Question for people who rank Malone and/or Barkley ahead of KG/Dirk

[Nowitness]

How can two dudes who played in the same era, who never won anything, who chased the ring late and failed and played with great players;

Malone; John Stockton for pretty much his whole career, Shaq/Kobe when he chased the ring, Gary Payton, Mark Eaton, Adrian Dantley...

Barkley: Moses, Dr. J, Johnson, Olajuwon, Barkley...

Over KG (best defender of all of them bearing in mind Chuck was abused because of his height and a head case and Malone was decent at best until his last years) and Dirk who led teams to titles?

Time to let go of the 90s. When you can't win with a top 5 PG all time how can you be considered the second greatest or greatest PF ever? Totals? GTFO.

[rmt]

How can two dudes who played in the same era, who never won anything, who chased the ring late and failed and played with great players;

Malone; John Stockton for pretty much his whole career, Shaq/Kobe when he chased the ring, Gary Payton, Mark Eaton, Adrian Dantley...

Barkley: Moses, Dr. J, Johnson, Olajuwon, Barkley...

Over KG (best defender of all of them bearing in mind Chuck was abused because of his height and a head case and Malone was decent at best until his last years) and Dirk who led teams to titles?

Time to let go of the 90s. When you can't win with a top 5 PG all time how can you be considered the second greatest or greatest PF ever? Totals? GTFO.

Exaggeration, much?

[Nowitness]

Exaggeration, much?

Truth has been spoken.

[AintNoSunshine]

Garnett and Dirk each has one title, Malone has been to the finals twice and Barkley once, they could easily have a ring if not for the GOAT

Its close between the four. None of them are the great 2 way player multiple title winner that Duncan is.

[SouBeachTalents]

Garnett and Dirk each has one title, Malone has been to the finals twice and Barkley once, they could easily have a ring if not for the GOAT

Its close between the four. None of them are the great 2 way player multiple title winner that Duncan is.

This, they're all in the 15-20 range

[ProfessorMurder]

Garnett and Dirk each has one title, Malone has been to the finals twice and Barkley once, they could easily have a ring if not for the GOAT

Its close between the four. None of them are the great 2 way player multiple title winner that Duncan is.

KG was a great two way player. Malone was good too.

[Kblaze8855]

Time to let go of the 90s. When you can't win with a top 5 PG all time how can you be considered the second greatest or greatest PF ever? Totals? GTFO.


Basketball playing ability.

I dont care where anyone ranks any of the 4(with the exception being...id take Malone last)...but it can be justified in whatever order just talking the game.

Who won what is largely coincidental at times. I dont **** with Malone....but its not like he couldnt have won if the right guys ankle twisted.

I tend to judge guys winning wise off if they were good enough to have teams that can realistically win built around them. Once thats shown how many you win is pretty immaterial to me these days.

Not like id rank Russell higher if he had 12 or lower with 10....

[navy]

Basketball playing ability.

I dont care where anyone ranks any of the 4(with the exception being...id take Malone last)...but it can be justified in whatever order just talking the game.

Who won what is largely coincidental at times. I dont **** with Malone....but its not like he couldnt have won if the right guys ankle twisted.

I tend to judge guys winning wise off if they were good enough to have teams that can realistically win built around them. Once thats shown how many you win is pretty immaterial to me these days.

Not like id rank Russell higher if he had 12 or lower with 10....
What's your beef with Malone?

Id probably take him last as well, just wanna hear your opinion.

[Sarcastic]

KG and Dirk never had to play against Jordan. If no Jordan, Barkley and Malone have 3 rings between them.


/thread

[SouBeachTalents]

KG and Dirk never had to play against Jordan. If no Jordan, Barkley and Malone have 3 rings between them.


/thread

It's obviously not Jordan's Bulls, but Dirk & KG were on teams that took down teams featuring LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Gasol, & Bosh all in their primes, not too shabby imo

[Gotterdammerung]

Barkley and Malone are slightly better players than KG and Dirk, although the latter two had slightly more successful careers.

Rings are not everything when ranking a player in a team sport.
You need the following:
A great GM with the foresight to bring in the right complementary players around the guy.
A brilliant coach who can get the best out of the roster and work with the guy.
Luck or timing of playing in a certain conference or era.
Health to sustain excellence over 10 years.

[Nowitness]

Barkley and Malone are slightly better players than KG and Dirk, although the latter two had slightly more successful careers.

Rings are not everything when ranking a player in a team sport.
You need the following:
A great GM with the foresight to bring in the right complementary players around the guy.
A brilliant coach who can get the best out of the roster and work with the guy.
Luck or timing of playing in a certain conference or era.
Health to sustain excellence over 10 years.

"You need the following:
A great GM with the foresight to bring in the right complementary players around the guy.
A brilliant coach who can get the best out of the roster and work with the guy."

KG lacked both of these for like 11 of his 12 seasons with Minnesota.

[Round Mound]

:facepalm

[Legends66NBA7]

If no Jordan, Barkley and Malone have 3 rings between them.

Malone and Barkley faced Jordan 5 times in 32 playoffs series. Their teams lost to pretty much everybody, not just Jordan's Bulls.

Who's to say the Jazz don't lose to the Knicks, Pacers, or Heat in the Finals ? Or Barkley losing to the Knicks in the Finals ?



Anyways, it's close between the 4. They can be ranked in whatever order.

[beastee]

Let me guess...you were born in '95 and have no ****ing idea what you are talking about?
/thread

[Round Mound]

Let me guess...you were born in '95 and have no ****ing idea what you are talking about?
/thread

:applause:

[Nowitness]

Let me guess...you were born in '95 and have no ****ing idea what you are talking about?
/thread

Incorrect. Looks like I have sussed out another person who can't let go. Give me evidence.

[tontoz]

People who didnt see Barkley in his prime can't possibly understand how unstoppable he was on offense. Obviously he was weak on d but he was a straight up beast with the ball in his hands.

[Nowitness]

I still remember when someone said Shawn Kemp is better than KG because he had more stocks and was more athletic.

Barkley may have been insanely good on offence, but it didn't help him. Give me 24/15/5/2/1 with elite defense over 28/12/3/1/1 with sub-par defense and egotistical play from Charles.

[dreamwarrior]

Barkley didn't have help, but Malone should have won 2-3 rings with Stockton and Hornacek. He even had Chambers for 2 years. They were arguably better than the Bulls but just couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

[kennethgriffin]

DAT NOSTALGIA BOOST YO!

:lol

the rule is for every generation that passes. you have to do twice as much

so kg and dirk need to win 4 mvps each to go with them rings

[Nowitness]

Barkley didn't have help, but Malone should have won 2-3 rings with Stockton and Hornacek. He even had Chambers for 2 years. They were arguably better than the Bulls but just couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

If you're citing Hornacek how is KJ not help? Olajuwon/Pippen were still all-stars when he joined them. Cheeks/Moses/Julius were old but still produced. Barkley had help.

[kennethgriffin]

i think dirk is vastly underrated all time in all honesty

garnett was beta most of his life

but dirk is a true alpha

and an mvp/finals mvp

he also is closing in on 30k points

he might just be the 2nd GOAT PF


dirk smashed prime wade/james/bosh in the a*nus

that deserves something. that was even before wades fall off

[Nowitness]

DAT NOSTALGIA BOOST YO!

:lol

the rule is for every generation that passes. you have to do twice as much

so kg and dirk need to win 4 mvps each to go with them rings

So Malone/Barkley had to win 4 MVP'S seeing as other great PF's before them like Petit won 2 as-well as two rings to Petit's one (just to reiterate, neither the Failman nor Barkley have one).

Lol, nice try fool.

[kennethgriffin]

So Malone/Barkley had to win 4 MVP'S seeing as other great PF's before them like Petit won 2 as-well as two rings to Petit's one (just to reiterate, neither the Failman nor Barkley have one).

Lol, nice try fool.

50's 60's accomplishments get cut in half

which is why russells 11 titles count more as 5-6

which is why hes routinely ranked slightly behind MJ all time


pettits mvps/titles equal about what dirk has IMO... dirk having the edge due to the competition he ethere'd

pettits good though.

[Nowitness]

50's 60's accomplishments get cut in half

which is why russells 11 titles count more as 5-6

which is why hes routinely ranked slightly behind MJ all time


pettits mvps/titles equal about what dirk has IMO... dirk having the edge due to the competition he ethere'd

pettits good though.

I agree actually.

Still what is more beta than winning an MVP and losing to the eighth seed in round one and being either the worst or second worst defender on a title team?

[beastee]

I still remember when someone said Shawn Kemp is better than KG because he had more stocks and was more athletic.
That person was a moron. But its almost as stupid as someone who never watched Barkley or Malone play on a regular basis saying that a 6'11" shooting guard and an intense Defensive stalwart are better than 2 of the best pound for pound and inch for inch PF's of all time.
Did Malone choke in the playoffs? Yes. He did. Does that take away the fact that he IS still the prototypical PF in both build and size? Nope. He was a beast in every sense of the word. His 97 and 98 Jazz were incredible and if not for the GOAT would have 1 or 2 booked chips.
I can't even begin to start on Barkley. Let's just say that a PF that undersized should never even be in a conversation for any type of accolades. We should be talking about another Beasley style bust. But nope, Charles was skilled, understood the game and was as completely intimidating as an undersized big could be. He truly carried an entire franchise on his back and should have won a championship.
KG and Dirk are great players. And yes they have won championships- 1 each. But should that make me disrespect two generational type talents? Hell no, and I don't care if that makes me old school...my school would skull **** your school any day.

[Round Mound]

[B]For Those Who Never Saw Sir Charles Play Healthy and Prime I Suggest The Following Vids:

[U]Charles Barkley 34/20/8/3 vs Bulls 1990

[Rameek]

50's 60's accomplishments get cut in half

which is why russells 11 titles count more as 5-6

which is why hes routinely ranked slightly behind MJ all time


pettits mvps/titles equal about what dirk has IMO... dirk having the edge due to the competition he ethere'd

pettits good though.
Biased.... lets cut the people from the 50's 60's accomplishments in half lol

Nothing wrong with it though its your opinion. Illogical though but yeah your opinion.

Definitely Duncan, Malone, Barkley, Dirk for me in that order.

[Nowitness]

That person was a moron. But its almost as stupid as someone who never watched Barkley or Malone play on a regular basis saying that a 6'11" shooting guard and an intense Defensive stalwart are better than 2 of the best pound for pound and inch for inch PF's of all time.
Did Malone choke in the playoffs? Yes. He did. Does that take away the fact that he IS still the prototypical PF in both build and size? Nope. He was a beast in every sense of the word. His 97 and 98 Jazz were incredible and if not for the GOAT would have 1 or 2 booked chips.
I can't even begin to start on Barkley. Let's just say that a PF that undersized should never even be in a conversation for any type of accolades. We should be talking about another Beasley style bust. But nope, Charles was skilled, understood the game and was as completely intimidating as an undersized big could be. He truly carried an entire franchise on his back and should have won a championship.
KG and Dirk are great players. And yes they have won championships- 1 each. But should that make me disrespect two generational type talents? Hell no, and I don't care if that makes me old school...my school would skull **** your school any day.

I'd like to see that. I don't mean disrespect, being ranked fourth/fifth behind three players of the same generation isn't so bad. Malone also had the perfect cast to make him great (as he acknowledged), if he is drafted by Philly he isn't a top 200 player. Plus he is a fiend who raped a girl and threw elbows because he had no real skill. The failman never delivered.

As for Chuck sure it is cute, someone at 6'4 playing like that, but he also didn't know when to give the ball up, he was abused in the post by Mark Jackson and was just as dumb as Malone.

[moe94]

lol Failman

[RoundMoundOfReb]

KG
Dirk
Barkley

Malone

[kennethgriffin]

#1 duncan ( about 4.5 worth of titles )
#2 dirk ( 1mvp, 1 title but considering who he beat +.5. 30k points. most all around talented scorer over 7 feet )
#3 pettit ( 1 legit title. 1 legit mvp... 60s era = 2 cut in half )
#4 malone ( 2 mvps/36k points, tied with kobe for most all nba 1st teams )
#5 barkley ( more skilled than anyone on this list offense/rebounding. but lacking in success )
#6 garnett ( beta as f*ck. shy, unclutch. passive, ring chased, crys. skilled as f*ck but not the man on his only title team. and his mvp came during a year you could argue duncan was the better player ) sorry i just feel garnett was a punk bitch his whole life.

[Nowitness]

KG
Dirk
Barkley

Malone

This (unless it was reverse order). KG is clearly superior.

[moe94]

That person was a moron. But its almost as stupid as someone who never watched Barkley or Malone play on a regular basis saying that a 6'11" shooting guard and an intense Defensive stalwart are better than 2 of the best pound for pound and inch for inch PF's of all time.
Did Malone choke in the playoffs? Yes. He did. Does that take away the fact that he IS still the prototypical PF in both build and size? Nope. He was a beast in every sense of the word. His 97 and 98 Jazz were incredible and if not for the GOAT would have 1 or 2 booked chips.
I can't even begin to start on Barkley. Let's just say that a PF that undersized should never even be in a conversation for any type of accolades. We should be talking about another Beasley style bust. But nope, Charles was skilled, understood the game and was as completely intimidating as an undersized big could be. He truly carried an entire franchise on his back and should have won a championship.
KG and Dirk are great players. And yes they have won championships- 1 each. But should that make me disrespect two generational type talents? Hell no, and I don't care if that makes me old school...my school would skull **** your school any day.

It's cool you're defending Malone and Chuck and all, but calling KG simply an intense defensive stalwart is, ironically, much worse than anything OP and Kenneth said. :biggums: :roll:

[Nowitness]

#1 duncan ( about 4.5 worth of titles )
#2 dirk ( 1mvp, 1 title but considering who he beat +.5. 30k points. most all around talented scorer over 7 feet )
#3 pettit ( 1 legit title. 2 cut in half )
#4 malone ( 2 mvps/36k points, tied with kobe for most all nba 1st teams )
#5 barkley ( more skilled than anyone on this list offense/rebounding. but lacking in success )
#6 garnett ( beta as f*ck. shy, unclutch. passive, ring chased, crys. skilled as f*ck but not the man on his only title team. and his mvp came during a year you could argue duncan was the better player ) sorry i just feel garnett was a punk bitch his whole life.

I knew you'd cite totals. You think Stockton is the best at stealing in NBA history? You think Malone is a better scorer than MJ? It reflects longevity, if he wins nothing longevity goes against him (ala more time to win). He is a great scorer but don't cite me totals, that is fifth grade shiz. Plus call KG what you want, he didn't rape anyone or knock people out to win (ala Isiah).

Malone ring-chased/sucked, KG was traded/Best player on the title team (beat Pierce in PER, Win shares both on O & D, best defender on a team that won through defense and faced tougher matchups in the final). No way Duncan was better, even that dude T_L_P who stans Duncan sees this. Elevated the worst franchise in the league to the number one seed and a WCF.

[moe94]

#1 duncan ( about 4.5 worth of titles )
#2 dirk ( 1mvp, 1 title but considering who he beat +.5. 30k points. most all around talented scorer over 7 feet )
#3 pettit ( 1 legit title. 1 legit mvp... 60s era = 2 cut in half )
#4 malone ( 2 mvps/36k points, tied with kobe for most all nba 1st teams )
#5 barkley ( more skilled than anyone on this list offense/rebounding. but lacking in success )
#6 garnett ( beta as f*ck. shy, unclutch. passive, ring chased, crys. skilled as f*ck but not the man on his only title team. and his mvp came during a year you could argue duncan was the better player ) sorry i just feel garnett was a punk bitch his whole life.

By all means, argue that 04 Duncan was better than 04 Garnett.

Also, KG was the man of the 08 Celtics and was the one in contention for MVP during that season. Did you even watch the 08 season? Just because Pierce won the Finals MVP doesn't mean fvcking shit. :rolleyes:

[kennethgriffin]

dirk wants the ball at the end of the game

garnett would run the other way


both have similar accomplishents.

but only one of them would play on my team

[kennethgriffin]

By all means, argue that 04 Duncan was better than 04 Garnett.

Also, KG was the man of the 08 Celtics and was the one in contention for MVP during that season. Did you even watch the 08 season? Just because Pierce won the Finals MVP doesn't mean fvcking shit. :rolleyes:

pierce/allen were the clutch go to guys at the end of every single game that year

garnetts a p*ssy in the basketball sense of the word. and the real sense of the word

he backs down from guys half his size. talks sh*t only to euro white guys.

he's a pansy

gtfo

[Nowitness]

pierce/allen were the clutch go to guys at the end of every single game that year

garnetts a p*ssy in the basketball sense of the word. and the real sense of the word

he backs down from guys half his size. talks sh*t only to euro white guys.

he's a pansy

gtfo

You saying Malone was clutch?

[beastee]

It's cool you're defending Malone and Chuck and all, but calling KG simply an intense defensive stalwart is, ironically, much worse than anything OP and Kenneth said. :biggums: :roll:

Agreed. I was just lowering him to the ridiculous standards that witness is trying to level set them at.

KG is a GREAT player. Dirk is a GREAT player. Malone was a GREAT player. Barkley was a GREAT player. As for the order, I don't know exactly, but I sure as hell know that the 90's stars are JUST as talented as players from the 2000's and I get sick and tired of having people try and sherlock basketball reference to try and discredit the old school. Respect the generation of athletes before yours, because without them your stars would have nothing to live up to...

[kennethgriffin]

I knew you'd cite totals. You think Stockton is the best at stealing in NBA history? You think Malone is a better scorer than MJ? It reflects longevity, if he wins nothing longevity goes against him (ala more time to win). He is a great scorer but don't cite me totals, that is fifth grade shiz. Plus call KG what you want, he didn't rape anyone or knock people out to win (ala Isiah).

Malone ring-chased/sucked, KG was traded/Best player on the title team (beat Pierce in PER, Win shares both on O & D, best defender on a team that won through defense and faced tougher matchups in the final). No way Duncan was better, even that dude T_L_P who stans Duncan sees this. Elevated the worst franchise in the league to the number one seed and a WCF.

malone would find a spot on my team.. he doesnt back down from anyone. he nearly murdered a few guys and split a prominent players head open and broke his skull.

if a guy like that can drop 28/12.. i want him on my team

malones bad a**

kg's a punk

[fpliii]

KG :applause:

[ArbitraryWater]

Basketball playing ability.

I dont care where anyone ranks any of the 4(with the exception being...id take Malone last)...but it can be justified in whatever order just talking the game.

Who won what is largely coincidental at times. I dont **** with Malone....but its not like he couldnt have won if the right guys ankle twisted.

I tend to judge guys winning wise off if they were good enough to have teams that can realistically win built around them. Once thats shown how many you win is pretty immaterial to me these days.

Not like id rank Russell higher if he had 12 or lower with 10....


Agree on Malone.. What are your reasons on it?

[Nowitness]

I might even take McHale over Failman.

[stalkerforlife]

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

[AintNoSunshine]

KG was a great two way player. Malone was good too.


I know, but I also said multiple championships winner. Garnett's 1/2, Dirk 1/2, Malone 0/2, Barkley 0/1

Duncan himself is 5/6. I just meant to say these 4 all time greats are a tier below Duncan, but close amongst themselves.

[AintNoSunshine]

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


1. Me
2. Einstein
3. Rat
4. Rock
5. You

[stalkerforlife]

1. Me
2. Einstein
3. Rat
4. Rock
5. You

Keep it up and i'll neg you.

[Round Mound]

Prime Healthy Barkley Was EASILY The Best PF Ever!

[miles berg]

Barkley is in Dirk & KGs class but I don't see Malone in the conversation.

[Mure]

I'd take Chuck over all of them.

Barkley
Malone
Dirk
KG

[Nowitness]

Prime Healthy Barkley Was EASILY The Best PF Ever!

Not the question. Anyways, notorious stat padder, his peak of not winning can't compare to either KG's or Dirk's (taking into account how bad CB was on D).

[Anaximandro1]

Garnett and Dirk each has one title, Malone has been to the finals twice and Barkley once, they could easily have a ring if not for the GOAT

Its close between the four. None of them are the great 2 way player multiple title winner that Duncan is.

that's the key.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZGLnupGn3g8/U8dLcH0yCmI/AAAAAAAADUo/tF897hoTai4/s1600/1.jpg

[Beastmode88]

It's obviously not Jordan's Bulls, but Dirk & KG were on teams that took down teams featuring LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Gasol, & Bosh all in their primes, not too shabby imo

Need I say more? :roll: :roll:

[To4]

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

[LAZERUSS]

You can throw a blanket over all four of them. They were all equally great, although I would give KG the edge in defense. But each one had qualities that separated them from the other's.

And NONE of them were "losers", either.

[GimmeThat]

Barkley probably joined Hakeem too late into his career
Malone is a unique PF. he gives you the size without the blocking ability. Ibaka might be considered as the Center if you played them together instead of the other way around. Without ever watching him play, I'd like to think that he's more athletic and agile than Perkins.


If anything, people should stop talking about how the 90s had so many great centers and that there are none now.

Great front court pairing has always been vital to the success of a championship run, and this is clear evidence that the 90s weren't full of "great" centers, or these great PF would have won a ring.

[That_Admiral]

They're all great PF and i really think it's somewhat of a personal preference.
I personally have them ranked after Duncan:
-Barkley (2a)
-KG(2b)
-Malone
-Dirk
and this is taking nothing away from Dirk, amazing player for sure

[dreamwarrior]

If you're citing Hornacek how is KJ not help? Olajuwon/Pippen were still all-stars when he joined them. Cheeks/Moses/Julius were old but still produced. Barkley had help.
Oh yeah, forgot about his Phoenix stint. I guess they both suck then.

[GimmeThat]

They're all great PF and i really think it's somewhat of a personal preference.
I personally have them ranked after Duncan:
-Barkley (2a)
-KG(2b)
-Malone
-Dirk
and this is taking nothing away from Dirk, amazing player for sure


"who needs rim protection when there's rebounds to be grabbed"

[kennethgriffin]

Prime Healthy Barkley Was EASILY The Best PF Ever!


you're literally the only person on this message board that thinks this. and not even charles believes this

[pastis]

i think dirk is vastly underrated all time in all honesty

garnett was beta most of his life

but dirk is a true alpha

and an mvp/finals mvp

he also is closing in on 30k points

he might just be the 2nd GOAT PF


dirk smashed prime wade/james/bosh in the a*nus

that deserves something. that was even before wades fall off


#1 duncan ( about 4.5 worth of titles )
#2 dirk ( 1mvp, 1 title but considering who he beat +.5. 30k points. most all around talented scorer over 7 feet )
#3 pettit ( 1 legit title. 1 legit mvp... 60s era = 2 cut in half )
#4 malone ( 2 mvps/36k points, tied with kobe for most all nba 1st teams )
#5 barkley ( more skilled than anyone on this list offense/rebounding. but lacking in success )
#6 garnett ( beta as f*ck. shy, unclutch. passive, ring chased, crys. skilled as f*ck but not the man on his only title team. and his mvp came during a year you could argue duncan was the better player ) sorry i just feel garnett was a punk bitch his whole life.


dirk wants the ball at the end of the game

garnett would run the other way


both have similar accomplishents.

but only one of them would play on my team

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

the truth

[Sarcastic]

Malone and Barkley faced Jordan 5 times in 32 playoffs series. Their teams lost to pretty much everybody, not just Jordan's Bulls.

Who's to say the Jazz don't lose to the Knicks, Pacers, or Heat in the Finals ? Or Barkley losing to the Knicks in the Finals ?



Anyways, it's close between the 4. They can be ranked in whatever order.


Using your logic, Duncan hasn't really stopped Lebron from winning 2 extra titles, since they only faced each other 3 times in the playoffs, out of dozens and dozens of playoff series.

I mean Lebron should have just won in 2008, 2009, 2010, etc. It's just that easy, right?

[Sharmer]

Barkley was much more dominant then Dirt and KG.

[joeyjoejoe]

Malone
Dirk

Barkley
Kg

[tontoz]

KG and Dirk have always been jump shooters. They don't have the same offensive impact as a guy who can get to the rim at will like Barkley.

Barkley was a lousy 3 point shooter but still shot them, and a weak foul shooter as well. But his scoring efficiency was still best in the league even though he was carrying bad teams most of his career.

He had 4 straight years with a TS over 65% on a bad Philly team. He was also a double digit rebounder every year except his rookie year.

KG was always a soft jump shooter who was reluctant to take critical shots late in games. Even with the Celtics Pierce was the closer, not KG.

[creepingdeath]

KG and Dirk have always been jump shooters. They don't have the same offensive impact as a guy who can get to the rim at will like Barkley.

Barkley was a lousy 3 point shooter but still shot them, and a weak foul shooter as well. But his scoring efficiency was still best in the league even though he was carrying bad teams most of his career.

He had 4 straight years with a TS over 65% on a bad Philly team. He was also a double digit rebounder every year except his rookie year.

KG was always a soft jump shooter who was reluctant to take critical shots late in games. Even with the Celtics Pierce was the closer, not KG.
Dirk may be the best low post scorer in the league. Stats don't lie:
http://sinbapointforward.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/8585.jpg?w=441&h=298
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/mavericks/post/_/id/4666824/dirk-dominating-in-the-low-post
But go ahead and repeat age-old steoretypes. So 2006.

[East_Stone_Ya]

Malone has become underrated in ISH :facepalm

[BoutPractice]

KG and Dirk have always been jump shooters. They don't have the same offensive impact as a guy who can get to the rim at will like Barkley.
Few players in history have had the offensive impact of Dirk. That is corroborated by plus/minus, the eye test (his presence makes everyone around him more of an offensive threat, improves spacing etc.) and the fact that many different teams have been built around Dirk, often with underwhelming talent, yet the Mavs have systematically won over 60% of their games when he's been playing, with such historical regularity that it can no longer be attributed to coincidence or any other factor (and if he's indeed the difference maker, it clearly isn't due to his defense...).

Whereas Garnett is not as important to his team on offense, but few players in history have had his defensive impact.

Clearly, being a jump shooter has nothing to do with offensive impact. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't match up with reality.

[GimmeThat]

Few players in history have had the offensive impact of Dirk. That is corroborated by plus/minus, the eye test (his presence makes everyone around him more of an offensive threat, improves spacing etc.) and the fact that many different teams have been built around Dirk, often with underwhelming talent, yet the Mavs have systematically won over 60% of their games when he's been playing, with such historical regularity that it can no longer be attributed to coincidence or any other factor (and if he's indeed the difference maker, it clearly isn't due to his defense...).

Whereas Garnett is not as important to his team on offense, but few players in history have had his defensive impact.

Clearly, being a jump shooter has nothing to do with offensive impact. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't match up with reality.


he's probably what Larry Bird would be if Larry wasn't so f*cked up in the head

[tontoz]

Dirk may be the best low post scorer in the league. Stats don't lie:
http://sinbapointforward.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/8585.jpg?w=441&h=298
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/mavericks/post/_/id/4666824/dirk-dominating-in-the-low-post
But go ahead and repeat age-old steoretypes. So 2006.


:oldlol:


You have to actually be in the post in order to score in the post. Sure Dirk converts well once he actually gets in the post but that doesn't happen often. He struggles to post up guards, let alone bigs.

93% of his shots were jumpers this past season. Shooting foul line jumpers isn't post play.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13DAL11.HTM#pstats

He is the best jump shooting big man ever big comparing his post game to a guy like Barkley would be like comparing them as 3 point shooters. There is no comparison at all.

[tontoz]

Few players in history have had the offensive impact of Dirk. That is corroborated by plus/minus, the eye test (his presence makes everyone around him more of an offensive threat, improves spacing etc.) and the fact that many different teams have been built around Dirk, often with underwhelming talent, yet the Mavs have systematically won over 60% of their games when he's been playing, with such historical regularity that it can no longer be attributed to coincidence or any other factor (and if he's indeed the difference maker, it clearly isn't due to his defense...).

Whereas Garnett is not as important to his team on offense, but few players in history have had his defensive impact.

Clearly, being a jump shooter has nothing to do with offensive impact. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't match up with reality.



That is just pure nonsense. Defenses would always prefer a player shoot a jumper rather than get near the rim.

Just because Dirk is the best jump shooting big ever doesn't change the fact that jumpers in general, and long 2s in particular, are not efficient shots. Dirk takes the shots that teams generally want players to take, he just makes them.

But the reality is that Dirks career high TS of 61.2% is Barkley's career average. And Barkley played on bad teams where he was getting constantly doubled. Dirk doesn't get doubled nearly as much as Barkley did.

[Roundball_Rock]

Garnett and Dirk each has one title, Malone has been to the finals twice and Barkley once, they could easily have a ring if not for the GOAT

Malone lost because he under-performed in those Finals, including the infamous Game 1 choke in 97'.


If no Jordan, Barkley and Malone have 3 rings between them.

The Knicks would have beaten the Suns.


but Dirk & KG were on teams that took down teams featuring LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Gasol, & Bosh all in their primes, not too shabby imo


Yeah. That is why the Jordan excuse is lame. One, it adds rings to players assuming that they would have beaten the other team they would have faced in this alternate scenario. Second, it acts as if the same thing can't be said about any era. It is the NBA Finals. You are going to face top competition there every year. The notion that if Malone was transported to another era and won more absent MJ makes no sense. Malone got out the West only twice despite the Jazz being contenders for a decade. Barkley got out the West only once and made the ECF with the Sixers only once early in his career. What does these have to do with any other individual player?

Malone and Barkley simply were better players than KG and Dirk, though. Malone also probably has the best longevity in history after KAJ. The problem with Barkley is he did not stay in shape and started breaking down earlier than any Malone or Dirk. He started to decline in 94' while Malone was winning MVP's as late as 99'.

[tontoz]

I agree that Barkley's longevity is a legit argument against him, as was defense. But at his peak Barkley was definitely the best 4 i have ever seen offensively, easily.

[GimmeThat]

That is just pure nonsense. Defenses would always prefer a player shoot a jumper rather than get near the rim.

Just because Dirk is the best jump shooting big ever doesn't change the fact that jumpers in general, and long 2s in particular, are not efficient shots. Dirk takes the shots that teams generally want players to take, he just makes them.

But the reality is that Dirks career high TS of 61.2% is Barkley's career average. And Barkley played on bad teams where he was getting constantly doubled. Dirk doesn't get doubled nearly as much as Barkley did.

well, they pay A LOT of money for those who takes the not efficient long 2s where the opposing team wants players to take, AND MAKES THEM, in the playoff.

efficiency based on quickness only helps you when you're facing an aging team in the playoffs

[tontoz]

well, they pay A LOT of money for those who takes the not efficient long 2s where the opposing team wants players to take, AND MAKES THEM, in the playoff.

efficiency based on quickness only helps you when you're facing an aging team in the playoffs


No idea what this is supposed to mean. If you guard BArkley man up without help he gets to the rim time and time again. Guard Dirk with one man and he is shooting jumpers. Pretty easy to see who the bigger threat is.

Barkley was a combination of strength, agility and skill that simply hasn't been seen before. One man could not keep him away from the rim. That is why he was the go to guy on the Dream Team.

[pastis]

No idea what this is supposed to mean. If you guard BArkley man up without help he gets to the rim time and time again. Guard Dirk with one man and he is shooting jumpers. Pretty easy to see who the bigger threat is.

Barkley was a combination of strength, agility and skill that simply hasn't been seen before. One man could not keep him away from the rim. That is why he was the go to guy on the Dream Team.

so you are saying dirk wasnt doubled timed:biggums: he was doubled even thi years playoffs. not often, but still. there was a nice article from grantland about dirks impact on the field and his thrill to enemy s defense. dirk is better then barkley and not oly bcause of his ring. dirks impact is that he is deadly from midrange, from 3point line and in the post. rounding it up, he is a 90 % FT shooter, what makes it even more deadly. very very few players (like bird) had such an impact. now, i give you the credit, that with 34/35/36 he jump shoots a lot, but in his prime he had a deadly mix of shooting and driving to the basket etc.:applause:

[tontoz]

so you are saying dirk wasnt doubled timed:biggums: he was doubled even thi years playoffs. not often, but still. there was a nice article from grantland about dirks impact on the field and his thrill to enemy s defense. dirk is better then barkley and not oly bcause of his ring. dirks impact is that he is deadly from midrange, from 3point line and in the post. rounding it up, he is a 90 % FT shooter, what makes it even more deadly. very very few players (like bird) had such an impact. now, i give you the credit, that with 34/35/36 he jump shoots a lot, but in his prime he had a deadly mix of shooting and driving to the basket etc.:applause:


Barkley had to be double teamed constantly otherwise he was going to get to the rim and dunk. Dirk is not that kind of threat. Shooting 50% of midrange shots is great but getting to the rim and dunking is better.

Take a look at Dirks shot charts from the last few years. He rarely gets to the rim.

I'll never forget the Spurs putting Parker on Dirk time and again in the playoffs and Dirk failing to take advantage of him. Put Parker on Barkley and Barkley would laugh as he steamrolled over him for a slam.

Offensively Dirk has an advantage over BArkley in longevity but other than that was not the impact player Barkley was.

[stephanieg]

It's hard to compare because they all have glaring flaws.

Barkley was undersized, hot headed, sucked on D, and thought he could shoot three pointers for some reason. He also had a short prime because he ate donuts all day.

Dirk was a choker for quite some time, can be credibly guarded by perimeter players due to his jump shot heavy play style, and isn't exactly a defensive juggernaut either. Slow feet. On the other hand he did get robbed in '06, so he gets a little sympathy. His title run was amazing, but it's kinda hard to take seriously -- it almost seems like a giant fluke when he's leading multiple miraculous comebacks by launching three pointers all day. Like the hand of karma was reaching down to pimp slap Stern. And he was helped by the historic LeBron choke.

KG had some choking problems too, but he was all over the place -- sometimes he was clutch as hell, sometimes he played hot potato and didn't want anything to do with the ball. It was really frustrating when he wouldn't punish people and he just sits at the elbow passing it around or launching 18 foot bricks. His post up game seem to get worse over time and his tendency to start confrontations with other players often backfired. Seemed like anytime he got punked (e.g. dunked on, ball stolen) he'd go ghost mode. In his great title run his hardest competition was Gasoft. Garners a lot of sympathy for playing for the T-Wolves and their woeful management.

Mailman doesn't deliver on Sunday. I think his teams were overrated though and they shouldn't have won generally, a lot of them were pretty shitty. Yeah, Hornacek is gonna bring it home...

[Pointguard]

It's hard to compare because they all have glaring flaws.

Barkley was undersized, hot headed, sucked on D, and thought he could shoot three pointers for some reason. He also had a short prime because he ate donuts all day.

Dirk was a choker for quite some time, can be credibly guarded by perimeter players due to his jump shot heavy play style, and isn't exactly a defensive juggernaut either. Slow feet. On the other hand he did get robbed in '06, so he gets a little sympathy. His title run was amazing, but it's kinda hard to take seriously -- it almost seems like a giant fluke when he's leading multiple miraculous comebacks by launching three pointers all day. Like the hand of karma was reaching down to pimp slap Stern. And he was helped by the historic LeBron choke.

KG had some choking problems too, but he was all over the place -- sometimes he was clutch as hell, sometimes he played hot potato and didn't want anything to do with the ball. It was really frustrating when he wouldn't punish people and he just sits at the elbow passing it around or launching 18 foot bricks. His post up game seem to get worse over time and his tendency to start confrontations with other players often backfired. Seemed like anytime he got punked (e.g. dunked on, ball stolen) he'd go ghost mode. In his great title run his hardest competition was Gasoft. Garners a lot of sympathy for playing for the T-Wolves and their woeful management.

Mailman doesn't deliver on Sunday. I think his teams were overrated though and they shouldn't have won generally, a lot of them were pretty shitty. Yeah, Hornacek is gonna bring it home...

You're not even a good hater.

[tontoz]

I don't buy the "Dirk was a choker" argument just because of first round exits. His playoff numbers are strong but he played against tough competition in the west and his help was lacking at times.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, Hornacek is gonna bring it home...

Hornacek was one of the best SG's of that era--and he was the third best player on the Jazz. Jordan, Drexler, Richmond, Miller were better but Hornacek arguably was 5th and ahead of players like Majerle, Hawkins, Porter.

[GimmeThat]

Barkley had to be double teamed constantly otherwise he was going to get to the rim and dunk. Dirk is not that kind of threat. Shooting 50% of midrange shots is great but getting to the rim and dunking is better.

Take a look at Dirks shot charts from the last few years. He rarely gets to the rim.

I'll never forget the Spurs putting Parker on Dirk time and again in the playoffs and Dirk failing to take advantage of him. Put Parker on Barkley and Barkley would laugh as he steamrolled over him for a slam.

Offensively Dirk has an advantage over BArkley in longevity but other than that was not the impact player Barkley was.


Dirk benefited from his final lost in 06, and just went on a stream roll in the 11 campaign.

Had Chuck made it to the finals once in his philly years, he may have had really great chance at beating the Bulls when he joined the Suns.


Dirk is a player where you fill up the space in terms of offense.

Barkley is just a force. He's the type of player that plays off of contacts. And if you had multiple players in the front court who embraced that, that probably was the only/best way to build around him.


I think it's very fair to criticize Dirk for all those first round exits.

But he scored

[BoutPractice]

That is just pure nonsense. Defenses would always prefer a player shoot a jumper rather than get near the rim.

You're speaking in generalities.
I gave you facts that point to Dirk, specifically, having a greater offensive impact than most players in the history of the game, including those who played closer to the basket.

Even in the decline stage of his career, he still has some of the best plus/minus impact in the league, almost all of which is offensive. He's been among the best in the league in terms of on/off impact for most of his NBA career... And his impact comes primarily because he's a scorer.

[tontoz]

You're speaking in generalities.
I gave you facts that point to Dirk, specifically, having a greater offensive impact than most players in the history of the game, including those who played closer to the basket.


Facts? You gave opinions not facts.

The fact is that Barkley's career average TS is Dirks career best. The fact is that Barkley has 3 years where his ORTG was better than Dirks career best.

[DMAVS41]

Facts? You gave opinions not facts.

The fact is that Barkley's career average TS is Dirks career best. The fact is that Barkley has 3 years where his ORTG was better than Dirks career best.

Barkley is right up there with Dirk, or perhaps higher, on offense.

I think what he is trying to say is that Dirk's impact on his teammates because of his unique size and game at the position was greater than Barkley's was on his teammates. And I would agree, to an extent, with that.

One of the biggest things Dirk provides is that even without the ball he causes nightmares for the other team. That impact is very rare...especially out of the PF position in this way.

Here is one of the best breakdowns of this;

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/steve-nash-george-karl-and-others-on-dirk-nowitzki-and-the-unguardable-play/




My take is that they could be ordered in any order just fine and you wouldn't be crazy to do so.

I'd say that some of you are a little off on the criticism at times. Dirk deserves a lot of blame for the 07 series loss and if you get pretty picky...the 06 finals loss (although they shouldn't have even been there and we don't need to talk about the absurd nature of game 5 again)....

Other than that, he's been one of the best playoff performers of all time and one of the best big game performers of all time. One thing I don't really get about people here is that they always talk about how good the Mavs were in the regular season and then they weren't great in the playoffs....

For starters, the Mavs actually over achieved more in the playoffs than they underachieved, but even more...Dirk got better in the playoffs. So what does that show you? If Dirk gets better in the playoffs...and the team gets worse...that means his help got worse. And they did...Dirk's help routinely played like ass in the playoffs. Go back and look...you'll find teams that honestly just were not very good outside of 03, 06, and 11. Shocking that you see a WCF in 03 with Dirk getting hurt, finals in 06, and title in 11.

I mean....Dirk was a 26/11/3 59% TS player for his prime in the playoffs for like 11 years.

[tontoz]

I would agree that Dirk's playoff numbers have been beastly. And he does have a big impact on spacing, bringing oposing bigs out of the paint.

But at the same time Barkley also had a major effect on his teamates. He HAD to be doubled to prevent him from getting to the rim, which scrambled the defense and gave open looks to his teamates.

And Barkley averaged 4 offensive rebounds per game for his career. Dirk averaged 1. Points and assists are pretty much equal, but Barkley was more efficient and a much better rebounder.

I don't think any 4 in history has an argument over Barkely on offense.

[BoutPractice]

Note that I wasn't comparing Dirk with Barkley here. (Although I do believe Dirk had the better career, Barkley is one of the players I personally enjoy the most)

I was objecting to the general statement that being a jump shooter automatically gives you worse offensive impact than playing closer to the basket, which is demonstrably false.

There are many ways to play the game... Some of them work, some of them don't, depending on the player, the context, etc.. Whatever Dirk's been doing, it's worked ridiculously well. Just like whatever Barkley was doing worked. What matters is results, not predetermined rules on how you're supposed to achieve them.

[DMAVS41]

I would agree that Dirk's playoff numbers have been beastly. And he does have a big impact on spacing, bringing oposing bigs out of the paint.

But at the same time Barkley also had a major effect on his teamates. He HAD to be doubled to prevent him from getting to the rim, which scrambled the defense and gave open looks to his teamates.

And Barkley averaged 4 offensive rebounds per game for his career. Dirk averaged 1. Points and assists are pretty much equal, but Barkley was more efficient and a much better rebounder.

I don't think any 4 in history has an argument over Barkely on offense.

Yea. I agree for the most part, but I do think Dirk vs Barkley on overall offensive impact is debatable. I don't think it's as one sided as you do.

[Roundball_Rock]

Prime Barkley was competing with Magic, prime MJ, and prime Hakeem for MVP's. It is interesting that Malone was never really in the mix during the late 80's/early 90's. I don't think it is so much that he improved in the late 90's but that he maintained his level of play as others declined due to age and he was there standing strong during the interval between the decline of players like Hakeem, Barkley, even MJ (relative to prime MJ) and before players like Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Iverson hit their stride.

[tontoz]

Note that I wasn't comparing Dirk with Barkley here. (Although I do believe Dirk had the better career, Barkley is one of the players I personally enjoy the most)

I was objecting to the general statement that being a jump shooter automatically gives you worse offensive impact than playing closer to the basket, which is demonstrably false.




Shots at the rim are made at a higher percentage than jumpers. That isn't even arguable.

There are plenty of guys who shoot over 60% at the rim. Nobody shoots 60% from outside 3 feet. Some guys will have an EFG higher than 60% from 3 but not on long 2s, not even Dirk.

All defenses are designed to prevent the opposing team from getting to the rim. Next is to stop open 3s from guys who can make them. Long 2s are the shots the opposing team wants you to take. Dirk makes them better than almost everyone but they still aren't going in a 60%.

[tontoz]

Yea. I agree for the most part, but I do think Dirk vs Barkley on overall offensive impact is debatable. I don't think it's as one sided as you do.


With Dmavs41 as your username i wouldn't expect you to. :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

Using your logic, Duncan hasn't really stopped Lebron from winning 2 extra titles, since they only faced each other 3 times in the playoffs, out of dozens and dozens of playoff series.

Come again ?

I'm sure the Spurs beat the Heat last year and the Cavs in 2007. The Heat beat the Spurs in 2013.

Don't know what your trying to say.


I mean Lebron should have just won in 2008, 2009, 2010, etc. It's just that easy, right?

LeBron's teams lost because they lost. They lost to the Big 4 Pistons, Big 3 Celtics, Dirk's Mavs, Dwight's Magic. Not because of just Duncan's Spurs. His teams won it all against Durant's Thunder and the Spurs in 13.

I don't even know what's complicated on what actually happened.


How does it correlate towards Malone and Barkley losing to everyone they faced in the playoffs ?

[DMAVS41]

With Dmavs41 as your username i wouldn't expect you to. :oldlol:

Yea, but there are objective reasons for this...it's not just because Dirk is my favorite player.

[tontoz]

Yea, but there are objective reasons for this...it's not just because Dirk is my favorite player.


Dirk has certainly been an elite offensive player for a long time. Even this year just rounding up slightly he had a 50/40/90 year at 36.

But think about this. As efficient as Dirk was this year his TS was still below Barkley's career average.

If you add in longevity that changes the argument since Barkley was done at 36.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk has certainly been an elite offensive player for a long time. Even this year just rounding up slightly he had a 50/40/90 year at 36.

But think about this. As efficient as Dirk was this year his TS was still below Barkley's career average.

If you add in longevity that changes the argument since Barkley was done at 36.

Yea, but again, the impact of Dirk goes beyond the numbers like that in a way I don't quite think Barkley's do.

Also, have you looked at Dirk's absurdly low turnover percentage?

Barkley's was a fine 14.8, but Dirk's was an absurdly low 8.8....that seems to be ignored often on here.

[tontoz]

Yea, but again, the impact of Dirk goes beyond the numbers like that in a way I don't quite think Barkley's do.

Also, have you looked at Dirk's absurdly low turnover percentage?

Barkley's was a fine 14.8, but Dirk's was an absurdly low 8.8....that seems to be ignored often on here.


True but that is tied to being a jump shooter. Guys who take it to the basket/collapse the defense are more at risk of turnovers. Dirk is not a guy who forces the defense to collapse on him.

No getting around Barkley's 4 offensive rebounds per game though. And he was a mandatory double team in a way that Dirk never has been.

He had 4 straight seasons with a TS over 65%. Good luck finding any player in history who has done that while averaging over 20 ppg.

[DMAVS41]

True but that is tied to being a jump shooter. Guys who take it to the basket/collapse the defense are more at risk of turnovers. Dirk is not a guy who forces the defense to collapse on him.

No getting around Barkley's 4 offensive rebounds per game though. And he was a mandatory double team in a way that Dirk never has been.

He had 4 straight seasons with a TS over 65%. Good luck finding any player in history who has done that while averaging over 20 ppg.

Yea, but that doesn't make sense.

I could say that Barkley's higher TS percentage is tied to him playing closer to the basket.

You make it sound like Dirk's considerably lower turnover percentage doesn't matter because he's a shooter. No, what you fail to see is that Dirk's absurd efficiency as a jump shooter is unreal because most guys could never score 26 ppg and have a sub 10% turnover rate. That is part of what makes Dirk so great and so unique. What you view as "oh, it's because he's a shooter"...is actually a key thing that makes Dirk...Dirk.

You can try and arbitrarily put more importance on one thing over another all you want, but the simple facts remain that they are similar individual offensive players.

Barkley had ortgs of 119 and 118 in the regular season and playoffs
Dirk had ortgs of 117 and 117 in the regular season and playoffs

There is just not the gap there that you claim...and again...those measures don't really capture the Dirk off the ball impact which was better than Barkley's. Barkley's impact is pretty much fully captured in the stats...Dirk's is not.

Dirk averaged .128 offensive win shares per game in the playoffs
Barkley averaged .110 offensive win shares per game in the playoffs

Dirk averaged .111 offensive win shares per game in the regular season
Barkley averaged .114 offensive win shares per game in the regular season

Again...look pretty damn similar to me.

[tontoz]

Yea, but that doesn't make sense.

I could say that Barkley's higher TS percentage is tied to him playing closer to the basket.

You make it sound like Dirk's considerably lower turnover percentage doesn't matter because he's a shooter. No, what you fail to see is that Dirk's absurd efficiency as a jump shooter is unreal because most guys could never score 26 ppg and have a sub 10% turnover rate. That is part of what makes Dirk so great and so unique. What you view as "oh, it's because he's a shooter"...is actually a key thing that makes Dirk...Dirk.

You can try and arbitrarily put more importance on one thing over another all you want, but the simple facts remain that they are similar individual offensive players.

Barkley had ortgs of 119 and 118 in the regular season and playoffs
Dirk had ortgs of 117 and 117 in the regular season and playoffs

There is just not the gap there that you claim...and again...those measures don't really capture the Dirk off the ball impact which was better than Barkley's. Barkley's impact is pretty much fully captured in the stats...Dirk's is not.

Dirk averaged .128 offensive win shares per game in the playoffs
Barkley averaged .110 offensive win shares per game in the playoffs

Dirk averaged


The closeness of their career numbers are tied to Dirk's longevity, and Barkley's lack thereof.

Dirk's career best ORTG was 123. Barkley had years of 126, 127 and 128.

Dirk averaged 1.2 turnovers per game less than BArkley while Barkley averaged 3 more offensive rebounds than Dirk. That is 1.8 possessions in Barkleys favor.

And this "Dirk's impact isn't captured fully in stats" argument doesn't hold up in light of his 6 first round exits.

[DMAVS41]

The closeness of their career numbers are tied to Dirk's longevity, and Barkley's lack thereof.

Dirk's career best ORTG was 123. Barkley had years of 126, 127 and 128.

And this "Dirk's impact isn't captured fully in stats" argument doesn't hold up in light of his 6 first round exits.

And Barkley's superior offensive impact you claim doesn't hold up in never winning anything.

:confusedshrug:

Can make the same arguments right back at you. Similar offensive players...it's just obvious. Two of the truly best offensive forces ever. Also, didn't Barkley lose 5 times in the first round?

[tontoz]

And Barkley's superior offensive impact you claim doesn't hold up in never winning anything.

:confusedshrug:

Can make the same arguments right back at you. Similar offensive players...it's just obvious. Two of the truly best offensive forces ever. Also, didn't Barkley lose 5 times in the first round?


The problem is that i am not making any claims about this mystical impact that isn't captured in stats. You can say that about any great player.

Dirk's off the ball impact only means that the opposing big man had to play defense farther from the basket.

In turn i can say Barkley's man couldn't guard him by himself so he had to be doubled far more than Dirk, opening up looks for his teamates. That doesn't show up in stats either but it is real.

If Dirk had such a strong impact on his teamates (morso than Barkley) then why did his team so frequently disappoint in the playoffs in spite of his strong numbers?

[DMAVS41]

The closeness of their career numbers are tied to Dirk's longevity, and Barkley's lack thereof.

Dirk's career best ORTG was 123. Barkley had years of 126, 127 and 128.

Dirk averaged 1.2 turnovers per game less than BArkley while Barkley averaged 3 more offensive rebounds than Dirk. That is 1.8 possessions in Barkleys favor.

And this "Dirk's impact isn't captured fully in stats" argument doesn't hold up in light of his 6 first round exits.

Also, if you look more at the playoffs...you know...when the games actually really matter.

Dirk's two had two years of playoffs in which he bested Barkley's best. In fact, Barkley's best offensive rating in the playoffs would tie for 3rd best with Dirk.

Again...your own argument right back at you. Would you rather have a guy perform better in the playoffs or regular season?

[DMAVS41]

The problem is that i am not making any claims about this mystical impact that isn't captured in stats. You can say that about any great player.

Dirk's off the ball impact only means that the opposing big man had to play defense farther from the basket.

In turn i can say Barkley's man couldn't guard him by himself so he had to be doubled far more than Dirk, opening up looks for his teamates. That doesn't show up in stats either but it is real.

If Dirk had such a strong impact on his teamates (morso than Barkley) then why did his team so frequently disappoint in the playoffs in spite of his strong numbers?

It's not a mystical claim.

Throw that claim out.

You get virtually identical offensive players based on the stats. The ortgs are within 1. Dirk actually bests Barkley in offensive win shares in the playoffs per game as well. Dirk's peak ortgs in the playoffs are better than Barkley's...

Throw out the other stuff...and you still get two players on the same level of offense.

I just don't see a gap.

[DMAVS41]

The problem is that i am not making any claims about this mystical impact that isn't captured in stats. You can say that about any great player.

Dirk's off the ball impact only means that the opposing big man had to play defense farther from the basket.

In turn i can say Barkley's man couldn't guard him by himself so he had to be doubled far more than Dirk, opening up looks for his teamates. That doesn't show up in stats either but it is real.

If Dirk had such a strong impact on his teamates (morso than Barkley) then why did his team so frequently disappoint in the playoffs in spite of his strong numbers?

When did the Mavs dissapoint in the playoffs outside of 07? I honestly don't think you know what you are talking about.

The Mavs overachieved in the playoffs more than they underachieved.

01 - upset the Jazz
02 - swept the KG led wolves who many picked to win
03 - won two game 7's and made the WCF...Dirk got hurt in the WCF
04 - lost when expected
05 - lost when expected
06 - upset the Spurs
07 - got upset by the Warriors
08 - lost when expected
09 - upset the spurs
10 - got upset by the Spurs ( 09 and 10 were just normal things)
11 - upset 2 teams and won the title
12 - lost when expected
14 - lost when expeted

So where are the frequent letdowns?

[tontoz]

It's not a mystical claim.

Throw that claim out.

You get virtually identical offensive players based on the stats. The ortgs are within 1. Dirk actually bests Barkley in offensive win shares in the playoffs per game as well. Dirk's peak ortgs in the playoffs are better than Barkley's...

Throw out the other stuff...and you still get two players on the same level of offense.

I just don't see a gap.



That is because old Dirk was definitely better than an old Barkley. I already conceeded this. Barkley retired at 36 and Dirk just had a big year at 36.

But in their prime Barkley's numbers are easily better than Dirks.

[tpols]

Barkley is right up there with Dirk, or perhaps higher, on offense.

I think what he is trying to say is that Dirk's impact on his teammates because of his unique size and game at the position was greater than Barkley's was on his teammates. And I would agree, to an extent, with that.

One of the biggest things Dirk provides is that even without the ball he causes nightmares for the other team. That impact is very rare...especially out of the PF position in this way.

Here is one of the best breakdowns of this;

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/steve-nash-george-karl-and-others-on-dirk-nowitzki-and-the-unguardable-play/




My take is that they could be ordered in any order just fine and you wouldn't be crazy to do so.

I'd say that some of you are a little off on the criticism at times. Dirk deserves a lot of blame for the 07 series loss and if you get pretty picky...the 06 finals loss (although they shouldn't have even been there and we don't need to talk about the absurd nature of game 5 again)....

Other than that, he's been one of the best playoff performers of all time and one of the best big game performers of all time. One thing I don't really get about people here is that they always talk about how good the Mavs were in the regular season and then they weren't great in the playoffs....

For starters, the Mavs actually over achieved more in the playoffs than they underachieved, but even more...Dirk got better in the playoffs. So what does that show you? If Dirk gets better in the playoffs...and the team gets worse...that means his help got worse. And they did...Dirk's help routinely played like ass in the playoffs. Go back and look...you'll find teams that honestly just were not very good outside of 03, 06, and 11. Shocking that you see a WCF in 03 with Dirk getting hurt, finals in 06, and title in 11.

I mean....Dirk was a 26/11/3 59% TS player for his prime in the playoffs for like 11 years.

If Dirk was so good at making his teammates better, and his game took an even further leap forward in the playoffs, why didn't that reflect in his teammates performances?

Just curious.

[DMAVS41]

That is because old Dirk was definitely better than an old Barkley. I already conceeded this. Barkley retired at 36 and Dirk just had a big year at 36.

But in their prime Barkley's numbers are easily better than Dirks.

Meh...I'm not so sure that even works either...not to mention randomly only counting prime when debating players seems flawed.

But just taking primes in the playoffs.

You have 26/11/3 59% TS 25.0 PER 119 ortg 15.7 ows .207 ws/48

You have 26/14/5 59% TS 25.3 PER 119 ortg 10.8 ows .201 ws/48


I don't see the gap there at all.

[DMAVS41]

If Dirk was so good at making his teammates better, and his game took an even further leap forward in the playoffs, why didn't that reflect in his teammates performances?

Just curious.

You know my answer. Because his teammates weren't very good. They were made up of regular season players that were largely incapable of performing at their normal levels against superior competition. It's just so much easier to beat 20 bad teams routinely in the regular season...and the Mavs seem to target guys that thrived in meaningless regular season situations.

Outside of the 03 team...which was absolutely loaded in my opinion. It's just a rag tag group of good but not great teams sorely lacking any reliable options outside of Dirk.

[tontoz]

Meh...I'm not so sure that even works either...not to mention randomly only counting prime when debating players seems flawed.

But just taking primes in the playoffs.

You have 26/11/3 59% TS 25.0 PER 119 ortg 15.7 ows .207 ws/48

You have 26/14/5 59% TS 25.3 PER 119 ortg 10.8 ows .201 ws/48


I don't see the gap there at all.



:oldlol:

Barkleys career TS was 61% so how are you coming up with 59% in his prime? LMAO

He had 4 straight years with a TS over 65%. Dirk can't even sniff that.

He had 3 straight years of ORTG from 126-128.

You are just making stuff up now.

[DMAVS41]

:oldlol:

Barkleys career TS was 61% so how are you coming up with 59% in his prime? LMAO

He had 4 straight years with a TS over 65%. Dirk can't even sniff that.

He had 3 straight years of ORTG from 126-128.

You are just making stuff up now.

Playoffs dude. Nobody gives a **** about what these guys do in meaningless regular season games.

Maybe that is our issue...you seem to care more about the regular season. I could give two shits about how well these guys play against the crappy teams in the league.

Barkley's playoff prime was from 86 through 96...and I posted those numbers.

[tontoz]

Playoffs dude. Nobody gives a **** about what these guys do in meaningless regular season games.

Maybe that is our issue...you seem to care more about the regular season. I could give two shits about how well these guys play against the crappy teams in the league.

Barkley's playoff prime was from 86 through 96...and I posted those numbers.


LOL so now that you see that Barkley's prime numbers punk Dirk's in the regular season you decide to move to the playoffs where they frequently played only a handful of games.

I won't even bother to explain the importance of sample size in regards to the validity of stats. You are obviously just trolling now.

[DMAVS41]

LOL so now that you see that Barkley's prime numbers punk Dirk's in the regular season you decide to move to the playoffs where they frequently played only a handful of games.

I won't even bother to explain the importance of sample size in regards to the validity of stats. You are obviously just trolling now.

That is a horrible response...and I know the numbers as I've debated his before many times.

Look...you can care a lot about regular season performance. It's fine. I just don't. I don't give a **** about how well Barkley plays against the bottom feeders of the league.

When I compare the all time greats...I care how they perform in the meaningful games against the best competition. Call me crazy...


Again, I could just flip your argument around;

"Oh, so now that you see Dirk's numbers are right there with Barkley when the games really matter...you decide to put more importance on meaningless regular season games"

You see? The difference is that I'm using the games that really matter...you want to put heavy emphasis on regular season games against teams/players that don't give a shit.

Also, if winning matters (as you mentioned Dirk's first round exits...and failed to talk about Barkley's for some reason...LOL) like you claimed...why aren't you talking about Dirk's regular season success? Did Barkley lead a team to 11 straight 50 win seasons? Why did prime Barkley fail to get his team to 50 wins or more so frequently if he's so much better than Dirk?

See how I can just flip all your points around right back at you?

The truth is simple and obvious. They were similar level players overall and offensively. They are two of the 20 best players of all time and two of the truly elite offensive forces to ever play. There is no large gap overall or on offense...the only large gap that could potentially happen is with Dirk's longevity as you have already acknowledged. But that hasn't happened yet and Barkley was still very good at age 35...so we have to see what Dirk does over his last 3 years (hopefully longer) before we make any judgments on that.

[tontoz]

That is a horrible response...and I know the numbers as I've debated his before many times.

Look...you can care a lot about regular season performance. It's fine. I just don't. I don't give a **** about how well Barkley plays against the bottom feeders of the league.

When I compare the all time greats...I care how they perform in the meaningful games against the best competition. Call me crazy...


Again, I could just flip your argument around;

"Oh, so now that you see Dirk's numbers are right there with Barkley when the games really matter...you decide to put more importance on meaningless regular season games"

You see? The difference is that I'm using the games that really matter...you want to put heavy emphasis on regular season games against teams/players that don't give a shit.

Also, if winning matters (as you mentioned Dirk's first round exits...and failed to talk about Barkley's for some reason...LOL) like you claimed...why aren't you talking about Dirk's regular season success? Did Barkley lead a team to 11 straight 50 win seasons? Why did prime Barkley fail to get his team to 50 wins or more so frequently if he's so much better than Dirk?

See how I can just flip all your points around right back at you?

The truth is simple and obvious. They were similar level players overall and offensively. They are two of the 20 best players of all time and two of the truly elite offensive forces to ever play. There is no large gap overall or on offense...the only large gap that could potentially happen is with Dirk's longevity as you have already acknowledged. But that hasn't happened yet and Barkley was still very good at age 35...so we have to see what Dirk does over his last 3 years (hopefully longer) before we make any judgments on that.



Yes i will call you crazy.

Large sample size > small sample size. it isn't that complicated.

Both guys frequently got knocked out in the first round. Does that mean that a <7 game sample is more meaningful than the 82 game regular season that preceeded it?

There were times in Barkleys prime when they didnt even make the playoffs. Does that mean those years never happened?

:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

Yes i will call you crazy.

Large sample size > small sample size. it isn't that complicated.

Both guys frequently got knocked out in the first round. Does that mean that a <7 game sample is more meaningful than the 82 game regular season that preceeded it?

There were times in Barkleys prime when they didnt even make the playoffs. Does that mean those years never happened?

:facepalm

What? I'm not saying they mean nothing.

I also don't think the sample size is small either. These are players that we can reflect on their careers.

Playing 135 playoff games over 13 years is not a small sample. We know what kind of player Dirk was/is in the playoffs. Same thing for Barkley.

You know it. I know it. We all know it. Playoffs are where you find out about players. It's just the truth.

The **** if I am going to give much weight to how Barkley or Dirk or any player performs against the bottom feeders of the league against teams/players not giving full effort on a nightly basis.

Again I ask though...if the regular season matters so much...and Barkley was clearly better than Dirk and a meaningful way...why did he struggle to win so often??????

It's your exact argument about the playoffs thrown back at you. Why does one matter and the other not? Didn't Barkley only win over 50 like 5 or 6 times in his career as a key player? Seems odd to me that you would ignore that and rail on Dirk for his record in the playoffs.

[ProfessorMurder]

You know my answer. Because his teammates weren't very good.
:roll:

[tontoz]

What? I'm not saying they mean nothing.

I also don't think the sample size is small either. These are players that we can reflect on their careers.

Playing 135 playoff games over 13 years is not a small sample. We know what kind of player Dirk was/is in the playoffs. Same thing for Barkley.

You know it. I know it. We all know it. Playoffs are where you find out about players. It's just the truth.

The **** if I am going to give much weight to how Barkley or Dirk or any player performs against the bottom feeders of the league against teams/players not giving full effort on a nightly basis.

Again I ask though...if the regular season matters so much...and Barkley was clearly better than Dirk and a meaningful way...why did he struggle to win so often??????

It's your exact argument about the playoffs thrown back at you. Why does one matter and the other not? Didn't Barkley only win over 50 like 5 or 6 times in his career as a key player? Seems odd to me that you would ignore that and rail on Dirk for his record in the playoffs.


I didn't rail on Dirk for getting knocked out early in the playoffs.You are just making stuff up. I already conceeded that he had strong playoff numbers and that the choking label was wrong.

But it flies in the face of the "makes his teamates better" argument. Steve Nash won 2 MVP's after he left Dallas. Dirk put up good numbers in the playoffs but was still bounced early many times because he was up against better teams/his teamates didn't step up.

Dirk has played his whole career with a team that had an owner/GM that were competent and committed to winning. Barkley wasnt so lucky. He also had to go against three of the best teams ever assembled (Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Isiah's Pistons) at their best.

Those guys had much better teamates than Barkley did in Philly. So did Dirk. Other than Hershey Hawkins I am struggling to come up with guys Barkley played with in his Philly prime that were good. He came into the league with an aging DR J/Moses but when those guys got left the cubbard was pretty bare.

And BArkley's prime didn't last 13 years.

[jbryan1984]

Fair arguements here. Thats just how good MJ was, thats the difference maker. Ive always felt bad for Karl Malone. 3 finals, 0 titles. Even tried to jump on the Lakers bandwagon during the 3 peat era. Honestly, out of these 4 I believe KG was the best all around player. In his prime he could score, rebound, defend, pass, shoot, play in the paint, trash talk. He could do all of that and very well too.

[DMAVS41]

I didn't rail on Dirk for getting knocked out early in the playoffs.You are just making stuff up. I already conceeded that he had strong playoff numbers and that the choking label was wrong.

But it flies in the face of the "makes his teamates better" argument. Steve Nash won 2 MVP's after he left Dallas. Dirk put up good numbers in the playoffs but was still bounced early many times because he was up against better teams/his teamates didn't step up.

Dirk has played his whole career with a team that had an owner/GM that were competent and committed to winning. Barkley wasnt so lucky. He also had to go against three of the best teams ever assembled (Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Isiah's Pistons) at their best.

Those guys had much better teamates than Barkley did in Philly. So did Dirk. Other than Hershey Hawkins I am struggling to come up with guys Barkley played with in his Philly prime that were good. He came into the league with an aging DR J/Moses but when those guys got left the cubbard was pretty bare.

And BArkley's prime didn't last 13 years.


You brought up Dirk's playoff first round exits...and ignore Barkley had 5 of his own...LOL

Uhhh....the 135 games in the playoffs was from Dirk...not Barkley.

Also, you clearly don't know much about Nash on the Mavs. He was constantly injured, but when he was right...he played great. You also clearly don't realize how much the rules changes helped Nash (more than any other player in the league) as the physical play of the 01 through 04 toughest defensive era in NBA history arguably...wore Nash down each year.

See? You just seem out of your depths talking about things that just aren't accurate at all.

Dirk and Nash didn't get much real time together.

In 01 they upset the Jazz in their first real playoffs ever
In 02 they dominated the Wolves (many thought the Wolves would win) and then lost to the great 02 kings as expected
In 03 they got to the WCF and then Dirk got hurt
In 04 Nash was injured in the playoffs

That's it. That is the entire Dirk/Nash era. LOL

[tontoz]

You brought up Dirk's playoff first round exits...and ignore Barkley had 5 of his own...LOL

Uhhh....the 135 games in the playoffs was from Dirk...not Barkley.





So bringing it up = railing about it?:lol

I brought it up because of you nonsensically repeating that so much of Dirk's value was that he made his teamates better, as if that isn't true of any great player.

When Barkley was in his prime in Philly he played 26 playoff games. It is pathetic that you are trying to use that a some sort of ironclad evidence while ignoring over 400 regular season games during that time.

[DMAVS41]

So bringing it up = railing about it?:lol

I brought it up because of you nonsensically repeating that so much of Dirk's value was that he made his teamates better, as if that isn't true of any great player.

When Barkley was in his prime in Philly he played 26 playoff games. It is pathetic that you are trying to use that a some sort of ironclad evidence while ignoring over 400 regular season games during that time.

And why didn't you bring up Barkley's 5 first round exits.

Also, I didn't say Dirk made his teammates just amazingly better. I simply said that part of Dirk's impact is not fully captured in the offensive stats.

Do you realize how many times Terry and Ellis get wide open shots or lanes to the basket off the pick and roll with Dirk because the opponent refuses to hedge off of Dirk or leave him at the 3 point line?

That is not picked up on any stat. That is my point.

Barkley, while he certainly helps his teammates (that isn't in dispute and never was) doesn't impact the game in a way that strongly that isn't picked up by the stats.

Barkley's impact, for the most part, is going to be more fully illustrated by the raw and advanced stats.

I think Dirk has some hidden impact value in there. Which would make sense given his results throughout his career.

And I think you ignore that in terms of individually for Dirk...and in the success of his teams since 02 honestly.

But again...we can ignore all of that. And you still aren't showing this gap you claim exists. Everything paints them as two very equal offensive forces.

[tontoz]

And why didn't you bring up Barkley's 5 first round exits.

Also, I didn't say Dirk made his teammates just amazingly better. I simply said that part of Dirk's impact is not fully captured in the offensive stats.




That is true of every great offense player. All of them demand extra attention from the opposing defense which makes things easier on their teamates.

You seem to think that is only true of Dirk which if flat nuts. I was not the one trying to make the claim that Barkley made his teamates better but Dirk didn't. That was your nonsense which you kept repeating.

'yeah but stats don't show Dirk's total value but they do show Barkley's'

:facepalm

[jstern]

From personal choice I would pick

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

But the OP is the perfect example of a freaking teenager that just sounds so ignorant. No offense OP, I'm sure you will agree with me in 10 years.

It's like, "I didn't see them play, and I was a kid throughout most of the career of Dirk and KG, in diapers when they came to the league, but I ****ing know what I'm talking about, and I don't care what you have to say because it's all nostalgia. Dirk and KG have a championship so they're superior players than Barkley and Malone."

[tontoz]

But again...we can ignore all of that. And you still aren't showing this gap you claim exists. Everything paints them as two very equal offensive forces.


No they don't. Only your cherry picking of a small number of Barkley's playoff games point to that.

Hundreds of regular season games show otherwise.

[DMAVS41]

That is true of every great offense player. All of them demand extra attention from the opposing defense which makes things easier on their teamates.

You seem to think that is only true of Dirk which if flat nuts. I was not the one trying to make the claim that Barkley made his teamates better but Dirk didn't. That was your nonsense which you kept repeating.

'yeah but stats don't show Dirk's total value but they do show Barkley's'

:facepalm

Not at all.

I just think Dirk does that in a way Barkley doesn't. And I linked an article fully explaining this and have talked about it as well.

Again though. We can stop talking about that like I said.

You have not proven anything on the numbers themselves. They are very similar players on the stats alone. And I showed you this...you just keep going off arbitrary regular season peak cutoffs and ignoring playoffs...etc.

[DMAVS41]

No they don't. Only your cherry picking of a small number of Barkley's playoff games point to that.

Hundreds of regular season games show otherwise.

This is just false.

There offensive ratings, win shares, per...is all very similar. what are you talking about?

[Soundwave]

To be fair to Malone and Barkley, KG and Dirk probably would be ringless too if they played in Jordan's era and had the bad fortune of meeting Jordan every time in the Finals.

[kentatm]

KG and Dirk never had to play against Jordan. If no Jordan, Barkley and Malone have 3 rings between them.


/thread


Well they had two years to do it.

[tontoz]

Not at all.

I just think Dirk does that in a way Barkley doesn't. And I linked an article fully explaining this and have talked about it as well.

Again though. We can stop talking about that like I said.

You have not proven anything on the numbers themselves. They are very similar players on the stats alone. And I showed you this...you just keep going off arbitrary regular season peak cutoffs and ignoring playoffs...etc.

No they aren't similar. You selected a small sample of Barkley's playoff games because the large sample of regular season games shows such a big disparity.

Barkley simply didn't play that many playoff games in Philly when he was in his prime. Using only those games as a basis for comparison is a math fail.

And BArkley had an effect on the opposing defense that Dirk didn't. They had to double him in the low post to prevent a layup/dunk. When he kicked it out and the ball was swung around for an easy look that doesn't show up in the stats but he was the cause of it.

Dirk doesn't get doubled even remotely as much as BArkley. And nobody ever tried to guard BArkley with a pg. :lol

[tontoz]

This is just false.

There offensive ratings, win shares, per...is all very similar. what are you talking about?


:facepalm

Here we go again. You are looking at career numbers. I already said old Dirk was better than old Barkley. How many times do i have to repeat this?

since you are obviously slow i will say again what i said pages ago and several times since. In his prime he was the best offensive player i ever saw at the 4.

I wonder how long it will take for you to forget this time.

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

Here we go again. You are looking at career numbers. I already said old Dirk was better than old Barkley. How many times do i have to repeat this?

since you are obviously slow i will say again what i said pages ago and several times since. In his prime he was the best offensive player i ever saw at the 4.

I wonder how long it will take for you to forget this time.

I think you are slow.

I posted their prime playoff numbers...and they looked pretty similar to me.

Here they are;

You have 26/11/3 59% TS 25.0 PER 119 ortg 15.7 ows .207 ws/48

You have 26/14/5 59% TS 25.3 PER 119 ortg 10.8 ows .201 ws/48


Oh yes....what a huge gap....

[ArbitraryWater]

Bringing up Dirk's 1st round exits is pointless.. Can't blame him for 2012 and 2014... 2005, 2007, 2010? Well honestly the only one it was his fault was 2007... The rest is performing well, carrying mediocre teams.. Maybe even to HCA

[tontoz]

I think you are slow.

I posted their prime playoff numbers...and they looked pretty similar to me.

Here they are;

You have 26/11/3 59% TS 25.0 PER 119 ortg 15.7 ows .207 ws/48

You have 26/14/5 59% TS 25.3 PER 119 ortg 10.8 ows .201 ws/48


Oh yes....what a huge gap....


Like i said, cherry picking a small sample of playoff games while ignoring Barkley's 500 regular season games in his prime.

He simply didn't play that many playoff games in his prime. Sample size fail. Happy trolling

[tontoz]

Bringing up Dirk's 1st round exits is pointless.. Can't blame him for 2012 and 2014... 2005, 2007, 2010? Well honestly the only one it was his fault was 2007... The rest is performing well, carrying mediocre teams.. Maybe even to HCA


It is also pointless to pretend that Dirk is the only great scorer who makes things easier for his teamates. That is a given when you are talking about the best scorers in history.

[DMAVS41]

Like i said, cherry picking a small sample of playoff games while ignoring Barkley's 500 regular season games in his prime.

He simply didn't play that many playoff games in his prime. Sample size fail. Happy trolling

Use the regular season as well if you want?

It's still not going to be a drastic difference on the numbers alone.

Dirk was a 25/9/3 58% TS player iirc...and Barkley was 25/12/4 62% TS player iirc.

Think there advanced stats were pretty close as well.

Where is the large gap? That is what I'm asking?

I just don't value those regular season games as much as you do...especially if Barkley wasn't good enough to get 50 or more wins many of those years. I ask again why that doesn't factor into your equation....

Hate to break it to you, but there is a little of the "kevin love" syndrome going in with Barkley. I know you won't like hearing that, but it's true. Just a little though...Barkley was a far better player of course...and he's in my top 20...but the point about the numbers is...well...it's not everything. Love just finished a 26/13/4 59% TS season....yet that Love is nowhere near as good as peak Dirk.

Do you dispute that? Do you think 2014 Love is better than Dirk ever was?

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Fatley and Chokeman have no argument over KG or Dirk:no: :no:

[ArbitraryWater]

It is also pointless to pretend that Dirk is the only great scorer who makes things easier for his teamates. That is a given when you are talking about the best scorers in history.

He isn't, but to the extend that he does?

You do know he's a 7 foot shooting god? How often do you have that? He draws away everyone from the basket and opens up lanes by his mere presence...

Imagine it like this, Howard a DPOTY, rim protector, defensive monster... On nights against the Mavericks and Dirk, he will need to play out a lot more further... He will need to stop out of his territory because of Dirk alone. On those nights he will merely be a top 10-15 defender, because he can't do what he does best. Because Dirk forces that.

[tontoz]

He isn't, but to the extend that he does?

You do know he's a 7 foot shooting god? How often do you have that? He draws away everyone from the basket and opens up lanes by his mere presence...

Imagine it like this, Howard a DPOTY, rim protector, defensive monster... On nights against the Mavericks and Dirk, he will need to play out a lot more further... He will need to stop out of his territory because of Dirk alone. On those nights he will merely be a top 10-15 defender, because he can't do what he does best. Because Dirk forces that.


I have already said Dirk is the best shooter as a big man in history. But he isn't pulling everyone away from the basket. Obviously he is pulling his man away, or another man on switches which obviously helps spacing.

And they don't need to put Howard on Dirk. History has shown that you can easily put a smaller man on him and not get punished. Sure Dirk can shoot over a smaller man but he shoots over everyone. But he isn't going to take a small man into the low post an abuse him.

[DMAVS41]

I have already said Dirk is the best shooter as a big man in history. But he isn't pulling everyone away from the basket. Obviously he is pulling his man away, or another man on switches which obviously helps spacing.

And they don't need to put Howard on Dirk. History has shown that you can easily put a smaller man on him and not get punished. Sure Dirk can shoot over a smaller man but he shoots over everyone. But he isn't going to take a small man into the low post an abuse him.

Absurd.

You obviously haven't noticed that Dirk has been one of the best post up players in the league for years.

Seriously....you don't even know what the **** you are talking about.

Please explain this large gap you speak of...I'm still waiting to see anything from you...

Also, could you also answer whether or not you think current Love is better than Dirk ever was?

[tontoz]

Use the regular season as well if you want?

It's still not going to be a drastic difference on the numbers alone.

Dirk was a 25/9/3 58% TS player iirc...and Barkley was 25/12/4 62% TS player iirc.

Think there advanced stats were pretty close as well.

Where is the large gap? That is what I'm asking?

I just don't value those regular season games as much as you do...especially if Barkley wasn't good enough to get 50 or more wins many of those years. I ask again why that doesn't factor into your equation....

Hate to break it to you, but there is a little of the "kevin love" syndrome going in with Barkley. I know you won't like hearing that, but it's true. Just a little though...Barkley was a far better player of course...and he's in my top 20...but the point about the numbers is...well...it's not everything. Love just finished a 26/13/4 59% TS season....yet that Love is nowhere near as good as peak Dirk.

Do you dispute that? Do you think 2014 Love is better than Dirk ever was?


First of all, again, i am talking about offense in Barkleys prime. I didn't even claim he was a better player than any of the other 3 mentioned here.

But from his second season in the league through his first year in Phoenix he averaged 23 ppg with an ORTG of 121.6 and a TS of 63.7%, not to mention his elite offensive rebounding.

His first year with the Suns was a career low in TS and only got worse from there.

Dirk does not have an 8 year stretch to compare with that.

Love is a different kind of offensive player. He launches a lot of quick 3s before the defense can get set and gets a lot of offensive boards/putbacks. But he is not a guy that you can throw the ball to and expect him to consistently score 1 on 1 like Dirk and Barkley have done.

Granted i haven't watched Love a lot but from my view he would be easier for a good defense to slow down that either Dirk or Barkley. No one guy could guard Barkley and nobody can really block Dirk's jumper. All they can do is try to force him away from the basket and hope he misses.

I don't think Dirk has taken advantage of the 3 pointer as much as he should have. If i could tell him to change one thing it would be to take more 3s. He won the damn 3 point contest and nobody can block his shot.

[DMAVS41]

First of all, again, i am talking about offense in Barkleys prime. I didn't even claim he was a better player than any of the other 3 mentioned here.

But from his second season in the league through his first year in Phoenix he averaged 23 ppg with an ORTG of 121.6 and a TS of 63.7%, not to mention his elite offensive rebounding.

His first year with the Suns was a career low in TS and only got worse from there.

Dirk does not have an 8 year stretch to compare with that.

Love is a different kind of offensive player. He launches a lot of quick 3s before the defense can get set and gets a lot of offensive boards/putbacks. But he is not a guy that you can throw the ball to and expect him to consistently score 1 on 1 like Dirk and Barkley have done.

Granted i haven't watched Love a lot but from my view he would be easier for a good defense to slow down that either Dirk or Barkley. No one guy could guard Barkley and nobody can really block Dirk's jumper. All they can do is try to force him away from the basket and hope he misses.

I don't think Dirk has taken advantage of the 3 pointer as much as he should have. If i could tell him to change one thing it would be to take more 3s. He won the damn 3 point contest and nobody can block his shot.


I think the exact opposite with Dirk...LOL

He was too reliant on the 3 early on in his career...mainly because of the run and gun system of Nellie. It was when he was forced to develop his midrange and post up game that he truly became an elite player.

Offense is offense. So I really don't get your point.

Is your only point that Barkley had better offensive numbers for a set amount of time in the regular season? If it is...okay...totally agree.

If it's something else you'll have to explain it to me. I assumed you were trying to draw conclusions off something...

[tontoz]

Absurd.

You obviously haven't noticed that Dirk has been one of the best post up players in the league for years.

Seriously....you don't even know what the **** you are talking about.

Please explain this large gap you speak of...I'm still waiting to see anything from you...

Also, could you also answer whether or not you think current Love is better than Dirk ever was?


Just because a guy gets the ball with his back to the basket doesn't mean he is posting up. If he catches the ball at the 3 point line with his back to the basket, is that a post up?

His shot chart tells the story.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717

He only took 129 shots from inside 8 feet all season. He is not a low post threat. His lack of strength and high center of gravity prevent him from even getting low post position.

He took 452 shots from 8-16 feet and 363 2s outside 16 feet. In other words he took almost 3 times more 16+ foot 2s than shots inside 8 feet.

[tontoz]

I think the exact opposite with Dirk...LOL

He was too reliant on the 3 early on in his career...mainly because of the run and gun system of Nellie. It was when he was forced to develop his midrange and post up game that he truly became an elite player.

Offense is offense. So I really don't get your point.

Is your only point that Barkley had better offensive numbers for a set amount of time in the regular season? If it is...okay...totally agree.

If it's something else you'll have to explain it to me. I assumed you were trying to draw conclusions off something...


Like i have said time and time again Barkley was the best offensive 4 i have seen in his prime. His numbers aren't matched by anyone i know.

You can take Dirks 5 best consecutive years and they still wouldn't compare to those 8 years for Barkley.

And if you take a look at Dirks shot chart you can see what i am talking about. He shot 69% inside 8 feet but rarely took those shots. That is the problem with him.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717

[tontoz]

I just did the math on long 2s for Dirk. He shot 52% on long 2s from 16+ feet. If i had to guess i would say that is best in the league among volume scorers from any position.

But that is the equivalent of 34.6% from 3.

[DMAVS41]

Just because a guy gets the ball with his back to the basket doesn't mean he is posting up. If he catches the ball at the 3 point line with his back to the basket, is that a post up?

His shot chart tells the story.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717

He only took 129 shots from inside 8 feet all season. He is not a low post threat. His lack of strength and high center of gravity prevent him from even getting low post position.

He took 452 shots from 8-16 feet and 363 2s outside 16 feet. In other words he took almost 3 times more 16+ foot 2s than shots inside 8 feet.

You are defining posts in an odd way. Dirk posts up a ton actually...just not inside 8 feet. Why draw the distinction?

Here is the data from last year mate;

POST-UP POWERS
Most efficient post-up players in 2013-14 season, according to Synergy (minimum 125 plays).

Player Plays Points FG% %FT Pts/play
LeBron James 261 283 55.9 21.8 1.08
Kevin Durant 207 221 47.8 20.8 1.07
Dirk Nowitzki 534 568 50.8 15.5 1.06
Dwyane Wade 145 153 53.7 17.2 1.06
Carmelo Anthony 420 427 49.4 16.7 1.02
Al Jefferson 840 813 51.0 11.0 0.97
Arron Afflalo 173 167 49.6 14.5 0.97
Blake Griffin 541 517 47.8 22.7 0.96
Joe Johnson 244 233 50.8 12.3 0.96
Brandon Bass 241 229 44.8 17.0 0.95

Dirk was tied for the 3rd most efficient post up player in the league in terms of points per post up...and really that is the best because Lebron/Durant/Wade don't post up nearly as often.

It doesn't matter if you post from 8 feet or 16 feet...what matters is the result buddy.

[DMAVS41]

Like i have said time and time again Barkley was the best offensive 4 i have seen in his prime. His numbers aren't matched by anyone i know.

You can take Dirks 5 best consecutive years and they still wouldn't compare to those 8 years for Barkley.

And if you take a look at Dirks shot chart you can see what i am talking about. He shot 69% inside 8 feet but rarely took those shots. That is the problem with him.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717


So you are trying to draw conclusions. Again...I'll post what I initially said to you;

Barkley is right up there with Dirk, or perhaps higher, on offense.

That was my first post. I then said it was debatable...and you have obviously taken issue with that.

And you started bringing up playoff losses...etc.

You are arguing for it clearly being Barkley. I'm arguing for it being debatable...just want to remind you of that.

[tontoz]

So you are trying to draw conclusions. Again...I'll post what I initially said to you;

Barkley is right up there with Dirk, or perhaps higher, on offense.

That was my first post. I then said it was debatable...and you have obviously taken issue with that.

And you started bringing up playoff losses...etc.

You are arguing for it clearly being Barkley. I'm arguing for it being debatable...just want to remind you of that.


The only way it is debatable is if you are taking into account longevity. Other than that it is not debatable at all.

Barkleys numbers in his prime are decisively better than Dirks. Not close at all.

[tontoz]

You brought up Kevin Love and he is a perfect contrast to Dirk. Loves shot chart is almost entirely yellow and Dirks is almost entirely green. But Love has far better shot distribution so his efficiency is close to Dirk's even though Dirk is a far better shooter.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=201567

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717

Love shoots far more from inside 8 feet and from 3 and those are the most efficient shots.

[DMAVS41]

The only way it is debatable is if you are taking into account longevity. Other than that it is not debatable at all.

Barkleys numbers in his prime are decisively better than Dirks. Not close at all.

This just isn't true. The only way you get that is if you ignore the playoffs and only focus on an arbitrary amount of time in meaningless regular season games.

Why do you put more stock in the regular season? Especially when so many of Barkley's prime years you list were on average to subpar Philly teams?

Would you think Dirk was a better player if he scored 2 more points per game in his prime or something? I mean...you put Dirk on worse teams and he's going to bump his averages up a little...that really matters to you?

[DMAVS41]

You brought up Kevin Love and he is a perfect contrast to Dirk. Loves shot chart is almost entirely yellow and Dirks is almost entirely green. But Love has far better shot distribution so his efficiency is close to Dirk's even though Dirk is a far better shooter.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=201567

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717

Love shoots far more from inside 8 feet and from 3 and those are the most efficient shots.

Dude....I just showed you the post up list from last year. Dirk posted up like the 2nd most in the league of notable p layers and of those other players...was essentially the most efficient post player in the league.

Also, this is old Dirk...this is not prime Dirk...so I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Round Mound]

Charles Was Shaq-Like Inside the 3-Point Line...

Charles Was The Best Offensive Powerforward Ever
Was a Better Rebounder and Passer Too. :bowdown:

[G.O.A.T]

I feel like I have to put Dirk, KG and Malone above Barkley even though I think he was the best of all of them. Those other guys committed to staying in shape and won Championships (or got to the finals) by outlasting most of the other stars of their generation. Barkley had so many goo chances, in '94, '95 and '97, if he is in better physical condition he's in the Final every year and is bound to get a title.

Those other guys have better resume and more career success than Charles because of their approach, even though Chuck burned brighter, it wasn't bright enough to be the biggest star, and sadly also he burned out faster.

Has anyone else considered this? Does anyone else have this issue. Be curious to hear from a lot of you?

[Nowitness]

Charles Was Shaq-Like Inside the 3-Point Line...

Charles Was The Best Offensive Powerforward Ever
Was a Better Rebounder and Passer Too. :bowdown:

Well he obviously isn't. He had more help than KG (who averaged more assists, had a better assist percentage and didn't need to touch the ball every play like Chuck). I can level that he was an insanely gifted offensive player and that is where KG loses this as he is prolly the worst of the 4 (I still say Malone averages 22 PPG without Stockton).

But the fact that he defense was so bad, mixed with the fact that he also took horrible shots, had like 1% higher rebound percentage than KG and failed to win with these claims I say he is third out of the 4.

Also like G.O.A.T said, he could have been greater had he cared enough and stayed in shape. So Glad Pippen left his fat ass.

[tontoz]

This just isn't true. The only way you get that is if you ignore the playoffs and only focus on an arbitrary amount of time in meaningless regular season games.

Why do you put more stock in the regular season? Especially when so many of Barkley's prime years you list were on average to subpar Philly teams?

Would you think Dirk was a better player if he scored 2 more points per game in his prime or something? I mean...you put Dirk on worse teams and he's going to bump his averages up a little...that really matters to you?


ON a worse team players generally score more with less efficiency. Barkley's efficiency was better than everyone even though the rest of his team wasnt that good.

In 87/88 these were Barkley's numbers

23/14 (5.7 offensive) ORTG 126 TS 66.5%

But he didn't make the playoffs. Only an idiot would say that wasn't a great year or pretend like it didn't happen.

[Round Mound]

Check Out He Scores On Every Last Second Possesion With Ease:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9idGIv49ou0

[ILLsmak]

Check Out He Scores On Every Last Second Possesion With Ease:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9idGIv49ou0

Well when Barkley is wetting threes its GG

-Smak

[tontoz]

Dude....I just showed you the post up list from last year. Dirk posted up like the 2nd most in the league of notable p layers and of those other players...was essentially the most efficient post player in the league.

Also, this is old Dirk...this is not prime Dirk...so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Love took 524 shots inside 8 feet compared to 129 for Dirk. Dirk simply does not get to the rim much. I can't spell it out any clearer than that.

The post numbers show Dirk's skill as a shooter and the lack of post players in the NBA. But his shot distribution is still bad. He is not much of a threat to drive which allows teams to single cover him.

To put in perspective just how devastating Barkey was inside he had 5 straight seasons shooting 61% or better on 2 point shots, and that is in spite of a suspect jumper.

Dirk's best year ever on 2 point shots was his 53.2% this year.

[DMAVS41]

ON a worse team players generally score more with less efficiency. Barkley's efficiency was better than everyone even though the rest of his team wasnt that good.

In 87/88 these were Barkley's numbers

23/14 (5.7 offensive) ORTG 126 TS 66.5%

But he didn't make the playoffs. Only an idiot would say that wasn't a great year or pretend like it didn't happen.

So you've reached the point of attacking a straw-man? Okay.

I never said it wasn't good or shouldn't matter. I simply said that you are arbitrarily focusing on a limited sample.

You say the above. Then I would counter with this;

In the 2010 playoffs...Dirk averaged 27/8/3 on 64.3% TS with an ortg of 130

Only an idiot would say that wasn't great or pretend like it didn't happen.

Again, by the way, Barkley's peak offensive rating of his entire career in the playoffs was 125. Dirk had 3 different playoff runs at 125 or higher.

Also, Dirk had 5 playoff runs with a 124 ortg or higher. Barkley had only 1 playoff run in his entire career at 124 or higher for ortg.

Right back at you...but of course you think those meaningless regular season games should matter more.

[Round Mound]

[B]Barkley Was The More Alpha Dog Than All Of Them.

Barkley Inside The 3-Point Line for 16 Seasons:

- 21.6 PPG on 58.13% on ONLY 12.9 FGAs PG Taken (Season)

- 22.5 PPG On 55.13% on ONLY 14.5 FGAs PG Taken (Play-Offs)

Im Sure PHILA has broken down stats that will blow you away on what Barkley was all about before back-knee injuries and overweight in Houston.

He Was a Role Player in Houston So His Stats Wen

[Nowitness]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Barkley Was The More Alpha Dong Than All Of Them.

Barkley Inside The 3-Point Line for 16 Seasons:

- 21.6 PPG on 58.13% on ONLY 12.9 FGAs PG Taken (Season)

- 22.5 PPG On 55.13% on ONLY 14.5 FGAs PG Taken (Play-Offs)

Im Sure PHILA has broken down stats that will blow you away on what Barkley was all about before back-knee injuries and overweight in Houston.

He Was a Role Player in Houston So His Stats Wen

[tontoz]

So you've reached the point of attacking a straw-man? Okay.

I never said it wasn't good or shouldn't matter. I simply said that you are arbitrarily focusing on a limited sample.

You say the above. Then I would counter with this;

In the 2010 playoffs...Dirk averaged 27/8/3 on 64.3% TS with an ortg of 130

Only an idiot would say that wasn't great or pretend like it didn't happen.

Again, by the way, Barkley's peak offensive rating of his entire career in the playoffs was 125. Dirk had 3 different playoff runs at 125 or higher.

Also, Dirk had 5 playoff runs with a 124 ortg or higher. Barkley had only 1 playoff run in his entire career at 124 or higher for ortg.

Right back at you...but of course you think those meaningless regular season games should matter more.


Again BArkley simply didnt have many playoff games, period. And you have time and again posted numbers solely for playoffs, in which case BArkley's 87/88 season (and 91/92 season) wouldn't count.

And you accuse me of using a small sample size? LMAO.

I am looking at 500 games. You are looking at maybe 50 games.

[DMAVS41]

Again BArkley simply didnt have many playoff games, period. And you have time and again posted numbers solely for playoffs, in which case BArkley's 87/88 season (and 91/92 season) wouldn't count.

And you have time and again only posted numbers in the regular season.

:confusedshrug:

Why not combine it all?

Oh I know...because if you objectively looked at it all...you'd see that this big gap you claim exists...actually doesn't.

So you are left going on and on about how great Barkley was playing on subpar teams in his prime in meaningless regular season games....

Also, Barkley was arguably at his peak in 93. Why did he have a 119 ortg and 55.2% TS? Funny how that coincided with his only deep run in the playoffs in his prime.

[masonanddixon]

Nostalgia.

Same reason Hakeem gets overrated when he lost 7-8 times in the 1st round. He can't hold Duncan's jock and his 'Dream Shake' and post moves would be rudimentary by today's standards, yet many people consider him a lock in the Top 10.

[tontoz]

So you've reached the point of attacking a straw-man? Okay.

I never said it wasn't good or shouldn't matter.


Maybe i should let you argue with yourself.



Playoffs dude. Nobody gives a **** about what these guys do in meaningless regular season games.

[tontoz]

And you have time and again only posted numbers in the regular season.

:confusedshrug:

Why not combine it all?

Oh I know...because if you objectively looked at it all...you'd see that this big gap you claim exists...actually doesn't.

So you are left going on and on about how great Barkley was playing on subpar teams in his prime in meaningless regular season games....

Also, Barkley was arguably at his peak in 93. Why did he have a 119 ortg and 55.2% TS? Funny how that coincided with his only deep run in the playoffs in his prime.

That was his first year with the Suns. his game was already starting to decline but he had much better teamates.

And combining the playoffs and regular season numbers isn't going to change the regular season numbers very much. That is just common sense.

[Round Mound]

Nostalgia.

Same reason Hakeem gets overrated when he lost 7-8 times in the 1st round. He can't hold Duncan's jock and his 'Dream Shake' and post moves would be rudimentary by today's standards, yet many people consider him a lock in the Top 10.

:facepalm Hakeem Was Better Than Duncan At Everything But Passing and Ballhandling.

[Nowitness]

:facepalm Hakeem Was Better Than Duncan At Everything But Passing and Ballhandling.

But is Hakeem better all time?

[masonanddixon]

:facepalm Hakeem Was Better Than Duncan At Everything But Passing and Ballhandling.

Hakeem won titles in a weak transition/absent-Jordan period.

Duncan won in one of the toughest eras (02-03).

[DMAVS41]

That was his first year with the Suns. his game was already starting to decline but he had much better teamates.

And combining the playoffs and regular season numbers isn't going to change the regular season numbers very much. That is just common sense.

I don't mean mathematically combining them...I mean just using both to reach the conclusion.

You are literally ignoring the most important games each player ever played...and that is flawed in my opinion.

As for 93...I don't think he had declined yet. His TS in the regular season was 60. It dropped 5% in the playoffs...

The point is simple. The playoffs matter. We can debate how much, but they actually matter contrary to what you say.

[tontoz]

But is Hakeem better all time?


I couldnt pick between those two. Tossup for me.

[DMAVS41]

Maybe i should let you argue with yourself.

And?

Where do you see me saying that what Barkley has done in the regular season wasn't good?

And do you really need me to explain context to you? That response is in relation you continually propping up regular season games.

What you fail to realize is that there is a large section of the basketball community that just don't care all that much about regular season games...and again, if we are going to talk about the regular season...we have to talk about everything.

Which would include team performance as well...especially if your argument is solely based on regular season numbers.

[tontoz]

I don't mean mathematically combining them...I mean just using both to reach the conclusion.

You are literally ignoring the most important games each player ever played...and that is flawed in my opinion.

As for 93...I don't think he had declined yet. His TS in the regular season was 60. It dropped 5% in the playoffs...

The point is simple. The playoffs matter. We can debate how much, but they actually matter contrary to what you say.


By your own admission they were roughly equal during the playoffs in their primes, using an obviously small sample in Barkley's case.

And Barkleys regular season numbers were decisively better than Dirk's in the primes...

what is your point?


I think you are slow.

I posted their prime playoff numbers...and they looked pretty similar to me.

Here they are;

You have 26/11/3 59% TS 25.0 PER 119 ortg 15.7 ows .207 ws/48

You have 26/14/5 59% TS 25.3 PER 119 ortg 10.8 ows .201 ws/48


Oh yes....what a huge gap....

[DMAVS41]

By your own admission they were roughly equal during the playoffs in their primes, using an obviously small sample in Barkley's case.

And Barkleys regular season numbers were decisively better than Dirk's in the primes...

what is your point?


What is your point?

My point is that it is debatable between dirk and barkley as offensive players.

And just no...the numbers are not decisively better for Barkley...they are when you do not take circumstances into account...and don't factor in playoff play.

Or go beyond numbers for impact at all.

You are basically saying this;

During an arbitrary stretch in which Barkley played on average to subpar teams...he put up great regular season numbers.

Yep...he absolutely did. :applause:

[houston]

Fatley and Chokeman have no argument over KG or Dirk:no: :no:


this true indeed.

[tontoz]

What is your point?

My point is that it is debatable between dirk and barkley as offensive players.

And just no...the numbers are not decisively better for Barkley...they are when you do not take circumstances into account...and don't factor in playoff play.

Or go beyond numbers for impact at all.

You are basically saying this;

During an arbitrary stretch in which Barkley played on average to subpar teams...he put up great regular season numbers.

Yep...he absolutely did. :applause:


Since when does playing on subpar teams improve a players efficiency? Can you give me some examples of this?

Typically it works the other way around. Ray Allen had 4 straight years with a TS over 60% with Boston even though he was past his prime. He only did that once in the 11 years before that.

BArkley led the league in TS 4 straight years at 65%+ even though there was limited offensive talent around him. That kind of production is unheard of.

He played in only 18 playoff games in those years. He was just stuck in a bad organization.

I challenged you to post any 5 consecutive years of Dirk's career and compare them to BArkley's prime and you haven't done it. The reason is because Barkley's numbers are easily better.

There is nothing arbitrary about a players prime years. That is just nonsense.

[DMAVS41]

Since when does playing on subpar teams improve a players efficiency? Can you give me some examples of this?

Typically it works the other way around. Ray Allen had 4 straight years with a TS over 60% with Boston even though he was past his prime. He only did that once in the 11 years before that.

BArkley led the league in TS 4 straight years at 65%+ even though there was limited offensive talent around him. That kind of production is unheard of.

He played in only 18 playoff games in those years. He was just stuck in a bad organization.

I challenged you to post any 5 consecutive years of Dirk's career and compare them to BArkley's prime and you haven't done it. The reason is because Barkley's numbers are easily better.


Again...his regular season numbers in an arbitrary number of years are better.

I have not once refuted this.

What I have refuted, however, is that they are not comparable players offensively.


It would be like me listing Dirk's crunch time stats in the 2011 playoffs and asking you to post anything Barkley did in the playoffs to match that while winning a title. it's arbitrary an agenda driven.

[DMAVS41]

The closeness of their career numbers are tied to Dirk's longevity, and Barkley's lack thereof.

Dirk's career best ORTG was 123. Barkley had years of 126, 127 and 128.

Dirk averaged 1.2 turnovers per game less than BArkley while Barkley averaged 3 more offensive rebounds than Dirk. That is 1.8 possessions in Barkleys favor.

And this "Dirk's impact isn't captured fully in stats" argument doesn't hold up in light of his 6 first round exits.


Tontoz...take a look at this post.

You are just using the regular season in your arguments.

I could say literally the same thing about the playoffs.

That Dirk has 5 seasons with a 124 ortg or higher in the playoffs....Barkley has 1. Dirk had years of 125, 126, and 130...

I think are fundamental difference is simple;

You don't think the playoffs matter nearly as much as I do. I won't budge on this because of the long long long time I've been watching the games and seeing the playoffs as a completely different game at times. Some guys simply have a game better suited for regular season dominance...Barkley was one of those guys to a small extent, but enough to mention.

So while you see things that blow you away in the regular season...they don't matter to me as much as they do to you.

[Round Mound]

Hakeem Was More Dominant than Duncan. Hakeem Could Not Be Guarded By Anyone in the League At All From 85-95. He Was a Better Scorer than Duncan By a Large Margin, a Better Rebounder In His Prime, a Better Shot Blocker, a Better Rim Protector, a Better Floor Defender and Stealer, a Better Clutch Performer etc

Only 20 Year Olds That Never Saw Barkley or Malone Say That Garnett and Dirk Where Better (And German Fans). Malone and Barkley Produced Fear in Team Defenses Unlike That Of PFs Today. Dirk Is The Only PF that is Close To Their Level in Scoring (yet less effificent). But That Dude... Couldnt Pass, Rebound or Defend if His Life Time Depended On It. He Was a 7'0 ft Shooting SF.

[tontoz]

Tontoz...take a look at this post.

You are just using the regular season in your arguments.

I could say literally the same thing about the playoffs.

That Dirk has 5 seasons with a 124 ortg or higher in the playoffs....Barkley has 1. Dirk had years of 125, 126, and 130...

I think are fundamental difference is simple;

You don't think the playoffs matter nearly as much as I do. I won't budge on this because of the long long long time I've been watching the games and seeing the playoffs as a completely different game at times. Some guys simply have a game better suited for regular season dominance...Barkley was one of those guys to a small extent, but enough to mention.

So while you see things that blow you away in the regular season...they don't matter to me as much as they do to you.


You can't be this dumb. You admitted yourself that there is little difference in their playoff numbers so why would i focus on that, especially given the limited number of games? Do you have brain damage?

Barkley drew double teams all the time. That is exactly what you need in the playoffs to get good looks for your team. It is basic common sense and would have been more obvious if he didn't play for a bad organization.

[DMAVS41]

You can't be this dumb. You admitted yourself that there is little difference in their playoff numbers so why would i focus on that, especially given the limited number of games? Do you have brain damage?

Barkley drew double teams all the time. That is exactly what you need in the playoffs to get good looks for your team. It is basic common sense and would have been more obvious if he didn't play for a bad organization.

What?

I'm merely saying you should take it all into account. This arbitrary number of years you keep using came after you started losing the argument....LOL

You initially were going on about first round losses and stuff.

Go back and read the thread....you didn't start bringing up the prime stuff until I educated you on the first round losses (you didn't even know Barkley had 5...LOL) and the ignorant Nash comments.

Then it was the prime (only regular season of course) stuff...while also claiming I can't at all talk about Dirk's value not being fully illustrated through stats (which is just clearly isn't in a way Barkley does not compare)...

So...we have to ignore the playoffs largely, we can't talk about circumstances (unless it's to prop Barkley), can't talk about Dirk's game beyond his numbers...anything else?

LOL...you really think this is how a real debate goes?

No, I'm trying to dumb this down for you so you'll realize the gap isn't even really there even if we just go by your numbers.

Again, the numbers in the regular season are just not that far off either...

25/12/4 62% TS 26 PER 121 ortg .230 ws/48

25/9/3 59% TS 24.8 PER 118 ortg .226 ws/48

It's honestly just not that different when you start talking about all the other things that go into being a great offensive player. And it's ignoring the unique impact Dirk had off the ball and his crunch time play (Mavs had the best crunch time offense from 05 through 11)...etc.

And yes...it's easier to produce numbers on bad teams.

[tontoz]

What?

I'm merely saying you should take it all into account. This arbitrary number of years you keep using came after you started losing the argument....LOL

You initially were going on about first round losses and stuff.

Go back and read the thread....you didn't start bringing up the prime stuff until I educated you on the first round losses (you didn't even know Barkley had 5...LOL) and the ignorant Nash comments.

Then it was the prime (only regular season of course) stuff...while also claiming I can't at all talk about Dirk's value not being fully illustrated through stats (which is just clearly isn't in a way Barkley does not compare)...

So...we have to ignore the playoffs largely, we can't talk about circumstances (unless it's to prop Barkley), can't talk about Dirk's game beyond his numbers...anything else?

LOL...you really think this is how a real debate goes?

No, I'm trying to dumb this down for you so you'll realize the gap isn't even really there even if we just go by your numbers.


You really are an idiot. Here is what i posted in the first post on page 6 before you were even responding to me.


I agree that Barkley's longevity is a legit argument against him, as was defense. But at his peak Barkley was definitely the best 4 i have ever seen offensively, easily.


There is nothing ambiguous or arbitrary in what i said, you are just too dumb to understand/remember it.

[DMAVS41]

You really are an idiot. Here is what i posted in the first post on page 6 before you were even responding to me.




There is nothing ambiguous or arbitrary in what i said, you are just too dumb to understand/remember it.

You did not say that to me until you got backed into a corner about BS stuff you didn't even know anything about and failed to realize they were terrible arguments because Barkley himself had 5 first round losses...LOL

Also, I would refute that statement...there is far more that goes into offense than numbers in the regular season. I'd take 2011 Dirk in the playoffs over any version of Barkley.

So even your peak statement is not true....you'd take what version of Barkley easily over Dirk 2011 in the playoffs? The guy that had the best 4th qtr and clutch playoff run since early 90's MJ and carried an elite offensive team to the title...absolutely destroying the Lakers and Thunder.

In fact, I'd probably take 08 through 11 Dirk as an offensive player over any stretch of Barkley if someone made me choose.

[tontoz]

You did not say that to me until you got backed into a corner about BS stuff you didn't even know anything about and failed to realize they were terrible arguments because Barkley himself had 5 first round losses...LOL


I said it on page 6. It is right there in the very first post. I have been saying the same thing time and again since then.I guess i shouldn't be surprised that you forgot about it.

[Nowitness]

Hakeem Was More Dominant than Duncan. Hakeem Could Not Be Guarded By Anyone in the League At All From 85-95. He Was a Better Scorer than Duncan By a Large Margin, a Better Rebounder In His Prime, a Better Shot Blocker, a Better Rim Protector, a Better Floor Defender and Stealer, a Better Clutch Performer etc

Only 20 Year Olds That Never Saw Barkley or Malone Say That Garnett and Dirk Where Better (And German Fans). Malone and Barkley Produced Fear in Team Defenses Unlike That Of PFs Today. Dirk Is The Only PF that is Close To Their Level in Scoring (yet less effificent). But That Dude... Couldnt Pass, Rebound or Defend if His Life Time Depended On It. He Was a 7'0 ft Shooting SF.

A) Hakeem grabbed about 1.3 percent less rebounds for a career than Duncan. Per Game isn't the main source. Secondly if he was so great why was he bumped from the first round so many times? Duncan's team were just as bad. As for clutch you can't judge that. All I know is give me Duncan leading scrubs to titles over Hakeem who won when MJ retired, sucked before then, sucked after in the playoffs.

As for Dirk again he isn't a defender, that is why KG is the best of the four, cause he is the only one even above average (in which really he is elite) Chuck was worse than Dirk on D. BTW, Dirk's shooting won him a chip, Barkley's offense didn't. lololol

[DMAVS41]

I said it on page 6. It is right there in the very first post. I have been saying the same thing time and again since then.I guess i shouldn't be surprised that you forgot about it.

Also, I would refute that statement...there is far more that goes into offense than numbers in the regular season. I'd take 2011 Dirk in the playoffs over any version of Barkley.

So even your peak statement is not true....you'd take what version of Barkley easily over Dirk 2011 in the playoffs? The guy that had the best 4th qtr and clutch playoff run since early 90's MJ and carried an elite offensive team to the title...absolutely destroying the Lakers and Thunder.

In fact, I'd probably take 08 through 11 Dirk as an offensive player over any stretch of Barkley if someone made me choose.

Dirk was an elite post player, elite 3 point shooter, elite midrange player, elite pick and roll and pop player...he could do everything. Single him like the Thunder did and he'll destroy you. Double him and he'll find the open man and keep his elite turnover rate. Leave him open on a screen and roll and he'll exploit this mismatch or drain 3's. Stay with him and you are forced to give up a wide open midrange jumper or if you are aggressive it will lead to a basket attack or open corner 3.

I came after you said that actually....and you didn't bring that up with me for a while. Also, that doesn't change a lot of the other stuff you posted that makes no sense. Like talking about Barkley's peak ortg in the regular season and ignoring that Dirk bests him in the same way in the playoffs. Like bringing up Nash or first round exits. If that wasn't your point...why even bring it up?

[tontoz]

Another post from page 6 before you showed up.


I don't buy the "Dirk was a choker" argument just because of first round exits. His playoff numbers are strong but he played against tough competition in the west and his help was lacking at times.

And you won't find any stretch of years, even including the playoffs, that can compare to BArkleys prime numbers. And these numbers are based on a sample of 600 games, not the tiny sample of 50 games you are harping on.

121.6 ORTG
63.7 TS

[DMAVS41]

Another post from page 6 before you showed up.



And you won't find any stretch of years, even including the playoffs, that can compare to BArkleys prime numbers. And these numbers are based on a sample of 600 games, not the tiny sample of 50 games you are harping on.

121.6 ORTG
63.7 TS

And that isn't all of offense. Regular season numbers on average to subpar teams do not solely constitute what makes up an offense player. Playoff play matters, crunch time play matters, off ball impact matters...

You ignore all of those things. That is my point. You think posting ortg and TS are the only two things that matter.

They don't...that has been my entire point.

Also, if the first round losses don't matter to you...why did you bring them up in response to my post?

[tontoz]

And that isn't all of offense. Regular season numbers on average to subpar teams do not solely constitute what makes up an offense player. Playoff play matters, crunch time play matters, off ball impact matters...

You ignore all of those things. That is my point. You think posting ortg and TS are the only two things that matter.

They don't...that has been my entire point.

Also, if the first round losses don't matter to you...why did you bring them up in response to my post?


I brought up the first round exits to you because you were acting like an idiot.

All great scorers make things easier for their teamates. that is just a given when you are talking about the best scorers of all time. It is not some magical quality that only Dirk has.

Typically the best scorers break down the defense by getting into the paint and scoring at a high rate/set up easy looks for teamates. Dirk sucks at this. He affects the defense in a different way but that hardly means he has a bigger effect than a guy who can get to the rim

Lebron is a good example. He took 673 shots inside 8 feet (compared to 129 for Dirk) and shot 75% on those attempts. He breaks down the defense routinely, causing mad scrambling and rotations from the defense.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=2544

[ProfessorMurder]

Duncan's team were just as bad.

No they weren't.

[DMAVS41]

I brought up the first round exits to you because you were acting like an idiot.

All great scorers make things easier for their teamates. that is just a given when you are talking about the best scorers of all time. It is not some magical quality that only Dirk has.

Typically the best scorers break down the defense by getting into the paint and scoring at a high rate/set up easy looks for teamates. Dirk sucks at this. He affects the defense in a different way but that hardly means he has a bigger effect than a guy who can get to the rim

Lebron is a good example. He took 673 shots inside 8 feet (compared to 129 for Dirk) and shot 75% on those attempts. He breaks down the defense routinely, causing mad scrambling and rotations from the defense.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=2544

So let me get this straight. You brought up Dirk's 6 first round exits because I'm an idiot...yet you failed to realize Barkley himself had 5? Yes...sound logic my friend...:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Dude. Please stop acting like every other moron on here that thinks things are all or nothing. I never said that Barkley does not make things easier on his teammates. I also never said Dirk has a magical quality to this.

Here is what I said...I will try to make this simple.

I said that Barkley does this, but it's captured by the stats better. Why? Because he is a more ordinary player in this regard. Like Lebron, the stats will capture most of what they do.

Dirk is very unique in this way (as you have acknowledged)...and the stats simply won't be able to capture this impact as well. It's obvious to anyone that knows the game or watches Dirk play. And it's a part of Dirk's game that Barkley doesn't have. Barkley is more the guy that is going to get assists off of his action...Dirk gets some assists, but his true impact comes from the pick and role.

Again, I linked a very informative article on this.

Again, this doesn't mean that Barkley didn't help his teammates. What I'm claiming is that the stats pick up Barkley's impact better than they do Dirk's for all the reasons I've talked about with Dirk;

His unique stature as a 7 footer than can bomb 3's at an elite percentage and play a pick and role/pop game that leaves teams dumbfounded. Literally Dirk can be the best offensive player on the court for a game without touching the ball much. Simply put, Barkley could never do something like that. I'll say it again...that doesn't mean Barkley didn't help his teammates...it means they did it in different ways. And one way (the Barkley way) is more likely to be represented in the stats...

It's just the truth and honestly should not be a point of contention. So when you look at the numbers and see how close they are...and then take a step back and realize Dirk was doing this on better teams throughout for the most part, winning more games, performing at a higher level in the playoffs than he did in the regular sesaon...and having a game that has more hidden value (in m opinion) than Barkley...I just don't see the offensive gap you do.

Literally your entire argument rests on an arbitrary amount of time in regular season games with Barkley playing on many teams that failed to reach 45 wins irrc.

The numbers are just too similar and the circumstances are too different not put into context.

You even said it yourself...Barkley's numbers were a bit worse on the Suns at times because he had better teammates. LOL...how can you make that statement and then not acknowledge the flaws of going so heavily off of regular season numbers in different circumstances? One guys is winning over 50 11 straight seasons playing with better players...while the other is winning 50 or more like a handful of times in his entire prime.

I posted the regular season prime vs prime numbers also...and there just isn't a huge gap. the PER, ortg, ws/48...etc. all pretty damn close.

what you fail to understand is that those aren't all encompassing. I like them, don't get me wrong, but we aren't even talking about off ball play, crunch time play, playoff play...etc.

You factor it all in and I think you get a really interesting debate. you, on the other hand, think it's not a debate...and you have not met that burden of proof at all.

[tontoz]

Here is what I said...I will try to make this simple.

I said that Barkley does this, but it's captured by the stats better. Why? Because he is a more ordinary player in this regard. Like Lebron, the stats will capture most of what they do.

Dirk is very unique in this way (as you have acknowledged)...and the stats simply won't be able to capture this impact as well.
.


This is pure nonsense. There are no hockey assists in basketball. When teams double or collapse to prevent a drive that opens up opportunities for teamates. When the ball is swung around for an open shot Barkley/Lebron/whoever is the one who created the opportunity and it won't show up in stats. Dirk rarely does this because he isn't much of a threat to get to the rim.

Dirk's off the ball impact is not as great as you are making out because:

-he doesn't move well off the ball. Let's not pretend that he is Kyle Korver or Ray Allen.

-he frequently spots up inside the 3 point line. A defense isn't going to be as worried about him taking a long 2. Plus standing behind the 3 point line give the defense more space they have to cover.


ou even said it yourself...Barkley's numbers were a bit worse on the Suns at times because he had better teammates. LOL...how can you make that statement and then not acknowledge the flaws of going so heavily off of regular season numbers in different circumstances?


Again you show a complete lack of reading comprehension. I said his game was on the decline in general but he was able to get to the finals because he had better teamates.

Even in his last year in Philly his numbers had started to taper off. He was a big guy who relied heavily on athleticism and the mileage/beatings inside take a toll. Guys who rely on athleticism (Barkley,Wade, Iverson, etc) don't age as well as shooters (Dirk, Nash, Allen, Reggie Miller).


I posted the regular season prime vs prime numbers also...and there just isn't a huge gap. the PER, ortg, ws/48...etc. all pretty damn close.

Barkley averaged an ORTG of 121.6 over 8 years. Dirk is nowhere near that.

[pastis]

try it harder. barkley is way behind dirk on the all time list. he is right there with sidekicks like wade in the 28-35 range.

dirks impact is way bigger. his thrill to the enemy s defense is ridiculous. deadly from midrange, good 3point shooter, driving to the basket. 90 % FT shooter. that is terrific. he is the BOSS.

[Jlamb47]

DIRK
KG
Charles
Malone

[jlitt]

Here is what impacts my decision to place malone and barkley ahead of dirk and KG.

See when i grew up watching bball power forwards played inside the paint and those two dominated. They would punish whoever was guarding them and dunk in there face. They would get so many easy baskets cause they played around the rim, and other teams had to double team them so they made there teammates better.


KG and Garnett were perimeter players. They were too soft for the paint, and had to do there damage away from the basket. That is all well and good but when you are a perimeter big man you are basically admitting your inferiority by not being able to get to the bucket at will. No one wins with jump shots, over time the averages play a huge role and you will go cold one fateful game. Also playing away from the basket played a big role in the FTA those two had as opposed to barkley and malone who lived at the line.

[DMAVS41]

This is pure nonsense. There are no hockey assists in basketball. When teams double or collapse to prevent a drive that opens up opportunities for teamates. When the ball is swung around for an open shot Barkley/Lebron/whoever is the one who created the opportunity and it won't show up in stats. Dirk rarely does this because he isn't much of a threat to get to the rim.

Dirk's off the ball impact is not as great as you are making out because:

-he doesn't move well off the ball. Let's not pretend that he is Kyle Korver or Ray Allen.

-he frequently spots up inside the 3 point line. A defense isn't going to be as worried about him taking a long 2. Plus standing behind the 3 point line give the defense more space they have to cover.




Again you show a complete lack of reading comprehension. I said his game was on the decline in general but he was able to get to the finals because he had better teamates.

Even in his last year in Philly his numbers had started to taper off. He was a big guy who relied heavily on athleticism and the mileage/beatings inside take a toll. Guys who rely on athleticism (Barkley,Wade, Iverson, etc) don't age as well as shooters (Dirk, Nash, Allen, Reggie Miller).



Barkley averaged an ORTG of 121.6 over 8 years. Dirk is nowhere near that.


First of all...his game was not really on the decline. That is absurd. He had a 26/12/5 60% TS season in 93. Seriously...you don't even know what you are talking about...funny though how that dipped 5% on TS front in a deep playoff run. I hope you can figure out why that is important.

Dat regular season you love so much....someday you'll learn the difference.


Barkley had a 121.6 ortg over 8 years in the regular season. Awesome...he's truly one of the greatest offensive forces ever.

Dirk is nowhere near that? Semantics I presume...is 119 over 8 years not close to 121?

I'm assuming you are doing 87-94 for Barkley. I did 01 through 08 for Dirk...agin totally arbitrary, but fine.

ortg was 119 vs 121.6 according to you
dirk had more ws/48 at .239 vs .236
dirk had more offensive win shares at 84.9 to 81.5
dirk actually had a higher usage rate and a considerably lower turnover rate

Again, I want to know how this isn't close? And we aren't even talking about crunch time play individually or with his team, the offensive ratings of the teams, the success of the teams based on offense...etc.

Even if we only look at 8 years in the regular season and only go solely by the numbers...you still get a pretty close situation.

Just yield please.

[DMAVS41]

Here is what impacts my decision to place malone and barkley ahead of dirk and KG.

See when i grew up watching bball power forwards played inside the paint and those two dominated. They would punish whoever was guarding them and dunk in there face. They would get so many easy baskets cause they played around the rim, and other teams had to double team them so they made there teammates better.


KG and Garnett were perimeter players. They were too soft for the paint, and had to do there damage away from the basket. That is all well and good but when you are a perimeter big man you are basically admitting your inferiority by not being able to get to the bucket at will. No one wins with jump shots, over time the averages play a huge role and you will go cold one fateful game. Also playing away from the basket played a big role in the FTA those two had as opposed to barkley and malone who lived at the line.


FYI

Dirk actually averaged more free throw attempts in the playoffs than Barkley did.

[tontoz]

First of all...his game was not really on the decline. That is absurd. He had a 26/12/5 60% TS season in 93. Seriously...you don't even know what you are talking about...


It is not absurd. It is a fact. He had a TS of 66% 3 times in 4 years from 86 to 90. In the other year he was at 65%. He led the league each year. He also had ORTGs of 126-128 in 3 of those years.

IN his last year in Philly he averaged 23 ppg (lowest in 5 years) and 61% TS (lowest in 6 years).

Basic math

He would never have a TS over 60 the rest of his career.

Going out to play golf so you will have to troll someone else with you inability to read or understand grade school math.

[DMAVS41]

It is not absurd. It is a fact. He had a TS of 66% 3 times in 4 years from 86 to 90. In the other year he was at 65%. He led the league each year.

IN his last year in Philly he averaged 23 ppg (lowest in 5 years) and 61% TS (lowest in 6 years).

Basic math

He would never have a TS over 60 the rest of his career.

Because it's harder to do that when you are winning games....playing in games where each shot is more highly contested. You just don't start claiming a decline as an excuse when a guy puts up 26/12/5 60% TS.

Did you see the numbers I posted? How can you say there is a big gap there?

[DMAVS41]

It is not absurd. It is a fact. He had a TS of 66% 3 times in 4 years from 86 to 90. In the other year he was at 65%. He led the league each year. He also had ORTGs of 126-128 in 3 of those years.

IN his last year in Philly he averaged 23 ppg (lowest in 5 years) and 61% TS (lowest in 6 years).

Basic math

He would never have a TS over 60 the rest of his career.

Going out to play golf so you will have to troll someone else with you inability to read or understand grade school math.


Another shifting of the discussion.

Dirk had a 119 ortg over 8 years to 121.6 for Barkley

Dirk beat him on offensive win shares
Dirk beat him on ws/48
Dirk beat him on usage
Dirk beat him on turnover percentage

This is solely going off your arbitrary 8 years and solely off the numbers.

I continue to ask...even in your arbitrary amount of time...where is the gap you speak of?

[stephanieg]

You're not even a good hater.

I wasn't hating, those were my honest assessments.

Weird though, 3/4 of these all time PFs can be described as chokers. Add Webber to the list too.

[tontoz]

Because it's harder to do that when you are winning games....playing in games where each shot is more highly contested. You just don't start claiming a decline as an excuse when a guy puts up 26/12/5 60% TS.

Did you see the numbers I posted? How can you say there is a big gap there?


Why were his numbers in his last year in Philly the lowest in 5 years? Why was his TS 5% below his peak in his last year in Philly?

It is easier to maintain a high TS on a good team with other offensive threats around you. See Ray Allen to Boston, Lebron to Miami, etc. That is just common sense.

[DMAVS41]

Why were his numbers in his last year in Philly the lowest in 5 years? Why was his TS 5% below his peak in his last year in Philly?

It is easier to maintain a high TS on a good team with other offensive threats around you. See Ray Allen to Boston, Lebron to Miami, etc. That is just common sense.

Down year? Things happen. So Kobe was on the decline in 05? LOL

Again...stop this.

Please respond to the meat of the above post. Explain to me how those numbers are hugely one sided.

[tontoz]

Another shifting of the discussion.

Dirk had a 119 ortg over 8 years to 121.6 for Barkley

Dirk beat him on offensive win shares
Dirk beat him on ws/48
Dirk beat him on usage
Dirk beat him on turnover percentage

This is solely going off your arbitrary 8 years and solely off the numbers.

I continue to ask...even in your arbitrary amount of time...where is the gap you speak of?


And Barkley had 3 times as many offensive rebounds.

I included BArkleys second season without really looking at the numbers but his ows was only 5.4 that season. He later had 3 straight seasons of 13, something Dirk never did or even got close to.

Feel free to look for examples where a players efficiency went down when going to a strong offensive team. Looking forward to seeing it when i get back.

[tontoz]

Down year? Things happen. So Kobe was on the decline in 05? LOL

Again...stop this.

Please respond to the meat of the above post. Explain to me how those numbers are hugely one sided.


Down year? Followed by several more down years? Ok

Feel free to post any examples of guys efficiency going down when going from bad teams to good ones.

[DMAVS41]

And Barkley had 3 times as many offensive rebounds.

I included BArkleys second season without really looking at the numbers but his ows was only 5.4 that season. He later had 3 straight seasons of 13, something Dirk never did or even got close to.

Feel free to look for examples where a players efficiency went down when going to a strong offensive team. Looking forward to seeing it when i get back.

Easy...Dirk's efficiency went down from 02 to 03...the Mavs were definitely better. LOL...done with that. Not hard...and in the playoffs....Dirk went way up in efficiency playing on a much worse offensive team in 08 vs 07. Yep...players have down years at times. But again this is just noise and distraction. You are now trying to shift the goal posts of the discussion because even you are smart enough to realize the numbers over those 8 arbitrary years are pretty close.

Offensive rebounds are part of the stats. I already included the stats.

We have looked at PER, ortg, offensive win shares, ws/48, team offense...etc.

And it's all very similar even based on your arbitrary 8 year period.

Again...please yield.

[Pointguard]

I wasn't hating, those were my honest assessments.

Weird though, 3/4 of these all time PFs can be described as chokers. Add Webber to the list too.

Powerforwards were never a position that was supposed to be the handle the pressure type of guy. It wasn't really a very skilled position until Webber/KG/Duncan and Dirk played that position - Barkley too. Historically, I will name three guys to your one at every other position. Most Coaches had not evolutionized the game to put them at the center of a crisis. But these guys were never really chokers either. Every player has more missed chances than successes outside of the exceptional winners: Russell, Magic, Duncan and Jordan. All of the PF's mentioned had great playoff moments under pressure as well.