the better playoff performer than Stockton for most of their careers.

malone had better series in the previous two rounds and he was 8th best in the league.

Once again, I said one of Malone's best series, not his absolute best. His '92 series vs the Clippers was not better, but I wouldn't necessarily argue with the Seattle series.

8th is way too low. He was great in all 3 rounds of the playoffs after an excellent regular season. it was Malone's best playoff run even though I think he became a better player later and peaked in '98.

actually, he was the best player on a team that made the conference finals

What a joke, especially considering how heavily you weigh the playoffs. Malone's playoff run completely destroyed Stockton's.

to me to get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and not step up to where your team needs you to, to be in a winning position as a superstar player, and get outplayed and step up less than lesser players is a failure to me.
contending teams are contending teams because of individual performances.

Contending teams are contending teams because they have quite a few good players, and usually execute well offensively or defensively. Obviously individual performances are a part of it, you need your players to perform well to contend, but one player playing well is far from all you need to contend.

what luxury?

The luxury of being the second best player on his team.

only from 1993, so malone had been the jazz' best player for only 3 years

Nope, every year Malone had been in the league, so from '86 until Stockton retired.

penny was a superstar and only 1 spot separated these two on the official '96 rankings.

hardaway was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the east and got swept in the conference finals.

payton was the best player on a team that had the second best record in the league and lost in the nba finals, the sonics also won 2 games against the bulls in the finals - 1 more than the three teams combined managed before seattle played them, and swept the defending 2 time champion houston rockets in the second round.

payton also was the defensive player of the year, more valuable, and led the league in steals per game, making it an easy decision.

Like I said, i don't have a problem with you taking Payton, I think it's close and apparently you do as well since you ranked them right next to each other.

Team success isn't a real issue here when deciding between these 2 players. Both had a lot of success, Seattle fared better against Chicago, but still fell in a 3-0 hole. And Orlando was facing the Bulls with basically just Shaq and Penny due to injuries and pathetic shooting by the supporting cast.

The key to Seattle sweeping Houston was their swarming defense limiting Hakeem so much, and also balance, Payton, Kemp and Schrempf all averaged 20+ on better on at least 50% in the series.

how many years a player has played doesn't come into consideration when ranking players for me. barkley decreasing his production on many different categories does matter, especially when he is losing in the first round and others around him are stepping up - guys like roy hinson, julius erving, and mo cheeks. and barkley's ranking dropped from 5th after the regular season, to 8th after the playoffs because of this.

Barkley being a 3rd year player is definitely relevant as far as I'm concerned. A 1st round series when a player is so young is not a career-altering event. Barkley's level of play was at least as high as it usually was that season and you're overrating his teammates.

kobe had a nice regular season, but he simply did not win enought to be ranked anywhere near the top of the league. he also had a trash playoff series, and was destroyed by a suns outfit who had a top 3 paced offense and was almost outplayed by lamar odom, who stepped up alot more than bryant did.

He went 42-40 with his best teammates being Lamar Odom(who missed 26 games), Luke Walton(who missed 22 games), Smush Parker and kwame brown(who missed 41 games).

He did about as well as you could expect him to. How many players even make the playoffs when those are their key players and they miss that many games?

I'd expect them to be destroyed by Phoenix, the Suns were very talented, and 1 of 3 legit championship contenders that year. Kobe didn't play like trash either, he played fine and averaged 33 ppg.

dirk's drop off in the post season wasn't enough for nash to surpass him. nowitzki was still in the top 5. also better than nash were tim duncan, lebron james, tracy mcgrady, jason kidd, and kevin garnett.

I'm fine with you ranking Dirk over Nash regardless. Duncan was clearly better of course.

Kidd over Nash in '07 is a joke, maybe if Kidd would have been 4 years younger we'd have a good debate. McGrady doesn't have much of a case by that stage in his career. Garnett has a case.

Lebron has a case as well, I can live with that, even though I really disagree. Lebron's '07 season is ridiculously overrated. His jump shot was painful to watch. Give me Nash any day.

kidd was actually top 9 in 2011. the mavs had alot of one dimentional players but kidd wasn't one of them. in the regular season he was 6th in points, fifth in rebounds, had twice the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only turned the ball over 2 times per contest in 33 minutes, and had a 3.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the regular season.

You're citing Kidd finishing 6th in scoring and 5th in rebounds and blocks on his own team as some kind of case for being the 9th best player in the NBA?

Sorry, but it's so ridiculous to put Kidd that high I don't even have to argue it. He was pretty much a role player. Role players aren't close to top 20 players, much less top 10.

barkley more valuable than jordan :roll: :oldlol: :roll:

Just for regular season MVP. Both Jordan and Hakeem were the top 2 players in the league overall.

lol what a joke. he would've easily accepted the bigger playmaking load in 1982, but they already had one of the best point guards in the league in norm nixon there at point guard, and magic playing alongside him made him a better player.

How did Magic make Norm Nixon a better player?

another joke. what happened to this "scoring skillset" in just the next season when he dropped to 19.6ppg, which was less than his 21.6ppg in his sophmore season, and only 1 more than he averaged in 1982? :hammerhead:

:oldlol: at you comparing numbers from '81 when he played 37 games. The Lakers pace had also slowed considerably so Magic couldn't live off transition points to the same extent he did in '82.

But again, it'd be much easier for you to watch the games. Magic improving so much is just too obvious to miss when you watch the games. But I'm supposed to believe that adding a good outside shot and a devastating post game doesn't make you considerably better?

thats ok, not everyone can see the truth. magic was easily the best player in the game at that point.

That's ok, not everyone has the time to get old games from '82 and watch them, but those who do know how laughable your claim is.

2,3,and 4 are correct, swap 1 and 5 and you have a nice top 5.

Absolutely no chance of this with the complete absence of an outside shot and post game.

not debatable as magic was easily better by 1982. 1981 is much more debatable as to who was the better player between the two.

'81 is debatable? :wtf: Magic missed 45 games and then costs the Lakers that 3 game mini-series when he shoots 39% and airballs the potential series winning shot on a play designed for Kareem.

Kareem was still close to the top of his game then. They weren't close to the same tier.

'84 is the first year Magic has a case, this is obvious when watching the games. The most important part of ranking players.

pippen had a nice season, but it wasn't up to the standard of the previous seasons, and with the lack of scorers on that team with the absence of mj, he should have picked up the scoring slack to average atleast 25-26ppg

I already dismantled this ridiculous claim.

Shep

08-12-2012, 03:32 AM

Once again, I said one of Malone's best series, not his absolute best. His '92 series vs the Clippers was not better, but I wouldn't necessarily argue with the Seattle series.

8th is way too low. He was great in all 3 rounds of the playoffs after an excellent regular season. it was Malone's best playoff run even though I think he became a better player later and peaked in '98.
the series vs the clippers was easily better, as well as the seattle series.

it was a nice playoff run, fourth in his career after 1998, 1997, and 1996. 1997 was malone at his peak. as for 1992 well it was just a little too stacked in the top 7 for malone to break into, regardless of how stellar his year was.

What a joke, especially considering how heavily you weigh the playoffs. Malone's playoff run completely destroyed Stockton's.
lol malone's playoff run didn't completely destroy stockton's, atleast nowhere near how much stockton's regular season destroyed malone's.

Contending teams are contending teams because they have quite a few good players, and usually execute well offensively or defensively. Obviously individual performances are a part of it, you need your players to perform well to contend, but one player playing well is far from all you need to contend.
yeh, and role players stepping up when your superstar isn't at all is usually to the detriment of your teams success.

The luxury of being the second best player on his team.
i wouldn't really call that a luxury

Nope, every year Malone had been in the league, so from '86 until Stockton retired.
:roll: stockton was the jazz' best player the second he was injected into the starting 5 until 1993, or 5 years.

Like I said, i don't have a problem with you taking Payton, I think it's close and apparently you do as well since you ranked them right next to each other.
:cheers:

Team success isn't a real issue here when deciding between these 2 players. Both had a lot of success, Seattle fared better against Chicago, but still fell in a 3-0 hole. And Orlando was facing the Bulls with basically just Shaq and Penny due to injuries and pathetic shooting by the supporting cast.

team success is a issue here considering payton was the best player on his team that made the finals, where as hardaway was the second best player on his team that made the conference semifinals. seattle fell into a 3-0 hole, but won the next two games, orlando fell into a 3-0 hole, and proceeded to lose the next game and get swept. the magic average losing margin was also almost 20 points :oldlol:

The key to Seattle sweeping Houston was their swarming defense limiting Hakeem so much, and also balance, Payton, Kemp and Schrempf all averaged 20+ on better on at least 50% in the series.
and payton was the mvp of that series

Barkley being a 3rd year player is definitely relevant as far as I'm concerned. A 1st round series when a player is so young is not a career-altering event. Barkley's level of play was at least as high as it usually was that season and you're overrating his teammates.
his teammates stepped up, barkley did not

He went 42-40 with his best teammates being Lamar Odom(who missed 26 games), Luke Walton(who missed 22 games), Smush Parker and kwame brown(who missed 41 games).

He did about as well as you could expect him to. How many players even make the playoffs when those are their key players and they miss that many games?
odom was a top 5 power forward, walton was a nice all-round player and averaged 11.4/5.0/4.3 and 39% from downtown, smush parker and andrew bynum were also nice contributers. and the lakers were 3-2 without kobe. one of those losses was also without lamar odom and odom showed superstar potential in those 4 games without kobe averaging 22/12/7.

I'd expect them to be destroyed by Phoenix, the Suns were very talented, and 1 of 3 legit championship contenders that year. Kobe didn't play like trash either, he played fine and averaged 33 ppg.
odom stepped up alot more

Kidd over Nash in '07 is a joke, maybe if Kidd would have been 4 years younger we'd have a good debate
:oldlol: nash had the better regular season, but kidd's performance in the playoff's is the difference between the two.

McGrady doesn't have much of a case by that stage in his career
by that stage of his career? :lol this was mcgrady's 4th best season of his career

Lebron has a case as well, I can live with that, even though I really disagree. Lebron's '07 season is ridiculously overrated. His jump shot was painful to watch. Give me Nash any day.
lol nobody was anywhere near duncan and lebron that year

You're citing Kidd finishing 6th in scoring and 5th in rebounds and blocks on his own team as some kind of case for being the 9th best player in the NBA?
ofcourse not, this is proof of kidd contributing on alot of different levels is the reason he was the second best player on his own team.

Sorry, but it's so ridiculous to put Kidd that high I don't even have to argue it. He was pretty much a role player. Role players aren't close to top 20 players, much less top 10.
he was easily the champion teams second best player in the regular season and playoffs.

Just for regular season MVP. Both Jordan and Hakeem were the top 2 players in the league overall.
both olajuwon and jordan were more valuable in the regular season, and both were better overall

How did Magic make Norm Nixon a better player?
easy. before magic norm nixon wasn't as good as he was after he arrived.

at you comparing numbers from '81 when he played 37 games. The Lakers pace had also slowed considerably so Magic couldn't live off transition points to the same extent he did in '82.
37 games is more than enough to prove what he was capable of.

But again, it'd be much easier for you to watch the games. Magic improving so much is just too obvious to miss when you watch the games. But I'm supposed to believe that adding a good outside shot and a devastating post game doesn't make you considerably better?
you obviously need to watch more games

That's ok, not everyone has the time to get old games from '82 and watch them, but those who do know how laughable your claim is.
people who have watched games will agree with everything i have said, unfortunately for most, they have only had limited viewings.

Absolutely no chance of this with the complete absence of an outside shot and post game.
:lol he had a solid post game by that point, and a nice shooting touch.

'81 is debatable? Magic missed 45 games and then costs the Lakers that 3 game mini-series when he shoots 39% and airballs the potential series winning shot on a play designed for Kareem.

Kareem was still close to the top of his game then. They weren't close to the same tier.
magic was the lakers best player in the regular season, but his poor playoff was the cause of kareem taking the ranking ahead of him

'84 is the first year Magic has a case, this is obvious when watching the games. The most important part of ranking players.
obviously you haven't watched enough games.

I already dismantled this ridiculous claim.
i have demolished all of your claims

ShaqAttack3234

08-12-2012, 04:32 PM

the series vs the clippers was easily better, as well as the seattle series.

There is nothing that made his Clippers series more impressive,

it was a nice playoff run, fourth in his career after 1998, 1997, and 1996. 1997 was malone at his peak. as for 1992 well it was just a little too stacked in the top 7 for malone to break into, regardless of how stellar his year was.

:oldlol: at Malone's '97 playoff run being more impressive. He shot 43.5%! That was a pretty weak playoff run for him. He didn't have a series during that run which compared to his '92 WCSF and WCF series.

I don't see the argument for '96 either.

'98 is the closest playoff run to '92.

How was '97 a better season for Malone than '98? He did everything he did in '97, except better. Ended up with the same regular season numbers despite Stockton missing 18 games and dropping from a 35 mpg player to a 29 mpg player. Utah's record also still ended up almost the same. And on top of that, Malone's '98 playoff run was much better.

lol malone's playoff run didn't completely destroy stockton's, atleast nowhere near how much stockton's regular season destroyed malone's.

Yes it did, Stockton's playoff run was a disappointment as usual, Malone's was a surprise because of how good it was. Stockton was also inferior to Malone in the regular season as is usually the case with sidekicks.

yeh, and role players stepping up when your superstar isn't at all is usually to the detriment of your teams success.

When did this happen?

i wouldn't really call that a luxury

I would, it's a lot different being the second best player.

:roll: stockton was the jazz' best player the second he was injected into the starting 5 until 1993, or 5 years.

This is completely ridiculous.

team success is a issue here considering payton was the best player on his team that made the finals, where as hardaway was the second best player on his team that made the conference semifinals. seattle fell into a 3-0 hole, but won the next two games, orlando fell into a 3-0 hole, and proceeded to lose the next game and get swept. the magic average losing margin was also almost 20 points :oldlol:

A 2 man team didn't have much of a chance at beating the 72-10 Bulls. Both teams lost to Chicago so I don't see much of an issue here.

and payton was the mvp of that series

Maybe, I haven't thought about it before.

his teammates stepped up, barkley did not

False

odom was a top 5 power forward, walton was a nice all-round player and averaged 11.4/5.0/4.3 and 39% from downtown, smush parker and andrew bynum were also nice contributers. and the lakers were 3-2 without kobe. one of those losses was also without lamar odom and odom showed superstar potential in those 4 games without kobe averaging 22/12/7.

Odom was looking like an all-star before his injury, but he was bothered by injuries, particularly a shoulder injury which prevented him from maintaining this level.

Odom was his only teammate that was a proven legitimate NBA starter, and he missed 26 games.

Walton was playing his best basketball, but was still far from anything special, and he also missed 22 games.

Smush Parker was just not very good, and Bynum was nothing special yet.Just an 8/6 center who played 22 mpg.

Really, how many games do you expect Kobe to win with that lineup? Whatever decent players he had seemed to get injured.

odom stepped up alot more

Nope.

:oldlol: nash had the better regular season, but kidd's performance in the playoff's is the difference between the two.

It's really a laughable comparison. Nash had one of the all-time great shooting seasons we've seen leading the league in TS% and eFG% at over 65% and over 61%, respectively, while also leading the league in assists at almost 12 per game, and scoring almost 19 ppg.

Nash was at a completely different level than Kidd by '07.

by that stage of his career? :lol this was mcgrady's 4th best season of his career

:roll: You must have not followed McGrady's career. It's obvious that T-Mac's prime ended after 2005, his first season in Houston. 2007 is clearly no better than his 6th best season.

lol nobody was anywhere near duncan and lebron that year

:oldlol: at you ignoring Lebron's broken jump shot. Lebron was nowhere near Kobe's level in '07.

ofcourse not, this is proof of kidd contributing on alot of different levels is the reason he was the second best player on his own team.

5th and 6th best in certain categories on a team is nothing notable. He was clearly behind Terry and Chandler.

he was easily the champion teams second best player in the regular season and playoffs.

4th or 5th best.

easy. before magic norm nixon wasn't as good as he was after he arrived.

A blatant lie. In '79, Nixon averaged the most assists he ever had as a Laker with an even 9, while also averaging 17.1 ppg, which was just 0.5 off from his career average along with easily a career high of 54.2 FG% and a career-high 2.5 spg.

it wouldn't make any sense for Nixon to benefit from playing with Magic. they played the same position and took opportunities away from each other.

And when Nixon left the Lakers, he averaged 17 ppg and a career-high 11.1 apg to finish 2nd in the league to only Magic.

37 games is more than enough to prove what he was capable of.

It's not even half a season.

you obviously need to watch more games

No, this is what you have to do. Once you do, you'll be able to see Magic's clear improvement and why he was considerably better from '87-'90 than ever before.

'82 magic was mostly a transition player. Absolutely no outside shot or post game to make him a consistent half court scoring threat. There's no argument for that version being better than any from '87-'91.

people who have watched games will agree with everything i have said, unfortunately for most, they have only had limited viewings.

No, these statements seem to be based entirely on stats, but stats that are only used when it's convenient.

:lol he had a solid post game by that point, and a nice shooting touch.

Now this is a blatant lie that proves you have not watched 1982 Laker games. Why even bother lying like this? You know that people who have watched the games will catch the lie.

magic was the lakers best player in the regular season, but his poor playoff was the cause of kareem taking the ranking ahead of him

:wtf: First of all, it's arguable that not even prime Magic('87-'90) when healthy played at the level of '81 Kareem, much less second year Magic in a year ruined by injuries.

I don't bother ranking a player who doesn't play at least 42 regular season games, and no less than 50 overall games, but even so, I know that Magic was never close to the level of '81 Kareem before '87.

Kareem led LA to a 28-17 record without Magic and raised his scoring to 28.8 ppg in those games.

obviously you haven't watched enough games.

Oh, the irony. :roll:

i have demolished all of your claims

Must be nice living in your own fantasy world.

jayfan

08-13-2012, 12:21 AM

There's no need to get bogged in statistical year-by-year comparisons. It's tedious and unnecessary. Big picture, who was the better basketball player on his best day?

Not even close. Barkley.

Chalkmaze

08-13-2012, 12:48 AM

Barkley: Karl Malone is the best Power Forward in basetkball!!

http://youtu.be/T4PjJ5Iw58o?t=2m54s

L.Kizzle

08-13-2012, 01:00 AM

Barkley: Karl Malone is the best Power Forward in basetkball!!

http://youtu.be/T4PjJ5Iw58o?t=2m54s
This was from 1989-1990.

And I loved this show, back when NBA players were regulars on late night shows. Only NBA players on shows are after the NBA Finals.

bizil

08-13-2012, 01:06 AM

Peak value wise Barkley is right. Hell I think Barkley peak value wise is the greatest PF of all time. There hasn't been a PF like Chuck before or since. Malone was a beast though and GOAT wise I would give him an edge. Karl was more of a traditional PF type. We hadn't really seen a guy 6'9 and 265 pounds run the floor like he did and combine it with a great midrange shot. But he still kept his physicality at the same time and was a beast on the glass. He also sets the standard for great longevity at the PF spot and improving (passing, defense) as the years went on. But Chuck would have been epic at either the SF or PF spot, something Karl could NEVER do.

Round Mound

08-13-2012, 05:19 AM

[B]Charles was Always Humble Regarding Who He Thinks is the Best PF Back in the Day...but he Ranks Himself as N

Round Mound

08-13-2012, 05:22 AM

Chalkmaze

08-13-2012, 05:23 AM

http://flipthatbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mini-me-austin-powers.jpg

Chalkmaze

08-13-2012, 05:24 AM

This was from 1989-1990.

And I loved this show, back when NBA players were regulars on late night shows. Only NBA players on shows are after the NBA Finals.

Yep, good times.

Chalkmaze

08-13-2012, 05:25 AM

Barkley: Karl Malone is the best Power Forward in basetkball!!

http://youtu.be/T4PjJ5Iw58o?t=2m54s

I agree, it's funny how some people want to bury the real headlines with a bunch of slanted, revisionist gobbly goop.

Shep

08-16-2012, 07:03 AM

There is nothing that made his Clippers series more impressive,
what about the fact that he played better in the clippers series? that would make the clippers series more impressive. 29.8ppg, 12.0rpg, 2.8apg, 1.2spg, 2.2bpg, 2.4topg in the clippers series vs 28.2ppg, 11.7rpg, 2.3apg, 1.0spg, 0.8bpg, 3.5topg in the blazers series. so more points, more rebounds, more assists, more steals, over twice the number of blocks, and far less turnovers.

at Malone's '97 playoff run being more impressive. He shot 43.5%! That was a pretty weak playoff run for him. He didn't have a series during that run which compared to his '92 WCSF and WCF series.
:roll: he led his team to its first finals appearance in its 23 year history and you are worried about field goal percentage :roll:

he averaged 30.7ppg, 11.3rpg, 2.0apg, 1.3spg, and 1.0bpg in a 3-0 demolishing of the la clippers

28.6ppg, 12.6rpg, 2.2apg, 1.0spg, and 0.6 bpg in a 4-1 destroying of shaquille o'neal and the los angeles lakers including a 32 point, 20 rebound game in the closout game 5

23.5ppg, 11.5rpg, 3.2apg, 1.3spg, and 1.2bpg in a 6 game victory over charles barkley, and the powerful big 3 of the houston rockets, including 26.5ppg, 12.5rpg, 4.5apg, 1.5spg, and 1.5bpg in the final two victories after the series was tied at 2-2.

and 23.8ppg, 10.3rpg, 3.5apg, 1.7spg, and 0.3bpg against the unstoppable chicago bulls.

I don't see the argument for '96 either.
:rolleyes:

'98 is the closest playoff run to '92.
1998 was his best playoff run

How was '97 a better season for Malone than '98? He did everything he did in '97, except better. Ended up with the same regular season numbers despite Stockton missing 18 games and dropping from a 35 mpg player to a 29 mpg player. Utah's record also still ended up almost the same. And on top of that, Malone's '98 playoff run was much better.
malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.

Yes it did, Stockton's playoff run was a disappointment as usual, Malone's was a surprise because of how good it was. Stockton was also inferior to Malone in the regular season as is usually the case with sidekicks.
stockton played well in the playoffs, malone's play was a surprise because his play was much better than what he showed in the regular season. stockton was easily the jazz' best player in the regular season, best point guard in the league, and top 6 overall.

When did this happen?
this happened to the philadelphia 76ers in 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991. and to the phoenix suns in 1995.

I would, it's a lot different being the second best player.
alot of individual sacrifices must be made in order to have team success

This is completely ridiculous.
facts are ridiculous?

A 2 man team didn't have much of a chance at beating the 72-10 Bulls. Both teams lost to Chicago so I don't see much of an issue here.

what a joke here. a 2 man team who also had a top 3 shooting guard and a top 4 power forward, to go along with a top 2 center and a top 2 point guard wasn't enough to take 1 game away from chicago? not to mention dennis scott and his career year of 17.5ppg, 3.8rpg, 3.0apg, 1.1spg, and 59%ts :roll:

no issue with both teams losing to chicago? :roll: another joke. team a goes 42-40 and misses out on a playoff spot by 1 game, team b goes 2-80...who cares, there is no issue here, they both missed the playoffs! :roll: :oldlol:

Maybe, I haven't thought about it before.
i have

False
the actual answer is "that is correct master shep"

Odom was looking like an all-star before his injury, but he was bothered by injuries, particularly a shoulder injury which prevented him from maintaining this level.

Odom was his only teammate that was a proven legitimate NBA starter, and he missed 26 games.

Walton was playing his best basketball, but was still far from anything special, and he also missed 22 games.

Smush Parker was just not very good, and Bynum was nothing special yet.Just an 8/6 center who played 22 mpg.

Really, how many games do you expect Kobe to win with that lineup? Whatever decent players he had seemed to get injured.
i didn't have any expectations on how many wins bryant would possibly end up with at the end of the regular season. odom proved to be a much better player without bryant in the lineup and who knows how he could have led them for a whole season. i don't deal with what ifs, i deal with what actually happened, and bryant season warrented him being ranked no higher than 19th

Nope.
:lol

It's really a laughable comparison. Nash had one of the all-time great shooting seasons we've seen leading the league in TS% and eFG% at over 65% and over 61%, respectively, while also leading the league in assists at almost 12 per game, and scoring almost 19 ppg.

Nash was at a completely different level than Kidd by '07.
again, kidd's playoffs was the difference here. he averaged a triple double for 12 games. defeated the favourite toronto raptors in the first round, before succumbing to the eventual eastern conference champion cavs in the semifinals. kidd averaged 15/11/11 with 2 steals.

Shep

08-16-2012, 07:04 AM

You must have not followed McGrady's career. It's obvious that T-Mac's prime ended after 2005, his first season in Houston. 2007 is clearly no better than his 6th best season.
:roll: you must not have watched any basketball games. past his prime yet averaging 25/5/7 in the regular season and 25/6/7 in the playoffs

at you ignoring Lebron's broken jump shot. Lebron was nowhere near Kobe's level in '07.
that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

5th and 6th best in certain categories on a team is nothing notable. He was clearly behind Terry and Chandler.
terry and chandler contributed nowhere near to that of kidd

4th or 5th best.
1st or 2nd best

A blatant lie. In '79, Nixon averaged the most assists he ever had as a Laker with an even 9, while also averaging 17.1 ppg, which was just 0.5 off from his career average along with easily a career high of 54.2 FG% and a career-high 2.5 spg.

it wouldn't make any sense for Nixon to benefit from playing with Magic. they played the same position and took opportunities away from each other.

And when Nixon left the Lakers, he averaged 17 ppg and a career-high 11.1 apg to finish 2nd in the league to only Magic.
learning and accepting and excelling in your role to a winning team is much better than throwing up meaningless stats on a losing team.

It's not even half a season.
i know its not half a season, half a season would make it 41 games because a full season is 82 games.

No, this is what you have to do. Once you do, you'll be able to see Magic's clear improvement and why he was considerably better from '87-'90 than ever before.
its actually what you need to do. once you do you will finally come to the realization that he was only better in 1987

'82 magic was mostly a transition player. Absolutely no outside shot or post game to make him a consistent half court scoring threat. There's no argument for that version being better than any from '87-'91.

'82 magic was the best player on a 57 win team and a team that steamrolled through the playoffs to the tune of a 4-0 sweep of the suns, 4-0 sweep of the spurs, and 4-2 demolishing of 58 win, dr j led sixers. a playoff record of 12-2. magic averaged 18.6ppg, an incredible 9.6rpg, 9.5apg, 2.7spg (led the league), and 54%fg in the regular season and 17.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 9.3apg, 2.9spg, and 53%fg in the playoffs.

there was minimal amount of players around in the early 80's who had any outside shot anyway, and magic was one of the few who had a nice shooting touch, and magic also definately had the ability to score from the post.

No, these statements seem to be based entirely on stats, but stats that are only used when it's convenient.
:roll: irony at its finest

Now this is a blatant lie that proves you have not watched 1982 Laker games. Why even bother lying like this? You know that people who have watched the games will catch the lie.
no lies are being told from this end. if you watched more games you would find the truth

First of all, it's arguable that not even prime Magic('87-'90) when healthy played at the level of '81 Kareem, much less second year Magic in a year ruined by injuries.
:roll: comedic genius right here

I don't bother ranking a player who doesn't play at least 42 regular season games, and no less than 50 overall games
usually i don't either, unless special circumstances where the player is one of the best players in the nba

but even so, I know that Magic was never close to the level of '81 Kareem before '87.
magic was better than '81 kareem every year, even rookie magic johnson was better than '81 abdul-jabbar.

Kareem led LA to a 28-17 record without Magic and raised his scoring to 28.8 ppg in those games.
what was the record with magic johnson tho?

Oh, the irony.
more irony :roll:

Must be nice living in your own fantasy world.
you'd be the most qualified to answer such questions. as for who is the best player questions, please for your own sake and credibility, let me answer it.

ShaqAttack3234

08-16-2012, 05:55 PM

what about the fact that he played better in the clippers series?

Predictable, nothing but stats.

Malone took it to Buck Williams, a top post defender and a powerhouse Blazer team that was favored in the WCF and was unstoppable. Despite Portland taking Stockton out of his game whether it was Porter dismantling him at both ends or trapping the screen/rolls out high, Malone picked up the slack posting up deep at will and overpowering the Blazers inside as well as hitting his mid-range jumpers with regularity. Malone put Utah on his back and gave them a legitimate chance vs a great team despite his two best teammates being severely outplayed by Portland's back court.

That's a lot more impressive than slightly better stats(with the exception of shooting 55% in the Blazer series to 48% in the Clipper series) vs a 1st round Clipper team Utah was heavily favored over.

:roll: he led his team to its first finals appearance in its 23 year history and you are worried about field goal percentage :roll:

He was probably a better player in '97, but it was not a better playoff run.

He got 1 round farther in '97, but look at the big difference in the WCF those years. Stockton stepped up and had a huge series vs Houston and was really their MVP of that series while Stockton came up small in '92. Meanwhile, Malone had a great series in '92, but he didn't in '97.

But somehow the difference in Utah getting to the finals was Malone having a better playoff run in '97? :roll: Context is important.

malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.

'98 playoff run was definitely better and the regular seasons were virtually identical with a bit of an edge to '98.

Stats and record ended up virtually identical in both years while his skill set and ability were no different as far as I can see.

But, Utah's record was brought down a bit by the 18 games Stockton missed to start the season when Utah was 11-7, and his production was brought down a bit in comparison to '97 because of those first 18 games without Stockton.

With Stockton in '98, his numbers were 27.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4 apg, 2.9 TO, 53.2 FG%, 60.1 TS% and his record was 50-13, a 65 win pace.

And this was with Stockton reduced from 35 mpg in '97 to 29 mpg in '98.

what a joke here. a 2 man team who also had a top 3 shooting guard and a top 4 power forward, to go along with a top 2 center and a top 2 point guard wasn't enough to take 1 game away from chicago? not to mention dennis scott and his career year of 17.5ppg, 3.8rpg, 3.0apg, 1.1spg, and 59%ts :roll:

Orlando was very talented, but I'm talking about how those players played in that '96 series aside from the duo, and you're grossly overrating Anderson and Grant......top 3 and 4 at their positions? :roll:

First of all, they pretty much didn't have Grant that series so take him out of the equation.

Grant gave Orlando 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes of play in game 1 before leaving with an injury and not returning in the series. Put Jon Koncak in his final NBA season in his place because he ended up being Orlando's power forward that series.

Now we have Nick Anderson, averages of 8.3 ppg and 5.3 rpg on 9/29 shooting(31%) and 3/15 on 3s(20%) before leaving towards the end of game 3 with an injury and missing game 4 altogether. Any scrub could duplicate that given the opportunity. Of course, this was made even worse by the fact that he was matched up with Michael Jordan at both ends.

Now we have Dennis Scott, the only one of Orlando's top 3 supporting players aside from their superstar duo who were healthy, but they might as well have had anyone in his place because he averaged 7.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg and 1.3 apg on 9/34 shooting(26.5%) and 3/19 on 3s(15.8%).

Chicago's 3rd, 4th and 5th leading scorers all scored more than Orlando's 3rd scorer.

i didn't have any expectations on how many wins bryant would possibly end up with at the end of the regular season. odom proved to be a much better player without bryant in the lineup and who knows how he could have led them for a whole season. i don't deal with what ifs, i deal with what actually happened, and bryant season warrented him being ranked no higher than 19th

Kobe's regular season actually had him widely regarded as the best player in the game thanks to his league-leading 31.6 ppg, carrying the Lakers to a winning record and the playoffs despite injuries to virtually every key player of a cast that was limited to begin with and showing 2 completely different approaches. First getting everyone involved while still scoring quite a bit to help a bad team masquerade as a top Western Conference team for the first half of the season then carrying the team in an individual display few have shown capable of approaching when his coach told him to late in the season including four straight 50+ games immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, a 40.4 ppg month of March and a 36.8 ppg second half. In fact, in the 17 remaining games after Phil told Kobe to carry the team, Kobe averaged 40.3 ppg.

19th is a bad joke, only Tim Duncan had a case. Not Lebron with that hideous jump shot.

again, kidd's playoffs was the difference here. he averaged a triple double for 12 games. defeated the favourite toronto raptors in the first round, before succumbing to the eventual eastern conference champion cavs in the semifinals. kidd averaged 15/11/11 with 2 steals.

The mighty Toronto Raptors? Oh, that changes everything! Kidd was playing with Vince Carter who averaged 25/6/4 in the series and Richard Jefferson who averaged 21.5 ppg in the series.

In all seriousness, it was a very impressive playoff run, but you're making 2 obvious problems. Both are problems you repeatedly make. One is getting caught up with the triple double statline, just look at '09 when Rajon Rondo put up virtually the same numbers in the playoffs in just his 3rd year. And another is overreacting to a small sample size of playoff games.

you must not have watched any basketball games. past his prime yet averaging 25/5/7 in the regular season and 25/6/7 in the playoffs

So you use a statline to back up your claim that I haven't watched any games? :roll:

that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

The competition was horrible for a playoff run, the only real accomplishment was beating Detroit and that one miraculous game 5 gets that run grossly overrated. Lebron wasn't THAT good in '07. Being such a mediocre free throw shooter for his position and shooting disgusting percentages of 34% from 16-23 feet and 32% on 3s prevent this from even being a debate when you look at Kobe's complete skill set.

terry and chandler contributed nowhere near to that of kidd

They contributed much more. Terry was their second best scorer by a wide margin and a very good shooter who came through huge in the clutch and was a capable ball-handler for them. Chandler anchored their defense, was their best rebounder and his finishing ability allowed him to score about as much as Kidd on vastly superior efficiency.

'82 magic was the best player on a 57 win team and a team that steamrolled through the playoffs to the tune of a 4-0 sweep of the suns, 4-0 sweep of the spurs, and 4-2 demolishing of 58 win, dr j led sixers. a playoff record of 12-2. magic averaged 18.6ppg, an incredible 9.6rpg, 9.5apg, 2.7spg (led the league), and 54%fg in the regular season and 17.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 9.3apg, 2.9spg, and 53%fg in the playoffs.

Kareem was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. Even in a series where his numbers were down like the finals you can see how huge of an impact the double teams he drew and his shot blocking made. Those were things Magic simply couldn't match. His lack of a real half court skill set at that point was the difference since he wouldn't show the outside shot until 2 seasons later in '84 and he wouldn't show the post game until 5 seasons later in '87. His passing and rebounding for his position were outstanding, but having Kareem as the guy they could truly rely on to create something at anytime in the half court and make a defensive impact Magic could never dream of put a significant gap between the 2 players. All of the triple doubles in the world won't change that.

magic was better than '81 kareem every year, even rookie magic johnson was better than '81 abdul-jabbar.

:oldlol: at rookie Magic. Where the **** do you get this shit?

ThaRegul8r

08-17-2012, 07:56 AM

Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:

[QUOTE]Sixers' star has 3 peers: Magic, Bird and Jordan

PHILADELPHIA

Dragonyeuw

08-17-2012, 08:22 AM

ThaRegul8r

08-17-2012, 08:51 AM

Mind you, the source is out of Philadelphia which brings objectivity into the question. Having said that, after the Jordan/Magic/Bird trio, Barkley was in that next tier right underneath them. Malone, at that point in time, wasn't considered on that level.

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

D.J.

08-17-2012, 03:21 PM

Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:

No one ever said any such thing about Malone.

Exactly. Malone has the edge in longevity and was more reliable on D, but prime Barkley was better than prime Malone and it's not debatable.

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

Yep, and people were comparing Barkley to MJ/Magic/Bird as early as late '87-early '88.

ShaqAttack3234

08-17-2012, 05:43 PM

Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:

No one ever said any such thing about Malone.

Exactly, the quote from Pitino really says a lot. This was Barkley just entering his prime with Bird and Magic right in their primes, near their peaks and Jordan really coming into his own.

Malone was at his absolute best as Barkley was slowing down, from about '94-'98, imo, but even then it seemed to me that Malone wasn't considered as close to second 3peat Jordan as Barkley was to prime '89-'93 Jordan. Other stars also came along and were more highly regarded such as Hakeem of course as well as David Robinson and Shaq by just his 2nd or 3rd year. Even Scottie Pippen once Jordan retired got called the best player more than I remember Malone being called the best, even as late as the '95-'96 season.

Even when Malone was voted MVP over Jordan after his shameless campaigning for the award , I don't remember people really saying he was as good.

Round Mound

08-17-2012, 05:56 PM

Malone became better the 1995-96 season when Barkley was done and going to Houston as a 2nd or 3rd option. Then the 1996-97 season already with back problems he suffered a knee injury that would change his level of play the following years (never close to the same)

The 1994-95 season was underrated for Charles.

His PER was 25.2 and in the Play-Offs 26.6. Malone`s PER was 25.1 and in the Play-Offs 24.6

Lets Not Forget What Chuck Daly said about Charles in 1992. "Charles is the 2nd Best Player in the World (after MJ)"

Shep

08-18-2012, 05:29 AM

Predictable, nothing but stats.

Malone took it to Buck Williams, a top post defender and a powerhouse Blazer team that was favored in the WCF and was unstoppable. Despite Portland taking Stockton out of his game whether it was Porter dismantling him at both ends or trapping the screen/rolls out high, Malone picked up the slack posting up deep at will and overpowering the Blazers inside as well as hitting his mid-range jumpers with regularity. Malone put Utah on his back and gave them a legitimate chance vs a great team despite his two best teammates being severely outplayed by Portland's back court.

That's a lot more impressive than slightly better stats(with the exception of shooting 55% in the Blazer series to 48% in the Clipper series) vs a 1st round Clipper team Utah was heavily favored over.
nothing but stats :roll: better than nothing but stats in a losing team :roll:

lol if malone hadn't of dominated like he did in the first round (in which he played alot better than in the conference finals) against the clippers, there would be no conference semifinals, let alone conference finals. malone also had the winning record of 3-2 in the first round, and a losing record of 2-4 in the conference finals and got destroyed by a team that only won 2 more games in the regular season.

He was probably a better player in '97, but it was not a better playoff run.

He got 1 round farther in '97, but look at the big difference in the WCF those years. Stockton stepped up and had a huge series vs Houston and was really their MVP of that series while Stockton came up small in '92. Meanwhile, Malone had a great series in '92, but he didn't in '97.
it was easily a better playoff run.

the big difference in the wcf? :roll: the first round was easier, but the '97 lakers were easily better than the '92 sonics, and the '97 rockets were easily better than the '92 blazers. stockton also had a better playoff run in '97, but karl malone still was the mvp of the rockets series.

But somehow the difference in Utah getting to the finals was Malone having a better playoff run in '97? Context is important.
somehow shooting a better percentage is more important than getting to your teams first finals in its 23 year history :roll:

'98 playoff run was definitely better and the regular seasons were virtually identical with a bit of an edge to '98.
malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.

Stats and record ended up virtually identical in both years while his skill set and ability were no different as far as I can see.

But, Utah's record was brought down a bit by the 18 games Stockton missed to start the season when Utah was 11-7, and his production was brought down a bit in comparison to '97 because of those first 18 games without Stockton.

With Stockton in '98, his numbers were 27.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4 apg, 2.9 TO, 53.2 FG%, 60.1 TS% and his record was 50-13, a 65 win pace.

And this was with Stockton reduced from 35 mpg in '97 to 29 mpg in '98.
he had better numbers and a better record in 1997. context is important tho. who were those victories against in 1998 without stockton?

the denver nuggets twice (who finished 11-71 on the season :roll: )
vancouver grizzlies (19-63)
dallas mavericks (20-62)
golden state warriors (19-63)
la clippers (17-65)
and toronto raptors (16-66)

so out of the 11 victories, 7 came against the absolute worst teams in the league, including 2 against the worst team in nba history. remember, context is important.

Orlando was very talented, but I'm talking about how those players played in that '96 series aside from the duo, and you're grossly overrating Anderson and Grant......top 3 and 4 at their positions?
yep, top 3 and 4 at their positions

First of all, they pretty much didn't have Grant that series so take him out of the equation.

Grant gave Orlando 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes of play in game 1 before leaving with an injury and not returning in the series. Put Jon Koncak in his final NBA season in his place because he ended up being Orlando's power forward that series.

Now we have Nick Anderson, averages of 8.3 ppg and 5.3 rpg on 9/29 shooting(31%) and 3/15 on 3s(20%) before leaving towards the end of game 3 with an injury and missing game 4 altogether. Any scrub could duplicate that given the opportunity. Of course, this was made even worse by the fact that he was matched up with Michael Jordan at both ends.

Now we have Dennis Scott, the only one of Orlando's top 3 supporting players aside from their superstar duo who were healthy, but they might as well have had anyone in his place because he averaged 7.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg and 1.3 apg on 9/34 shooting(26.5%) and 3/19 on 3s(15.8%).

Chicago's 3rd, 4th and 5th leading scorers all scored more than Orlando's 3rd scorer.
so what? chicago won by 40 points in game 1 when everyone was playing so there is no evidence that backs up the series being anything but a destroying, and in game 3 with the best player on the planet shooting 36 percent and scoring only 17 points they still won by 20:roll: . the talent was there, they should have made it a more competitive series regardless, but they were swept. "bring on chicago" i remember hearing from the magic fans after sweeping away the 46-36 detroit pistons. :lol so much for that.

Kobe's regular season actually had him widely regarded as the best player in the game thanks to his league-leading 31.6 ppg, carrying the Lakers to a winning record and the playoffs despite injuries to virtually every key player of a cast that was limited to begin with and showing 2 completely different approaches. First getting everyone involved while still scoring quite a bit to help a bad team masquerade as a top Western Conference team for the first half of the season then carrying the team in an individual display few have shown capable of approaching when his coach told him to late in the season including four straight 50+ games immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, a 40.4 ppg month of March and a 36.8 ppg second half. In fact, in the 17 remaining games after Phil told Kobe to carry the team, Kobe averaged 40.3 ppg.
and the lakers went 8-9 over the last 17 games. again, you are falling in love with stats, most of all points, on losing teams. lamar odom was frozen out of the lakers offense in these games, with bryant forcing up 30 shots, and odom only managing 10.

as i've already mentioned, odom showed what he was capable when bryant was absent with his 22/12/7.

19th is a bad joke, only Tim Duncan had a case. Not Lebron with that hideous jump shot.
to put kobe on the same tier as duncan is a good joke.

that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

Shep

08-18-2012, 05:30 AM

The mighty Toronto Raptors? Oh, that changes everything! Kidd was playing with Vince Carter who averaged 25/6/4 in the series and Richard Jefferson who averaged 21.5 ppg in the series.
the mighty new jersey nets! won less games than the mighty toronto raptors! vince carter was no better than a top 5 shooting guard and richard jefferson was no more than a solid starter, kidd was easily the best player on that roster.

how did vince fare in the next round against cleveland while kidd was busy averaging a lazy triple double?

In all seriousness, it was a very impressive playoff run, but you're making 2 obvious problems. Both are problems you repeatedly make. One is getting caught up with the triple double statline, just look at '09 when Rajon Rondo put up virtually the same numbers in the playoffs in just his 3rd year. And another is overreacting to a small sample size of playoff games.
i don't make any problems. you, on the other hand make alot of problems, including falling inlove of shot jackers, and also putting up meaningless stats on teams going nowhere.

So you use a statline to back up your claim that I haven't watched any games?
yeh well even if you quickly glanced over a half game that season you would've noticed the numbers mcgrady was averaging which they put up when a player goes to the free throw line..obviously you haven't even glanced, let alone sit for any length of time.

The competition was horrible for a playoff run, the only real accomplishment was beating Detroit and that one miraculous game 5 gets that run grossly overrated. Lebron wasn't THAT good in '07. Being such a mediocre free throw shooter for his position and shooting disgusting percentages of 34% from 16-23 feet and 32% on 3s prevent this from even being a debate when you look at Kobe's complete skill set.
lol more pathetic statements and excuses here. the facts are that he made the nba finals, beating every other rival from the conference. shaq was also a mediocre free throw shooter and trash from outside 16 feet, does this come into play when arguing players? you are beginning to sound like your friend roundmound here. lebron shot 48%fg, 32%3p, and 70%ft, 55%ts (only 3 percentage points less than bryant).

They contributed much more. Terry was their second best scorer by a wide margin and a very good shooter who came through huge in the clutch and was a capable ball-handler for them. Chandler anchored their defense, was their best rebounder and his finishing ability allowed him to score about as much as Kidd on vastly superior efficiency.
kidd was a great 3 point shooter and great free throw shooter, could get to the basket when he wanted, great at creating fast breaks and creating points for other players, one of the best at forcing turnovers, and had amazing handles, and was a nice defender.

Kareem was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. Even in a series where his numbers were down like the finals you can see how huge of an impact the double teams he drew and his shot blocking made. Those were things Magic simply couldn't match. His lack of a real half court skill set at that point was the difference since he wouldn't show the outside shot until 2 seasons later in '84 and he wouldn't show the post game until 5 seasons later in '87. His passing and rebounding for his position were outstanding, but having Kareem as the guy they could truly rely on to create something at anytime in the half court and make a defensive impact Magic could never dream of put a significant gap between the 2 players. All of the triple doubles in the world won't change that.
magic was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. how big an impact did kareem's double teams and defensive impact have on teams before magic arrived in la? just because kareem had a hook shot, and could block a shot or two, its just simply not enough to contend with magic's all round game, which also included a nice outside shot and post game.

at rookie Magic. Where the **** do you get this shit?
:confusedshrug: nothing to laugh at here, rookie magic was easily better.

BoutPractice

08-18-2012, 06:14 AM

DJ Leon Smith

08-18-2012, 09:21 AM

Great thread, it's one of the most interesting comparisons you can make between players. Even with all those fact-based arguments, it's incredibly difficult to say one player is just "better" than the other. Better in what respect?

It's almost a moral/aesthetic choice, in a way - hard work VS pure genius.

I think Barkley vs Malone is the ultimate peak vs career choice when valuing a player - personally I think a better peak is more valuable, but some people prefer longevity/consistency. As long as you bring facts to back up your stance, it's a great discussion topic.

ShaqAttack3234

08-18-2012, 08:44 PM

malone also had the winning record of 3-2 in the first round, and a losing record of 2-4 in the conference finals and got destroyed by a team that only won 2 more games in the regular season.

:oldlol: You're comparing his record in the 1st round vs the Clippers to his record in the WCF vs the Blazers? Talk about forgetting context with team success.

the big difference in the wcf? :roll: the first round was easier, but the '97 lakers were easily better than the '92 sonics, and the '97 rockets were easily better than the '92 blazers. stockton also had a better playoff run in '97, but karl malone still was the mvp of the rockets series.

I'm talking about the big difference between Malone and Stockton's performances in the WCF each year. Malone was dominant in the '92 WCF while Stockton played poorly, but in '97, Malone didn't have a great series while Stockton did.

And no, the '97 Rockets were not easily better than the '92 Blazers.

somehow shooting a better percentage is more important than getting to your teams first finals in its 23 year history :roll:

I'm talking about him playing much better in the '92 playoffs in general. He didn't get to the finals in '97 because he played better in the conference finals so this is a non-factor to me.

he had better numbers and a better record in 1997. context is important tho. who were those victories against in 1998 without stockton?

I'm talking about his record with Stockton in '98, that's a difference between the 2 years. '97 Malone had the luxury of Stockton for the entire season, and Stockton playing 35 mpg as opposed to 29.

so what? chicago won by 40 points in game 1 when everyone was playing so there is no evidence that backs up the series being anything but a destroying, and in game 3 with the best player on the planet shooting 36 percent and scoring only 17 points they still won by 20:roll: . the talent was there, they should have made it a more competitive series regardless, but they were swept. "bring on chicago" i remember hearing from the magic fans after sweeping away the 46-36 detroit pistons. :lol so much for that.

I have no doubt that Chicago wins regardless, but I'm definitely not convinced it's a sweep with a healthy Magic team. 1 game doesn't tell us much. Remember the Memorial Day Massacre to start the '85 finals? Orlando had a great chance to win game 2. It was really Jordan's play at both ends in the 3rd quarter that sparked Chicago, from what I remember.

and the lakers went 8-9 over the last 17 games. again, you are falling in love with stats, most of all points, on losing teams. lamar odom was frozen out of the lakers offense in these games, with bryant forcing up 30 shots, and odom only managing 10.

No, I'm "in love" with Kobe's skill set that year. It just separated him, he could things others couldn't dream of doing.

as i've already mentioned, odom showed what he was capable when bryant was absent with his 22/12/7.

How many games did he play without Kobe? 4? Odom can play like a star player at times, the problem throughout his career is that he's never done it with any consistency. Nobody has questioned his talent.

that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

The Cavs were aided by their weak competition as well as their top 4 defense and great rebounding.

the mighty new jersey nets! won less games than the mighty toronto raptors! vince carter was no better than a top 5 shooting guard and richard jefferson was no more than a solid starter, kidd was easily the best player on that roster.

how did vince fare in the next round against cleveland while kidd was busy averaging a lazy triple double?

Carter had a miserable series vs Cleveland, but he had surpassed Kidd by that point.

yeh well even if you quickly glanced over a half game that season you would've noticed the numbers mcgrady was averaging which they put up when a player goes to the free throw line..obviously you haven't even glanced, let alone sit for any length of time.

I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care. That's because he's put up better numbers than that before, and because regardless of what numbers he put up, he had clearly lost a step since his prime. T-Mac's game in '07 was the same as it had been, except without the same first step or athletic ability and with a worse habit of settling for jump shots.

lol more pathetic statements and excuses here. the facts are that he made the nba finals, beating every other rival from the conference. shaq was also a mediocre free throw shooter and trash from outside 16 feet, does this come into play when arguing players? you are beginning to sound like your friend roundmound here. lebron shot 48%fg, 32%3p, and 70%ft, 55%ts (only 3 percentage points less than bryant).

:oldlol: What does Shaq have to do with it? Shaq is a 340 pound 7 footer who played inside, and nobody could stop him from getting inside. He didn't need a jumper outside of that 8-10 foot turnaround, in fact, it would have been counterproductive considering the high percentage shots he got inside.

His free throws were a legitimate weakness, though. It's more common for big men, but that's something everyone should do a lot better than Shaq, who did get downright embarrassing at the line.

And if Shaq's game didn't translate as well to the playoffs, I'd rate him lower. In fact, I do take away from his '94 season because of that.

Back to the point, Lebron is a small forward, perimeter players need an outside shot, unless we're talking about some of the 80's small forwards who played in the post most of the time.

This is because the elite defensive teams will just back off you and make you beat them from the perimeter. Look at what happened in the finals. Lebron had an unbelievably bad series shooting 35% with almost 6 turnovers per game. That was his jump shot getting exposed. I guarantee this doesn't happen with Kobe. I doubt he beats the Spurs with that team, but he plays a hell of a lot better.

When Lebron improved his shooting dramatically in '09, he took his game to another level and dominated the playoffs.

kidd was a great 3 point shooter and great free throw shooter, could get to the basket when he wanted, great at creating fast breaks and creating points for other players, one of the best at forcing turnovers, and had amazing handles, and was a nice defender.

Actually, Kidd by that point could not get the basket when he wanted, he could barely get to the basket at all. This was perhaps the biggest difference compared to his prime. This is why he barely scored. I can appreciate what he did, especially improving his 3 point shot which was essential because his scoring ended up being limited to that.

He was still an amazing passer, but I wouldn't call his handles amazing. He had a nice crossover when he was young, but that had a lot to do with his quickness. That's probably the biggest advantage guys like Nash and Paul had over Kidd, they could keep their dribble and probe, or get their shots whenever they want.

Aside from passing and 3 point shooting, he still did provide other things such as a remarkable knack for making something happen out of nothing and seeing plays that others don't, which is proof of him being arguably the smartest player of his era. And while he now lacked the quickness to guard most point guards(which was never his best attribute defensively to begin with), his size allowed him to still guard bigger players effectively, and he still rebounded very well.

magic was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. how big an impact did kareem's double teams and defensive impact have on teams before magic arrived in la? just because kareem had a hook shot, and could block a shot or two, its just simply not enough to contend with magic's all round game, which also included a nice outside shot and post game.

Kareem had more than enough counter moves to complement his sky hook, not that he needed many because the sky hook was unstoppable.

Kareem's game always had a big impact on his teams until he was about 40 years old.

He didn't just block a shot or 2, aside from the 3 blocks per game he averaged(good for 3rd in the league), as a 7'3" shot blocking presence, he changed many shots, that's what Magic was alluding to in the quote I posted earlier.

Just like his scoring went far beyond the 24 ppg(6th best in the league) on 58% shooting(4th best in the league), it got his teammates half court opportunities, and he also gave them the option of a high percentage shot whenever they needed it, which was essential because they couldn't run on every possession.

You keep lying about Magic having an outside shot and a post game in '82 so put your money where your mouth is.

There are plenty of Laker playoff games from '82 on lakeptic's youtube channel, and I'll tell you what, I'll reupload 2 regular season games I had on my old channel from '82, one vs Boston and another vs Chicago. There are a few more in circulation too, that's plenty of games to find examples of this imaginary outside shot and post game.

Shep

08-21-2012, 09:22 AM

You're comparing his record in the 1st round vs the Clippers to his record in the WCF vs the Blazers? Talk about forgetting context with team success.
contributing to winning, compared to contributing to losing

I'm talking about the big difference between Malone and Stockton's performances in the WCF each year. Malone was dominant in the '92 WCF while Stockton played poorly, but in '97, Malone didn't have a great series while Stockton did.
i'd take malone's series in '97. i'd take less production and a western conference finals victory over more production and a comfortable 4-2 defeat. if malone's exploits had been able to get the jazz over the blazers that particular year then that playoff would likely be ranked higher than '97's.

I'm talking about him playing much better in the '92 playoffs in general. He didn't get to the finals in '97 because he played better in the conference finals so this is a non-factor to me.
he was the best player in the 1997 western conference finals. its not all about stats.

I'm talking about his record with Stockton in '98, that's a difference between the 2 years. '97 Malone had the luxury of Stockton for the entire season, and Stockton playing 35 mpg as opposed to 29.
yeh it was a nice record. but a season is 82 games, bottom line.

I have no doubt that Chicago wins regardless, but I'm definitely not convinced it's a sweep with a healthy Magic team. 1 game doesn't tell us much. Remember the Memorial Day Massacre to start the '85 finals? Orlando had a great chance to win game 2. It was really Jordan's play at both ends in the 3rd quarter that sparked Chicago, from what I remember.
the magic got swept, bottom line.

No, I'm "in love" with Kobe's skill set that year. It just separated him, he could things others couldn't dream of doing.
but the real question is: could he win more than 1 playoff game?

How many games did he play without Kobe? 4? Odom can play like a star player at times, the problem throughout his career is that he's never done it with any consistency. Nobody has questioned his talent.
yeh what a coincidence that his best stretch of 4 games came when bryant was out :lol

The Cavs were aided by their weak competition as well as their top 4 defense and great rebounding.
the cavs made the finals, bottom line.

Carter had a miserable series vs Cleveland, but he had surpassed Kidd by that point.
:roll:

I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care. That's because he's put up better numbers than that before, and because regardless of what numbers he put up, he had clearly lost a step since his prime. T-Mac's game in '07 was the same as it had been, except without the same first step or athletic ability and with a worse habit of settling for jump shots.
who cares if he put up better numbers before. it is not all about numbers. mcgrady only missed 11 games, averaged more assists than he ever had on top of 25 points and 5 rebounds, led the rockets to a 52-30 record with yao ming missing half of the regular season, and actually played good in the playoffs while yao did not show up at all.

What does Shaq have to do with it? Shaq is a 340 pound 7 footer who played inside, and nobody could stop him from getting inside. He didn't need a jumper outside of that 8-10 foot turnaround, in fact, it would have been counterproductive considering the high percentage shots he got inside.

His free throws were a legitimate weakness, though. It's more common for big men, but that's something everyone should do a lot better than Shaq, who did get downright embarrassing at the line.

And if Shaq's game didn't translate as well to the playoffs, I'd rate him lower. In fact, I do take away from his '94 season because of that.
the point is, no matter how weak you think his shot was he was still able to get his 27ppg in the regular season and 25ppg in the playoffs, which is saying something.

Back to the point, Lebron is a small forward, perimeter players need an outside shot, unless we're talking about some of the 80's small forwards who played in the post most of the time.

This is because the elite defensive teams will just back off you and make you beat them from the perimeter. Look at what happened in the finals. Lebron had an unbelievably bad series shooting 35% with almost 6 turnovers per game. That was his jump shot getting exposed. I guarantee this doesn't happen with Kobe. I doubt he beats the Spurs with that team, but he plays a hell of a lot better.

When Lebron improved his shooting dramatically in '09, he took his game to another level and dominated the playoffs.
lol more jokes. bryant does not have a good track record when it comes to finals, so take his normal production and half it automatically :roll:

and besides the field goal percent and turnovers lebron had a very good series: 22.0ppg, 7.0rpg, 6.8apg, 1.0spg, 0.5bpg. how many players have averaged 22/7/7 in the finals?

Kareem had more than enough counter moves to complement his sky hook, not that he needed many because the sky hook was unstoppable.

Kareem's game always had a big impact on his teams until he was about 40 years old.

He didn't just block a shot or 2, aside from the 3 blocks per game he averaged(good for 3rd in the league), as a 7'3" shot blocking presence, he changed many shots, that's what Magic was alluding to in the quote I posted earlier.

Just like his scoring went far beyond the 24 ppg(6th best in the league) on 58% shooting(4th best in the league), it got his teammates half court opportunities, and he also gave them the option of a high percentage shot whenever they needed it, which was essential because they couldn't run on every possession.
he also got pushed around and was bothered by the stockier bigmen, was a poor free throw shooter, feeble at transition defense or offense, and disgusting offensive and defensive rebounder.

You keep lying about Magic having an outside shot and a post game in '82 so put your money where your mouth is.

There are plenty of Laker playoff games from '82 on lakeptic's youtube channel, and I'll tell you what, I'll reupload 2 regular season games I had on my old channel from '82, one vs Boston and another vs Chicago. There are a few more in circulation too, that's plenty of games to find examples of this imaginary outside shot and post game.
no lies are told on my behalf, and i have seen more games than have been uploaded to youtube, but feel free in anycase :D

Dragonyeuw

08-21-2012, 09:25 AM

ThaRegul8r

08-21-2012, 10:19 AM

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

Thought I saw 'Philadelphia' on the article.

Because the article was written in Philadelphia because the Celtics were on the road playing the Sixers?

:confusedshrug:

Are you really going to quibble with me about it when I posted the article in the first place? :facepalm Peter May wrote it. Is he a Philadelphia writer or a New England writer?

And by focusing on that, you're completely missing the point.

Dragonyeuw

08-21-2012, 10:26 AM

Because the article was written in Philadelphia because the Celtics were on the road playing the Sixers?

:confusedshrug:

Are you really going to quibble with me about it when I posted the article in the first place? :facepalm Peter May wrote it. Is he a Philadelphia writer or a New England writer?

And by focusing on that, you're completely missing the point.

Oh sheesh :facepalm .....Who's quibbling? All I said was I saw Philadelphia on the article, and that's what prompted me to think it came from a Philadelphia source. I'm not trying to argue with you that the article actually came from a Boston writer, I'm simply explaining that based on what you originally posted, I assumed( incorrectly) that the article came from a Philadelphia writer/source/newspaper. It's not like the actual article has Peter May or Boston Globe on it, does it? Yes it does have a reference to a Bird quote and a mention of the Celtics since they were in town, but that in and of itself doesn't necessarily suggest that the article was written by someone out of Boston. Ok.... I assumed incorrectly based on what I saw, big deal.

Really, I don't give a shit where it came from, and it seems you've missed the point that we actually agree on the content of the article.

ShaqAttack3234

08-22-2012, 09:13 PM

contributing to winning, compared to contributing to losing

You know damn well that it's not that simple and that there's no comparison between playing a 45-37 Clipper team you're heavily favored to beat in the 1st round with homecourt advantage and a 57-25 Blazer team that you're expected to lose against in the Western Conference Finals without homecourt advantage.

i'd take malone's series in '97. i'd take less production and a western conference finals victory over more production and a comfortable 4-2 defeat. if malone's exploits had been able to get the jazz over the blazers that particular year then that playoff would likely be ranked higher than '97's.

Less production wouldn't get him a win vs the '92 Blazers.

You can never sum up a team with 2 players, but depth isn't really an issue when comparing these teams and 3rd best players are just Jeff Hornacek, who didn't score as much , but gives you more of an all around player with more range vs Jeff Malone, who was a very good scorer who lived off his mid-range game with jumpers and off balance leaning shots, but was more one-dimensional..

1992 WCF
Malone- 28.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 3.5 TO, 0.8 bpg, 1 spg, 54.7 FG%, 62.8 TS%
Stockton- 14.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 11.2 apg, 3.3 TO, 1.3 spg, 39.7 FG%, 53.5 TS%

1997 WCF
Malone- 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.8 TO, 1.3 bpg, 1.2 spg, 44.8 FG%, 49.4 TS%
Stockton- 20.5 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 10.3 apg, 2.8 TO, 0.8 spg, 53.8 FG%, 65.1 TS%

Stats only tell you so much, but it gives you an idea of the difference. And the stats are fairly representative of the difference between Stockton's level of play in the '92 WCF vs '97. From watching both series, I can say that Stockton went from a poor series in '92 to arguably the best series of his life in '97

he was the best player in the 1997 western conference finals. its not all about stats.

:oldlol: After I called you out for relying on stats too heavily, you've tried doing it to me. It's just laughable.

No offense, but it seems like you do rank players based on their stats, team success and how their games hold up in the playoffs. Not that I have a problem with these being considerations, I look at these things, but it seems like those 3 things decide it for you. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten.

yeh it was a nice record. but a season is 82 games, bottom line.

His team success with context in '98 is more impressive.

He fell short by a grand total of 2 wins, and he did that with Stockton playing 6 less mpg as well as playing 18 fewer games.

It's obvious that with Stockton playing all 82, they at least get those 2 extra wins. Actually, probably more because as you pointed out, their schedule was weak in those games. Much less '98 Malone playing with the superior '97 version of Stockton who played 35 mpg. With just a healthy '98 Stockton for the first 18 games, they win 65 games minimum, imo, but likely even more.

the magic got swept, bottom line.

The Sonics lost too. Bottom line.

but the real question is: could he win more than 1 playoff game?

I'm not sure, pretty tough while facing the best Suns team of the Nash era with such a terrible team around him.

yeh what a coincidence that his best stretch of 4 games came when bryant was out :lol

Lamar was playing great in general before Kobe's injury. He was still doing everything, he was still rebounding like a power forward as well as running the offense at times and handling the ball like a point guard, but his scoring was much better than usual. Most importantly, he was consistently aggressive attacking the basket and his outside shot was falling. Based on how people were talking, it seemed likely that he'd make his first all-star team. Lamar played 20 games before his injury, 17 of them with Kobe and he averaged 18.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.1 apg, 47.7 FG%, 58.6 TS%. So much for Kobe making Lamar worse....

the cavs made the finals, bottom line.

To credit Lebron properly, I have to evaluate the competition and Lebron's actual performance that got them there. If I didn't, well I may end up overrating Lebron by putting him ahead of Kobe for example, which NOBODY did at the time.

Getting to the finals is a team accomplishment, how much I credit an individual depends on how well he plays. Why is it that some credit the best player automatically without considering other factors that got them to the finals?

who cares if he put up better numbers before. it is not all about numbers. mcgrady only missed 11 games, averaged more assists than he ever had on top of 25 points and 5 rebounds, led the rockets to a 52-30 record with yao ming missing half of the regular season, and actually played good in the playoffs while yao did not show up at all.

I don't care about numbers in this case, it's never the primary consideration when I'm ranking players. And how can you accuse me of relying on stats after I said "I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care."

The reason I KNOW T-Mac wasn't at his '01-'05 level is that he had clearly lost a step and wasn't the same athlete, yet he didn't add anything to his game to make up for it. This made him rely more on jump shots, and not only had his jumper become flatter, but his free throws suffered as well.

When you lose something and don't add anything to make up for it, it's a fact that you're not as good as you were. It's obvious to the point where it can't be debated. Nobody can argue that he had lost athleticism since '05 and there's not a single thing anyone can name that he added to his game since that time.

the point is, no matter how weak you think his shot was he was still able to get his 27ppg in the regular season and 25ppg in the playoffs, which is saying something.

It's still a key flaw that was exposed. Lebron did other things well such as his ability to drive to the basket and his unmatched abaility to finish, and his playmaking during that run impressed me the most, but I can't look past the jump shot. It stood out to me so much watching Lebron during that playoff because it's such an essential skill for a perimeter player. For that reason, it was Lebron's worst season from '06 to present, arguably '05 to present, but that may be a stretch.

Lebron was obviously still a great player, top 5 in the league, but when we're talking about the true elite, you have to look at every aspect of their games, and flaws like this will be keys. If we were talking about players of a lower caliber then they'd all likely have key flaws and it'd be leas of an issue.

lol more jokes. bryant does not have a good track record when it comes to finals, so take his normal production and half it automatically :roll:

:oldlol: If we're talking about track records, then how about Kobe destroying the Spurs so many years? Including the year right after this one.

and besides the field goal percent and turnovers lebron had a very good series: 22.0ppg, 7.0rpg, 6.8apg, 1.0spg, 0.5bpg. how many players have averaged 22/7/7 in the finals?

You're really trying to twist Lebron's finals into a good series? Besides FG% and turnovers? If you're going to evaluate a series on stats, you can't leave out two horrible ones. 22 ppg isn't impressive when you shoot 35% to get it, and the assists lose a lot of impressiveness when you turn the ball over so much, especially a perimeter player.

Beyond stats, it's simple to see what happened in the series, Bowen guarded Lebron very well limiting his impact and Duncan was a key factor shutting down the paint as well as doing the job by showing on screen rolls. The Spurs game plan of backing off Lebron to make him a jump shooter and shutting down the paint. This worked to perfection because Lebron had to get to the basket to score consistently, and that all comes down to that terrible jump shot.

The result was Lebron failing to play like the superstar he was in that finals series.

he also got pushed around and was bothered by the stockier bigmen, was a poor free throw shooter, feeble at transition defense or offense, and disgusting offensive and defensive rebounder.

Kareem's strength was exploited early in his career, but not much with the Lakers from what I've seen. Especially not after the '79-'80 season when he started lifting weights for the first time.

Poor free throw shooter? I've never heard this claim about Kareem. It's ridiculous. He shot 71% that year, which is fine for a center, hell, he shot even loer at 70% in his peak season of '76-'77.

Disgusting rebounder? Also ridiculous, especially since you called him an average rebounder before, which was accurate/

no lies are told on my behalf, and i have seen more games than have been uploaded to youtube, but feel free in anycase :D

You collect games too? Or are you old enough to have seen the '81-'82 Lakers play? Either way, I'm always happy to share whatever games I have, though I'll have to make another account. I have 2 current accounts that haven't been deleted, which is fortunate because a lot of games are on both, unfortunately, I got a copyright strike today on my second for 1992 Bulls/Knicks game 1 which now limits my uploading limit to 15 minutes for both accounts. :banghead:

Callystarr

08-22-2012, 09:55 PM

Round Mound

08-22-2012, 10:03 PM

This is what matters, when the two meet head to head....and looks like Malone has a pretty safe lead..

:no: :facepalm

Do The Stats When Barkley was Still with the Suns from 1985-86 to 1994-95 and Barkley Out Plays Malone. Even tight till 1995-96.

It Wasn`t thill the 1995-96 that Malone Outplayed Barkley in Their Last Meetings When Barkley Left to Houston as 2nd or 3rd Option

So for 70% of Their Meetings...Barkley Outplays Malone

For 30% of Their Last Meetings Malone Outplays Barkley.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

In General Barkley was Better than Malone from 1985 to 1995:

Head to Head: from 85-95
Higher PER Top 9 and 10 All Time
Higher EFF Top 10 All Time
Higher Plus/Minus (+/-) Top 5 All Time
Higher WS
Highe OWS
Higher WS Per 48 Minutes (Top 8 All Time) etc

Its Very Simple:

- For Kiddos that Saw the NBA from 1996 on...Malone > Barkley
- For Elderes Who Saw Them Play in Their Primes...Barkley > Malone

joeyjoejoe

08-22-2012, 10:04 PM

Watch out ya gonna get the but barkley was a role player after his injury lecture lol

joeyjoejoe

08-22-2012, 10:08 PM

Geez your quick, id like to see their h2h stats from 85-86 to 95-96 even though thats not malones prime (94-95 to 00-01)

ShaqAttack3234

08-22-2012, 10:10 PM

This is what matters, when the two meet head to head....and looks like Malone has a pretty safe lead..

:oldlol: Head to head stats are what matter? You really think a few games a year matter more than an entire 82 game season?

That doesn't make any sense...at all. All head to head stats show is how players MAY have matched up individually. It tells you more about match ups, not who was better. A player may struggle more against a role player than a superstar because that particular role player may be more suited to guard that player than the superstar.

But beyond that, it tells you more about how a player fares against a team because we can't forget that players are usually doubled, particularly Barkley who was arguably one of the 3 most double teamed players of the past 20-25 years along with Hakeem and Shaq.

Beyond that, nobody should EVER use head to head stats to try to prove anything unless they've seen EVERY one of those games because unless you do, you do not know how often these players guarded each other. Just because 2 stars are listed at the same position, does not mean they were the primary defenders against each other at all times. I remember entire games when Barkley and Malone weren't the primary defenders on each other.

And the bottom line is how a player fares against the entire league on average is how they should be judged, not how they fare against 1 player.

Geez your quick, id like to see their h2h stats from 85-86 to 95-96 even though thats not malones prime (94-95 to 00-01)

You could argue that Malone's prime started in the late 80's or early 90's. You could argue it lasted until 2000, imo, but I think 2001 is pushing it.

Malone was definitely in his prime by '94, he had become the excellent post defender, a great passer, a consistent shooter and he basically had the same post game as he did when Utah went to back to back finals.

But Barkley's prime obviously wasn't that whole stretch from '86-'96 either. It was probably from '88-'93, maybe it started in '89, but I usually say '88.He was arguably as good as he ever was in '93, but that also happened to be his last prime season.

Round Mound

08-22-2012, 10:11 PM

Geez your quick, id like to see their h2h stats from 85-86 to 95-96 even though thats not malones prime (94-95 to 00-01)

Ages 23-32

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

So U are Saying Malone Was Better from 1996 to 2003 age 32-39 or 40? :no:

He Managed to Stay Healthier But He Wasn`t th Dominant Player He Was from 1985 to 1995 ages 22-31. Not Even Close.

Round Mound

08-22-2012, 10:16 PM

[B]Not Only Did Barkley Outplay Karl Malone for 70% of Their Total 100% Head to Head Match Ups When HEALTHY and BOTH in Their PRIMES but he was THE TOTAL BETTER PLAYER

HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1985: ages 22-31

PLAYER COMPARISON:

Barkley

37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)

22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)

11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn

joeyjoejoe

08-22-2012, 10:23 PM

Round Mound

08-22-2012, 11:08 PM

Ok what i got from that is barkley had better steals, assists, rebounds and more eff, malone scored more blocked more shots and had less turnovers all in all very close and thats with barkleys whole prime and not malones

That is including 1995-96 which is the year that Malone took Over. NEVER BEFORE.

What are you saying Kiddo...Barkley a Better FT SHooter than Malone cause of the Matchups? :no: Malone was Better FT Shooter He Worked Harder (less talent) for Those.

Ofcourse Barkley had more Turnovers...You Know He Had To CREATE for the Sixers to and WAS WAY MORE DOUBLED than Malone who did not develop a decent post game till around 1997. Unlike Malone Who Had to CREATE NOTHING for HIM OR HIS TEMATES because of a man called JOHN STOCKTON WHO RAN THE PLAY-S FOR MALONE to Score. THE GREATEST CREATOR AND PASSER EVER.

Also Barkley shot 55% FG in the 2-Point Region while Malone shot 50%. That is 5% More a Difference Between a Player Shooting 45% to 50%. Thats alot. Especially at PF.

Malone took 3-4 More Shots Per Game too while Being Less Effective too.

Do the stats from 1985-96 to 1994-95 the Season (i included the 95-96 season when Barkley was done and Malone was Better) When Barkley got Back Injured and Those Favor Barkley.

Also Head to Heads Don`t Mean Much because You Don`t Know Who Guarded Who all Time. The only thing i can say is that before 1995-96 when they Guarded Each Other Barkley Schooled him.

Barkley before Back Injured and ****ing his Knee Up in 1996-97 WAS A MUCH BETTER TOTAL PLAYER THAN MALONE. I SAW IT LIVE in the 80s and early-mid 90s

Also Look Up On What I Put in PLAYER COMPARISON ages 22-31

And that is EXCLUDING PLAY-OFF NUMBERS. PLAY-OFFS: WHERE MALONE ALWAYS DECLINED HEAVILY COMPARED TO BARKLEY

joeyjoejoe

08-23-2012, 01:22 AM

Round Mound

08-23-2012, 02:20 AM

You wrote more blocks but thats not the case, can cherry pick all you want hey i can do the same imagine comparing the stats in malones prime 94-00 think we know how that would go, malones game took time to polish he worked hard on it something barkley lacked, i never brought up the h2h stats your the one posting the statsheet

:no:

Still you Avoid the fact Barkley outplayed him for 70% of Career While Malone Outplayed Barkley Only 30% Of It = When Charles Left to Houston as an Injured Overweight 2nd and 3rd Option,

Also You Avoid the Player Comparisson Where Clearly Barkley Was Better for 10-11 Years While Malone for the Last 5 Years of Barkley`s Houston Era. :confusedshrug:

joeyjoejoe

08-23-2012, 03:27 AM

10 or 11 years? 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90,90-91,91-92, 93-94 thats 8 years ofcourse your gonna argue but 94-95 is the last year, i disagree

Round Mound

08-23-2012, 08:54 AM

10 or 11 years? 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90,90-91,91-92, 93-94 thats 8 years ofcourse your gonna argue but 94-95 is the last year, i disagree

:no:

Barkley had a Higher PER in 1994-95 and ALWAYS a Higher PER in the Play-Offs...ALLWAYS.

I included 1995-96 for those head to head stats and thats the Year When Barkley began to Decline Heavily so its 1985-86 to 1995-96. So its 10 Years

For the Player Comparisson i used 1985-86 to 1994-95 if you add 1995-96 Barkley still has a Higher PER, EFF, Plus/Minus, WS, OWS and WS Per 48 Minutes. Do it Yourself and See.

joeyjoejoe

08-23-2012, 11:26 AM

Ok so were just talking h2h then well it seems they were very close in your stats , your avoiding the fact that your cherry picking years prime barkley and pre prime malone

Round Mound

08-23-2012, 04:07 PM

Ok so were just talking h2h then well it seems they were very close in your stats , your avoiding the fact that your cherry picking years prime barkley and pre prime malone

So You Say Malone was Better ages 33-40? Than 22-32? :no:

I Think He Just Kept a Good Level Cause of His Work Ethic Physically But He Wasn`t Better after that He Just Aged Well In a Good Level Passed His Prime...

Malone was More Scary ages 22-32 because of his Mobility and For Barkley He Was Just Insane in his Prime Years

joeyjoejoe

08-23-2012, 06:12 PM

I think he was better from about 94-00 improved his jump shot, defense, became a bettrr playmaker

Round Mound

08-23-2012, 06:18 PM

I think he was better from about 94-00 improved his jump shot, defense, became a bettrr playmaker

He always had a Good Jumper Even in the 80s and Early 90s: he became a Better Post Payer after 1995 and also Passer as the Years Passed ....But his Rebounding, Defense and Potence Decreased (same for Barkley).

Karl was a Work Horse...That is Why Physically He Lasted Longer in a Good Level More than Other Players.

I think Karl was a the Best "Catch" Recieve Finisher Ever though (Better than Dr J, James Worthy, Tom Chambers or Sir Charles). In his Early Days he Would Run the Court like a Wide Reciever and Stockton Would Find Him Always.

Asoume to Watch Finess and Power Working Together.

Karl was Good but he Wasn`t in the Level of Prime Barkley. From 1985 to 1995 Barkley was Better Clearly. As Barkley began to Detiriorate his Back (like Bird), Knees and Athletic Capacity...Karl Took Over as the Best PF.

joeyjoejoe

08-23-2012, 07:19 PM

His rebounds declined a bit but became a better rounded team player, there both great and close on mosts lists, i was disapointed when both lost to the bulls but atleast it was the 90's bulls hey

ShaqAttack3234

08-23-2012, 07:25 PM

Malone could already shoot in the late 80's and early 90's, and he was faster, more athletic and more of a power player.

But Karl did improve that jump shot noticeably in the mid/late 90's. His range and consistency got better, and he also became a more polisher post player with that trademark step back from the post. His passing got much better too. His rebounding didn't really decline either, and his post defense clearly got better from about '94 on.

Malone peaked, imo at age 34 in '98. And even by 36 years old in 2000, he really didn't seem to have lost much ability.

I prefer the older, more well rounded and polished Malone who relied on finesse more, to the younger, more athletic Malone who overpowered players more.

Round Mound

08-23-2012, 07:50 PM

Chalkmaze

08-23-2012, 11:48 PM

So much mis-information about Karl Malone it's not even funny. I watched more Karl Malone games then all of you combined, and you guys that post a lot have no clue. It's appalling really, especially Round Mound of Agenda, you're a complete joke buddy.

With that said, I think it's time I retire from this board, I've read enough bullshit.

D.J.

08-24-2012, 12:32 AM

L.A. Jazz

08-24-2012, 04:18 AM

What i dont like about Chuck's quotes is the "Malone had/ needed Stockton to score so many points"...

how do you know? we had no chance to see Malone without Stockton in his prime! i am pretty sure Malone would have scored about the same amount of points with lots of (good) PGs running the Jazz (mainly becauce Coach Sloan would drill them to do the right play). so it's right, that they had each other, but they are elite talent as PF and PG and would have gotten their numbers on other teams for sure.

Round Mound

08-24-2012, 05:42 AM

Sadly most kiddos here watched Malone and Barkley play from 1997 onwards when the NBA WAS MORE MARKETABLE...never when Charles was healthy from 85 to 95. I did and i can affirm even statistically that Barkley was Better than Malone.

I have no Agenda Here...I Loved Stockton to Malone was Much as Many Here But To Say Malone Was Better cause of Longevity? Give me a Break: Longevity is Not a Skill...Kobe Bryant Might Have Better Longevity Stats than Jordan was he Better? :no: .

Barkley was the More Skilled Player, The Most Difficult PF to Guard Ever!" and the Best Combination of High Scoring FG%, Monster High 2-Point FG% (like Shaq), Rebounder and Passer EVER for a PF.

Barkley with Phily was a Much Better Shot Blocker and The Best Stealing PF Ever... and More Onstoppable With the Ball in Transition (handling the ball) than ANY PF Ever.

Stats Don`t Lie...Charles is By Far The Most Underrated Superstar Ever.

Top 10 All Time In EFF
Top 10 All Time in Season PER
Top 9 All Time in Play-Off PER
Top 5 All Time in Plus/Minus (+/-)
Top 4 All Time In Shot Made/Missed Diferential
Top 8 All Time in WS Per 48 Minutes

From 1985 to 1995 Also Outplayed Malone for 70% of their Careers "Kiddos Only Remember 1997 unwards" and also WAS BIG IN THE PLAY-OFFS...UNLIKE MALONE who`s Numbers and Level of Play ALWAYS DECREASED in the Play-Offs.

Barkley HEALTHY AND PRIME is The Cream of All PFs...

Round Mound

08-24-2012, 05:43 AM

Yeah, you have no agenda either. :rolleyes:

L.A Jazz Nick Name and the Other: Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Give me a Break and People Say I Have An Agenda? ...... :rolleyes:

I Happen to Have Watched the NBA in the Late 80s and Early & Mid 90s and have seen both Malone and Barkley WHEN BOTH WHERE HEALTHY "Not Just One Healthy" (not 1996-97 unwards when Barkley was an overweight and injured man) unlike Blinded Jazz Fans Fools..

:applause:

TaLvsCuaL

08-24-2012, 05:47 AM

Better comedian and better eating hamburgers.

Round Mound

08-24-2012, 05:57 AM

Better comedian and better eating hamburgers.

The Other Better? At What?

OH Yea...At Raping Little Girls and at Hunting.

TaLvsCuaL

08-24-2012, 06:19 AM

The Other Better? At What?

OH Yea...As a Rapist and at Hunting Wild Animals.
It was just a joke, I think Barkley was more talented but Malone had a good head start in his career due to Stockton. I think that his reputation has always harmed him. Also unfortunately we tend to judge players based on their achievements, and sometimes others players that had worse luck could have done better things if they had been on the right team at the right time. Garnett for example, in my opini

L.A. Jazz

08-24-2012, 06:57 AM

[B]L.A Jazz Nick Name and the Other: Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Give me a Break and People Say I Have An Agenda? ...... :rolleyes:

i havent said a word about who i think was the better player. i only want to say it's unfair to their (Stockton/Malone) talent, to say they wouldnt be as good on other teams. we dont know that and will never know.

i remember Chuck saying on NBA.TV that you have to believe that you are better than all others to compete in the NBA. so it's fitting he think so about himself.

East_Stone_Ya

08-24-2012, 07:27 AM

The Other Better? At What?

OH Yea...At Raping Little Girls and at Hunting.

and driving trucks

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/048/951/malone-logging_display_image.jpg?1309090783

ShaqAttack3234

08-24-2012, 02:33 PM

Yup his Post Game and Mid Range Game Improoved Alot in the Mid 90s though his Explosivness, Overpowering Way Play and Rebounding Decreased as he Got Older (same with Charles after 1995). He Was More Rigid and Less Explosive Then but Still Quite Effective.

I agree that Malone's explosiveness declined, but his rebounding stayed the same.

In 1998, Malone averaged 10.3 rpg, and his TRB% was 17.1%, which was almost as high as it ever was. He only topped that in 1995 with a 17.4 TRB%, 1991 with a 17.2 TRB% and tied it in 1990 with a 17.1 TRB%..

The Problem for Malone Was His Play-Off Performances. They Always Declined Heavily Compared to Charles: Who Dominated the Mid Range and Post Region With Ease and No Need of a System of Pick and Rolls.

Season:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Per Game

Malone shot 51.9% Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs Per Game

Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs Per Game

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs Per Game

Yeah, Barkley was always better in the playoffs, and it's because of what Charles said in the quote from the original post in this thread. Charles could get his shot when he wanted, while Malone did benefit from easy baskets because of Stockton and the system.

Malone was still a very good scorer, but this made it difficult for him to match his regular season play in the playoffs. He did have some good playoff runs, though. He just wasn't as dominant as Barkley.

Callystarr

08-24-2012, 03:22 PM

So where is this 70% of career coming from?

Top is Charles
Bottom is Karl

85-86 (CHARLES)
36.9m 20.0p 12.8r 3.9a 1.8s 1.5b .572 .685
30.6m 14.9p 8.9r 2.9a 1.3s 0.5b .496 .481 *ROOKIE*

86-87 (CHARLES)
40.3m 23.0p 14.6r 4.9a 1.8s 1.5b .594 .761
34.8m 21.7p 10.4r 1.9a 1.3s 0.7b .512 .598

87-88 (CHARLES)
39.6m 28.3p 11.9r 3.2a 1.3s 1.3b .587 .751
39.0m 27.7p 12.0r 2.4a 1.4s 0.7b .520 .700

88-89 (KARL)
39.1m 25.8p 12.5r 4.1a 1.6s 0.8b .579 .753
39.1m 29.1p 10.7r 2.7a 1.8s 0.9b .519 .766

89-90 (TIE)
39.1m 25.2p 11.5r 3.9a 1.9s 0.6b .600 .749
38.0m 31.0p 11.1r 2.8a 1.5s 0.6b .562 .762

90-91 (KARL)
37.3m 27.6p 10.1r 4.2a 1.6s 0.5b .570 .722
40.3m 29.0p 11.8r 3.3a 1.1s 1.0b .527 .770

91-92 (KARL)
38.4m 23.1p 11.1r 4.1a 1.8s 0.6b .552 .695
37.7m 28.0p 11.2r 3.0a 1.3s 0.6b .526 .778

92-93 (TIE)
37.6m 25.6p 12.2a 5.5a 1.6s 1.0b .520 .765
37.8m 28.0p 11.2a 3.8a 1.5s 1.0b .552 .740

93-94 (KARL)
35.4m 21.6p 11.2r 4.6a 1.6s 1.0b .495 .704
40.6m 25.2p 11.5r 4.0a 1.5s 1.5b .497 .694

94-95 (KARL)
35.0m 23.0p 11.1r 4.1a 1.6s 0.7b .486 .748
38.1m 26.7p 10.6r 3.5a 1.6s 1.0b .536 .742

95-96 (KARL)
37.1m 23.2p 11.6r 3.7a 1.6s 0.8b .500 .777
38.0m 25.7p 9.8r 4.2a 1.7s 0.7b .519 .723

This doesn't even include the last 4 years where Malone continued to average in the mid to high 20's per game, and Barkely was in the the teens....Both players peak years were impressive....but I feel like Malone had 2 periods..10 years apart where he elevated his game.

The remaining 4 years left in Charles career were clearly....in Karls favor. So if we are going off of statistics, they both seemed to be very...even.

But if you go over both of their careers, it wasn't just the later half that Karl...started to really challenge him annually for #1 power forward position. Karl had more consistency and you can see his maturity in other areas of his game..ie passing...(he became a much better passer as he got older)...

Callystarr

08-24-2012, 03:47 PM

85-87 H2H 5 games
Barkley 23.4p 12.2r 4.2a 1.80s 0.20b .633fg .816ft
Malone 16.2p 6.8r 1.4a 1.40s 0.60b .477fg .528ft

88-90 H2H 5 games
Barkley 23.0p 9.6r 3.6a 2.00s 0.60b .541fg .696ft
Malone 30.2p 10.0r 3.4a 1.60s 0.80b .595fg .758ft

91-92 H2H 5 games
Barkley 24.4p 11.0r 3.6a 1.20s 0.40b .512fg .739ft
Malone 29.8p 10.4r 3.8a 1.20s 1.40b .528fg .791ft

Now we all know what happens really the remainder of their career...outside of the year that Barkley went to Phoenix....

But seriously....no one can say that either dominated either...because clearly in the head to head matchup...Malone played better H2H and seasonally with the exception of Malones first 3 years in the NBA.

Round Mound

08-24-2012, 05:38 PM

[B]I agree with Callystarr that Malone improoved his Post Game and Passing Later in His Career but it Was All Hard Work for Him Because he Was Less Talented than Barkley. For Barkley Post Game, Mid Range Game, Rebounding and Passing Was Natural.

*Do Barkley 1985-86 to 1995-96 Head to Head Favors Barkley (But Lets Remember Head to Head doesn`t show much either because it Doesnt tell Whoe Guarded Who).

I put the 1995-96 Season included in the Head to Head to but I myself admit tha Malone was Better in 1995-96 and Onwards (i saw it live) thats when Charles began to get back injured.

Also look at Player Comparison i Put Before from 85-86 to 1994-95...It Favors Barkley Statistically too.

HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1995: ages 22-31

PLAYER COMPARISON 1985-95 (ages 21-31):

Barkley

37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)

22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)

11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn

Callystarr

08-24-2012, 10:55 PM

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]I agree with Callystarr that Malone improoved his Post Game and Passing Later in His Career but it Was All Hard Work for Him Because he Was Less Talented than Barkley. For Barkley Post Game, Mid Range Game, Rebounding and Passing Was Natural.

*Do Barkley 1985-86 to 1995-96 Head to Head Favors Barkley (But Lets Remember Head to Head doesn`t show much either because it Doesnt tell Whoe Guarded Who).

I put the 1995-96 Season included in the Head to Head to but I myself admit tha Malone was Better in 1995-96 and Onwards (i saw it live) thats when Charles began to get back injured.

Also look at Player Comparison i Put Before from 85-86 to 1994-95...It Favors Barkley Statistically too.

HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1995: ages 22-31

PLAYER COMPARISON 1985-95 (ages 21-31):

Barkley

37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)

22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)

11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn

Round Mound

08-25-2012, 04:32 AM

Nahh Barkley was Better Untill 1995 I saw It Live. Infact (for those who where there to watch it) Barkley was to Retire the 1995-96 season but Danny Ainge Convinced Him Not To. Then Malone took Over as Barkley left as 2nd or 3rd option in Houston. Where he destroyed his Knee was Constantly Overweight and he had the Similar Back Problems as Bird

Callystarr

08-25-2012, 06:17 AM

I don't know what you guys are looking at, honestly Charles Barkley had the most talent, but Karl Malone proved to have longevity and consistency. Charles

If you go look at their stat lines...per season...Karl Malone has the edge...

85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Barkley (slightest edge)
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Malone
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Malone
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone

Now if you want to go on H2H each season, this is who had the better games..

85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Malone
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Barkley
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Barkley
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone

From 88-89...and on all the games were close...but clearly this was a rivalry...in which Malone was clearly the better player after the 80's....

Shep

08-26-2012, 02:57 AM

You know damn well that it's not that simple and that there's no comparison between playing a 45-37 Clipper team you're heavily favored to beat in the 1st round with homecourt advantage and a 57-25 Blazer team that you're expected to lose against in the Western Conference Finals without homecourt advantage.
it doesn't matter what you are expected to do and what you are not expected to do as a team. you are expected to perform as individuals no matter who you play, and if malone hadn't performed how he did against the clippers (which was better than he performed against the blazers) the jazz would not have made it past the first round to give them a chance at getting in the conference finals.

Less production wouldn't get him a win vs the '92 Blazers.
the jazz lost in the wcf in 1992, they won in the wcf in 1997. there is no what ifs.

1992 WCF
Malone- 28.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 3.5 TO, 0.8 bpg, 1 spg, 54.7 FG%, 62.8 TS%
Stockton- 14.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 11.2 apg, 3.3 TO, 1.3 spg, 39.7 FG%, 53.5 TS%

1997 WCF
Malone- 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.8 TO, 1.3 bpg, 1.2 spg, 44.8 FG%, 49.4 TS%
Stockton- 20.5 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 10.3 apg, 2.8 TO, 0.8 spg, 53.8 FG%, 65.1 TS%

Stats only tell you so much, but it gives you an idea of the difference. And the stats are fairly representative of the difference between Stockton's level of play in the '92 WCF vs '97. From watching both series, I can say that Stockton went from a poor series in '92 to arguably the best series of his life in '97
stockton had the better playoff in 1997, but malone also had a better playoff in 1997, by a wider margin than that of stockton.

After I called you out for relying on stats too heavily, you've tried doing it to me. It's just laughable.
i've destroyed you at your own argument

No offense, but it seems like you do rank players based on their stats, team success and how their games hold up in the playoffs. Not that I have a problem with these being considerations, I look at these things, but it seems like those 3 things decide it for you. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten.
thats ok. for you it seems like you rank players based on stats, mainly the scoring stat, and thats about it.

His team success with context in '98 is more impressive.

He fell short by a grand total of 2 wins, and he did that with Stockton playing 6 less mpg as well as playing 18 fewer games.

It's obvious that with Stockton playing all 82, they at least get those 2 extra wins. Actually, probably more because as you pointed out, their schedule was weak in those games. Much less '98 Malone playing with the superior '97 version of Stockton who played 35 mpg. With just a healthy '98 Stockton for the first 18 games, they win 65 games minimum, imo, but likely even more.
there is no point talking about what might have happened if something else happened. what did happen is that utah won more games in 1997 than it did in 1998

The Sonics lost too. Bottom line.
the series against the sonics was much more competitive

I'm not sure, pretty tough while facing the best Suns team of the Nash era with such a terrible team around him.
lamar odom stepped up his play from the regular season, kobe (being the best player) should have stepped up his play, giving the lakers a better chance of winning.

Lamar was playing great in general before Kobe's injury. He was still doing everything, he was still rebounding like a power forward as well as running the offense at times and handling the ball like a point guard, but his scoring was much better than usual. Most importantly, he was consistently aggressive attacking the basket and his outside shot was falling. Based on how people were talking, it seemed likely that he'd make his first all-star team. Lamar played 20 games before his injury, 17 of them with Kobe and he averaged 18.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.1 apg, 47.7 FG%, 58.6 TS%. So much for Kobe making Lamar worse....
so 18/9/5 is his best with kobe, meanwhile he puts up 22/12/7 without him :roll:

To credit Lebron properly, I have to evaluate the competition and Lebron's actual performance that got them there. If I didn't, well I may end up overrating Lebron by putting him ahead of Kobe for example, which NOBODY did at the time.
wow NOBODY did? that is alot of wrong people making rankings

Getting to the finals is a team accomplishment, how much I credit an individual depends on how well he plays. Why is it that some credit the best player automatically without considering other factors that got them to the finals?
lebron could only beat who gets put infront of him. to lead the cavs to their first nba finals appearance in their 37 year history as a 22 year old is a remarkable achievement. they swept by the washington wizards, easily accounted for jason kidd (top 4 overall) vince carter (top 5 shooting guard) and the new jersey nets to the tune of 4-2, then got by the heavily favoured playoff experienced detroit pistons in the wcf after falling behind 0-2 without home court advantage who they went 1-3 against in the regular season. and i don't need to remind you about game 5.

I don't care about numbers in this case, it's never the primary consideration when I'm ranking players. And how can you accuse me of relying on stats after I said "I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care."
because you said he put up better numbers before :hammerhead:

The reason I KNOW T-Mac wasn't at his '01-'05 level is that he had clearly lost a step and wasn't the same athlete, yet he didn't add anything to his game to make up for it. This made him rely more on jump shots, and not only had his jumper become flatter, but his free throws suffered as well.

When you lose something and don't add anything to make up for it, it's a fact that you're not as good as you were. It's obvious to the point where it can't be debated. Nobody can argue that he had lost athleticism since '05 and there's not a single thing anyone can name that he added to his game since that time.
this is just plain trash at its finest. he had lost athleticism since '05? only 2 years prior? he put up pretty much the exact same numbers on the exact same percentages IN 5 LESS MINUTES PER GAME and somehow he lost a step and wasn't the same player he once was at the ripe old age of 27 :roll: . you are getting worse by the post :oldlol:

It's still a key flaw that was exposed. Lebron did other things well such as his ability to drive to the basket and his unmatched abaility to finish, and his playmaking during that run impressed me the most, but I can't look past the jump shot. It stood out to me so much watching Lebron during that playoff because it's such an essential skill for a perimeter player. For that reason, it was Lebron's worst season from '06 to present, arguably '05 to present, but that may be a stretch.
lebron wasn't a natural scorer, but he scored with the best players in the league. and while other scorers would get cold (not naming names :roll: ), they could not impact the game on any other level, what separated lebron was the fact that he could. and if his shot was off he was always at the top of the league at the ability to get to the line. it was lebron's 5th best year to date behind '09, '12, '10, and '11.

Shep

08-26-2012, 02:58 AM

Lebron was obviously still a great player, top 5 in the league, but when we're talking about the true elite, you have to look at every aspect of their games, and flaws like this will be keys. If we were talking about players of a lower caliber then they'd all likely have key flaws and it'd be leas of an issue.
lebron was top 2 infact. this "key flaw" did not affect lebron and the cavaliers from steamrolling through 99% of the competition, it only seemed to be a problem when they were up against the best team in the league with the best defense in the league, and the best player in the league, a top 3 shooting guard, and top 4 point guard.

If we're talking about track records, then how about Kobe destroying the Spurs so many years? Including the year right after this one.
:roll: kobe couldn't even match his regular season production against the second fastest paced team in the nba in the first round of the playoffs

You're really trying to twist Lebron's finals into a good series? Besides FG% and turnovers? If you're going to evaluate a series on stats, you can't leave out two horrible ones. 22 ppg isn't impressive when you shoot 35% to get it, and the assists lose a lot of impressiveness when you turn the ball over so much, especially a perimeter player.
no he didn't have a good series. i'm not trying to say that at all, all i'm saying is that he was able to do other things if his shot wasn't falling.

Beyond stats, it's simple to see what happened in the series, Bowen guarded Lebron very well limiting his impact and Duncan was a key factor shutting down the paint as well as doing the job by showing on screen rolls. The Spurs game plan of backing off Lebron to make him a jump shooter and shutting down the paint. This worked to perfection because Lebron had to get to the basket to score consistently, and that all comes down to that terrible jump shot.

The result was Lebron failing to play like the superstar he was in that finals series.
:lol thats better than kobe failing to play like a superstar throughout the season, and a scrub throughout his 5 playoff games.

despite his sub-par finals, lebron still proved that he was top 2 overall because of what he had already achieved throughout the regular season and playoffs.

Kareem's strength was exploited early in his career, but not much with the Lakers from what I've seen. Especially not after the '79-'80 season when he started lifting weights for the first time.
:lol so after benching 50 pounds he was no longer being pushed around

Poor free throw shooter? I've never heard this claim about Kareem. It's ridiculous. He shot 71% that year, which is fine for a center, hell, he shot even loer at 70% in his peak season of '76-'77.
63% in the playoffs :roll: 1977 is his peak? :roll: what a joke. 1971 is kareem's peak

Disgusting rebounder? Also ridiculous, especially since you called him an average rebounder before, which was accurate/
on further inspection, disgusting is the most accurate word to describe kareem's rebounding.

You collect games too? Or are you old enough to have seen the '81-'82 Lakers play? Either way, I'm always happy to share whatever games I have, though I'll have to make another account. I have 2 current accounts that haven't been deleted, which is fortunate because a lot of games are on both, unfortunately, I got a copyright strike today on my second for 1992 Bulls/Knicks game 1 which now limits my uploading limit to 15 minutes for both accounts.
i have a large amount of games.

ShaqAttack3234

08-26-2012, 11:29 AM

it doesn't matter what you are expected to do and what you are not expected to do as a team. you are expected to perform as individuals no matter who you play, and if malone hadn't performed how he did against the clippers (which was better than he performed against the blazers) the jazz would not have made it past the first round to give them a chance at getting in the conference finals.

:oldlol: Malone was clearly more impressive individually in the WCF and it's a joke to try to compare team success in these series, the teams are so far apart it's ridiculous.

the jazz lost in the wcf in 1992, they won in the wcf in 1997. there is no what ifs.

I don't care since Malone didn't perform better or even as well in the series to do it so this is not a valid argument for Malone's '97 run to me. Team success is what you play for, but to credit an individual for it, you have to evaluate his performance that led to the victory. Otherwise, you have to look beyond the team's best player, and in this case, Stockton was the major difference between the '92 and '97 WCF.

stockton had the better playoff in 1997, but malone also had a better playoff in 1997, by a wider margin than that of stockton.

:roll:

i've destroyed you at your own argument

Not in your wildest dreams.

thats ok. for you it seems like you rank players based on stats, mainly the scoring stat, and thats about it.

A complete joke since I always describe additions to player's games and/or their maturation as a player as reasons for a particular season being their best. Unless a player's game and ability are virtually the same in multiple seasons. Then I look for a tiebreaker, either stats, team success or durability/consistency.

there is no point talking about what might have happened if something else happened. what did happen is that utah won more games in 1997 than it did in 1998

Do you have ANY ability to apply context? Yeah...2 fewer games with his second best player missing 18 more games and also becoming significantly less productive. It's just too obvious.

the series against the sonics was much more competitive

Because they were healthy.

lamar odom stepped up his play from the regular season, kobe (being the best player) should have stepped up his play, giving the lakers a better chance of winning.

Kobe stepped up as much as Odom did. Neither were noticeably better than their regular season level to me, but both did their jobs. Though Odom did step up more than Kobe the previous season in their playoff series vs Phoenix, but Kobe was still the Lakers best player in each series, by a large margin in '07.

so 18/9/5 is his best with kobe, meanwhile he puts up 22/12/7 without him :roll:

:oldlol: You're comparing averages over 4 game to 17 games? I'd expect Odom's numbers to rise a bit going from a clear 2nd option with Kobe to a clear 1st option without him. And maintaining averages over 4 games is much, much easier than 17 games.

wow NOBODY did? that is alot of wrong people making rankings

Nope, just one wrong person ranking players. :D

lebron could only beat who gets put infront of him. to lead the cavs to their first nba finals appearance in their 37 year history as a 22 year old is a remarkable achievement. they swept by the washington wizards, easily accounted for jason kidd (top 4 overall) vince carter (top 5 shooting guard) and the new jersey nets to the tune of 4-2, then got by the heavily favoured playoff experienced detroit pistons in the wcf after falling behind 0-2 without home court advantage who they went 1-3 against in the regular season. and i don't need to remind you about game 5.

:oldlol: The Wizards didn't have their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and the Nets big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. Plus, Lebron's job was made easier for him because Vince Carter was shut down, and New Jersey had relied heavily on his offense throughout the season and were still mediocre. Despite that, this was a 6 game series and several games were decided by other players. Pavlovic's chasedown block on Kidd late in game 1, Carter turning the ball over on the final possession of game 4 and Donyell Marshall's threes helping Cleveland pull away late in game 6 turning a 1 point game entering the 4th quarter into a blowout.

because you said he put up better numbers before

You mentioned numbers first as a case for T-Mac's '07 and even after I said T-Mac had put up better numbers I went on to state "regardless of numbers" before going into the reasons T-Mac was past his prime by '07.

this is just plain trash at its finest. he had lost athleticism since '05? only 2 years prior? he put up pretty much the exact same numbers on the exact same percentages IN 5 LESS MINUTES PER GAME and somehow he lost a step and wasn't the same player he once was at the ripe old age of 27 :roll: . you are getting worse by the post :oldlol:

Watch the games instead of basketball-reference. It's obvious he had lost athleticism. Most players are at or near their peak at 27, but most don't have the injury problems T-Mac did. He was coming off a season that he had missed 35 games in, and ultimately, he was never quite the same. His decline continued in '08.

He simply didn't have the first step he did in '05, and definitely wasn't as good of a finisher. I don't care if his numbers were similar, I'm going with what I saw. T-Mac was also much better in the '05 playoffs than '07.

lebron wasn't a natural scorer, but he scored with the best players in the league. and while other scorers would get cold (not naming names :roll: ), they could not impact the game on any other level, what separated lebron was the fact that he could. and if his shot was off he was always at the top of the league at the ability to get to the line. it was lebron's 5th best year to date behind '09, '12, '10, and '11.

Kobe was by far the best scorer in the league in '07, and didn't really look to score that much himself until the last couple of months or so when he scored at a historic pace at his coaches request. Prior to that, he had been focusing more on playmaking while still scoring very efficiently.

lebron was top 2 infact. this "key flaw" did not affect lebron and the cavaliers from steamrolling through 99% of the competition, it only seemed to be a problem when they were up against the best team in the league with the best defense in the league, and the best player in the league, a top 3 shooting guard, and top 4 point guard.

Steamroll the competition? They beat 1 solid team in the playoffs. That key flaw greatly affected Lebron when he faced a great team. Lebron's Cavs making the finals isn'that impressive to me since that was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent years, and most importantly, I'm looking at his level of play by itself, which didn't put him above several other players. I don't just blindly raise a player's rankings for a team accomplishment. I look at the rest of the team and with Cleveland, I saw a Cavs team whose supporting players continually stepped up in huge moments, a great rebounding team and an elite defensive team. They didn't need as much offense as other teams because they were holding opponents to such low scores.

kobe couldn't even match his regular season production against the second fastest paced team in the nba in the first round of the playoffs

His play was roughly what you'd expect.

thats better than kobe failing to play like a superstar throughout the season, and a scrub throughout his 5 playoff games.

despite his sub-par finals, lebron still proved that he was top 2 overall because of what he had already achieved throughout the regular season and playoffs.

Kobe failed to play like a superstar even in the regular season and a scrub in the playoffs? :roll: You have a ridiculous agenda. He was widely considered the best player in the game. With the exception of defense, this was a time when his entire game was really coming together. This is a top 10 player of all-time, at or near his peak.

so after benching 50 pounds he was no longer being pushed around

Whatever he did, it seemed to make a difference because he went from a player whose level of play often dropped in the playoffs early in his career to a player who raised his game in the playoffs as much as virtually any superstar from '74-'80.

63% in the playoffs 1977 is his peak? what a joke. 1971 is kareem's peak

Kareem was in a free throw slump during the playoffs, I'll judge his free throw shooting by a full season of games when he shot 71%.

You continue to set the standard for stat whores and prove your knowledge consists soley of what you read on basketball-reference. '71 is his peak? Yeah....Kareem peaked in just 2nd second season. That makes sense despite adding multiple moves such as a turnaround jumper and left-handed hook in later years as well as becoming smarter and stronger.

I can name so many examples why stats are deceptive in this case. Kareem helped a weak Laker team overachieve and get the best record in '77 and then raised his game to ridiculous heights with a playoff run far more impressive from an individual standpoint than '71.

on further inspection, disgusting is the most accurate word to describe kareem's rebounding.

Not surprising you resort to these tactics when you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.

DatAsh

08-26-2012, 01:31 PM

I agree that Malone's explosiveness declined, but his rebounding stayed the same.

In 1998, Malone averaged 10.3 rpg, and his TRB% was 17.1%, which was almost as high as it ever was. He only topped that in 1995 with a 17.4 TRB%, 1991 with a 17.2 TRB% and tied it in 1990 with a 17.1 TRB%..

Yeah, Barkley was always better in the playoffs, and it's because of what Charles said in the quote from the original post in this thread. Charles could get his shot when he wanted, while Malone did benefit from easy baskets because of Stockton and the system.

To me, this is key, and it's why prime vs prime I consider Barkley to be the better scorer of the two, despite Malone's higher ppg.

Dragonyeuw

08-26-2012, 01:44 PM

Round Mound

08-26-2012, 09:01 PM

Its More Like This When Barkley Was Healthy. You Have to Look at Play-Off Numbers too Where Malone Declined So If You Combine All It Goes like this before Barkley left for Houston and 2nd or 3rd Option Injured and Overweight

1985-86: Barkley
1986-87: Barkley
1987-88: Barkley
1989-89 :Barkley
1989-90: Barkley
1990-91: Barkley
1991-92: Malone (Barkley Wanted Out of Sixers)
1992-93: Barkley
1993-94: Barkley
1994-95: Barkley
1995-96: Malone
1996-97: Malone
1997-98: Malone
1998-99: Malone
1999-00: Malone

Barkley is a Top 10 All Time EFF Player
Barkley is Top 10 All Time PER Season Player
Barley is a Top 9 All Time PER Play-Off Player
Barkley is a Top 5 All Time Plus/Minus Player
Barkley is a Top 4 All Time Shot Made/Missed Diferential Player
Barkley is a top 8 All Time WS Per 48 Minute Player

So Statistically Not Only is He Better than Malone But CLOSER TO A TOP 10 PLAYER OF ALL TIME

Callystarr

08-26-2012, 09:57 PM

You haven't brought up anything that hasn't already been acknowledged previously. General consensus is that Barkley was the more dominant player prior to 1994, a sentiment you've basically expressed with your lists above.

No you are trying to lump 10 years together....rather than see that Barkley was better the first 3 years...and then they were about even....for the next several years and then Malone was flat out better....

Round Mound

08-26-2012, 10:02 PM

From 1985 to 1995 Barkley was Better. Check Out Broken Down Stats, Raw Stats, Head to Heads from that Stretch etc he Was Better

Also Barkley Did Not Depejnd on a Pick and Roll System Designed by the Greatest Pure PG Ever to Score or Dominate.

Barkley in his Peek Was Better by Far

Malone Declined In the Play-Offs Compared to Barkley

Dragonyeuw

08-27-2012, 10:04 AM

No you are trying to lump 10 years together....rather than see that Barkley was better the first 3 years...and then they were about even....for the next several years and then Malone was flat out better....

Barkley was better through 1991, 92 was an off year, he was better in 93, then Malone was better from 94 onwards. Your list shows the latter point to be the case, which is what some have been saying here. General consensus was that in the late 80's after Jordan/Magic/Bird, Barkley was right underneath them, basically a top 5 player. I have never heard of anyone calling Karl Malone a top 5 player during the late 80's. Peak Barkley is more dominant than any version of Karl Malone.

Shep

08-28-2012, 08:49 AM

Malone was clearly more impressive individually in the WCF and it's a joke to try to compare team success in these series, the teams are so far apart it's ridiculous.
:roll: malone was easily better in the WCQF :roll:

I don't care since Malone didn't perform better or even as well in the series to do it so this is not a valid argument for Malone's '97 run to me. Team success is what you play for, but to credit an individual for it, you have to evaluate his performance that led to the victory. Otherwise, you have to look beyond the team's best player, and in this case, Stockton was the major difference between the '92 and '97 WCF.
he did perform better, due to the jazz being successful and him being the best player.

Not in your wildest dreams.
:roll: delusional

A complete joke since I always describe additions to player's games and/or their maturation as a player as reasons for a particular season being their best. Unless a player's game and ability are virtually the same in multiple seasons. Then I look for a tiebreaker, either stats, team success or durability/consistency.
it actually looks like you take the best scorers, then try to make up bs to justify it, and most times it looks like you are trying to convince yourself rather than others.

Do you have ANY ability to apply context? Yeah...2 fewer games with his second best player missing 18 more games and also becoming significantly less productive. It's just too obvious.
2 different seasons. there are too many factors that come into play without pinpointing 1 18 game stretch. therefore we can only judge on facts, and that fact was that malone led the jazz to more victories in 1997.

Because they were healthy.
excuses

Kobe stepped up as much as Odom did. Neither were noticeably better than their regular season level to me, but both did their jobs. Though Odom did step up more than Kobe the previous season in their playoff series vs Phoenix, but Kobe was still the Lakers best player in each series, by a large margin in '07.
odom stepped up alot more than kobe in both years playoff losses.

You're comparing averages over 4 game to 17 games? I'd expect Odom's numbers to rise a bit going from a clear 2nd option with Kobe to a clear 1st option without him. And maintaining averages over 4 games is much, much easier than 17 games.
or it would be much harder considering the opposing defenses don't have to concentrate on bryant being out there?

Nope, just one wrong person ranking players.
oh, so now everybody ranked players the way i rank them except for you?

The Wizards didn't have their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and the Nets big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. Plus, Lebron's job was made easier for him because Vince Carter was shut down, and New Jersey had relied heavily on his offense throughout the season and were still mediocre. Despite that, this was a 6 game series and several games were decided by other players. Pavlovic's chasedown block on Kidd late in game 1, Carter turning the ball over on the final possession of game 4 and Donyell Marshall's threes helping Cleveland pull away late in game 6 turning a 1 point game entering the 4th quarter into a blowout.
making up for the wizards missing players antawn jamison was huge with 32.0ppg, 9.8rpg, 1.3apg, 0.5spg, and 1.0bpg and antonio daniels played the best he has played in his entire career with 13.3ppg, 4.5rpg, 11.8apg, 1.3spg, and 0.25bpg. the nets big men were the same nets big men that defeated the 47 win raptors. who cares about these single plays being mentiond? it is just rediculous mentioning 1 play when a game is played over 4 quarters and lebron was their best player in every single game.

You mentioned numbers first as a case for T-Mac's '07 and even after I said T-Mac had put up better numbers I went on to state "regardless of numbers" before going into the reasons T-Mac was past his prime by '07.

the numbers contributed to zero. this season his numbers actually meant something

Watch the games instead of basketball-reference. It's obvious he had lost athleticism. Most players are at or near their peak at 27, but most don't have the injury problems T-Mac did. He was coming off a season that he had missed 35 games in, and ultimately, he was never quite the same. His decline continued in '08.

He simply didn't have the first step he did in '05, and definitely wasn't as good of a finisher. I don't care if his numbers were similar, I'm going with what I saw. T-Mac was also much better in the '05 playoffs than '07.
more watch the games arguments :cry:

who cares what he was coming off? 2005 was his peak so he obviously wasn't as good as he was in his peak, but he was better than almost every other season. he dropped off the next season but he was still better than most, finishing 12th amongst all players.

Kobe was by far the best scorer in the league in '07, and didn't really look to score that much himself until the last couple of months or so when he scored at a historic pace at his coaches request. Prior to that, he had been focusing more on playmaking while still scoring very efficiently.
so bryant was "by far" the best scorer, yet lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. how was the lakers record while kobe decided to score at a historic pace? 8-9 :roll:

Steamroll the competition? They beat 1 solid team in the playoffs. That key flaw greatly affected Lebron when he faced a great team. Lebron's Cavs making the finals isn'that impressive to me since that was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent years, and most importantly, I'm looking at his level of play by itself, which didn't put him above several other players. I don't just blindly raise a player's rankings for a team accomplishment. I look at the rest of the team and with Cleveland, I saw a Cavs team whose supporting players continually stepped up in huge moments, a great rebounding team and an elite defensive team. They didn't need as much offense as other teams because they were holding opponents to such low scores.
they finished second in the entire league. that is second out of 30 teams. beat all the eastern conferences best teams to get to the nba finals. the cavaliers rode lebron like no other team had rode a superstar in nba history. his second best player probably wasn't top 10 at his position. lebron played huge in the playoffs. while every single one of his top teammates dropped off in production, lebron increased his. having such poor teammates lebron faced defenses that had 1 goal of stopping lebron and he was still able to lead that team far beyond any expectations that had been placed on it.

His play was roughly what you'd expect.
i expected much, much more.

Kobe failed to play like a superstar even in the regular season and a scrub in the playoffs? You have a ridiculous agenda. He was widely considered the best player in the game. With the exception of defense, this was a time when his entire game was really coming together. This is a top 10 player of all-time, at or near his peak.
that was actually a top 15 player of all-time nowhere near his peak which was 2001, or 6 years prior.

Whatever he did, it seemed to make a difference because he went from a player whose level of play often dropped in the playoffs early in his career to a player who raised his game in the playoffs as much as virtually any superstar from '74-'80.
his peak was at a time when he "wasn't working out" so i don't know where this is comin from.

Kareem was in a free throw slump during the playoffs, I'll judge his free throw shooting by a full season of games when he shot 71%.
playoff is the true test of a players ability

You continue to set the standard for stat whores and prove your knowledge consists soley of what you read on basketball-reference. '71 is his peak? Yeah....Kareem peaked in just 2nd second season. That makes sense despite adding multiple moves such as a turnaround jumper and left-handed hook in later years as well as becoming smarter and stronger.
:roll: more jokes. you think just because he could make a turnaround jumper he was more effective and better overall? what about the raw facts of being able to demolish the competition to the effect of 31.7ppg, 16.0rpg, and 3.3apg on 58% during the regular season on a team that won the second most games in nba history for a season, and 26.6ppg, 17.0rpg, 2.5apg on 52% during the playoffs on a team that went 12-2 in the playoffs, including a 4-0 destroying of the baltimore bullets in the nba finals.

I can name so many examples why stats are deceptive in this case. Kareem helped a weak Laker team overachieve and get the best record in '77 and then raised his game to ridiculous heights with a playoff run far more impressive from an individual standpoint than '71.
both kareem's season and playoff were easily better in 1971 (amongst a number of other years) it isn't even debatable.

Not surprising you resort to these tactics when you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.
:roll: you have it the wrong way around here in terms of who is handing ass to whom

ShaqAttack3234

08-29-2012, 12:45 AM

it actually looks like you take the best scorers, then try to make up bs to justify it, and most times it looks like you are trying to convince yourself rather than others.

Nice try, you turned out to be very predictable. I call you out on something, you get offended and try to do the same thing to me. You've done this more than once in this thread alone.

Since '99, the best player in the league has only been the league's leading scorer 3 times. Shaq in 2000 and Kobe in '06 and '07.

or it would be much harder considering the opposing defenses don't have to concentrate on bryant being out there?

That's a valid argument, although it'd likely factor into efficiency more than anything. However, this an extreme case since he was left in a position where his second best player was Luke Walton, and again, it's a 4 game sample size. He was playing great in general to start that season.

making up for the wizards missing players antawn jamison was huge with 32.0ppg, 9.8rpg, 1.3apg, 0.5spg, and 1.0bpg and antonio daniels played the best he has played in his entire career with 13.3ppg, 4.5rpg, 11.8apg, 1.3spg, and 0.25bpg. the nets big men were the same nets big men that defeated the 47 win raptors. who cares about these single plays being mentiond? it is just rediculous mentioning 1 play when a game is played over 4 quarters and lebron was their best player in every single game.

:oldlol: That Wizards team would struggle to win 20 games with that lineup over a season. Yeah Antawn put up numbers, but why is that even notable? Putting up numbers for a few games when there's nobody else to do it and you lose all of them isn't notable. Antonio Daniels was playing 44 mpg. Of course he's going to put up the best numbers of his life. On any good team, Daniels will be playing roughly half those minutes.

The Nets were a .500 team, and their pathetic frontcourt is why they weren't better.

Cleveland outrebounded the Nets by 4 rpg in the series. They also held the Nets to 84.2 ppg. Are you telling me those things weren't a huge part of their success? Defense and rebounding were their greatest strengths.

the numbers contributed to zero. this season his numbers actually meant something

:oldlol: His wins in '05 were almost identical, and he lost in 7 games in the first round both years. The difference was he was much better in the '05 playoffs. And T-Mac led rosters as bad as a superstar has had in recent years to the playoffs in Orlando, especially '02 and '03. The only year T-Mac's numbers seemed empty was '04.

who cares what he was coming off? 2005 was his peak so he obviously wasn't as good as he was in his peak, but he was better than almost every other season. he dropped off the next season but he was still better than most, finishing 12th amongst all players.

2005 was not his peak, though it was a standout season for him, either his 2nd or 3rd best.

I don't have him ranked in 2006 because he didn't meet criteria for games played, but that's not the point. The point is that injuries around that time led to an early decline.

so bryant was "by far" the best scorer, yet lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. how was the lakers record while kobe decided to score at a historic pace? 8-9 :roll:

Kobe could beat you from long range, he'd kill you from mid-range, he'd drive to the basket, he'd finish strongand with either hand, he'd beat you in the post, his footwork was second to none and he made his free throws.

The only way Lebron beat teams consistently as a scorer was driving to the basket. Lebron was clearly the superior finisher and more unstoppable going to the basket. But he wasn't starting in the post so he had to get to the basket from the perimeter. This is why that jump shot is a problem and makes Kobe's advantage as a scorer so obvious. It's very difficult to drive when your defender backs off you and gives you the jump shot. Lebron was a poor 3 point shooter, didn't have a mid-range or post game and he wasn't a good free throw shooter. Kobe actually got to the line at a better rate and held a huge 87-70 FT% advantage.

Now there's passing and playmaking. I've always considered Lebron the better passer, and this year is no exception, but I consider the difference much smaller than scoring considering how well Kobe was setting up his teammates and playing within the offense resulting in Odom and Walton improving.

Rebounding and defense are negligible between these two in this season.

The Lakers went 9-8 actually after Phil told Kobe to shooting. Not great, but Phil told Kobe to start shooting more to snap a 7 game losing streak, and he did with 4 straight 50+ games immediately after(65, 50, 60, 50) and a 43 point game to finish a 5 game winning streak.

they finished second in the entire league. that is second out of 30 teams. beat all the eastern conferences best teams to get to the nba finals. the cavaliers rode lebron like no other team had rode a superstar in nba history. his second best player probably wasn't top 10 at his position. lebron played huge in the playoffs

The Cavs rode Lebron more than any other star in NBA history? :roll: Not even close. So many players have produced more than Lebron in the '07 playoffs for their teams. Too many to name. Lebron has done it several times himself.

Lebron wasn't huge in the playoffs either. The only thing that was really remarkable was game 5 vs Detroit. I can't even count how many playoff runs I've seen that were better.

And you can't judge Lebron's help just by looking at his cast on paper, He played on a top 4 defensive team that outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. Are you telling me that's not going to help win games significantly? Lebron by that point was pretty much an offensive player, and Cleveland was a poor offensive team.

that was actually a top 15 player of all-time nowhere near his peak which was 2001, or 6 years prior.

:oldlol: at 2001 being Kobe's peak. How was that his peak when he expanded his range to become a 3 point shooter, greatly improved his post game, improved his moves, particularly his pump fake and footwork.

His play in the 2001 playoffs was remarkable, probably the best he's played from an all around standpoint along with 2008. But I also have to look at his regular season which was nowhere near his best and I have to look at his game, which I did before.

his peak was at a time when he "wasn't working out" so i don't know where this is comin from.

Well, yeah, based on an article I read from '80, he didn't lift weights yet when he peaked in '77, but he had gotten stronger by the time he was 29/30 than he was at 23/24.

playoff is the true test of a players ability

Defenses do get tighter, the competition now only includes good and great teams not bad teams, you face an opponent multiple times in a row so they can gameplan for your moves and tendencies better and there's a lot more pressure. So yeah, it is a lot harder to perform. But the only one of those things that could apply to free throw shooting is the pressure and considering Kareem's career FT% was higher in the playoffs than regular season, I see nothing to suggest Kareem's free throw shooting declined because of pressure.

:roll: more jokes. you think just because he could make a turnaround jumper he was more effective and better overall? what about the raw facts of being able to demolish the competition to the effect of 31.7ppg, 16.0rpg, and 3.3apg on 58% during the regular season on a team that won the second most games in nba history for a season, and 26.6ppg, 17.0rpg, 2.5apg on 52% during the playoffs on a team that went 12-2 in the playoffs, including a 4-0 destroying of the baltimore bullets in the nba finals.

How is he not better after adding moves, improving his passing and getting a bit stronger without losing anything?

Stats? Look at this quote from '77 where Kareem talks about how he was guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 seasons.

The first four or five years I was in the league, I was played basically one on one. There are 2 1/2 men on me all of the time now. One in back, one in front and a guard going for the ball. It's made it necessary for me to do other things."

That alone skews the numbers. And there's the difference between the NBA/ABA era of the early 70's and the post-merger era.

His team accomplishments were very impressive both years. You have to look at each relative to the team he played on. His '71 Bucks team had some very good players besides him while his '77 team wasn't very good to begin with. He had a historically dominant regular season in '71, while his team overachieved in '77 to get the best record. His team was made even worse in '77 with Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen injured in the playoffs. Nobody would have won a championship in that situation.

In '71, though, he faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without West or Baylor(though Baylor basically didn't play that season to begin with) and a 42-40 Bullet team. The Warriors did have more talent than their record suggests with one of the great centers of all-time Nate Thurmond, hall of famer Jerry Lucas and another all-star Jeff Mullins, but they were still a .500 team.

both kareem's season and playoff were easily better in 1971 (amongst a number of other years) it isn't even debatable.

How the hell was his playoff run better? His play in the '71 playoffs does not have a case over Kareem's play in the '77, '80 or '74 playoffs.

Shep

08-31-2012, 08:07 AM

Nice try, you turned out to be very predictable. I call you out on something, you get offended and try to do the same thing to me. You've done this more than once in this thread alone.
lol get offended? i haven't taken offense once in my time on this site, let alone in this thread or a certain post. i'm just destroying you at your own game here, and i have done this more than once in this thread alone.

Since '99, the best player in the league has only been the league's leading scorer 3 times. Shaq in 2000 and Kobe in '06 and '07.
overrating scorers once again. shaq in 2000 is the only player since '99 to be the best player and the league's leading scorer.

That's a valid argument, although it'd likely factor into efficiency more than anything. However, this an extreme case since he was left in a position where his second best player was Luke Walton, and again, it's a 4 game sample size. He was playing great in general to start that season.

especially when bryant was out

That Wizards team would struggle to win 20 games with that lineup over a season. Yeah Antawn put up numbers, but why is that even notable? Putting up numbers for a few games when there's nobody else to do it and you lose all of them isn't notable. Antonio Daniels was playing 44 mpg. Of course he's going to put up the best numbers of his life. On any good team, Daniels will be playing roughly half those minutes.
jamison stepped up his production in the absence of those players, it is a notable fact. and if daniels was producing like that he wouldn't be playing half those minutes, he would be starting on 90% of teams.

The Nets were a .500 team, and their pathetic frontcourt is why they weren't better.
the nets were a very dangerout outfit who just got done upsetting the 47 win toronto raptors (who won only 3 less games than the cavs) and boasted top 4 overall and best point guard in the nba in jason kidd, top 5 shooting guard vince carter, and richard jefferson and his 16/4/3.

Cleveland outrebounded the Nets by 4 rpg in the series. They also held the Nets to 84.2 ppg. Are you telling me those things weren't a huge part of their success? Defense and rebounding were their greatest strengths.

lebron scored 30% of all cleveland points that series. if you take into consideration his assists, he accounted for around 50% of all cleveland's offense. the cavs went as far as lebron took them, sure team rebounding and defense is good, but when it comes down to it individuals make the difference.

His wins in '05 were almost identical, and he lost in 7 games in the first round both years. The difference was he was much better in the '05 playoffs. And T-Mac led rosters as bad as a superstar has had in recent years to the playoffs in Orlando, especially '02 and '03. The only year T-Mac's numbers seemed empty was '04.
'05 was his peak, mostly because he actually did something in the playoffs in terms of individual success. his other better years were 2003, and 2001.

2005 was not his peak, though it was a standout season for him, either his 2nd or 3rd best.
yes, i can assure you that 2005 was infact his peak.

I don't have him ranked in 2006 because he didn't meet criteria for games played, but that's not the point. The point is that injuries around that time led to an early decline.
i was talking about his '08 ranking which was #12, but in '06 he dropped to #18.

Kobe could beat you from long range, he'd kill you from mid-range, he'd drive to the basket, he'd finish strongand with either hand, he'd beat you in the post, his footwork was second to none and he made his free throws.

The only way Lebron beat teams consistently as a scorer was driving to the basket. Lebron was clearly the superior finisher and more unstoppable going to the basket. But he wasn't starting in the post so he had to get to the basket from the perimeter. This is why that jump shot is a problem and makes Kobe's advantage as a scorer so obvious. It's very difficult to drive when your defender backs off you and gives you the jump shot. Lebron was a poor 3 point shooter, didn't have a mid-range or post game and he wasn't a good free throw shooter. Kobe actually got to the line at a better rate and held a huge 87-70 FT% advantage.

Now there's passing and playmaking. I've always considered Lebron the better passer, and this year is no exception, but I consider the difference much smaller than scoring considering how well Kobe was setting up his teammates and playing within the offense resulting in Odom and Walton improving.

Rebounding and defense are negligible between these two in this season.
this is a pathetic argument. lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. these are the facts. odom and walton both played better when kobe was out.

The Lakers went 9-8 actually after Phil told Kobe to shooting. Not great, but Phil told Kobe to start shooting more to snap a 7 game losing streak, and he did with 4 straight 50+ games immediately after(65, 50, 60, 50) and a 43 point game to finish a 5 game winning streak.
the laker never had a 7 game losing streak. and nice 5 game win streak against all losing teams :roll: . infact in the last month of the season when kome was in shot jack mode, the lakers lost every game they played against teams with winning records :oldlol:

The Cavs rode Lebron more than any other star in NBA history? Not even close. So many players have produced more than Lebron in the '07 playoffs for their teams. Too many to name. Lebron has done it several times himself.
i'm talking about riding a superstar to the point that nobody is anywhere in the vicinity of him on that roster

Lebron wasn't huge in the playoffs either. The only thing that was really remarkable was game 5 vs Detroit. I can't even count how many playoff runs I've seen that were better.
he was easily the second most impressive player out of all players that participated in the 2007 playoffs.

And you can't judge Lebron's help just by looking at his cast on paper, He played on a top 4 defensive team that outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. Are you telling me that's not going to help win games significantly? Lebron by that point was pretty much an offensive player, and Cleveland was a poor offensive team.
so outrebounding teams by 0.9 rebounds per quarter will more than likely propel your team into the nba finals? or will a superstar who is the second best player in the entire league.

Shep

08-31-2012, 08:08 AM

at 2001 being Kobe's peak. How was that his peak when he expanded his range to become a 3 point shooter, greatly improved his post game, improved his moves, particularly his pump fake and footwork.
:oldlol: more of this trash. how far did it get his team? was he able to make any noise at all in the playoffs, or was it his ppg that made you fall in love with him that year once again :oldlol:

His play in the 2001 playoffs was remarkable, probably the best he's played from an all around standpoint along with 2008. But I also have to look at his regular season which was nowhere near his best and I have to look at his game, which I did before.
he had a number of better regular seasons. but playoffs is where legends are made, and kobe made a name for himself in those playoffs. if you haven't seen them i definately recommend you try your hardest to pick up some game footage.

Well, yeah, based on an article I read from '80, he didn't lift weights yet when he peaked in '77, but he had gotten stronger by the time he was 29/30 than he was at 23/24.
well not lifting weights didn't stop him from maintaining his peak throughout the '71 season and playoffs

Defenses do get tighter, the competition now only includes good and great teams not bad teams, you face an opponent multiple times in a row so they can gameplan for your moves and tendencies better and there's a lot more pressure. So yeah, it is a lot harder to perform. But the only one of those things that could apply to free throw shooting is the pressure and considering Kareem's career FT% was higher in the playoffs than regular season, I see nothing to suggest Kareem's free throw shooting declined because of pressure.
we are talking about individual seasons here and in 1982 his ft shooting in the playoffs suffered dramatically.

How is he not better after adding moves, improving his passing and getting a bit stronger without losing anything?
because those moves did not help him win anymore, or be as productive in terms of contributing to a winning cause as he was in his peak of 1971

Stats? Look at this quote from '77 where Kareem talks about how he was guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 seasons.

That alone skews the numbers. And there's the difference between the NBA/ABA era of the early 70's and the post-merger era.
so he was able be shut down. ok, nice point.

His team accomplishments were very impressive both years. You have to look at each relative to the team he played on. His '71 Bucks team had some very good players besides him while his '77 team wasn't very good to begin with. He had a historically dominant regular season in '71, while his team overachieved in '77 to get the best record. His team was made even worse in '77 with Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen injured in the playoffs. Nobody would have won a championship in that situation.
excuses. i deal with raw facts, not with what if's and the facts are that kareem won at a historical rate in '71 and demolished the playoffs to the tune of a 12-2 record.

In '71, though, he faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without West or Baylor(though Baylor basically didn't play that season to begin with) and a 42-40 Bullet team. The Warriors did have more talent than their record suggests with one of the great centers of all-time Nate Thurmond, hall of famer Jerry Lucas and another all-star Jeff Mullins, but they were still a .500 team.
the lakers still had wilt chamberlain, who was the greatest playerof all time by that point, a top 2 shooting guard in gail goodrich. the bullets just finished off beating billy cunningham and the philadelphia 76ers, and then the walt frazier, willis reed led defending champion new york knicks.

How the hell was his playoff run better? His play in the '71 playoffs does not have a case over Kareem's play in the '77, '80 or '74 playoffs.
what is your argument here? let me guess..stats? points per game? :roll: gtfo

ShaqAttack3234

08-31-2012, 09:54 AM

lol get offended? i haven't taken offense once in my time on this site, let alone in this thread or a certain post. i'm just destroying you at your own game here, and i have done this more than once in this thread alone.

Ah, delusion at it's finest. The only thing you've done in this thread is make outrageous statements that can't be backed up by any reasonable arguments.

overrating scorers once again. shaq in 2000 is the only player since '99 to be the best player and the league's leading scorer.

Nope, you're just underrating Kobe as usual.

the nets were a very dangerout outfit who just got done upsetting the 47 win toronto raptors (who won only 3 less games than the cavs) and boasted top 4 overall and best point guard in the nba in jason kidd, top 5 shooting guard vince carter, and richard jefferson and his 16/4/3.

:oldlol: at Kidd being the best point guard in '07.

lebron scored 30% of all cleveland points that series. if you take into consideration his assists, he accounted for around 50% of all cleveland's offense. the cavs went as far as lebron took them, sure team rebounding and defense is good, but when it comes down to it individuals make the difference.

Of course Lebron was their MVP, I'm just pointing out that there was a lot more to that Cleveland team than just the individuals on paper.

'05 was his peak, mostly because he actually did something in the playoffs in terms of individual success. his other better years were 2003, and 2001.

He did have his best playoff series in '05, but unbelievable play throughout the '03 season makes it an easy choice. And he did nearly upset a very good Piston team with perhaps the worst supporting cast a star has had in the playoffs in the last 20 years or so. 2002 was a better season than 2001, but 2001 was a better playoff series.

yes, i can assure you that 2005 was infact his peak.

:oldlol: No you can't. I watched him enough to assure you that 2003 is his peak, and it's not particularly close.

i was talking about his '08 ranking which was #12, but in '06 he dropped to #18.

12 is a bit high in '08, imo, but we're not that far off. I have him at 16.

this is a pathetic argument. lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. these are the facts. odom and walton both played better when kobe was out.

No, it's a real argument that comes from more than looking at basketball-reference. By the way +4.3 ppg and 2.8 TS% is a big difference for season averages.

And the difference between them as scorers that year in reality was at least as big as the statistical difference, if not bigger.

the laker never had a 7 game losing streak. and nice 5 game win streak against all losing teams :roll: . infact in the last month of the season when kome was in shot jack mode, the lakers lost every game they played against teams with winning records :oldlol:

What do you mean the Lakers never had a 7 game losing streak? Look at March 2nd to March 15th.

The Lakers were lucky to not be a losing team themselves with such limited talent and all of those injuries. You can thank number 24 for that.

i'm talking about riding a superstar to the point that nobody is anywhere in the vicinity of him on that roster

Well that is absolutely meaningless to me. There's so much more that goes into a team.

he was easily the second most impressive player out of all players that participated in the 2007 playoffs.

Maybe, but that's not really saying much. The other elite players didn't set the standard too high outside of Tim Duncan.

so outrebounding teams by 0.9 rebounds per quarter will more than likely propel your team into the nba finals? or will a superstar who is the second best player in the entire league.

:oldlol: at trying to make it seem more insignificant by the per quarter nonsense. With how much you rely on stats, you should know that's not how season averages work. +3.7 rpg is excellent rebounding. Go check other teams to see.

Even Lebron in a subpar year obviously deserves a lot of credit for that success, but so is their defense and rebounding as well as the competition.

Lebron has no argument for being ranked any higher than 3rd that season, and even that's pushing it.

:oldlol: more of this trash. how far did it get his team? was he able to make any noise at all in the playoffs, or was it his ppg that made you fall in love with him that year once again :oldlol:

:oldlol: at comparing Kobe's success as a 2nd option to his success as a first option. Kobe scored 0.2 ppg LESS in '08 than '01, and just 0.7 ppg more in the playoffs, so this obviously isn't what I'm basing my decisions on.

Of course you only point out the ppg when it's convenient for you. Nice attempt to discredit my argument, but you overlooked that I consider '08 to be arguably Kobe's best season.

I shouldn't even have to explain to you why comparing Kobe's team success in '01 when he played with the best player in the league to '06 and '07 is idiotic.

In '08, Kobe LED his team to the finals. He not only matched his all around game from the '01 playoffs, but he now had a more diverse scoring skill set in addition to it, and he maintained it for an entire season, not just a playoff run.

he had a number of better regular seasons. but playoffs is where legends are made, and kobe made a name for himself in those playoffs. if you haven't seen them i definately recommend you try your hardest to pick up some game footage.

:oldlol: Of course I've seen them. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Shaq fan. I used to watch him play whenever I got a chance.

Kobe's 2001 playoffs were up there with his best playoff runs, but he was simply not at his absolute best as a player yet. He also had great playoff runs in '08, '09 and '10. And in '06 and '07, he simply didn't have the same opportunity to match those playoff runs.

well not lifting weights didn't stop him from maintaining his peak throughout the '71 season and playoffs

Doesn't make much sense considering Kareem was years away from his peak.

we are talking about individual seasons here and in 1982 his ft shooting in the playoffs suffered dramatically.

Yes, and it's not enough for me to label him a poor foul shooter. I'll look at the much bigger sample size, the 76 games he played in the regular season to judge his free throw shooting.

because those moves did not help him win anymore, or be as productive in terms of contributing to a winning cause as he was in his peak of 1971

It didn't help him win more because he didn't have a team remotely comparable to the '71 Bucks in '77. Are you going to deny his team was MUCH worse in '77 than '71? The difference is night and day.

It's predictable, you'll start with your "excuses" garbage. You do it every time you're exposed for not applying context. And you'll dodge the question about Kareem's supporting cast in '77 vs '71. But hey, I don't expect anything less, it's your trademark.

What's the point in even ranking players if you don't use anything you learn from watching games to rank them?

so he was able be shut down. ok, nice point.

Shut down when? '77? No, however, he was able to be contained much more in the early 70's with Milwaukee.

excuses. i deal with raw facts, not with what if's and the facts are that kareem won at a historical rate in '71 and demolished the playoffs to the tune of a 12-2 record.

I'm stating facts, and applying context because I know basketball isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. If you're going to compare team success, you have to keep in mind their teams. And when rating players you should look at how the players performed to get the result, not just the result because there are other players and teams to influence the result, but the player's performance speaks for itself. Now these things are subjective, but basketball is subjective.

the lakers still had wilt chamberlain, who was the greatest playerof all time by that point, a top 2 shooting guard in gail goodrich. the bullets just finished off beating billy cunningham and the philadelphia 76ers, and then the walt frazier, willis reed led defending champion new york knicks.

First of all, Russell was the greatest player of all-time at that point, and more importantly, Wilt was 34 and had the knee surgery the year before. He remained great until he retired, but it wasn't the Wilt Chamberlain of the mid/late 60's, and his team was just overmatched. But he did by all accounts play Kareem to a standstill in the series.

And if you knew your NBA history, you'd know that Willis Reed was injured in the '71 playoffs. I've read a lot about the golden age of the Knicks and this is considered a major factor.

what is your argument here? let me guess..stats? points per game? :roll: gtfo

Coming from the biggest stat whore on this site. A man whose basketball knowledge consists solely of what he's read on basketball-reference.