lets be honest.. enough debating between Malone and Barkley. neither are 2nd best PF

[kennethgriffin]

both greatly underachived

malone was a product of stockton

barkley was a fat lazy no defense playing bad team mate

both had stacked rosters throughout their careers

both had plenty of chances to win. and both should have won

barkley had dr j and moses

barkley had kevin johnson and majerle

barkley had hakeem and drexler

malone had arguably the greatest pure PG of all time his entire career almost

malone even bandwaggoned with the lakers and messed that up



the fact of the matter is. Kevin Garnett is the 2nd best power forward ever

if i had to choose between those 3.. kg is an easy choice

he changes the culture of a franchise. he holds people accountable. he is the best defensive player in the league and as #1 option could give me 20ppg and 4-5 assists

hes a winner. and doesnt depend on a PG to score. nore is he lazy and overweight

more all nba teams, more all defensive teams, more titles, same mvp's

better player

[Unbiased_one]

both greatly underachived

malone was a product of stockton

barkley was a fat lazy no defense playing bad team mate

both had stacked rosters throughout their careers

both had plenty of chances to win. and both should have won

barkley had dr j and moses

barkley had kevin johnson and majerle

barkley had hakeem and drexler

malone had arguably the greatest pure PG of all time his entire career almost

malone even bandwaggoned with the lakers and messed that up



the fact of the matter is. Kevin Garnett is the 2nd best power forward ever

if i had to choose between those 3.. kg is an easy choice

he changes the culture of a franchise. he holds people accountable. he is the best defensive player in the league and as #1 option could give me 20ppg and 4-5 assists

hes a winner. and doesnt depend on a PG to score. nore is he lazy and overweight

more all nba teams, more all defensive teams, more titles, same mvp's

better player


wow you actually made a post that makes some sense

[SamuraiSWISH]

Duncan is a center, so KG is tied for best PF with CB34 and the Mailman

[BoutPractice]

CB34
For some reason I thought you were referring to Chrish Bosh for a second :lol

KG has an argument for 2nd best PF, but I really don't think you can use scoring against Malone in a KG vs Malone comparison... Both Barkley and Malone are clearly better scorers than KG.

[KyleKong]

1 - Tim Duncan
2 - Kevin Garnett
3 - Dirk
4 - Malone
5 - Barkley

:confusedshrug:

[I<3NBA]

Kobe would have zero rings in MJ era.

[ispin69]

These kobe trolls acting wreckless. You can say the same about Kobe.

Kobe has ZERO rings as ALPHA.

He had the most dominant center in SHAQ.
He had great supporting cast in Derek Fisher, Robert Horry.
Was he able to out shine and outplay Shaq? No.
So what does he do? He gets him traded by threatening to leave.

When he didn't have any Hall of Famers on his team:
1st round bust or NOT EVEN MAKE THE PLAYOFFS AT ALL.
Why didn't he make Kwame Brown, a first round pick better?

Then he gets gifted an allstar in Gasol.
You can EASILY debate that they both shared that ring.
NO ONE was alpha other than Kobe CHUCKING to get more stats padding.
It was equal they were TIED in winning those two.

Kobe always had a STACKED roster with a dominant BIG MAN
while Jordan won Luke Longley as his big man.

Kobe greatly UNDERachieved. He was lazy and the only reason he was first and last to the gym was because there was a female trainer/front office staff member he was trying to rape.

This is the only thing trolls understand. Red me all you want f@gg0ts.

[KyleKong]

while Jordan won Luke Longley as his big man.

Who needs a good big man when you got Scottie 2 Hottie as your wingman.

[fpliii]

griff dropping knowledge up in here.

[ispin69]

Who needs a good big man when you got Scottie 2 Hottie as your wingman.

There's a reason BIG men score higher percentage shots, they're closer to the rim. Having Scottie has his second in command only made MJ even greater that he didn't rely on a BIG man. MJ and Pippen created high percentage shots from the post and driving as wingmen.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Imo, when you consider everything:

1. Timmy
2. Malone
3. KG
4. Barkley
5. Dirk
6. Pettit
7. Hayes (underrated af)
8. McHale

Now can I see it any other way? Yes I can. Always hard with these things, and as far as peaks as overall players I wouldn't have the same list.

[Xiao Yao You]

both greatly underachived

malone was a product of stockton

He was great before Stockton was starting.


both had stacked rosters throughout their careers

Jazz weren't stacked outside the big two.


malone even bandwaggoned with the lakers and messed that up

No that would be Kobe that messed that up.

Duncan is more of a center in my mind regardless of what he's been called.

[The JKidd Kid]

1. KG
2. Malone
3. Barkley
4. McHale
5. Dirk

[CelticBaller]

> Malone was a product of Stockton

>AVG 21.7 pts 10.4 rbs with Stockton playing less than 25 mins per game in 87


Am I wrong here Utah fans?

[PJR]

This is one of the few post from the OP that I actually don't thoroughly disagree with. But I'd still go with Malone. Malone was a good defender, while also being a sensational scorer(unlike Barkley). Not to mention he was a fitness freak with insane durability.

[fpliii]

1. Duncan
2. KG
3-5 Dirk, Barkley, Pettit
6-7 Malone, McHale

[KobesFinger]

These kobe trolls acting wreckless. You can say the same about Kobe.

1. Kobe has ZERO rings as ALPHA.

He had the most dominant center in SHAQ.
He had great supporting cast in Derek Fisher, Robert Horry.
2. Was he able to out shine and outplay Shaq? No.
3. So what does he do? He gets him traded by threatening to leave.

When he didn't have any Hall of Famers on his team:
1st round bust or NOT EVEN MAKE THE PLAYOFFS AT ALL.
4. Why didn't he make Kwame Brown, a first round pick better?

Then he gets gifted an allstar in Gasol.
5. You can EASILY debate that they both shared that ring.
NO ONE was alpha other than Kobe CHUCKING to get more stats padding.
It was equal they were TIED in winning those two.

Kobe always had a STACKED roster with a dominant BIG MAN
6. while Jordan won Luke Longley as his big man.

7. Kobe greatly UNDERachieved. He was lazy and the only reason he was first and last to the gym was because there was a female trainer/front office staff member he was trying to rape.

This is the only thing trolls understand. Red me all you want f@gg0ts.

1 - last I checked he was the leader of the 2009 and 2010 Lakers
2 - name one player who would outplay peak Shaq other than Wilt
3 - Jerry Buss picked young Kobe over old Shaq
4 - LOL
5 - make the case and we'll debate that
6 - as mentioned before, who needs a big when you have Pippen and Grant or Rodman?
7 - grow up. Anyway, this is about the power forward spot, Kobe is not a power forward

[MVBallin2K]

Why does this become a Kobe thread when NO ONE BUT a Kobe detractor mentioned Kobe in the first place? It's like instead of making legitimate points about this stuff and debating it, people just instantly went into "Well Kobe never did this" instead of you know, actually arguing a point.

That's like debating which meat is the best and then someone chimes in "Well, dill pickles aren't that great". Then they wonder and get mad at so many Kobe threads when they encourage this behavior by bringing him up themselves.

[Unbiased_one]

Why does this become a Kobe thread when NO ONE BUT a Kobe detractor mentioned Kobe in the first place? It's like instead of making legitimate points about this stuff and debating it, people just instantly went into "Well Kobe never did this" instead of you know, actually arguing a point.

That's like debating which meat is the best and then someone chimes in "Well, dill pickles aren't that great". Then they wonder and get mad at so many Kobe threads when they encourage this behavior by bringing him up themselves.

If there's one thing I know , it's that kobe isn't the second best PF in history. Why he got mentioned in this thread is unclear.

[ZMonkey11]

If there's one thing I know , it's that kobe isn't the second best PF in history.

Nope not even close. Barkley was a much better PF than Kobe.

[MVBallin2K]

Nope not even close. Barkley was a much better PF than Kobe.


Yeah but that Lebron though, you put him in that PF spot and he'd become the best PF of all time.

[miles berg]

1. Duncan
2. Dirk
3. Barkley
4. KG
5. Malone

[L.Kizzle]

The real answer is Bob Pettit.

He is arguably the 3rd best player from the Russell/Chamberlain era. He has 2 MVP and other than Wilt, was the only other to beat Russell for a title.

[DMAVS41]

1. Duncan
2. Dirk
3. Barkley
4. KG
5. Malone

1. Duncan
2. Dirk
3. KG
4. Malone
5. Barkley

[longtime lurker]

Imo, when you consider everything:

1. Timmy
2. Malone
3. KG
4. Barkley
5. Dirk
6. Pettit
7. Hayes (underrated af)
8. McHale

Now can I see it any other way? Yes I can. Always hard with these things, and as far as peaks as overall players I wouldn't have the same list.

I'd agree with this list.

[TheBigVeto]

2nd GOAT PF is Dirk.

[7_cody]

Personally I'd take Garnetts defensive tenacity and rebounding over Dirk, but you can't go wrong either way

My list is the same as this one:


1. Duncan
2. KG
3-5 Dirk, Barkley, Pettit
6-7 Malone, McHale

[SamuraiSWISH]

Duncan isn't a damn PF, stop this nonsense.

[Pointguard]

1. Duncan
2. KG
3-5 Dirk, Barkley, Pettit
6-7 Malone, McHale

Yeah this.

[NumberSix]

Hamburgaz

[KingLeBronJames]

These kobe trolls acting wreckless. You can say the same about Kobe.

Kobe has ZERO rings as ALPHA.

He had the most dominant center in SHAQ.
He had great supporting cast in Derek Fisher, Robert Horry.
Was he able to out shine and outplay Shaq? No.
So what does he do? He gets him traded by threatening to leave.

When he didn't have any Hall of Famers on his team:
1st round bust or NOT EVEN MAKE THE PLAYOFFS AT ALL.
Why didn't he make Kwame Brown, a first round pick better?

Then he gets gifted an allstar in Gasol.
You can EASILY debate that they both shared that ring.
NO ONE was alpha other than Kobe CHUCKING to get more stats padding.
It was equal they were TIED in winning those two.

Kobe always had a STACKED roster with a dominant BIG MAN
while Jordan won Luke Longley as his big man.

Kobe greatly UNDERachieved. He was lazy and the only reason he was first and last to the gym was because there was a female trainer/front office staff member he was trying to rape.

This is the only thing trolls understand. Red me all you want f@gg0ts.
You can't be serious. :roll:

[JtotheIzzo]

both greatly underachived

malone was a product of stockton

barkley was a fat lazy no defense playing bad team mate

both had stacked rosters throughout their careers

both had plenty of chances to win. and both should have won

barkley had dr j and moses

barkley had kevin johnson and majerle

barkley had hakeem and drexler

malone had arguably the greatest pure PG of all time his entire career almost

malone even bandwaggoned with the lakers and messed that up



the fact of the matter is. Kevin Garnett is the 2nd best power forward ever

if i had to choose between those 3.. kg is an easy choice

he changes the culture of a franchise. he holds people accountable. he is the best defensive player in the league and as #1 option could give me 20ppg and 4-5 assists

hes a winner. and doesnt depend on a PG to score. nore is he lazy and overweight

more all nba teams, more all defensive teams, more titles, same mvp's

better player

Honesty?

Really? Is that what you want? And you type this crap.

First off, YOU KIDS NEED TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THE 80s AND EARLY 90s, YOU WEREN'T AROUND, YOU DON'T KNOW. Secondly, KG is great but he was SHIT in the playoffs before being united with PP and Ray Allen.

If you gave Charles Barkley a Paul Pierce, a Ray Allen AND a Rajon Rondo...****in hell!!!!! They'd have beaten Jordan's Bulls.

Also you disingenuous little ass clown, Barkley had two season of Moses Malone (CB's rook and sophomore seasons), and year 13, 14, 15 of Erving's career, stop talking like they were in their prime, both were on the decline, and Andrew Toney was the best of all of Barkley's teammates at that time and he was sadly injured.

And DAN MAJERLE? Are you ****ing kidding? Richard Dumas was a bigger part of that Finals Suns team than him.

Fact is Barkley's best years was him running with this starting line up:

Mike Gminski (sometimes coke head Charles Shakleford)
Rick Mahorn (sometimes Armon Gilliam)
Charles Barkley
Hersey Hawkins
Johnny Dawkins

All guys who Chuck elevated, and don't even dare compare that to this starting five:

Kendrick Perklins
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
Rajon Rondo

One of them has FOUR HALL OF FAMERS and the other one has Charles Barkley and Hateraid's favorite Sixer.

Then there is the Jordan factor, and it wasn't just Jordan, it was Pippen, Phil Jackson, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, a great all time team with the greatest player ever and arguably the two best defenders to ever play on the same team.

Going up against that team is fakking difficult, but you little Kobe nut gobblers falsely assume Kobe is near Jordan so you really don't get what those days were like.

Barkley was the Beta Dog of the league when Jordan was at his individual peak, in ANY OTHER ERA, he wins multiple MVPs, and don't even talk to me about Boston Celtic KG, because this team:

Perkins
Barkley
Pierce
Allen
Rondo

Might be in the GOAT conversation.

ALSO, this whole concept of Barkley being lazy because of a couple of Scottie Pippen soundbites from when they played together in Houston, when Barkley was injury riddled, washed up and mentally checked out is F*CKING HORSESHIT.

Barkley worked his ass off as a Sixer and it wasn't till near his tenth season when he was broken down that he start floating.

Prime Barkley beasts over all PFs minus Duncan (who is just too fundamentally smooth to lose large ground to anyone) on BOTH ENDS OF THE FLOOR.

Your viewpoints are exactly what is wrong with knowledge in the internet era, the perfect example of information completely void of knowledge.

You sound and read like a moron, sit down and eat your vegetables you little turd.

[Round Mound]

Honesty?

Really? Is that what you want? And you type this crap.

First off, YOU KIDS NEED TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THE 80s AND EARLY 90s, YOU WEREN'T AROUND, YOU DON'T KNOW. Secondly, KG is great but he was SHIT in the playoffs before being united with PP and Ray Allen.

If you gave Charles Barkley a Paul Pierce, a Ray Allen AND a Rajon Rondo...****in hell!!!!! They'd have beaten Jordan's Bulls.

Also you disingenuous little ass clown, Barkley had two season of Moses Malone (CB's rook and sophomore seasons), and year 13, 14, 15 of Erving's career, stop talking like they were in their prime, both were on the decline, and Andrew Toney was the best of all of Barkley's teammates at that time and he was sadly injured.

And DAN MAJERLE? Are you ****ing kidding? Richard Dumas was a bigger part of that Finals Suns team than him.

Fact is Barkley's best years was him running with this starting line up:

Mike Gminski (sometimes coke head Charles Shakleford)
Rick Mahorn (sometimes Armon Gilliam)
Charles Barkley
Hersey Hawkins
Johnny Dawkins

All guys who Chuck elevated, and don't even dare compare that to this starting five:

Kendrick Perklins
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
Rajon Rondo

One of them has FOUR HALL OF FAMERS and the other one has Charles Barkley and Hateraid's favorite Sixer.

Then there is the Jordan factor, and it wasn't just Jordan, it was Pippen, Phil Jackson, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, a great all time team with the greatest player ever and arguably the two best defenders to ever play on the same team.

Going up against that team is fakking difficult, but you little Kobe nut gobblers falsely assume Kobe is near Jordan so you really don't get what those days were like.

Barkley was the Beta Dog of the league when Jordan was at his individual peak, in ANY OTHER ERA, he wins multiple MVPs, and don't even talk to me about Boston Celtic KG, because this team:

Perkins
Barkley
Pierce
Allen
Rondo

Might be in the GOAT conversation.

ALSO, this whole concept of Barkley being lazy because of a couple of Scottie Pippen soundbites from when they played together in Houston, when Barkley was injury riddled, washed up and mentally checked out is F*CKING HORSESHIT.

Barkley worked his ass off as a Sixer and it wasn't till near his tenth season when he was broken down that he start floating.

Prime Barkley beasts over all PFs minus Duncan (who is just too fundamentally smooth to lose large ground to anyone) on BOTH ENDS OF THE FLOOR.

Your viewpoints are exactly what is wrong with knowledge in the internet era, the perfect example of information completely void of knowledge.

You sound and read like a moron, sit down and eat your vegetables you little turd.

:applause: Infants Should Not Be Allowed In The Conversation Regarding How Good Barkley Was!

[East_Stone_Ya]

This is one of the few post from the OP that I actually don't thoroughly disagree with. But I'd still go with Malone. Malone was a good defender, while also being a sensational scorer(unlike Barkley). Not to mention he was a fitness freak with insane durability.

basically this.
I value durability more than some 3-4 years of prime. Malone was a factor until his final playing days. Kids must have forgotten how prime KG was having hard time against Malone's defense in 2004 playoffs.

[Round Mound]

basically this.
I value durability more than some 3-4 years of prime. Malone was a factor until his final playing days. Kids must have forgotten how prime KG was having hard time against Malone's defense in 2004 playoffs.

Malone in his Prime Would Have Destroyed That Toothpick.

[kshutts1]

Secondly, KG is great but he was SHIT in the playoffs before being united with PP and Ray Allen.

Didn't read the rest of the post. It was not very coherent. I agree that most people on here can't make accurate lists, myself included, because we didn't see any players before the '90s (in my case) or before the '00s (most others).

That said, I just take issue with your saying KG didn't perform in the playoffs. I remembered him as doing/playing well, but his team not having success (similar to TMac). To back up my memory, I checked out just his stats on BBR.

So I remember him being a good playoff performer. Stats say he's a good playoff performer. So what is the basis of your statement?

[JtotheIzzo]

Didn't read the rest of the post. It was not very coherent. I agree that most people on here can't make accurate lists, myself included, because we didn't see any players before the '90s (in my case) or before the '00s (most others).

That said, I just take issue with your saying KG didn't perform in the playoffs. I remembered him as doing/playing well, but his team not having success (similar to TMac). To back up my memory, I checked out just his stats on BBR.

So I remember him being a good playoff performer. Stats say he's a good playoff performer. So what is the basis of your statement?


Sorry your English reading comprehension is below normal levels, perhaps enrolling in an ESL course may help?

KG's Minnesota Playoffs:

1995-96 no playoffs
1996-2003 first round exit
2004 WCF
2005-07 no playoffs

11 years, two playoff series wins (both in the same year).

This is the basis of my statement. Philadelphia's Barkley teams were worse or comparable in talent.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Sorry your English reading comprehension is below normal levels, perhaps enrolling in an ESL course may help?

KG's Minnesota Playoffs:

1995-96 no playoffs
1996-2003 first round exit
2004 WCF
2005-07 no playoffs

11 years, two playoff series wins (both in the same year).

This is the basis of my statement. Philadelphia's Barkley teams were worse or comparable in talent.
This is a good point.

Why does KG get pass compared to T-Mac? Because of that lone 2004 season? When for the first time while in Minnesota he had adequate enough talent around him playing well, and they finally exited the 1st round?

Both KG and T-Mac played well in some playoffs, and underwhelming in others.

Let's be honest. Duncan plays the center position. And the greatest PF argument is between Barkley and Malone, with KG having an argument hot on their trails.

K. Malone's longevity, or Barkley's clear superior peak / prime, or KG's more well rounded-ness / superior defensive abilities than both? The choice is yours.

[tontoz]

The position is POWER forward, not powerless forward. There is no way a soft, jump shooting fake tough guy like KG could be ranked ahead of legit power forwards like Barkley/Malone.

[Thorpesaurous]

There's a few ways to regard players historically like this. One is strictly in terms of accomplishments. And Malone's scoring totals, the MVP, and the consistent contending for 20 years are incredible. However, giving him the eyeball test, I really disliked the guy as a player. He couldn't create a shot when he had too. He got tons of points by putting himself in great position to score. And while he typically gets knocked for being fed so consistently on the PnR, it's important to note that he also ran the floor as well or better than any player ever at the position, and got a ton of easy buckets that way.
All that said, out of the list of potential candidates, there is no one I'd put below him with the ball needing to get a bucket, in spite of scoring totals. And he was not a great defender. Certainly better than Barkley, but not an anchor in any way.

Barkley has an MVP as well, and while not as long, still a long history of contending. However my view of Chuck hasn't aged well. I mentioned this in the thread about Melo winning a title, but again, Chuck is the really weird animal that is too good not to be the best player on the team, but his weaknesses are too glaring to find players good enough to cover them without getting in his way in other ways. He's a classic mismatch player on offense, but a defensive disaster, and needs help from guys who are going to be difficult for him to play with on the other end.

Dirk actually reminds me more of Chuck than most would think, and not that their play is similar, but they both rely heavily on creating mismatches. Dirk just does it differently. Shooting over people until you're forced to defend him with longer quicker defenders to stay close to him, then parking it in the post to shoot easy turnarounds over said defenders. To me, while it's not necessarily an easier way to create mismatches, it's easier to build around him, because his game plays better next to the defensive players he needs to play around him, because like Chuck he's a sieve on that end. Personally I think he's a slightly better defender than Chuck, even if it's only because he can occupy more space, but Chuck's slight rebounding edge makes it a close call. Dirk has his MVP, and unlike the other two, has a title, along with a record of consistent contention second to neither of them. That Mav's team became relevant when he showed up, and short a couple seasons, has been part of the good team landscape ever since.

I love KG. He's by far the best defender of this group, and his scoring totals are fine. But to me he's got a little too much of Malone's issue in that he's never seemed capable of getting the high quality shots I want out of my star when shit's on the line. He's obviously incredibly versatile. He hit jumpers and space, or post. But he relies way way too much on that fade away. And while the 18 footer is consistent, it needs time to get off. Numbers wise and even stylistically you could make the case that his offensive game isn't that different from Dirk, except for a little extra range. But both KG's post game, and the consistent perimeter stroke, are so much more mechanical than Dirk's. He's never been able to just get you that good look even when he's being defended well. Same as Malone, who also had a premium mid range jumper. He's also got his MVP and title.

I can't sit here and pretend to know enough about Bob Petitte, but by all accounts, he totally belongs in this conversation, and has a record that may claim he belongs above it, considering his role pre Russell, and then during the Russell era.

If I had to rank them Historically: Dirk, KG, Barkley, Malone.

If I'm assembling a team: KG, Dirk, Barkley, Malone. I'd prefer KG's defense anchor, and work with how flexibly you can build around him, while still getting quality production from him. It just took way to long for the Wolves to realize he needed to play with guys who were more agressive than him offensively. There's tons of guys like that historically that aren't as good a player as he is. You can put any number of pieces around him, so long as one of them is a shot creator.

And if I'm given my druthers, I'd take McHale over all of them. He's a great defender at his peak. A better defender than all but KG. And he's the best at creating true inside out double teams, although he's not a particularly good passer, so who knows how'd that'd played as a first option, but I'd take my chances.

[Just2McFly]

Duncan is a center, so KG is tied for best PF with CB34 and the Mailman
yup

[RoundMoundOfReb]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Charles Barkley
4. Karl Malone

[CanYouDigIt]

1. Lebron James
2. Tim Duncan
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Charles Barkley
5. Karl Malone

[jzek]

CWebb would have been 2nd best ever if not for th einjuries.

[kennethgriffin]

1. Lebron James
2. Tim Duncan
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Charles Barkley
5. Karl Malone


lebron actually officially started being listed at PF this past year. hes got a good 7-8 more years in the nba. maybe more

he may very well become the goat PF

and dirk nowitzki may team up with kobe next year and win another ring. who knows..

or the brooklyn nets could win next year with garnett as finals mvp.. who knows.

malone and barkley might be pushed down even farther


10 years from now it could be

#1 - Lebron
#2 - Duncan
#3 - Garnett
#4 - Dirk
#5 - Malone


so long chuck

[jzek]

The position is POWER forward, not powerless forward. There is no way a soft, jump shooting fake tough guy like KG could be ranked ahead of legit power forwards like Barkley/Malone.

KG isn't even a PF. He's listed as a C for like half his career.

[kennethgriffin]

KG isn't even a PF. He's listed as a C for like half his career.

translation "garnett and duncan are centers!!!!!!!!! lebrons a small forward!!!!!!! even though they all play power forward. theyre disqualified by my standards! and thus!.... malone and barkley are the only 2 left standing! yaaaaaaaaay i win! oh wait? dirk? naaaaa hes a center toooooooo! :(((((((((("

:lol

[L.A. Jazz]

For me it's Bob Pettit.

[funnystuff]

Damn, Kenny looking knowledgeable. :applause:

[2LeTTeRS]

KG isn't even a PF. He's listed as a C for like half his career.

No he hasn't been. When he first got to Boston they had Perkins to play the 5 and after he was traded they brought in Shaq and JO. At the very most he has only been a C in Boston since '11 (2 years), or not even as much time as he was listed as a SF (3 years).

The other 13 years he was playing the 4, and I'd expect this year to be his 14th since the Nets have Brook Lopez and Andray Blatche.

[Pointguard]

Honesty?

If you gave Charles Barkley a Paul Pierce, a Ray Allen AND a Rajon Rondo...****in hell!!!!! They'd have beaten Jordan's Bulls.

Also you disingenuous little ass clown, Barkley had two season of Moses Malone (CB's rook and sophomore seasons), and year 13, 14, 15 of Erving's career, stop talking like they were in their prime, both were on the decline, and Andrew Toney was the best of all of Barkley's teammates at that time and he was sadly injured.

And DAN MAJERLE? Are you ****ing kidding? Richard Dumas was a bigger part of that Finals Suns team than him.

Fact is Barkley's best years was him running with this starting line up:

Mike Gminski (sometimes coke head Charles Shakleford)
Rick Mahorn (sometimes Armon Gilliam)
Charles Barkley
Hersey Hawkins
Johnny Dawkins

All guys who Chuck elevated, and don't even dare compare that to this starting five:

Kendrick Perklins
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
Rajon Rondo

One of them has FOUR HALL OF FAMERS and the other one has Charles Barkley and Hateraid's favorite Sixer.

Then there is the Jordan factor, and it wasn't just Jordan, it was Pippen, Phil Jackson, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, BJ Armstrong, a great all time team with the greatest player ever and arguably the two best defenders to ever play on the same team.

Going up against that team is fakking difficult, but you little Kobe nut gobblers falsely assume Kobe is near Jordan so you really don't get what those days were like.

Barkley was the Beta Dog of the league when Jordan was at his individual peak, in ANY OTHER ERA, he wins multiple MVPs, and don't even talk to me about Boston Celtic KG, because this team:

Perkins
Barkley
Pierce
Allen
Rondo

Might be in the GOAT conversation.

ALSO, this whole concept of Barkley being lazy because of a couple of Scottie Pippen soundbites from when they played together in Houston, when Barkley was injury riddled, washed up and mentally checked out is F*CKING HORSESHIT.

Barkley worked his ass off as a Sixer and it wasn't till near his tenth season when he was broken down that he start floating.

Prime Barkley beasts over all PFs minus Duncan (who is just too fundamentally smooth to lose large ground to anyone) on BOTH ENDS OF THE FLOOR.

Your viewpoints are exactly what is wrong with knowledge in the internet era, the perfect example of information completely void of knowledge.

You sound and read like a moron, sit down and eat your vegetables you little turd.

Pierce and Allen were past their prime and Rondo was no where near his prime and he's not likely to get in the HOF anyway (I like him but if there are seven better PG's around when you come off of your prime you're not going to make it). And not one of those Celtics was near the level of Drexler or Hakeem when they played with Barkley. And these guys had rings and were seasoned vets. KG was the best player on his championship team while Barkley wasn't the best player on the Houston team. Barkley, kind of messed that team up.

Barkley would have been a miserable fit for that Celtic team. I don't see his style meshing with Rondo or Pierce at all. They won as a defensive team despite only one bench player having any sense of a defensive reputation before KG's arrival.

If the Nets have one of the best defensive teams this year, I think its pretty clear cut that KG is the clear cut second best. Its one thing to be the best on both sides of the ball, but its another to have your team ranked among the best six and seven years in a row and the coaches saying its all about KG changing the culture.

[DMAVS41]

lebron actually officially started being listed at PF this past year. hes got a good 7-8 more years in the nba. maybe more

he may very well become the goat PF

and dirk nowitzki may team up with kobe next year and win another ring. who knows..

or the brooklyn nets could win next year with garnett as finals mvp.. who knows.

malone and barkley might be pushed down even farther


10 years from now it could be

#1 - Lebron
#2 - Duncan
#3 - Garnett
#4 - Dirk
#5 - Malone


so long chuck

If you put Duncan in the category and not Lebron...I see what you are saying, but I'd bet just about any amount of money you want that Lebron will ultimately be categorized as a SF.

He is the clear cut GOAT PF...not debatable.

So the debate is after that.

KG/Dirk/Barkley/Malone/Pettit...could be in any order. I didn't see Pettit play so I usually don't rank him, but he certainly has an argument as the 2nd best PF ever.

But those 5 guys above can legitimately be put in any order. I lean towards KG and Dirk being above Barkley and Malone...at worst they are on par. If Dirk or KG is able to pull a Duncan this year or next or something...they definitely go ahead of those guys for sure.

[kshutts1]

Sorry your English reading comprehension is below normal levels, perhaps enrolling in an ESL course may help?

KG's Minnesota Playoffs:

1995-96 no playoffs
1996-2003 first round exit
2004 WCF
2005-07 no playoffs

11 years, two playoff series wins (both in the same year).

This is the basis of my statement. Philadelphia's Barkley teams were worse or comparable in talent.
I asked about KG, not his team. Last I checked, it's a team game.

[kshutts1]

If I had to rank them Historically: Dirk, KG, Barkley, Malone.

If I'm assembling a team: KG, Dirk, Barkley, Malone.

I don't understand why your order changes, based on whether ranking or assembling. Do you not use D in ranking players? You seem way too intelligent to make that sort of... error. So why the change?

In my mind, D is a factor whether I'm nominating who's the better player, or I'm assembling a team. For PG/SG it may not factor in as much as for PF or C, but it's always a factor.

Again, just interested in some clarification of the thought process.

[Thorpesaurous]

I don't understand why your order changes, based on whether ranking or assembling. Do you not use D in ranking players? You seem way too intelligent to make that sort of... error. So why the change?

In my mind, D is a factor whether I'm nominating who's the better player, or I'm assembling a team. For PG/SG it may not factor in as much as for PF or C, but it's always a factor.

Again, just interested in some clarification of the thought process.


Because ranking historically is based more on achievement and impact. KG and Dirk have pretty similar resumes', both with their title and MVP, along with numbers. For my approach to basketball, I prefer Garnet as a player. But historically speaking, Dirk's consistent contending vs. KGs somewhat spotty contending, along with Dirk's iconic place within that single franchise, and his image as an the first true international crossover star ... to me that gives him the slightest edge over Garnett as far historical basketball footprint.

That's part of why I added the bit about McHale. It reinforces my opinion on how to play, but he simply didn't achieve quite enough to be in the conversation historically. KG probably didn't achieve quite enough because he didn't have enough help most of his career. McHale on the other hand probably had "too much" help, to really produce to his maximum capacity.

[Round Mound]

The position is POWER forward, not powerless forward. There is no way a soft, jump shooting fake tough guy like KG could be ranked ahead of legit power forwards like Barkley/Malone.

:applause:

[kennethgriffin]

Originally Posted by tontoz
The position is POWER forward, not powerless forward. There is no way a soft, jump shooting fake tough guy like KG could be ranked ahead of legit power forwards like Barkley/Malone.



:applause:


so michael jordan isnt the best shooting guard now because he wasnt the best shooter


" the position is SHOOTING guard, not limited range guard. there is no way a mid range shooting, flat shot having guy like MJ could be ranked ahead of a legit SHOOTING guard like Ray Allen/Reggie miller"
:facepalm



barkley fans are morons

:roll:

[Mr. Jabbar]

kenneth ethering ISH's asian posters, whats new

[Harison]

Because ranking historically is based more on achievement and impact. KG and Dirk have pretty similar resumes', both with their title and MVP, along with numbers. For my approach to basketball, I prefer Garnet as a player. But historically speaking, Dirk's consistent contending vs. KGs somewhat spotty contending, along with Dirk's iconic place within that single franchise, and his image as an the first true international crossover star ... to me that gives him the slightest edge over Garnett as far historical basketball footprint.


You mean Dirk's TEAMS consistent contending? He was blessed with one of the best owners in NBA, who did his very best to build championship teams around Dirk. Swap Dirk with KG and we would probably see KG winning multiple championships with Mavs.

Spotty contending is also an interesting point, do you know KG never lost as a favorite? KG always won when he was expected to, and sometimes pulled upsets, that puts him on the very short list of superstars who never lost to underdogs, like Jordan and Russell.

Dirk on the other hand, lost many times while being favorite. Sometimes it was such meltdowns that he wasnt respected that much (until '11). After Dirk got the ring everything he did (or didnt do) till then somehow got forgotten, aside from getting credit for his perennial contending team.

[Round Mound]

Do You Really Think Dirk or Garnett Would Ever Be Called by the USA Dream Team Head Coach (in this case Chuck Daily RIP) the 2nd Best Player in the World after Prime Michael Jordan? :confusedshrug: :no: Think About It. :rolleyes: :facepalm

Enough of This! Most People In ISH Never Saw a Healthy Barkley or the Athletic Version of Karl Malone Play. Malone and Barkley Would Have Toyed With That Tooth Pick Garnett and Would Have Outscored, Slammed and Outrebounded Soft WIth Ease in Their Primes.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Pierce and Allen were past their prime
What?

Pierce and Allen were still all-star, elite players at their position from 2008 - 2012. Ray Allen friggin had his best playoff performance ever in 2009 when he dropped a sick 50 on my Bulls.

Rondo by 2009 had emerged as one of the game's best PGs, particularly when it comes to playoff performance. He raises his game. KG had him as an elite PG from 2010 - 2012.

Don't make stuff up, usually you're on point though.

[red1]

barkley>malone

[red1]

kg is also > malone

[JtotheIzzo]

Pierce and Allen were past their prime and Rondo was no where near his prime and he's not likely to get in the HOF anyway (I like him but if there are seven better PG's around when you come off of your prime you're not going to make it). And not one of those Celtics was near the level of Drexler or Hakeem when they played with Barkley. And these guys had rings and were seasoned vets. KG was the best player on his championship team while Barkley wasn't the best player on the Houston team. Barkley, kind of messed that team up.
.

Are you on f*cking drugs?

Seriously?

Pierce was at his absolute peak with KG (he was FINALS MVP for f*cksakes) and Allen was an All Star too.

They were called the BIG THREE for a reason, because it was thought to be unfair that three transcendent stars should play together.

And Rondo played almost his whole career with KG so which part of his prime am I missing?

As I have said before, Barkley was washed up in Houston. Done, finished.

[kennethgriffin]

Kobe would have zero rings in MJ era.

2002

:lol


so kobe won a ring during mj's playing days


and the lakers 1999/00 ring counts as a 1990's championship

since there is no year 0.. the first year is year 1 since the beginning of western civilization recorded history

and if kobe was placed on the lakers from the start of jordans career till the end.. kobe would probably have won every year in the 80's and by his 16th year he'd be playing with prime shaq..

titles from 1980-91 + 95 and 97-98

14 titles minimum


:lol

PG - Magic
SG - Kobe
SF - Wilkes
PF - Worthy
C - Kareem



they wouldnt lose a game

[Harison]

Pierce was at his absolute peak with KG (he was FINALS MVP for f*cksakes) and Allen was an All Star too.

They all were at the tail-end of their primes, so both you and Pointguard have an argument. Its hugely different comparing to Heat, where superstars were at their peaks, and for the years to come.

The only reason Pierce got FMVP because entire Lakers defense was focused on Garnett and open Pierce got several nice scoring streaks. Even Parker had a better argument over Duncan for FMVP than Pierce over KG. Both cases showed how flawed FMVP awarding is.



As I have said before, Barkley was washed up in Houston. Done, finished.

So 33 yo Barkley was washed up and not worth mentioning, but 32 yo Ray and 32 yo KG (in Playoffs) were players at their peaks? Granted age doesnt tell the whole story, but KG had much greater mileage, while Barkley was out of shape and didnt contribute positively to teams chemistry due to his own fault.

[DMAVS41]

You mean Dirk's TEAMS consistent contending? He was blessed with one of the best owners in NBA, who did his very best to build championship teams around Dirk. Swap Dirk with KG and we would probably see KG winning multiple championships with Mavs.

Spotty contending is also an interesting point, do you know KG never lost as a favorite? KG always won when he was expected to, and sometimes pulled upsets, that puts him on the very short list of superstars who never lost to underdogs, like Jordan and Russell.

Dirk on the other hand, lost many times while being favorite. Sometimes it was such meltdowns that he wasnt respected that much (until '11). After Dirk got the ring everything he did (or didnt do) till then somehow got forgotten, aside from getting credit for his perennial contending team.

Only two years in the playoffs in Dirk's entire career did the Mavs not go as far as expected. So many times makes no sense...unless "many" to you is two.

And the Mavs went advanced farther than expected more often.

We've been over this before. In 01, 06, 09, and 11...the Mavs exceeded expectations in the playoffs. Only 07 and 10 did the Mavs fail to meet or exceed expectations.

As to KG winning multiple titles on the Mavs. I doubt that. I think KG wins one title on the Mavs. In 03...that team would have been perfect for him. Although I'd argue that Dirk wins in 03 as well if he doesn't get hurt, but that is debatable.

26/10/3 58.4% TS
19/11/4 52.4% TS

Nothing wrong with KG's play...and he does make a huge impact defensively, but Dirk's an all time great playoff performer. And if you think guys like Terry and Kidd struggled in the playoffs next to Dirk...I can't imagine what those guys are doing without one of the best offensive players of all time by their sides...

The truth is that the Mavs had quality rosters from 01 on, but never great rosters. There were 3 legitimate years to win the title...and that is if you count 11...which is only true in hindsight

Those would be 03, 06, and 11. Dirk got hurt in 03 in the WCF and they won in 11...and made the finals in 06.

[chazzy]

In 01, 06, 09, and 11...the Mavs exceeded expectations in the playoffs.
Weren't they favored in 09 since Ginobili was out?

[DMAVS41]

Weren't they favored in 09 since Ginobili was out?

No. Entering the playoffs the Mavs were 50 to 1 to win it all...while the Spurs were 20 to 1.

http://www.thespread.com/nba-articles/041609-2009-nba-finals-odds-to-win-cleveland-cavaliers-54-favorites-to-win-nba-title#.UlUE1GTwK50

And there is an argument that the 2010 loss to the Spurs really doesn't constitute an upset as well. The Spurs were favored by the oddsmakers quite a bit over the Mavs before Parker got hurt. The Mavs were 22 to 1 to win the title and the Spurs were 10 to 1 to win the title before the Parker injury.

http://www.gambling911.com/basketball-odds/nba-odds-win-2010-championship-updated-021010.html

There was uncertainty concerning Parker as he only played a handful of games before the playoffs. I think the Spurs would have been favored in that series with a healthy Parker (which they had...for the most part)

But I'm willing to call that an upset...that Mavs had homecourt and looked strong with the Butler addition, but with the caveat that it was essentially two evenly matched teams

[Doranku]

No. Entering the playoffs the Mavs were 50 to 1 to win it all...while the Spurs were 20 to 1.

http://www.thespread.com/nba-articles/041609-2009-nba-finals-odds-to-win-cleveland-cavaliers-54-favorites-to-win-nba-title#.UlUE1GTwK50

Why do you include '01 as some testament to Dirk leading his team to exceed expectations? He was terrible against the Jazz.

[DMAVS41]

Why do you include '01 as some testament to Dirk leading his team to exceed expectations? He was terrible against the Jazz.

Why would someone say "many" and include Dirk in 2010 for a playoff failure. Not to mention, as I showed above, I'm no even sure that was a true upset with Parker coming back just fine.

I was just showing what the Mavs have done in Dirk's time there. Simple as that.

Dirk was amazing against the Spurs...so I don't get the point about 01 if you don't make a reference to Dirk's great play in the 10 series they lost. He put up;

27/8/3 on 55/57/95 splits 64.3% TS


And I have no idea what you are talking about Dirk being terrible agains the Jazz.

He averaged 24/8/2 on 40/34/90 splits

Had games of;

33/10/2 and 33/8/2 (in games 3 and 4)

Hardly his best performance or anything, but terrible? Nah...not terrible at all.

[secund2nun]

PF is the hardest to rank imo.

Duncan, Barkley, Malone, KG make it a hard rank.

I often wonder what would happen if KG and Duncan swapped places in the beginning of their careers.

I'd say it comes down to Duncan vs Barkley. Barkley may have the higher peak, but Duncan has the longer prime and also was a much better defender so I give it to Duncan.

[JtotheIzzo]

They all were at the tail-end of their primes, so both you and Pointguard have an argument. Its hugely different comparing to Heat, where superstars were at their peaks, and for the years to come.

The only reason Pierce got FMVP because entire Lakers defense was focused on Garnett and open Pierce got several nice scoring streaks. Even Parker had a better argument over Duncan for FMVP than Pierce over KG. Both cases showed how flawed FMVP awarding is.



So 33 yo Barkley was washed up and not worth mentioning, but 32 yo Ray and 32 yo KG (in Playoffs) were players at their peaks? Granted age doesnt tell the whole story, but KG had much greater mileage, while Barkley was out of shape and didnt contribute positively to teams chemistry due to his own fault.

Last time I checked, 'tail end of their prime' is still THEIR PRIME? Am I right? Gimme an A-Men!

When you win the title and FMVP, it is safe to assume you are at your peak (especially considering these are the only times you won these trophies).

Barkley was actually at the 'tail end of his prime' in Phoenix, and washed up in Houston.

All the haters arguments are VS Houston Charles. It is like trying to besmirch Jordan for what happened in Washington.

From when Bird and Magic slowed down till Hakeem took it to the next level (basically from 88-94) Barkley was second only to Jordan in the league, only Duncan ranks higher than him in the all time PF list. KG cannot say this about his career, nor can Malone.

This is reality for those who lived it, those who youtube and basketball reference it don't get it.

[tontoz]

Pierce was the clear go to guy under the gun when KG got there. While he might have been near the end of his prime having guys like Ray and KG on the floor opened things up for him.

[kshutts1]

Because ranking historically is based more on achievement and impact. KG and Dirk have pretty similar resumes', both with their title and MVP, along with numbers. For my approach to basketball, I prefer Garnet as a player. But historically speaking, Dirk's consistent contending vs. KGs somewhat spotty contending, along with Dirk's iconic place within that single franchise, and his image as an the first true international crossover star ... to me that gives him the slightest edge over Garnett as far historical basketball footprint.

That's part of why I added the bit about McHale. It reinforces my opinion on how to play, but he simply didn't achieve quite enough to be in the conversation historically. KG probably didn't achieve quite enough because he didn't have enough help most of his career. McHale on the other hand probably had "too much" help, to really produce to his maximum capacity.

Thanks for the clarification. And I agree that the bolded is commonplace, but it's not how I prefer to rank players. We all differ, though, in our evaluation criteria, so it's nice to see what one values.

[Bandito]

Damn, Kenny looking knowledgeable. :applause:
he doesn't talk about Kobe or hate against Lebron and he's suddenly knowledgeable. LEBRON STAN logic...:coleman:

[Nastradamus]

Its too bad. You can make a decent case for KG, but all the stupid shit the OP said about Barkley and Malone really makes his points moot.

[Pointguard]

Pierce was at his absolute peak with KG (he was FINALS MVP for f*cksakes) and Allen was an All Star too.

When comparatively non athletic guys get on the otherside of thirty and are on the wings, they are past their peak. Pierce wasn't going to get anymore years of like his three years of 26ppg. He was still good but not at his peak.

Him winning the FMVP had more to do with his acting skills and not that he was the best player out there.



They were called the BIG THREE for a reason, because it was thought to be unfair that three transcendent stars should play together.

And Rondo played almost his whole career with KG so which part of his prime am I missing?

As I have said before, Barkley was washed up in Houston. Done, finished.
You are never washed up and done if you are getting 13.5 rebounds per game (his second highest ever and his second highest assist season, which means Barkley had the energy. He shouldn't have been washed up at 33 with his body. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were not on the level of Hakeem/Drexler or Doc/Malone/Cheeks/Toney. Not hardly.

Rondo is just entering his prime now.

[Pointguard]

What?

Pierce and Allen were still all-star, elite players at their position from 2008 - 2012. Ray Allen friggin had his best playoff performance ever in 2009 when he dropped a sick 50 on my Bulls.

Rondo by 2009 had emerged as one of the game's best PGs, particularly when it comes to playoff performance. He raises his game. KG had him as an elite PG from 2010 - 2012.

Don't make stuff up, usually you're on point though.


Maybe you might consider looking at what prime means?

Can you be stellar when not in your prime?

Jordan on the Wizards scored 50 points - was he in his prime?

In general the athletes body matches its minds optimal intelligence and co-ordination along with very good endurance/flexibility and strength best in the ages 26 thru 30. Not all primes are the same but maximum performance is usually in that range in basketball (most sports) with bigger guys peaking later if their game is skilled and the smaller positions hit their prime earlier. Super gifted players are a little different and sometimes become more skilled which confuses things. But I was talking physical prime.

Being the best PG has nothing to do with Rondo's prime which should be in the next 4 years. My understanding is that he needs some growing up mentally but all point guards are still in training before 25.

Ray Allen was a very impressive athlete in his earlier years. But is now rarely using that aspect of his game because he's using his skill much more.

[2LeTTeRS]

Last time I checked, 'tail end of their prime' is still THEIR PRIME? Am I right? Gimme an A-Men!

When you win the title and FMVP, it is safe to assume you are at your peak (especially considering these are the only times you won these trophies).

Barkley was actually at the 'tail end of his prime' in Phoenix, and washed up in Houston.

What happens in the twilight of a players career matters. You can't just ignore KG's contributions with the Celtics (and Nets) or ignore the fact that Barkley's bad habits were the largest factor contributing him to be "washed up" prematurely. This isn't solely a case of bad luck like with Bird; this is a guy who did not take great care of his body and as such he deserves the criticism for it failing on him when he had his best chance to win a title.


All the haters arguments are VS Houston Charles. It is like trying to besmirch Jordan for what happened in Washington.

From when Bird and Magic slowed down till Hakeem took it to the next level (basically from 88-94) Barkley was second only to Jordan in the league, only Duncan ranks higher than him in the all time PF list. KG cannot say this about his career, nor can Malone.

Magic slowed down in 88? You do realize he put up 22 points, 12 assists and 8 rebounds on a team that made it to the Finals in 89 and followed that up with a 22, 11 and 6 season while winning 63 games? He was definitely better than Barkley for those 2 years; and possibly in 91 as well when he led the Lakers to the Finals.

Additionally because of his bigger personality Barkley may have been regarded as better than Hakeem, David Robinson, and Patrick Ewing; but all of those bigs were just as productive as Barkley while being worlds better on D.

Barkley
89 - 79 games 26 pts 13 rebs with 1 blks and 2 stls [46 wins | Lost to Knicks in 1st round]
90 - 79 games 25 pts 12 rebs with 1 blks and 2 stls [53 wins | Lost to Bulls in ECS]
91 - 67 games 28 pts 10 rebs with .5 blks and 2 stls [44 wins | Lost to Bulls in ECS]
92 - 75 games 23 pts 11 rebs with 1 blks and 2 stls [35 wins | NO PLAYOFFS]
93 - 76 games 26 pts 12 rebs with 1 blks and 2 stls [62 wins | Lost to Bulls in Finals]
94 - 65 games 22 pts 11 rebs with .6 blks and 2 stls [56 wins | Lost to Rockets in WCS]

vs.

Hakeem
89 - 82 games 25 pts 14 rebs with 3 blks and 2.6 stls [45 wins | Lost to Sonics in 1st Round]
90 - 82 games 24 pts 14 rebs with 5 blks and 2 stls [41 wins | Lost to Lakers in 1st Round]
91 - 56 games 21 pts 14 rebs with 4 blks and 2 stls [52 wins | Lost to Lakers in 1st Round]
92 - 70 games 21 pts 12 rebs with 4 blks and 2 stls [42 wins | NO PLAYOFFS]
93 - 82 games 26 pts 13 rebs with 4 blks and 2 stls [55 wins | Lost to Sonics in WCS]
94 - 80 games 27 pts 12 rebs with 4 blks and 1.6 stls [58 wins | WON TITLE]

D Rob
90 - 82 games 24 pts 12 rebs with 4 blks and 2 stls [56 wins | Lost to Blazers in WCS]
91 - 82 games 26 pts 13 rebs with 4 blks and 2 stls [55 wins | Lost to Warriors in 1st Round]
92 - 68 games 23 pts 12 rebs with 4.5 blks and 2 stls [47 wins | Lost to Suns in 1st Round]
93 - 82 games 23 pts 12 rebs with 3 blks and 1.5 stls [49 wins | Lost to Suns in WCS]
94 - 80 games 30 pts 11 rebs with 3 blks and 2 stls [55 wins | Lost to Jazz in 1st Round]

Ewing
89 - 80 games 23 pts 9 rebs with 3.5 blks and 1.5 stls [52 wins | Lost to Bulls in ECS]
90 - 82 games 29 pts 11 rebs with 4 blks and 1 stls [45 wins | Lost to Pistons in ECS]
91 - 81 games 27 pts 11 rebs with 3 blks and 1 stls [39 wins | Lost to Bulls in 1st Round]
92 - 82 games 24 pts 11 rebs with 3 blks and 1 stls [51 wins | Lost to Bulls in ECS]
93 - 81 games 24 pts 12 rebs with 2 blks and 1 stls [60 wins | Lost to Bulls in ECF]
94 - 79 games 25 pts 11 rebs with 3 blks and 1 stls [57 wins | Lost to Rockets in Finals]

Edit: Forgot to add Patrick Ewing


This is reality for those who lived it, those who youtube and basketball reference it don't get it.

Stop it. Barkley was the flashier player and bigger personality, but better player? Not at all. Even at his best he gave questionable effort on D, had a personality that was hard to deal with; and wouldn't do the work necessary to keep his weight down.

Not saying KG doesn't have his faults (not a dominant scorer, only above average in the post and no go-to move; slim build, etc.) he's much more well rounded than Barkley.

[Thorpesaurous]

You mean Dirk's TEAMS consistent contending? He was blessed with one of the best owners in NBA, who did his very best to build championship teams around Dirk. Swap Dirk with KG and we would probably see KG winning multiple championships with Mavs.

Spotty contending is also an interesting point, do you know KG never lost as a favorite? KG always won when he was expected to, and sometimes pulled upsets, that puts him on the very short list of superstars who never lost to underdogs, like Jordan and Russell.

Dirk on the other hand, lost many times while being favorite. Sometimes it was such meltdowns that he wasnt respected that much (until '11). After Dirk got the ring everything he did (or didnt do) till then somehow got forgotten, aside from getting credit for his perennial contending team.


Really we're all picking nits here. This as close to a four way virtual tie as one can get. I just don't like giving too much credit for what-ifs and shouldas and couldas and sposedas on a historical level. Dirk's ring to me is really more of a justification for the years of playing at the highest level with no respite, more than an apology for some mistakes. I think Patrick Ewing gets some credit similarly for basically 15 years of standing in there and throwing punches in the post season.

And for the mention that Dirk had a great owner, well if you think so highly of him, he's the same guy who's turned over roster after roster and never got rid of Dirk.

And again, personally, if I'm picking a team, I'm taking KG over Dirk, but if you're ranking historically, Dirk just did a hair more.

All of these guys actually make huge footprints on the sport too. Imagine 40 years from now your grandkids are discussing this.
Malone is by far the least interesting player on this list, and he's got a rediculous career length, and will have a stretch of time as the all time leading scorer to point too. Although the worst highlight reel. And he'll got the looks for losing to Jordan too.

Barkley probably has the least to point to, but he's going to have a rediculously long tenure as an enormous contributor as an ambassador to the sport from his television work, and his larger than life personality, along with his huge role on that first dream team. He's also got the epic playoff runs with the Suns. And will be looked at as a guy who lost to Jordan.

Dirk will have his MVP and title, which are the types things people look at. But in addition, he'll have a really nice highlight reel, along with being in the "best shooter ever" conversations. He'll have a career of playoff battles against Duncan and Kobe and Shaq and those cool Kings teams. But perhaps most importantly he'll be remembered as opening the foreign floodgates.

Garnett will have really on his one playoff run in Minnie to point too. The Celtic run will look short because of injuries. He'll probably get a lot of credit for being something of a Lebron stumbling block during his time in the east as his teams always played well against him. And he may be remembered for re-establishing the straight from HS phenom thing again, but unfortunately for him I'd guess Kobe will unfairly steal that torch from him just because he'll have a more significant career (sort of like when someone eventally says Dirk was the first guy to make an impact from Europe, and some guy will bring up Drazen Petrovic or Toni Kukoc, but it's still Dirk). He'll have some defensive accolaids and rebounding titles to point to, but not in any super gaudy way.
A second title here in Brooklyn would really help him. Especially if he beat Lebron on the way, because he'll then really be viewed through this prism as a guy who gave Lebron trouble historically.

Historical perspective is painted in really broad strokes. Not with True Shooting percentage, or roster evaluation.