How much better was Karl Malone than Charles Barkley?

[Im Still Ballin]

I don't put Barkley even in the same league as Malone. Malone was everything Barkley wishes he was. Sir Charles always got beaten by Malone head to head.

[Im Still Ballin]

As you can see...
http://bkref.com/tiny/ErRvm
The stats show that Malone MURDERED Barkley head to head

[Round Mound]

At Living of a Co-Parastical System DESIGNED By Sloan and LEAD By John Stockton.

As You Can See You Include 3rd and 4th Fiddle Houston, Overweight and Injured Barkley from 1996-00. Why Not Include a Healthy Barkley From 1985 to 1995 Barkley = Outplayed Malone Head to Head.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

:sleeping

[Joyner82reload]

At Living of a Co-Parastical System DESIGNED By Sloan and LEAD By John Stockton.

As You Can See You Include 3rd and 4th Fiddle Houston, Overweight and Injured Barkley from 1996-00. Why Not Include a Healthy Barkley From 1985 to 1995 Barkley = Outplayed Malone Head to Head.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

:sleeping

Never fails, even at 4/5 in the morning

[Round Mound]

Never fails, even at 4/5 in the morning

Almost 6 am and i am ready to school Barkley haters...:D

[Dragonyeuw]

The only noticeable difference is scoring, edge Malone. Otherwise their stats are neck and neck. Eye-test wise, prime Barkley to me was the more dynamic talent and only became 'worse' after his mvp year from age/injury. He was a more dominant rebounder, capable of grabbing the rebound and making plays on the break, better overall passer, and a significantly more varied offensive repertoire. The Mailman developed a good midrange game as he got older but Sir Charles had range out to 3 point land( no, he wasn't Ray Allen out there, but thats far more range than Malone), could take you off the dribble, and had some nice moves around the basket.

He's still one of the most unique players IMO, given his height and how he could dominate inside amongst the trees, in an era of bigmen.

[bizil]

Malone was never better than Barkley. Malone was your prototypical PF and an epic one at that. He evolved what guys like Petitt and Hayes did in their eras. He was a beast at 6'9 and 265 pounds. No PF that big ran the floor like he did at the time. And he had a great midrange shot as well over time. But Barkley REDEFINED the PF position. He did all the dirty work PF's were known for AND had point forward-small forward elements in his game. He was a freakish athlete who played bigger than his 6'5 size. Even though their scoring was both on that alpha dog shit, Barkley could take a game by the throat better than ANY PF ever! KG is the most versatile PF ever, Duncan is the most dominant inside presence from the PF spot ever, and Barkley is the best alpha dog ever at PF. Of the guys who's your more your old school prototypical PF, Mailman is the best ever.

[Round Mound]

The only noticeable difference is scoring, edge Malone. Otherwise their stats are neck and neck. Eye-test wise, prime Barkley to me was the more dynamic talent and only became 'worse' after his mvp year from age/injury. He was a more dominant rebounder, capable of grabbing the rebound and making plays on the break, better overall passer, and a significantly more varied offensive repertoire. The Mailman developed a good midrange game as he got older but Sir Charles had range out to 3 point land( no, he wasn't Ray Allen out there, but thats far more range than Malone), could take you off the dribble, and had some nice moves around the basket.

He's still one of the most unique players IMO, given his height and how he could dominate inside amongst the trees, in an era of bigmen.

Nope Barkley Was The Better Scorer Per Shot Taken. Malone Just Took 5-6 FGAs PG More Than Barkley. The Rest I Agree :applause:

[Dragonyeuw]

Nope Barkley Was The Better Scorer Per Shot Taken. Malone Just Took 5-6 FGAs PG More Than Barkley. The Rest I Agree :applause:

Yeah I noted that Malone took more FGA in their head to heads, should have mentioned that in my comparison.

[aj1987]

Easily Malone. He could play on both ends of the floor.

[Round Mound]

Yeah I noted that Malone took more FGA in their head to heads, should have mentioned that in my comparison.

Greater Scorers Score Alot Taking The Lesser Amount of FGAs To Score.

Barkley vs Malone Inside The 3-Pointline Scoring Stats:

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

Malone shot 51.9% Two-Point FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG (Season Career)o

Barkley shot 55.13% Two-Point FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG (Play-Offs Career)

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG (Play-Offs Career)

[Collie]

At their very best, Barkley was better than Karl. Back during the 92 Dream Team, Barkley was seen as on the level of guys like MJ and Magic, while Malone was more on that second tier.

Malone was a harder worker however, and made the best out of his physical abilities. Barkley I feel could have lasted longer than he did had he just kept in shape.

[Angel Face]

Both could've been NBA champions if not for this guy...

http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IFWT_Michael-Jordan22211.jpg

Barkley more clutch tho.

[JtotheIzzo]

I don't put Barkley even in the same league as Malone. Malone was everything Barkley wishes he was. Sir Charles always got beaten by Malone head to head.


dumb and uninformed.

ANYONE who watched NBA in the 80s and early 90s knows:

Barkley >>>>>>>>>> Malone and it isn't that close.

[aj1987]

dumb and uninformed.

ANYONE who watched NBA in the 80s and early 90s knows:

Barkley >>>>>>>>>> Malone and it isn't that close.
:oldlol:

:facepalm

[miles berg]

Barkley was much better. He didn't have Stockton spoon feeding him for 3 decades.

[julizaver]

I don't put Barkley even in the same league as Malone. Malone was everything Barkley wishes he was. Sir Charles always got beaten by Malone head to head.

At their respective primes they were almost equal, while Barkley seems like more talanted and versatile Malone was more constant and in great shape over the years.
Barkley was real beast during his prime years and more attractive player to watch. Sadly he was not very conditioned, seeming fat at his late years although he was still among the best rebounders to the very end of his career. A lot of scandals, night brawls marked the most of Barkley career also.

[c5terror]

why is malone getting overrated this day.

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-15-2014/gDY1sk.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-15-2014/O_JGIx.gif

[tontoz]

Peak Barkley was a much better player on offense than Malone. He put up a lot of points with extremely high efficiency.

Malone was better on D though.

[Collie]

The thing is, if both of them retired in 96, Barkley would have seen as unanimously superior and Karl would have been seen as a great PF, but basically the Drexler to Barkley's MJ.

I don't think people realize how much those late 90's Jazz teams added to Karl's legacy. It's basically the Bird vs. Magic scenario, where Bird was seen as unanimously superior until 87 when he got hurt and Magic became the face of the NBA. Pound for pound, at their respective primes, Barkley was seen as a greater player, top 3 in the league along with MJ and Hakeem.

[L.A. Jazz]

They are both PFs but totally different players, which makes it hard to compare them. One a typical modern PF, great scorer and good defender. The other a nontypical small PF, with great handles and great scorer with soso defense. At his peak Barkley was a more complete offensive player, on of the best ever IMO. For most people Barkley's better offensive peak closes the defensive gap, but i dont know. Watching K.Love right now, you can see that PFs who are to short (alltough being godd rebounders) are a defensive problem and hurt you bigtime. Thats why for me Malone is 3 and Barkley 4 on my GOAT-PF-list.

[L.A. Jazz]

The thing is, if both of them retired in 96, Barkley would have seen as unanimously superior and Karl would have been seen as a great PF, but basically the Drexler to Barkley's MJ.

I don't think people realize how much those late 90's Jazz teams added to Karl's legacy. It's basically the Bird vs. Magic scenario, where Bird was seen as unanimously superior until 87 when he got hurt and Magic became the face of the NBA. Pound for pound, at their respective primes, Barkley was seen as a greater player, top 3 in the league along with MJ and Hakeem.

I would be extremly unfair to Malone if you take away this years. And why should you. he played great and was still one of the best players in the NBA. It's not his fault that Barkley had health and weight issues. But you are right, that until Barkley diclined he was seen as the better player. Malone used his superior health and work ethic to chase Barkley and maybe took the lead.

[AussieG]

Barkley offensively.. Malone defensively. Barkley more fun to watch and better during their peaks. Malone for longevity and his ability to elbow people. He was the mailman.. because he delivered (with the elbow). :lol

[JtotheIzzo]

:oldlol:

:facepalm

willful ignorance is so cute, judging by your username, you were born in 1987, so you were 2 years old during Barkley's best season (1989-90), so you are basing everything on you tube and basketball reference.

ergo facto retardo postero, you haven't a clue.

you don't know the prevailing mood at the time, who was a greater force of nature and who was more respected by their peers, you are basing it on longevity, because Malone has a whole bunch of 20 plus ppg seasons.

Bob Ryan (best bball writer to ever live) called Karl Malone the most overrated NBA player of all time, and Malone had the 3rd best PG who has ever lived working primarily to feed him the ball.

Numbers and defense:
80s-90s Western Conference basketball was an offensive run and gun free for all, while the East was a lockdown defensive struggle. the fact that Barkley's numbers even compare shows that CB34 is the much better player, and regarding defense, Phila Barkley was a good defender, he had to be, the entire Eastern Conference revolved around defense, no one out West played it.

Offense:
You would actually be hard pressed to find one offensive skill Malone was better at than Barkley. Malone's best offensive plays (18' jumper, fastbreak finish, post up, getting to the line) he only really has CB34 on the midrange jumper, and Malone is almost hurting his team when he leans on that, Barkley was better in the open floor, a great post player, and got to the line as easily.

THERE REALLY IS NO AREA ON THE OFFENSIVE PART OF THE FLOOR WHERE MALONE IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE BARKLEY AND ONLY ONE (YES JUST ONE) THING HE IS BETTER THAN HIM AT.

Charles owns him on the rest.

Until he got to Phoenix, Barkley's best teammate (outside his first two years) was Hersey Hawkins.

ALSO, while Malone has great longevity, this being his greatest asset in this argument, Barkley did have 15 straight years of 10 plus rpg and 12 straight 20ppg seasons, so it is not like he was a slouch.

Anyone in the know, knows this really sin't an argument, the fact that people like yourself and the moronic, rabble rousing OP think it is cut and dry shows how painfully ignorant you are.

[FatComputerNerd]

Malone was never better than Barkley. Malone was your prototypical PF and an epic one at that. He evolved what guys like Petitt and Hayes did in their eras. He was a beast at 6'9 and 265 pounds. No PF that big ran the floor like he did at the time. And he had a great midrange shot as well over time. But Barkley REDEFINED the PF position. He did all the dirty work PF's were known for AND had point forward-small forward elements in his game. He was a freakish athlete who played bigger than his 6'5 size. Even though their scoring was both on that alpha dog shit, Barkley could take a game by the throat better than ANY PF ever! KG is the most versatile PF ever, Duncan is the most dominant inside presence from the PF spot ever, and Barkley is the best alpha dog ever at PF. Of the guys who's your more your old school prototypical PF, Mailman is the best ever.

As much as I hate reading walls of text (please use paragraphs!) this post is pretty much spot-on. Very good analysis. :applause:

[Elosha]

At their respective primes they were almost equal, while Barkley seems like more talanted and versatile Malone was more constant and in great shape over the years.
Barkley was real beast during his prime years and more attractive player to watch. Sadly he was not very conditioned, seeming fat at his late years although he was still among the best rebounders to the very end of his career. A lot of scandals, night brawls marked the most of Barkley career also.


Pretty much my thoughts, although I'd say Barkley stayed in fairly good shape until he fell off the rails in Houston. Give me Malone's overall career, but I'll take Barkley's prime/peak in the late 80's and early 90's.

[aj1987]

willful ignorance is so cute, judging by your username, you were born in 1987, so you were 2 years old during Barkley's best season (1989-90), so you are basing everything on you tube and basketball reference.

ergo facto retardo postero, you haven't a clue.
You do realize that there are tons of games of both those guys, right? Do you think that all the footage was just destroyed? I don't need to watch all
1,000 games that Barkley played and 1,500 games that Malone played to judge them. ****ing retard.

How the hell can you just brush off Malone's longevity. Dude won an MVP in his 14th season at 35 years. You brought up offense? Malone averaged 26 PPG until he 36 years old. 17 straight seasons of 20+ PPG (more than the number of years Barkley has been in the league).

Also, funny, how you just ignored their defense.

I never said Barkley sucks. To say that "Barkley >>>>>>>>>> Malone and it isn't that close" is just flat out retarded and said like someone who doesn't know anything about basketball.

[Kblaze8855]

When Barkley was at his best...and Karl was beasting out in Utah....people were having serious discussions on if Barkley was as good as Michael and Magic. Barkley being the best player in the NBA wasnt something you just...wouldnt hear.

And when Jordan pulled away...he was often the guy listed as "Other than Jordan of course.....the best player in the NBA". Even ahead of the likes of Hakeem.

Meanwhile Karl was about as good as he ever would be and CBS and NBC were doing "Why doesnt anyone care about Karl Malone?" stories.

Literally. I suspect I could find it if I had to.

Barkley was in talks with Magic...Jordan...

Karl was in that next group...with people wondering why nobody cared how well he was playing.

Him being better than Barkley is arguable....but it wasnt the general opinion with both of them at the top of their games.

[ArbitraryWater]

Barkley was transcending in a way only Mike/Bird/Magic/Dr.J were... No serious discussions for Malone > Barkley until they retired.

At their peaks, Chuck is >>

[Kblaze8855]

To say that "Barkley >>>>>>>>>> Malone and it isn't that close" is just flat out retarded and said like someone who doesn't know anything about basketball.

Ive heard NBA coaches say Barkley was the second best player in the league...and it wasnt close. Maybe not those exact words....but that was a the message. Would have been maybe 1990. I saw him ranked as the best player in the NBA over Jordan by people who were hardly new to the game. I remember Wilt picking him as the starting 4 on his all time team in like 1991....and having Jordan off the bench nd Karl nowhere to be seen.

I dont think you understand how major Charles was at one point.

Plenty of people involved in the game had Chuck flat out ahead of Karl.

[aj1987]

Ive heard NBA coaches say Barkley was the second best player in the league...and it wasnt close. Maybe not those exact words....but that was a the message. Would have been maybe 1990. I saw him ranked as the best player in the NBA over Jordan by people who were hardly new to the game. I remember Wilt picking him as the starting 4 on his all time team in like 1991....and having Jordan off the bench nd Karl nowhere to be seen.

I dont think you understand how major Charles was at one point.

Plenty of people involved in the game had Chuck flat out ahead of Karl.
We aren't talking about a couple of seasons though. We're talking about their entire careers as players. Again, I'm not saying that Barkley wasn't a good player. He's definitely one of the best ever. I wouldn't have a problem if you said he was better than Malone. To say that CB >>>>>>> Malone is just stupid though. It's not like we're comparing Nick Young to Wade or something like that.

[Pointguard]

Malone was eerily consistent, 11 years of 25 and 10 and/or 2000 points/800 rebounds. That's more than Duncan, Garnett, Dirk and Barkley combined (you could even throw in Moses Malone in there with them). Barkley only had two years where he got to 2000 points. Karl Malone was a machine. He had ten years in the playoffs doing the same thing. Practically averaged that for his career in both seasons while having played 193 games in the post season. Its very close to being his average his average over 1669 games.

His top five scoring years, or top ten, are much more prolific than Barkley's or any of the modern PF's, post season or regular season. His peak wasn't as spellbinding as Barkley's but Malone definitely could be expected to do more in his prime. You take Malone's top eight years and average it out and it would be as prolific than Barkley's peak. In Barkley's peak Malone had a better year and averaged very similar numbers and better numbers in the playoffs. Malone wasn't as efficient as Barkley nor his equal in passing. Neither of which are traditional items of a PF. Malone was a better defender than Barkley and got to the line more often than any modern day PF as well (any of his contemporaries too).

I liked Barkley better, there was a lot to dislike about Malone, and thought he attained a higher level. But Malone has the highest standard of consistency, longevity, productivity and traditional power forward standards :toughness, rebounds, power, hustle, scoring and a big presence. His numbers were important numbers and he always won a lot.

[russwest0]

Karl Malone by far.

[Round Mound]

For Younger Ones Who Saw The NBA from 1996 to 2000...Will Say Malone... But For Those Who Watched The 80s and Early 90s Will Ofcourse Say Barkley.

In All Broken Down Statistics Barkley is Pretty Much Top 10 All Time, While Malone Is Around Top 20 All Time.

Barkley Was Also a Better Play-Off Performer Than Malone Who Shot 46% FG In The Play-Offs, Thats Very Bad For a PF (especially While Having The Best Creator Of Offense and Assists in John Stockton, Not To Mention Defensive Help With the Greatest Modern Rim Prorector Since Wilt, In Mark Eaton)

Also Those Observing Lebron`s FG% Increase When He Played With Great Players In Miami, Well, Barkley`s Best FG% Was From 87-92 (Lead The NBA in 2-Point FG% 5 Times), In a Crappy Team Compared To Lebron. That Makes Barkley Look Even Better.

[bizil]

GOAT wise, it's no secret Malone is the superior player. His longevity gave him the edge over Chuck. But peak wise, Barkley could do ANYTHING Malone could do other than defend bigger and very talented PF's better. I'm talking the guys like Coleman, Kemp, Webber etc. In terms of defending smaller or perimeter oriented PF's like Chambers, Larry Johnson, etc. I would ACTUALLY rather have Barkley defending those guys. In this stretch PF craze going on today, I would FOR SURE rather have Chuck guarding those guys before Malone. Neither were great defenders as it was.

And in terms of PF's like Oakley, Rodman, Michael Cage, AC Green, Antonio Davis, etc., they aren't dominant scorers anyway. Malone COULD NEVER do the things Barkley could do on the court in terms of scoring skillset and possessing point forward-small forward skills. Barkley had SUCH GREAT SF skills, he could have been a SF FLAT OUT! Barkley, Bird, KG, and Bron are the perfect combo forward kind of players.

[Round Mound]

Barkley > Malone 1985 to 1995
Malone > Barkley 1996 to 2000

[RoundMoundOfReb]

he wasnt

[Bigsmoke]

At Living of a Co-Parastical System DESIGNED By Sloan and LEAD By John Stockton.

As You Can See You Include 3rd and 4th Fiddle Houston, Overweight and Injured Barkley from 1996-00. Why Not Include a Healthy Barkley From 1985 to 1995 Barkley = Outplayed Malone Head to Head.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

:sleeping


Please don't go back to those days.

U used to be super annoying

[SamuraiSWISH]

Karl's career. But CB34 was the better player prime for prime, and especially peak for peak. No debate. Chuck carried some garbage Philly squads to the playoffs. And he wasn't gift wrapped as many buckets with the ultimate half court distributing PG of all-time.

[stalkerforlife]

Malone was better and there's no getting around it.

The disrespect Karl Malone is dealt is an atrocity of epic proportions.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Malone was better and there's no getting around it.
Better? Um no.

His greek god of a body (please stop Bron fans, Malone's upper body was way more massive) along with his superior height and true fit at the PF position ... along with an ever developing mid range game, GOAT caliber coach, and supporting cast tailored made for his abilities provided him superior longevity.

Charles was definitely individually prior to losing his hops, the better basketball player and franchise player. He ate Malone for breakfast in Dream Team scrimmages the same way MJ tore up Drexler and Magic.

Karl was a terrible human being off the court. Pedophile, illegitimate kids he refused to acknowledge or take care of ... disgusting.

But Kobe stans would consider him Alpha AF, afterall he did hit on Kobe's wife in public which enraged young Mamba.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[stalkerforlife]

Better? Um no.

His greek god of a body (please stop Bron fans, Malone's upper body was way more massive) along with his superior height and true fit at the PF position ... along with an ever developing mid range game, GOAT caliber coach, and supporting cast tailored made for his abilities provided him superior longevity.

Charles was definitely individually prior to losing his hops, the better basketball player and franchise player. He ate Malone for breakfast in Dream Team scrimmages the same way MJ tore up Drexler and Magic.

Karl was a terrible human being off the court. Pedophile, illegitimate kids he refused to acknowledge or take care of ... disgusting.

But Kobe stans would consider him Alpha AF, afterall he did hit on Kobe's wife in public which enraged young Mamba.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Practice? We talking about practice? Feel free to look up the head to head stats in actual games. Here's a spoiler, it doesn't look good for Barkley. Malone dominated him.

Anyhow, Malone was unquestionably the better defender. Malone was the better offensive player. Malone made the playoffs 19 straight years, won two MVP awards, made 3 first team all-defensive teams, etc. His body of work straight murders Barkley's - I mean just torches it.

This is a joke.

[Round Mound]

Malone Lived Off John Stockton and Sloans Pick and Roll Design :rolleyes: To Shoot 46% FG in The Play-Offs. Infact, Malone`s Game Always Declined In The Play-Offs.

Barkley Destroyed The NBA From 87-93 (Leading The Leage in 2-Point FG% 5 Times In a Row) With the Worst Cast of All Superstars During Time.

Coach Daily Called Him The 2nd Best Player in the World After Jordan During His Peak. And That Was MJ`s Peak Aswell.

Malone Lasted Longer and Was Healthier In His Mid 30s While Barkley Declined Do To Injuries...

Barkley Is Top 10 All Time In Almost Every Stastitical Category. The Other One Is Also Top 10 All Time In Most Stasistical Categories is Michael Jordan.

[Round Mound]

Practice? We talking about practice? Feel free to look up the head to head stats in actual games. Here's a spoiler, it doesn't look good for Barkley. Malone dominated him.

Anyhow, Malone was unquestionably the better defender. Malone was the better offensive player. Malone made the playoffs 19 straight years, won two MVP awards, made 3 first team all-defensive teams, etc. His body of work straight murders Barkley's - I mean just torches it.

This is a joke.

A Joke? :facepalm

That`s because yoy include Role Player Overweight and Injured Houston Barkley from 96-00. His 4 Last Years

If You Take Prime Barkley vs Prime Malone from 85 to 95....Here is What You Get:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

[sportjames23]

Karl's career. But CB34 was the better player prime for prime, and especially peak for peak. No debate. Chuck carried some garbage Philly squads to the playoffs. And he wasn't gift wrapped as many buckets with the ultimate half court distributing PG of all-time.


And Chuck carried those Sixers teams to the playoffs when the East was great, unlike the shit show it is today.

[JtotheIzzo]

I never said Barkley sucks. To say that "Barkley >>>>>>>>>> Malone and it isn't that close" is just flat out retarded and said like someone who doesn't know anything about basketball.

Its not flat out retarded, it was what people thought at the time, you coming back in retrospect, changing the script is flat out retarded.

Barkley WAS that much better than Malone, and in years like 89-90 where he lost the MVP voting due to extreme bias (lead by a large margin in first place votes but some surly reporters kept him COMPLETELY off their ballot in protest to his off court persona) he was the best player in the league and a complete force of nature.

you don't know, so you better ask somebody, which you are too proud to do, so I am telling you:

Barkley >>>>> Malone, and the sooner that sinks in the higher your IQ will be.

[DaRkJaWs]

Its not flat out retarded, it was what people thought at the time, you coming back in retrospect, changing the script is flat out retarded.

Barkley WAS that much better than Malone, and in years like 89-90 where he lost the MVP voting due to extreme bias (lead by a large margin in first place votes but some surly reporters kept him COMPLETELY off their ballot in protest to his off court persona) he was the best player in the league and a complete force of nature.

you don't know, so you better ask somebody, which you are too proud to do, so I am telling you:

Barkley >>>>> Malone, and the sooner that sinks in the higher your IQ will be.
It seems like to people like you, the only years that matter when comparing the two is when they were both good players at the same time. Karl being MVP in 97 and 99 and being second in 98 doesn't seem to even matter to you, while Charles fell off a cliff since his last year in Phoenix onwards.

[aj1987]

Its not flat out retarded, it was what people thought at the time, you coming back in retrospect, changing the script is flat out retarded.

Barkley WAS that much better than Malone, and in years like 89-90 where he lost the MVP voting due to extreme bias (lead by a large margin in first place votes but some surly reporters kept him COMPLETELY off their ballot in protest to his off court persona) he was the best player in the league and a complete force of nature.

you don't know, so you better ask somebody, which you are too proud to do, so I am telling you:

Barkley >>>>> Malone, and the sooner that sinks in the higher your IQ will be.
:facepalm

You're again comparing only a couple of seasons. This thread is not about Barkley being better than Malone in '90 or '91 or '93. We're comparing their ENTIRE careers. Sure, Barkley was better than Malone for a couple of seasons, but don't forget than when Barkley was sitting at home and stuffing himself with pizzas (after he retired), Malone dropped 21/8/4/2/1 for another 4 years. Through ages 36-40.

Why is no one bringing up Barkley's atrocious defense?

[DaRkJaWs]

Or the reason why Malone was such an awesome player in those years was that on the defensive side he frustrated teams and coaches to no end? He drew more offensive fouls than anyone else in the league since that time, including people like rodman, pippen, horry, and Derek fisher did in any given year.

[GimmeThat]

if you watched the tapes, you'd probably say not much.

but I suspect if you met the person.


you'd have a different story.

[L.A. Jazz]

[B]A Joke? :facepalm

That`s because yoy include Role Player Overweight and Injured Houston Barkley from 96-00. His 4 Last Years


But thats a big minus for me in Barkleys career. While Charles was a freak, he didnt do enough to have a longer career. but thats a big part of being a pro. on the other side Malone was the highest standard of training and conditioning back then. what he was able to do in his late 30s was special.

on the other side, i dont care who was the better person in privat. Malone was a good teammate as far as i know. getting Kobe mad isnt that hard and Kobe probably didnt get the joke. ;)

[Round Mound]

But thats a big minus for me in Barkleys career. While Charles was a freak, he didnt do enough to have a longer career. but thats a big part of being a pro. on the other side Malone was the highest standard of training and conditioning back then. what he was able to do in his late 30s was special.

on the other side, i dont care who was the better person in privat. Malone was a good teammate as far as i know. getting Kobe mad isnt that hard and Kobe probably didnt get the joke. ;)

Barkley played great from 85 to 97. Its quite difficult to be a 6`4 3/4 ft pf and dominate passed your physical prime, so he did fine for many years. Barkley was better than Malone in both their primes, its not even close. So you could say the same on Bird from 88-92. He wasn`t the same but before that he was the best player in the league from 79-88. Same goes for Barkley. Prior to 96 he was the 3rd best player in the game (after Hakeem and MJ) and from 88-93, the 2nd after MJ. People tend to forget this and and younger lads didn`t even see prime Chuck play healthy but only Malone. Longevity goes to Malone, Level of Play goes to Barkley

[bukowski81]

Both are great players, but you cant ignore that Malone played with one of the best pure point guards of all time whose main objecive was to feed him.

All this numbers dont say anything if you dont put context into it. Barkley had way more responsabilities on his teams than Malone and most of the time it was harder for Barkley to score.

[L.A. Jazz]

you telling me the same thing over and over, but dont get what i say. There is a difference between being just hurt (like Bird) and being out of shape (and getting hurt or not 100% healthy because of that). And thats my opinion on Barkley. and has nothing to do with primes, talent or FG%.

[SamuraiSWISH]

But thats a big minus for me in Barkleys career. While Charles was a freak, he didnt do enough to have a longer career.
He was completely dominant from '87 - '96.

[Anaximandro1]

Malone was better, Barkley was more popular (NBA fans prefer style over substance)


Barkley was an atrocious defender tbh.



At Living of a Co-Parastical System DESIGNED By Sloan and LEAD By John Stockton.

As You Can See You Include 3rd and 4th Fiddle Houston, Overweight and Injured Barkley from 1996-00. Why Not Include a Healthy Barkley From 1985 to 1995 Barkley = Outplayed Malone Head to Head.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

:sleeping


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qE0ryRXgIEU/VHRVZjP_frI/AAAAAAAADes/4cqONUVQv1k/s1600/5.jpg



The scary thing is that Malone peaked in the late 90s (Malone won the MVP in 1997 and 1999)

[Dragonyeuw]

:facepalm

You're again comparing only a couple of seasons. This thread is not about Barkley being better than Malone in '90 or '91 or '93. We're comparing their ENTIRE careers. Sure, Barkley was better than Malone for a couple of seasons

The thread is actually, judging by the OP's question and first post,about comparing as players and not careers. There's not a single mention about career there. And yes, there's no argument to be had that Barkley had a better overall career....Mailman was a model of consistency over 19 years.

But as players, talent, on court prowess, skill-set, Barkley was better from the outset through to 94/95, when he exited his prime and succumbed to age/injuries. He was a more skilled offensive player, and a more dominant rebounder. Yes Malone was a better defender, but that doesn't negate Barkley being a more dynamic scorer and rebounder. He simply could do more on the court,and wasn't reliant on an all-time great passer to feed him lots of his points. Chuck was on an entirely differently level in terms of what he could do on offense, way more versatile with more ability to generate his own offense in multiple ways( coast to coast off rebounds, off the dribble, post).....circa 1990 and a few years before and after that Barkley was considered better at the time. Between 88-93 which is considered Barkley's peak, he placed ahead of Malone in the MVP voting in 88,90,91,93(mvp year) with Malone placing higher in 89 and 92.

[L.A. Jazz]

...and wasn't reliant on an all-time great passer to feed him lots of his points...
I am pretty sure Karl would have gotten his points without John. He was called the Mailman before he played with John.

[Dragonyeuw]

I am pretty sure Karl would have gotten his points without John. He was called the Mailman before he played with John.

But that's only speculation on your part. Asides from his final season in LA, Malone spent his entire career alongside Stockton so there is no available evidence to say beyond doubt he'd have been the same level of scorer, nor do we know how much Stockton's assist numbers were inflated by Malone. My guess is, they'd have been just fine without each other but my point remains, Barkley was more offensively gifted in terms of what he could do. Hell, even taking 150 3pointers a season he was still posting higher field goal percentages than Malone was while producing between 25-28 a game and again, was generating his own offense to a degree that Malone never sniffed.

[poido123]

Better Player? I don't think so.

Malone was a better scorer (had hall of fame Stockton feeding him) but Barkley in his prime was a better player and more diverse/dominant.

[swagga]

Malone was better, Barkley was more popular (NBA fans prefer style over substance)


Barkley was an atrocious defender tbh.





http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qE0ryRXgIEU/VHRVZjP_frI/AAAAAAAADes/4cqONUVQv1k/s1600/5.jpg



The scary thing is that Malone peaked in the late 90s (Malone won the MVP in 1997 and 1999)

ethered.

[swagga]

The thread is actually, judging by the OP's question and first post,about comparing as players and not careers. There's not a single mention about career there. And yes, there's no argument to be had that Barkley had a better overall career....Mailman was a model of consistency over 19 years.

But as players, talent, on court prowess, skill-set, Barkley was better from the outset through to 94/95, when he exited his prime and succumbed to age/injuries. He was a more skilled offensive player, and a more dominant rebounder. Yes Malone was a better defender, but that doesn't negate Barkley being a more dynamic scorer and rebounder. He simply could do more on the court,and wasn't reliant on an all-time great passer to feed him lots of his points. Chuck was on an entirely differently level in terms of what he could do on offense, way more versatile with more ability to generate his own offense in multiple ways( coast to coast off rebounds, off the dribble, post).....circa 1990 and a few years before and after that Barkley was considered better at the time. Between 88-93 which is considered Barkley's peak, he placed ahead of Malone in the MVP voting in 88,90,91,93(mvp year) with Malone placing higher in 89 and 92.

when you compare two players you compare by either:
- period
- peak
- career.

Imo malone didn't have the barkley's style but was just as good during their peak. See h2h posted by another poster. So peak wise i'd say they are neck and neck. People really underrate malone's defensive impact in favor of ppg and 3s. Who wants their best rebounder shooting 3s?

Career wise it isn't a discussion tho. Malone's longevity is just too much.

[Dragonyeuw]

when you compare two players you compare by either:
- period
- peak
- career.


Imo malone didn't have the barkley's style but was just as good during their peak. See h2h posted by another poster. So peak wise i'd say they are neck and neck. People really underrate malone's defensive impact in favor of ppg and 3s. Who wants their best rebounder shooting 3s?

Career wise it isn't a discussion tho. Malone's longevity is just too much.

1. The OP didn't specify what measure of comparison he/she intended, though the language leads me to believe he/she meant in terms of oncourt prowess. Career-wise, obviously Malone comes out on top and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

2. Peak-wise I say Barkley was better. Stylistically they were different, Malone was more of a traditional power forward, while Barkley presented a much more unique and diverse skillset, especially offensively. As for shooting 3's, it was a component of Barkley's game which IMO made him a tougher cover. I don't see the issue personally with having more offensive weapons at your disposal.

3. Stat-wise, as Round Mound went to great lengths to show, Barkley's across the board stats were better than Malone's between 85-95, which backs up the argument that PEAK Barkley was better. And further to that point, as I stated, when Barkley was at his peak he placed ahead of Malone in the MVP race more often than not, no I suppose you could make the point that the MVP vote doesn't necessarily count as indisputable evidence of a player's superiority( after all, Nash has as many MVPS as Shaq and Kobe), but all things considered clearly the voters generally saw Barkley as being more valuable to his team than Malone, by whatever metric they were applying.

Barkley was generally considered better back then, pretty much just below the two MJs. But then, the entire concept of 'better' is entirely subjective, and pretty much amounts to pissing up a tree. Having seen both in their day, Barkley just looked like the more dominant player irrespective of stats, simply by seeing what he did on the court. That's my take on the matter.

Now as time went on, after 95 when Barkley existed his prime, Malone maintained a higher level of play which resulted in the stats shifting more to the middle than in favor of Barkley. Which has pretty much been the crux of the argument for many here, Barkley peak/prime was better, Malone had better career numbers due to better health and conditioning.

[aj1987]

The thread is actually, judging by the OP's question and first post,about comparing as players and not careers. There's not a single mention about career there. And yes, there's no argument to be had that Barkley had a better overall career....Mailman was a model of consistency over 19 years.

When you're comparing players, you usually compare their WHOLE careers. Cherrypicking is done when you realize that you don't have an argument. That's all I'm saying. If you comparing their careers, Malone > Barkley. Even in their respective PEAKS, it's just idiotic to say that "Barkley >>>>>>>>>>>>> Malone". I definitely wouldn't have a problem if that guy said that Barkley > Malone. It's just that he thinks that fat boy is a tier above Malone, when he was basically a traffic cone on defense.

[Dragonyeuw]

When you're comparing players, you usually compare their WHOLE careers. Cherrypicking is done when you realize that you don't have an argument. That's all I'm saying. If you comparing their careers, Malone > Barkley. Even in their respective PEAKS, it's just idiotic to say that "Barkley >>>>>>>>>>>>> Malone". I definitely wouldn't have a problem if that guy said that Barkley > Malone. It's just that he thinks that fat boy is a tier above Malone, when he was basically a traffic cone on defense.

I'm not cherrypicking. It's pretty simple, I consider Charles Barkley a better player, but Malone had a better career. The two concepts can be either intertwined or mutually exclusive in some cases.

I have no problem with someone thinking Malone is better. It's similar to the Dirk/KG argument: I personally prefer Dirk but there are good arguments for KG being better, just like there are for Dirk depending on the judging criteria. The criteria in this case was not established, but it's pretty obvious that Malone had a better career, so I can only assume the OP intended the question to spark discussion on their skills/abilities/talents, and not who had the better career. There are lots of players who may have been better than another in terms of ability, but had worse careers for one reason or another. Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill were both superior to someone like Reggie Miller at their best, but obviously the latter had the better career for obvious reasons.

[aj1987]

I'm not cherrypicking. It's pretty simple, I consider Charles Barkley a better player, but Malone had a better career. The two concepts can be either intertwined or mutually exclusive in some cases.
Not talking about you. The others in this thread. When they're comparing Bark to Malone, they keep bringing up the same 3-4 seasons. Sure, he was better than him, but it's JUST 3-4 seasons. Why are they ignoring the 15-16 other seasons?

[Dragonyeuw]

Not talking about you. The others in this thread. When they're comparing Bark to Malone, they keep bringing up the same 3-4 seasons. Sure, he was better than him, but it's JUST 3-4 seasons. Why are they ignoring the 15-16 other seasons?

Oh ok I didn't know who you were referencing. But in any event, when the discussion revolves around who the better player is, I don't think it's unreasonable to compare each guy at their respective best. Malone's best coincided with Barkley's in the same period, and IMO Barkley was a little better. I certainly acknowledge that Malone gets points for being more consistent, in better shape, which led to a more productive overall career.

[JohnnySic]

Barkley had the higher peak, Malone had the better career. This is like comparing T-Mac and Pierce; T-Mac's apex was higher, but PP had a much better career and thus should be ranked higher all time.

I prefer Malone because he was so consisently good for 2 decades. He was also better on defense.

[Pointguard]

Barkley > Malone 1985 to 1995
Malone > Barkley 1996 to 2000
Malone was better from '91 on. That's when his muscle came on strong. Malone has about a 4ppg advantage in regular season and 3ppg advantage in the post season. Rebounding might be 1 per game in favor of Barkley those years. I'm not going to put that much stock in efficiency being that Malone's team was winning a lot more. I want to hear why you think Barkley was better between 91 and 95.

[JohnnySic]

I would like to add that during Barkley's peak (around 1990) he was generally considered a small forward, because that's what he mainly played at the time. Malone was considreed the top power forward, with I guess AC Green as his top competition. :hammerhead:

[Dragonyeuw]

Malone was better from '91 on. That's when his muscle came on strong. Malone has about a 4ppg advantage in regular season and 3ppg advantage in the post season. Rebounding might be 1 per game in favor of Barkley those years.

It should be noted, if we're using stat comparisons here, in 91 Philly had two players averaging over 20, Barkley and Hersey Hawkins, and 6 players in double figures. Malone, on the other hand, played on a Jazz team with 4 double digit scorers that year with the closest person being Jeff Malone followed by Stockton. And with that in mind, Malone outscored Chuck 29.1 to 27.6, not a big disparity given that Charles was sharing the load more.

Rebounding-wise, Barkley was playing small forward that year, alongside Rick Mahorn and Armin Gilliam, both of whom averaged over 7 rebounds. Malone, on the other hand, played alongside Mark Eaton who averaged 8 rebounds, otherwise there was no other presence taking rebounds from him. And with that said, playing a more perimeter-oriented position, playing alongside two decent rebounders, Barkley averaged 10.1 to Malone's 11.8. Given the conditions, there should have been a bigger disparity but there wasn't.

[Shep]

Malone had easily the better career. Power Forwards also better than Barkley but worse than Malone include Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Bob Pettit, and Elvin Hayes. Comparison between Malone and Barkley for individual years results in the following:

Year: Best Player
1986 (Rookie Malone): Barkley
1987: Barkley
1988: Malone
1989: Barkley
1990: Malone
1991: Malone
1992: Malone
1993: Barkley
1994: Malone
1995: Malone
1996: Malone
1997: Malone
1998: Malone
1999: Malone

So besides Malone's rookie year in 1986, Malone was better than Barkley 10 out of 13 seasons.

[Round Mound]

Malone might have had better longevity ill give you that but statistically Barkley was more dominant and efficient.

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating

NBA/ABA
Rank Player PER
1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 26.91
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.65
7. Bob Pettit* 25.35
8. Chris Paul 25.22
9. Tim Duncan 24.84
10. Neil Johnston* 24.63
11. Charles Barkley* 24.63
12. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
13. Magic Johnson* 24.11
14. Karl Malone* 23.90

NBA & ABA Career Playoff Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating

NBA/ABA
Rank Player PER
1. Michael Jordan* 28.59
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 26.31
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.12
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Tim Duncan 25.43
7. Dirk Nowitzki 24.75
8. Tracy McGrady 24.66
9. Dwyane Wade 24.56
10. Charles Barkley* 24.18
11. Dwight Howard 23.65
12. Dolph Schayes* 23.29
13. Jerry West* 23.06
14. David Robinson* 23.02
15. Amare Stoudemire 23.01
16. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 23.01
17. Magic Johnson* 22.95
18. Wilt Chamberlain* 22.77
19. Bob Pettit* 22.59
20. Kobe Bryant 22.28
21. Baron Davis 22.20
22. Julius Erving* 22.05
23. Elgin Baylor* 21.83
24. Rick Barry* 21.79
25. Kevin Garnett 21.67
26. Moses Malone* 21.57
27. Larry Bird* 21.41
28. Pau Gasol 21.39
29. Allen Iverson 21.23
30. George Gervin* 21.17
31. Karl Malone* 21.12


NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Win Shares Per 48 Minutes

NBA/ABA
Rank Player WS/48
1. Michael Jordan* 0.2505
2. David Robinson* 0.2502
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 0.2480
4. Neil Johnston* 0.2413
5. Chris Paul 0.2328
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 0.2284
7. LeBron James 0.2266
8. Magic Johnson* 0.2249
9. Charles Barkley* 0.2163
10. Tim Duncan 0.2162
11. Manu Ginobili 0.2138
12. Dirk Nowitzki 0.2137
13. Jerry West* 0.2134
14. Bob Pettit* 0.2128
15. John Stockton* 0.2087
16. Shaquille O'Neal 0.2081
17. Oscar Robertson* 0.2069
18. Karl Malone* 0.2053
19. Larry Bird* 0.2032

[Round Mound]

Shot Made & Missed Diferential Stat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNib-lu92Ok&feature=channel_video_title

http://hoopsapedia.webs.com/nbaalltimescorers.htm

SHOT MADE/MISS DIFFERENTIAL STAT-
(minimum 15,000 shot attempts)

Unstoppable shot makers (+1 - infinity):

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +3,367.5
2. Shaquille O'Neal: +3,200.5
3. Wilt Chamberlain: +1,865
4. Charles Barkley: +1,434

5. Robert Parish: +1,314
6. Adrian Dantley: +1,220.5
7. Karl Malone: +888.5
8. Bernard King: +562.5
9. Hakeem Olajuwon: +519.5
10. Walt Bellamy: +488
11. Walter Davis: +443.5
12. Bob Lanier: +431
13. George Gervin: +381.5
14. Alex English: +291
15. Reggie Miller: +263
16. Tim Duncan: +248
17. Dale Ellis: +230.5
18. Larry Bird: +172.5
19. Patrick Ewing: +172.5
20. Michael Jordan: +137.5
21. Kevin Garnett: +0.5

Elite shot makers (0 - negative 500):

22. Dirk Nowitzki: -193.5
23. Ray Allen: -332.5
24. Lou Hudson: -345
25. Moses Malone: -351
26. Scottie Pippen: -371

Good shot makers (negative 501 - negative 1,000):

27. Chris Webber: -508
28. Terry Cummings: -516
29. Calvin Murphy: -531
30. Clyde Drexler: -589.5
31. Oscar Robertson: -604
32. Eddie Johnson: -626
33. Gary Payton: -716
34. Mitch Richmond: -765
35. Paul Pierce: -841
36. Tom Chambers: -879.5
37. Antawn Jamison: -899
38. Michael Finley: -976
39. Jerry West: -1,000

Shot jackers (negative 1,001 - negative 2,000):

40. Vince Carter: -1,126.5
41. Kobe Bryant: -1,212
42. Dominique Wilkins: -1,307
43. Isiah Thomas: -1,317
44. Tracy McGrady: -1,427.5
45. Gail Goodrich: -1,438
46. Cliff Robinson: -1,470.5
47. Rick Barry: -1,622.5
48. Hal Greer: -1,803
49. Dave Bing: -1,845

Shot too much (negative 2,001 - negative infinity):

50. Bob Pettit: -2,174
51. Allen Iverson: -2,442.5
52. Elgin Baylor: -2,785
53. John Havlicek: -2,904
54. Elvin Hayes: -2,952.5
55. Dolph Schayes: -3,721
56. Bob Cousy: -4,132

[Round Mound]

http://www.rootzoo.com/articles/view/NBA-Basketball/General/UBJSC-4-A-Basketball-Analytics-Primer_3549

Putting it together: Offensive Rating. By now, you're probably impatient for a number that tells us how efficient a player is overall with the possessions that he uses, and the answer comes in the form of Dean Oliver's Offensive Rating (OR). The formula is a bit complicated to reproduce here (I refer you to Oliver's excellent Basketball on Paper for its full derivation), but it suffices to say that Offensive Rating provides a rating of how many points a player scores per 100 possessions that he uses while on the floor. The league's typical rating has varied throughout history, but today stands at around 107.

The best OR belong to jump-shooting guards and, to a lesser extent, high-percentage post players. The career leaders are Steve Kerr (122.06), Reggie Miller (121.48), Magic Johnson (120.79), John Stockton (120.55), and Kiki Vandeweghe (119.49).


In general, the more possessions that a player uses, the lower we expect his OR to be, because player who use more possessions have to use more possessions in precarious situations.

If a player has a high career Usage Rate and a high OR, that indicates that he is a monster on offense. Magic Johnson falls into this category, as does Charles Barkley (119.31), Adran Dantley (118.40), the incomparable Michael Jordan (who, with the highest career Usage Rate, had a career OR of 117.97, the 13th best in history), and Dirk Nowitzki (117.80).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/off_rtg_career.html

Career Leaders and Records for Offensive Rating


NBA/ABA
Rank Player ORtg

1. Steve Kerr 122.06 (CG)
2. Reggie Miller 121.48 (SG)
3. Magic Johnson* 120.79 (PG-Point F)
4. John Stockton* 120.55 (PG)
5. Chris Paul 120.54 (PG)
6. Kiki Vandeweghe 119.49 (SF-SG)
7. Sidney Moncrief 119.40 (CG-PG)
8. Charles Barkley* 119.31 (PF)

More Polished? :oldlol:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

Career Leaders and Records for True Shooting Pct


NBA/ABA
Rank Player TS%
1. Cedric Maxwell .6294
2. Artis Gilmore .6227
3. James Donaldson .6177
4. Adrian Dantley* .6166
5. Jeff Ruland .6152
6. Reggie Miller .6139
7. Charles Barkley* .6120
8. Magic Johnson* .6095
9. John Stockton* .6081

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/efg_pct_career.html

Career Leaders and Records for Effective Field Goal Pct

NBA/ABA
Rank Player eFG%

1. Artis Gilmore .5820
2. Shaquille O'Neal .5818
3. Mark West .5804
4. Steve Johnson .5722
5. Darryl Dawkins .5721
6. James Donaldson .5706
7. Brent Barry .5703
8. Dwight Howard .5679
9. Bo Outlaw .5678
10. Steve Kerr .5642
11. Jeff Ruland .5641
12. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* .5595
13. Bobby Jones .5583
14. Charles Barkley* .5578
15. Kevin McHale* .5554

Proof of Barkley`s Statistical Overall Polished Skill Efficiency:

http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=eff&lg=n


Career EFF Leaders

Player EFF Seasons

1 Wilt Chamberlain 41.50 14
2 Bill Russell 31.71 13
3 Oscar Robertson 31.61 14
4 Bob Pettit 31.11 11
5 Kareem Abdul-jabbar 30.93 20
6 Larry Bird 29.77 13
7 Elgin Baylor 29.74 14
8 Michael Jordan 29.19 15
9 Magic Johnson 29.10 13
10 Charles Barkley 28.16 16

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1415

More Fun with Statistical +/-

Posted by Neil Paine on February 27, 2009

The other day, I talked at some length about “statistical plus/minus,” which is just a regression of pure adjusted +/- on the conventional boxscore stats. In that post, I looked into the possibility of predicting the following season using a weighted average of the 3 previous seasons’ SPM scores, but I realize that I sort of skimmed over the statistical +/- metric itself — what are its strengths and weaknesses? What kind of players does it overrate and underrate?


In an effort to better understand the metric and answer these questions, I calculated the career leaders in SPM (combined NBA + ABA, minimum 15,000 career MP) through last Saturday’s games. Here’s the list:

Player Pos G Min SPM
---------------+--+----------+--------+------
michaeljordan G 1072 41013 12.85
wiltchamberlain C 1045 47859 11.59
davidrobinson C 987 34272 10.79
lebronjames F 444 18083 10.00
charlesbarkley F 1073 39330 9.03
k.abdul-jabbar C 1560 57446 9.01
magicjohnson G 906 33245 8.82
larrybird F 897 34443 8.81
juliuserving F 1243 45227 8.57
shaquilleo'neal C 1089 39103 8.21
bobpettit F 792 30690 7.87
clydedrexler G 1086 37537 7.79
oscarrobertson G 1040 43886 7.75
hakeemolajuwon C 1238 44222 7.70
elginbaylor F 846 33863 7.59
karlmalone F 1476 54852 7.50
andreikirilenko F 533 16671 7.37
timduncan F 877 32481 7.30

[Round Mound]

1985: Barkley
1986: Barkley
1987: Barkley
1988: Barkley
1989: Barkley
1990: Barkley
1991: Barkley
1992: Barkley
1993: Barkley
1994: Barkley
1995: Barkley
1996: Malone
1997: Malone
1998: Malone
1999: Malone
2000: Malone

[Round Mound]

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Box Plus/Minus

NBA/ABARank Player BPM

1. LeBron James 8.69
2. Michael Jordan* 7.43
3. Charles Barkley* 7.05
4. Magic Johnson* 6.84
5. Chris Paul 6.83
6. Larry Bird* 6.81
7. David Robinson* 6.65
8. Julius Erving* 5.81
9. Clyde Drexler* 5.73
10. Dwyane Wade 5.65
11. Manu Ginobili 5.52
12. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 5.21
13. Tim Duncan 5.09
14. Karl Malone* 5.04
15. Kevin Garnett 5.00

[Odinn]

Barkley was the better one when it comes to peak talk, so the answer is none.

[Round Mound]

Even Statistically Barkley Was Better....:confusedshrug:

[JtotheIzzo]

Malone had easily the better career. Power Forwards also better than Barkley but worse than Malone include Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Bob Pettit, and Elvin Hayes. Comparison between Malone and Barkley for individual years results in the following:

Year: Best Player
1986 (Rookie Malone): Barkley
1987: Barkley
1988: Malone
1989: Barkley
1990: Malone
1991: Malone
1992: Malone
1993: Barkley
1994: Malone
1995: Malone
1996: Malone
1997: Malone
1998: Malone
1999: Malone

So besides Malone's rookie year in 1986, Malone was better than Barkley 10 out of 13 seasons.

Wow, dumb as shit posters coming out of the woodwork for this (for the record, this guy thinks David Robinson is the second best player in NBA history).

Barkley was the best player in the league in 1990.

Here he is splaying small forward and getting double teamed (Charles Barkley 34/20/8/3 vs Bulls 1990

[Round Mound]

[QUOTE=JtotheIzzo]Wow, dumb as shit posters coming out of the woodwork for this (for the record, this guy thinks David Robinson is the second best player in NBA history).

Barkley was the best player in the league in 1990.

Here he is splaying small forward and getting double teamed (Charles Barkley 34/20/8/3 vs Bulls 1990

[Fire Colangelo]

1985: Barkley
1986: Barkley
1987: Barkley
1988: Barkley
1989: Barkley
1990: Barkley
1991: Barkley
1992: Barkley
1993: Barkley
1994: Barkley
1995: Barkley
1996: Malone
1997: Malone
1998: Malone
1999: Malone
2000: Malone

I don't think Malone was in the league in 1985...?

I do agree Barkley was the better player in the first half of their careers, but why is Barkley better than Malone in 94 and 95? I would also argue 92, but whatever.

Why are you also conveniently ignoring the fact that Malone played better defense than Charles.

Before you credit Malone's success to Sloan and his system, he was doing fine with Layden before Sloan got there as well.

Charles was a more dominant player in his peaks, I don't argue with that. But lets not pretend the gap is huge. Malone is an All NBA 1st teamer along with Charles during their respective peaks. But l would rather have Malone on my team 10/10.

Better attitude, better work ethic, better defender, better logetivity. Has Charles even played a full season?

[Shep]

Wow, dumb as shit posters coming out of the woodwork for this
this...followed by this

Round Mound is the only sane poster in this thread.
equals you are a retarded ****

(for the record, this guy thinks David Robinson is the second best player in NBA history).
I never said this. For your information Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the second best player in NBA history.

Barkley was the best player in the league in 1990
:roll: Barkley wasn't even the best at his position let alone best in the league overall. HE WASN'T EVEN TOP 10 OVERALL YOU LOSER.
[QUOTE]Here he is splaying small forward and getting double teamed (Charles Barkley 34/20/8/3 vs Bulls 1990

[swagga]

applause: Even Broken Down Statistically Barkley Was Better Than Malone (Which Malone Lovers Like Took At: "List of Pile Up Stats of Longevity").

Barkley Was Robbed From The 1990 MVP In Disgracefull Form. The Media and Fans Loved The Magic Smile, They Hated The Barkley Grin and Agressive Demeanor.

:roll: delusional stan

[Im Still Ballin]

Head to head, Barkley gets smoked. This is common knowledge. The 6-4 chubby beast gets outmatched by the 6-9 juggernaut.

[sportjames23]

Head to head, Barkley gets smoked. This is common knowledge. The 6-4 chubby beast gets outmatched by the 6-9 juggernaut.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-IplbNClY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpefcLb4Puk Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNng609lr3I Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZaZ2cxR4Ng

[aj1987]

Magic Johnson over Charles Barkley MVP in 1990? Joke.
What in the actual ****?!

Magic - 22 PPG 7 RPG 12 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 62% TS while leading his team to 63 wins
CB34 - 25 PPG 12 RPG 4 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 66% TS and 53 wins

Arguments could be made for:
MJ - 34 PPG 7 RPG 6 APG 3 SPG 1 BPG on 61% TS with 55 wins
Malone - 31 PPG 11 RPG 3 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 63% TS with 55 wins

:oldlol: @ the fat bot stans.

[Round Mound]

Head to head, Barkley gets smoked. This is common knowledge. The 6-4 chubby beast gets outmatched by the 6-9 juggernaut.

From 1996 to 2000, Yes.

NOT from 1985 to 1995: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157

:confusedshrug:

[ArbitraryWater]

:roll: delusional stan

Barkley had more first place votes but lost due to low rankings by influenced media members who let their judgement be crowded by controversial off-court instances like Barkley splitting on a fan and the "I'm not a role model" controversy.

Barkley had 38 first place votes, Magic had 27 and MJ had 21.

Barkley was robbed by biased media members who put him low on the ballot.

Magic won on a lifetime achievement award on the strength of his second place votes.

The only time in MVP history the player with most 1st place votes didn't end up winning the overall point count/MVP.

[Pointguard]

It should be noted, if we're using stat comparisons here, in 91 Philly had two players averaging over 20, Barkley and Hersey Hawkins, and 6 players in double figures. Malone, on the other hand, played on a Jazz team with 4 double digit scorers that year with the closest person being Jeff Malone followed by Stockton. And with that in mind, Malone outscored Chuck 29.1 to 27.6, not a big disparity given that Charles was sharing the load more.

Rebounding-wise, Barkley was playing small forward that year, alongside Rick Mahorn and Armin Gilliam, both of whom averaged over 7 rebounds. Malone, on the other hand, played alongside Mark Eaton who averaged 8 rebounds, otherwise there was no other presence taking rebounds from him. And with that said, playing a more perimeter-oriented position, playing alongside two decent rebounders, Barkley averaged 10.1 to Malone's 11.8. Given the conditions, there should have been a bigger disparity but there wasn't.
Good stuff. I just wanted to see the thinking.

[Round Mound]

Barkley had more first place votes but lost due to low rankings by influenced media members who let their judgement be crowded by controversial off-court instances like Barkley splitting on a fan and the "I'm not a role model" controversy.

Barkley had 38 first place votes, Magic had 27 and MJ had 21.

Barkley was robbed by biased media members who put him low on the ballot.

Magic won on a lifetime achievement award on the strength of his second place votes.

The only time in MVP history the player with most 1st place votes didn't end up winning the overall point count/MVP.

:applause:

[aj1987]

Barkley had more first place votes but lost due to low rankings by influenced media members who let their judgement be crowded by controversial off-court instances like Barkley splitting on a fan and the "I'm not a role model" controversy.

Barkley had 38 first place votes, Magic had 27 and MJ had 21.

Barkley was robbed by biased media members who put him low on the ballot.

Magic won on a lifetime achievement award on the strength of his second place votes.

The only time in MVP history the player with most 1st place votes didn't end up winning the overall point count/MVP.
Lets be honest here. If those were LeBron's (Magic) and Kobe's/KD's (CB34) numbers and the MVP went to Kobe on a 53 win team, you'd be losing your shit and creating 3987359834 threads a day.

Magic - 22 PPG 7 RPG 12 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 62% TS while leading his team to 63 wins
CB34 - 25 PPG 12 RPG 4 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 66% TS and 53 wins

Arguments could be made for:
MJ - 34 PPG 7 RPG 6 APG 3 SPG 1 BPG on 61% TS with 55 wins
Malone - 31 PPG 11 RPG 3 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 63% TS with 55 wins

[Round Mound]

Lets be honest here. If those were LeBron's (Magic) and Kobe's/KD's (CB34) numbers and the MVP went to Kobe on a 53 win team, you'd be losing your shit and creating 3987359834 threads a day.

Magic - 22 PPG 7 RPG 12 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 62% TS while leading his team to 63 wins
CB34 - 25 PPG 12 RPG 4 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 66% TS and 53 wins

Arguments could be made for:
MJ - 34 PPG 7 RPG 6 APG 3 SPG 1 BPG on 61% TS with 55 wins
Malone - 31 PPG 11 RPG 3 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 63% TS with 55 wins

The Real Difference Between Them is Who They Played With (Level of Play of Teamates):

- Magic: Worthy, Scott, Divac & Ac Green
- Jordan: Grant, Pippen, Cartwright (ex All Star) and Paxon (*equivlant to Hawkins)
- Malone: Stockton, Eaton and Baily

Barkley: *Hawkins? *Dawkins? *Giminski? Get F-Real :rolleyes: :facepalm

[aj1987]

The Real Difference Between Them is Who They Played With (Level of Play of Teamates):

- Magic: Worthy, Scott, Divac & Ac Green
- Jordan: Grant, Pippen, Cartwright (ex All Star) and Paxon (*equivlant to Hawkins)
- Malone: Stockton, Eaton and Baily

Barkley: *Hawkins? *Dawkins? *Giminski? Get F-Real :rolleyes: :facepalm
Hawkins averaged 19/4/3 on 46/42/89. You're comparing Paxon to him?:facepalm
Didn't Mahorn make an All-Defensive team that year as well? Cartwright was pretty much done as well.

Divac was a rookie, idiot. He played 19 minutes a game and came off the bench.

The FACT still stands that Magic put up better stats than fat boy and won 10 games more than him. Heck MJ and Malone were better as well. Whatever. The better player won. Deal with it.

[Round Mound]

Hawkins averaged 19/4/3 on 46/42/89. You're comparing Paxon to him?:facepalm
Didn't Mahorn make an All-Defensive team that year as well? Cartwright was pretty much done as well.

Divac was a rookie, idiot. He played 19 minutes a game and came off the bench.

The FACT still stands that Magic put up better stats than fat boy and won 10 games more than him. Heck MJ and Malone were better as well. Whatever. The better player won. Deal with it.

:roll: You Expect Me To Belive This Crap You Say? :rolleyes:

Hawkins Became an All Star Solely Thanks to Barkley. After Barkley left Phily No One Heard of Him Anymore. Unlike the Players Magic, Jordan and Malone Played With.

You are right Cartwright was done but he DID HAVE A POST GAME. Unlike Giminski who was more of an outside shooting center (like todays but not as efficient).

Magic had Worthy: Top 50 Player Of All Time, Future All Star Divac, Scott All Star and Defensive Beast Green (Equivalent to Mahorn BUT with CAPABLE OF BOTH Perimeter and Interior D)

Jordan had the 2nd Best SF in the Game in Pippen, Top 50 All Time and Best Perimeter Defender Ever, Top All Defensive Teamer Horace Grant (Future All Star Too), Paxon and Hodges for 3s (same level of Hawkins and Dawkins).

Malone had The 2nd Best PG in the Game and Thee Best Creator of Offense Ever in Stockton, The Best Rim Protector of The Wholes 80s and Early 90s Decade in Mark Eaton and Thurl Baily Who Was Capable of Playing Both SF and PF and He Could Have Scored Over 20 PPG in Any Team.

You Also Forget To Mention That Barkley Played in The More Competitive East, Unlike What The Lakers Faced.

Barkley Was Robbed From The 1990 MVP: F-PERIOD!

[aj1987]

Fat boy Was Robbed From The 1990 MVP: F-PERIOD!
:oldlol:

If it helps you sleep better at night, sure. '90 Malone, Magic, Hakeem, Ewing, and MJ > CB34 though.

[Shep]

:oldlol:

If it helps you sleep better at night, sure. '90 Malone, Magic, Hakeem, Ewing, and MJ > CB34 though.
also better than Barkley was David Robinson, Clyde Drexler, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, and Kevin Johnson.

[Round Mound]

also better than Barkley was David Robinson, Clyde Drexler, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, and Kevin Johnson.

:roll: :rolleyes: :facepalm :no:

[ArbitraryWater]

Lets be honest here. If those were LeBron's (Magic) and Kobe's/KD's (CB34) numbers and the MVP went to Kobe on a 53 win team, you'd be losing your shit and creating 3987359834 threads a day.

Magic - 22 PPG 7 RPG 12 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 62% TS while leading his team to 63 wins
CB34 - 25 PPG 12 RPG 4 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 66% TS and 53 wins

Arguments could be made for:
MJ - 34 PPG 7 RPG 6 APG 3 SPG 1 BPG on 61% TS with 55 wins
Malone - 31 PPG 11 RPG 3 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 63% TS with 55 wins


*Lets ignore what happened, post an irrelevant hypothetical and make an even dumber assumption* Good job aj :applause:

They overachieved because Barkley was shooting 60% from the field and should have been MVP.

Hersey Hawkins was his 2# option.

He had about 10 more first place votes than Magic.. What happened was clear robbery and a joke, and you should feel ashamed for denying it. Clear case of having no idea what went down and solely posting stats.. ugh.

[ArbitraryWater]

:oldlol:

If it helps you sleep better at night, sure. '90 Malone, Magic, Hakeem, Ewing, and MJ > CB34 though.

You obviously have a little problem with Chuck.. Where did he hurt you?

Or do you don't like the fact he criticizes your boyfriend?

[LAZERUSS]

Very close...

I would probably take a peak Barkley over a peak Karl though.

[aj1987]

*Lets ignore what happened, post an irrelevant hypothetical and make an even dumber assumption* Good job aj :applause:

They overachieved because Barkley was shooting 60% from the field and should have been MVP.

Hersey Hawkins was his 2# option.

He had about 10 more first place votes than Magic.. What happened was clear robbery and a joke, and you should feel ashamed for denying it. Clear case of having no idea what went down and solely posting stats.. ugh.
:oldlol: :oldlol:

As I figured, you're losing you shit just over a HYPOTHETICAL, where Kobe wins a MVP over LeBron.

Also, it's not just stats, yo retarded ****. I posted team records as well.

Player A: 22 PPG 7 RPG 12 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 62% TS while leading his team to 63 wins

Player B - 25 PPG 12 RPG 4 APG 2 SPG 1 BPG on 66% TS and 53 wins

Who do you think is winning the MVP? If you say player B, you're basically and idiot (you already are one anyways).


You obviously have a little problem with Chuck.. Where did he hurt you?

Or do you don't like the fact he criticizes your boyfriend?
Listen, kid. You're obviously too young to understand the finer aspects of basketball. You literally get owned in EVERY thread you post in. I suggest that you stop posting altogether. What is it? 44 posts a day? Step out for a bit, kid.

BTW, I'm actually a Barkley fan. I can admit his short comings. I'm a LeBron fan as well and I can admit that he choked his ass off (probably top 5 greatest choke ever) in '11.

If I actually hated Barkley, I wouldn't put him in my top 15-18.

EDIT: How hurt are you that LeBum's team is basically garbage? Worse than my team which is mediocre? 30 years old and there are basically 4 players in the league better than LeBum. :oldlol:

[AussieSteve]

It seems to me that the argument for Malone over Barkley comes down to three things. 1. He was a better scorer, 2. He was a better defender, 3. He had greater longevity/consistence. The third point is impossible to argue against, Malone was great for far longer than Barkley, but the first 2 are debatable at best, and IMO neither are actually true.

1. Malone scored about 3 more ppg than Barkley. However, a look at the their respective FG and 3PT stats, as well as a bit of time on Youtube watching highlights, should convince anyone that Barkley was better than Malone in pretty much every aspect of scoring the basketball. He had better moves around the basket, he was better in the post, he was quicker on the drive and he had a more range on his jump shot. Barkley was hands down the more efficient and more creative scorer, both statistically and visually. So how did Malone score more? Simple… He had Stockton. Barkley never had an assist man close to Stockton’s level. He had an all-star in Mo Cheeks for a couple of years early on, and an injury riddled, passed-his-prime Kevin Johnson in Phoenix, but that’s it. The simple fact is that Malone scored more because Stockton consistently gave him better looks than Barkley got from his PGs, while Barkley more often had to create his own shot. You can’t tell me that Stockton wasn’t worth at least 3ppg for Malone. Without those 3 points, there is no argument for Malone over Barkley. With Barkley’s superior passing and ball handling and all-time great offensive rebounding, he was clearly the better offensive player… and the stats well and truly back this up.

2. Malone was not a better defender than Barkley. He certainly played good defense more often and for longer, but the most significant difference is that he played on much better defensive teams than Barkley. It’s easy to look at Malone’s superior DRtg and say “yep he was the better defender” but this ignores the role of team defense on this stat. For example, in Barkley’s last year at Phoenix he had a DRtg of 105 (the best on the Suns), the next year at Houston, when he had Olajuwon, his DRtg was 100 (second to Hakeem who was on 99). Was Barkley all of a sudden a much better defender? No. The team made a difference. Malone was on good defensive teams his entire career. Barkley was on poor defensive teams for most of his career. No one could dispute that. I would contend that individually Barkley was actually the better defender of the two, but he suffered because he completely carried his team offensively for many years, and the rest of his team was so bad on defense that he just gave up on it himself. Here are some stats to back this up.

Malone led the Jazz in DWS/48 and DRtg 7 times. Barkley led his team in these two categories 10 and 9 times respectively. Malone was twice equal 4th on the Jazz in DBPM, and only led his team 3 times. Barkley was never lower than 3rd in DBPM on any of his teams and led his team 5 times. Chuck once had a DRtg 6 points better than the next best on his team (try and find any other non-centre who ever achieved that!!). Barkley’s defensive numbers are deflated by the teams he played on, while Malone’s are inflated. More importantly, if you look at Barkley's team’s DRtg in games he missed, it was worse than in games he played most seasons. 1993-94, was the season that he missed the most games during his prime. That season the Suns were 5 points per 100 possessions worse on defense in the 17 games he missed than the 65 he played. Their DRtg in games he played would have been 13th in the league. In the games he missed - 25th out of 27 teams.

Yes, Barkley was often lazy on the defensive end, especially in his last couple of seasons at Philly. This is a legitimate criticism of him. But when he played defense, he was a better defensive player than Malone ever was. I just watched a game the other day, an OT win by Philly over Boston from 1987, Barkley defended Bird 1-on-1 for most of OT, and forced him to turn it over twice, blocked one of his shots held him to three consecutive misses to finish the game, including an air ball on the last play. With only that game as evidence, one would say Barkley was a great lock down defender. So, the defensive argument for Malone is really just an extension of the longevity/consistency argument, having no basis in him actually being a better defender.

Malone was a more consistent player with greater longevity. But Barkley was a better player than Malone on BOTH ends of the floor. By a huge margin offensively, and by a narrow margin defensively. For anyone who’s old enough to remember both of their primes, there’s no debate… Barkley was just better.

[ClipperRevival]

[QUOTE=AussieSteve]It seems to me that the argument for Malone over Barkley comes down to three things. 1. He was a better scorer, 2. He was a better defender, 3. He had greater longevity/consistence. The third point is impossible to argue against, Malone was great for far longer than Barkley, but the first 2 are debatable at best, and IMO neither are actually true.

1. Malone scored about 3 more ppg than Barkley. However, a look at the their respective FG and 3PT stats, as well as a bit of time on Youtube watching highlights, should convince anyone that Barkley was better than Malone in pretty much every aspect of scoring the basketball. He had better moves around the basket, he was better in the post, he was quicker on the drive and he had a more range on his jump shot. Barkley was hands down the more efficient and more creative scorer, both statistically and visually. So how did Malone score more? Simple

[Dragonyeuw]

I think you'd sooner see a Karl Malone type in terms of skill/talent level than Barkley. For my money, he's still one of the more unique talents in history with his skills and ability at that size. Malone was more disciplined, certainly more attentive to his body and conditioning. There shouldn't be much doubt that Barkley was the more 'talented' of the two, at least offensively.

[Pointguard]

I don't know about that. Barkley was more of a freelancing scorer who overwhelmed defenders with his freakish athleticism. Malone was a GOAT level player in the P&R and mid-range jumper. You can't fault Malone for having the discipline to play within a system where his talents shined through.

Malone is hands down one of the best scorers ever. Over an 11 year span (1988 - 1998), he averaged 27.6 ppg on .531% with a .591 TS.

And ditto for the defensive end. Barkley didn't care too much for defense. He was known to be lazy and didn't maximize his talents on the court. Even HE would admit that and D is all about effort/desire. Again, you can't fault Malone for playing disciplined D. Malone was known as a hard worked who stayed in tip top shape.

Peak wise, Barkley might've shined a big brighter due to his superior athleticism and more varied offensive arsenal but I would take Malone if I had to pick one.
This.

Malone's consistency and dependability were just on a different level than Barkley's. Malone had Eight Years of 27 and 10. Barkleys runaway two best years were 28 and 11 - Barkley's only 2 years approaching 27ppg (Dirk never got to 27ppg). He had eight years right there around Barkley's two year peak. And Malone was super dependable in getting those numbers. Plus he played better defense. Plus he wore players out during the game. The guy was a machine for 15 years where his production was like Barkley's top seven years in per game output? Malone gets under rated like crazy.

He had too many years like Barkley's best years

[ClipperRevival]

Another thing that gets overlooked with Malone is that his teams had Duncan like dominance over an extended period of time. From 1988-89 to 2000-01 (13 seasons), the Jazz won at least 50 games every season except for 1 season (1992-93) with 47 wins. He was clearly "the man" and their best player on all of those teams. And the Jazz weren't exactly stacked with talent either. It was mostly a 2 headed monster along with a great coach. That's actual impact on the W-L column.

Barkley never had that level of consistency in the W-L column for his teams over his career.

[Round Mound]

Malone was not a better scorer than Barkley :no: :facepalm :rolleyes:. He Just Shot More . If you dont think this... then Allen Iverson was a better scorer than Kobe too. :confusedshrug:

Scoring Efficiency Inside The 3-Pointline:

Season:

Barkley Shot 58.13% Two-Point FG% at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs PG (Season Career)

Malone Shot 51.9% Two-Point FG% at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG (Season Career)

Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined

Barkley Shot 55.13% FG% at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG (Play-Offs Career)

Malone Shot 46.6% Two-Point FG% at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG (Play-Offs Career)

[Pointguard]

[B]Malone was not a better scorer than Barkley :no: :facepalm :rolleyes:. He Just Shot More. And won much more than Barkley. He was the main reason his team won. His role was consistent high production scoring that enabled his team to win as much as any other team in an MJ decade. Malone was a more prolific scorer, a more dependable scorer, and a more consistent scorer than Barkley. If Barkley had gone Beast mode instead of playing it safe, he's in the top 5 goat. Lebron played it safe in 2015 in a great display of efficiency which was very conducive to his loss. When he abandoned that safe play to reach for greatness his will was on full display against the GSWs.

With greats its much better to see their will to win than their efficiency. Magic was rare in that he could double up on being efficient and aggressive while imposing his will on the game. He was the exception.

[Round Mound]

And won much more than Barkley. He was the main reason his team won. His role was consistent high production scoring that enabled his team to win as much as any other team in an MJ decade. Malone was a more prolific scorer, a more dependable scorer, and a more consistent scorer than Barkley. If Barkley had gone Beast mode instead of playing it safe, he's in the top 5 goat. Lebron played it safe in 2015 in a great display of efficiency which was very conducive to his loss. When he abandoned that safe play to reach for greatness his will was on full display against the GSWs.

With greats its much better to see their will to win than their efficiency. Magic was rare in that he could double up on being efficient and aggressive while imposing his will on the game. He was the exception.

:no:

[B]Malone wasnt a better scorer even the broken down stats give Barkley the edge in scoring and offensive rating etc. Barkley was also a a much creator of offense, post player (Shot like Shaq in the paint), ball handler, end to end player, rebounder and passer than Malone ever was. Malone lived off Stockton

[AussieSteve]

This.

Malone's consistency and dependability were just on a different level than Barkley's. Malone had Eight Years of 27 and 10. Barkleys runaway two best years were 28 and 11 - Barkley's only 2 years approaching 27ppg (Dirk never got to 27ppg). He had eight years right there around Barkley's two year peak. And Malone was super dependable in getting those numbers. Plus he played better defense. Plus he wore players out during the game. The guy was a machine for 15 years where his production was like Barkley's top seven years in per game output? Malone gets under rated like crazy.

He had too many years like Barkley's best years

Malone had NO years like Barkley's best years. That's the point... He had lots of years that were ALMOST as good, but none that was AS good. Take scoring out of it for a minute, because we all know that Malone scored more because of Stockton, and let's let at every other aspect of the game.

In 1986-87 Barkley averaged 14.6 RBG, 4.9 APG, 1.8 SPG and 1.5 BPG, with a 0.606 eFG%. The previous year he had 12.8 RBG, 3.9 APG, 2.2 SPG and 1.6 BPG, at 0.580 eFG% These are unparalleled numbers. Yes his PPG were a little lower than most of Malone's seasons, but EVERY other aspect of the game, Malone never touch Barkley's level of dominance!!

Now let's look at their scoring. Malone scored about 3 more ppg than Barkley at their peaks, and over the duration of their careers. However, a look at the their respective FG and 3PT stats, as well as a bit of time on Youtube watching highlights, should convince anyone that Barkley was better than Malone in pretty much every aspect of scoring the basketball. He had better moves around the basket, he was better in the post, he was quicker on the drive and he had a more range on his jump shot. Barkley was hands down the more efficient and more creative scorer. So how did Malone score more? Simple

[Poetry]

At his best, Barkley was better than Malone, and Zeke was better than Stockton. I'm not sure why people are trying to rewrite history now.

[bizil]

Personally,I would take Barkley over Malone peak wise. It comes down to Barkley's versatility and the way he would take a game by the throat. BUT I gotta show Malone EPIC RESPECT for his longevity being an elite player! From his 2nd year in the league ALL THE WAY to end of his career, he was AT LEAST a top 5 PF in the world! Dude played 19 years in the league! It seemed like Malone was still as good as DAMN NEAR any PF in the world in his late 30's, but he just got tired quicker than the young bucks!

[Round Mound]

At his best, Barkley was better than Malone, and Zeke was better than Stockton. I'm not sure why people are trying to rewrite history now.

:applause:

[B]I think its because most people on the forum never saw a prime and healthy Barkley play so they just go by what they saw in his washed up, overweight and injured Rocket

[Pointguard]

Malone had NO years like Barkley's best years. That's the point... He had lots of years that were ALMOST as good, but none that was AS good. Take scoring out of it for a minute, because we all know that Malone scored more because of Stockton, and let's let at every other aspect of the game.


In 1986-87 Barkley averaged 14.6 RBG, 4.9 APG, 1.8 SPG and 1.5 BPG, with a 0.606 eFG%. The previous year he had 12.8 RBG, 3.9 APG, 2.2 SPG and 1.6 BPG, at 0.580 eFG% These are unparalleled numbers. Yes his PPG were a little lower than most of Malone's seasons, but EVERY other aspect of the game, Malone never touch Barkley's level of dominance!!

Now let's look at their scoring. Malone scored about 3 more ppg than Barkley at their peaks, and over the duration of their careers. However, a look at the their respective FG and 3PT stats, as well as a bit of time on Youtube watching highlights, should convince anyone that Barkley was better than Malone in pretty much every aspect of scoring the basketball. He had better moves around the basket, he was better in the post, he was quicker on the drive and he had a more range on his jump shot.

My argument was the scoring. So I'm not dismissing that. Between the ages of 24 and 31 Malone averages Barkley's peak in scoring. Between 24 and 33 years of age he averaged very close to Barkley's peak. That's 11 years at 28 ppg in about 900 games. Barkley rocks that level for about 100 games. That's a huge distinction. A scorer scores. There aren't alternative universes.

Barkley had more range and was more creative. True. But so does Chris Paul. Its not like Shaq isn't a great scorer. Above all Scorers, Score.
[quote]

Barkley was hands down the more efficient and more creative scorer. So how did Malone score more? Simple

[Pointguard]

At his best, Barkley was better than Malone, and Zeke was better than Stockton. I'm not sure why people are trying to rewrite history now.
Barkley, when he wanted to impose his will is a top five player ever. But he rarely went there. Good efficiency while losing is the job of role players. Lead players always go all out rather than repeat bad years.

[AussieSteve]

My argument was the scoring. So I'm not dismissing that. Between the ages of 24 and 31 Malone averages Barkley's peak in scoring. Between 24 and 33 years of age he averaged very close to Barkley's peak. That's 11 years at 28 ppg in about 900 games. Barkley rocks that level for about 100 games. That's a huge distinction. A scorer scores. There aren't alternative universes.

Barkley had more range and was more creative. True. But so does Chris Paul. Its not like Shaq isn't a great scorer. Above all Scorers, Score.

He had so many more good seasons its hard to say what years were his better years. Barkley had 11 years at over 20 ppg: Malone had 17 years. Sure Stockton helped but Malone is second all time and had more than 13,000 more points than Barkley.



Between the age of 25 and 33, Stockton averaged Magic's peak assists. That's 9 years at 13.1 apg in about 730 games. Magic rocks that level for 67 games. That's a huge distinction. An assister assists. There aren't alternative universes.

This is the exact same argument that you have just used to justify Malone being better than Barkley. And as anyone can see it's BS. Just as there are more aspects to Magic's game than assists, there are more aspects to Barkley's game than scoring. Like rebounding and creating for others, both of which Barkley was clearly better than Malone. To take a leaf out of your book, we could argue that Barkley averaged 12.0 RPG over 14 seasons, while Malone's best season was 12.0... A rebounder rebounds. There aren't alternative universes.

And even if scoring was all that mattered, we have already established that Stockton played a part in Malone's numbers. Even if that part was only one 'and one' per game, which is extremely conservative, all of a sudden their numbers are quite comparable. Barkley averaged 24.7ppg over his best 10 seasons, about 3ppg less than Malone's best 10.

[bizil]

For me, this comes down to Barkley's versatility vs. the ultimate pure power forward in Malone. Malone was BORN to play PF. Guys like Barkley, KG, and Dirk had a TON of SF elements in their games. And Duncan was like a dominant 7 foot center playing at the 4. Me personallly, I would rather have Barkley peak wise.

BUT I can't argue one bit if somebody went with Malone peak wise. Barkley's versatility at the PF was the exception and rare. When it came to TRUE PF FACETS, Malone was just as good or better in many areas. So its damn near a matter of taste when it comes to these two. Just like when comparing TD and KG.

[Pointguard]

Between the age of 25 and 33, Stockton averaged Magic's peak assists. That's 9 years at 13.1 apg in about 730 games. Magic rocks that level for 67 games. That's a huge distinction. An assister assists. There aren't alternative universes.
An assist is dependent on a scorer - not the other way around. Most teams run a pick and role, just not over and over again like in Utah. You obviously missed my reference to Deron Williams who was on CP3 level his first few years. He loses about 4 assist per game in his prime because he's not in that system. A lot of people here have CP3's peak here as better than Stockton's. I would never say Magic was quanitatively better than Stockton. You said Barkley was better quantitatively than Malone. He wasn't by any measure. You were wrong but its no biggie.

Your second big mistake is that you equated Magic's assist to Stockton's. With Magic sometimes you didn't have to do much work. Malone wasn't getting 4 greatly fed dunks a game unless a running game was employed by both teams. He wasn't getting a lot of flow points either. They were stop and shoot from 10 to 16 feet. A lot like where Dirk shoots from but usually a lower in the post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-jDPtKcQw. Malone had to make the elbow shot consistently. It was his strength.


This is the exact same argument that you have just used to justify Malone being better than Barkley. And as anyone can see it's BS.
Funny because I pulled you in when it got beyond scoring. As you will learn, I am not a poster that's unclear or doesn't back up what I say. While I like you because you do back up what you say, but I see that you do get cocky.


Just as there are more aspects to Magic's game than assists, there are more aspects to Barkley's game than scoring. When you came into the thread you responded to my post which was about scoring. So that's what I addressed. I have no problem moving on with the rest. But its bs when a guy outscores another guy by 13,000 points and we aren't supposed to address it. Or when a guy scores 7 plus years at another guys peak scoring output and we blame it on the assist man.



Like rebounding and creating for others, both of which Barkley was clearly better than Malone. To take a leaf out of your book, we could argue that Barkley averaged 12.0 RPG over 14 seasons, while Malone's best season was 12.0... A rebounder rebounds. There aren't alternative universes.
I don't mind you copying my style but once is enough. Barkley rebounded very well, but it was nowhere near the scoring discrepancy. Not even close. Passing... Malone is Barkley's equal. See the video above. Barkley had more assist because he wasn't depended upon to be the scorer Malone was but was losing more games... My biggest argument against Barkley is he should have forced the issue much more - not a little bit. Barkley had top five GOAT ability.

And even if scoring was all that mattered, we have already established that Stockton played a part in Malone's numbers. Even if that part was only one 'and one' per game, which is extremely conservative, all of a sudden their numbers are quite comparable. Barkley averaged 24.7ppg over his best 10 seasons, about 3ppg less than Malone's best 10.

My reasoning is that Malone won a whole lot more than Barkley. He played a whole lot more games. He was a more consistent player and a more dependable player and most importantly a more ready player. Side by side he had his way with Barkley. Barkley's argument is his crazy peak.

[Kool Boy]

Malone is slightly worse than Barkley IMO

[bizil]

An assist is dependent on a scorer - not the other way around. Most teams run a pick and role, just not over and over again like in Utah. You obviously missed my reference to Deron Williams who was on CP3 level his first few years. He loses about 4 assist per game in his prime because he's not in that system. A lot of people here have CP3's peak here as better than Stockton's. I would never say Magic was quanitatively better than Stockton. You said Barkley was better quantitatively than Malone. He wasn't by any measure. You were wrong but its no biggie.

Your second big mistake is that you equated Magic's assist to Stockton's. With Magic sometimes you didn't have to do much work. Malone wasn't getting 4 greatly fed dunks a game unless a running game was employed by both teams. He wasn't getting a lot of flow points either. They were stop and shoot from 10 to 16 feet. A lot like where Dirk shoots from but usually a lower in the post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-jDPtKcQw. Malone had to make the elbow shot consistently. It was his strength.

Funny because I pulled you in when it got beyond scoring. As you will learn, I am not a poster that's unclear or doesn't back up what I say. While I like you because you do back up what you say, but I see that you do get cocky.
When you came into the thread you responded to my post which was about scoring. So that's what I addressed. I have no problem moving on with the rest. But its bs when a guy outscores another guy by 13,000 points and we aren't supposed to address it. Or when a guy scores 7 plus years at another guys peak scoring output and we blame it on the assist man.


I don't mind you copying my style but once is enough. Barkley rebounded very well, but it was nowhere near the scoring discrepancy. Not even close. Passing... Malone is Barkley's equal. See the video above. Barkley had more assist because he wasn't depended upon to be the scorer Malone was but was losing more games... My biggest argument against Barkley is he should have forced the issue much more - not a little bit. Barkley had top five GOAT ability.

My reasoning is that Malone won a whole lot more than Barkley. He played a whole lot more games. He was a more consistent player and a more dependable player and most importantly a more ready player. Side by side he had his way with Barkley. Barkley's argument is his crazy peak.

Great post! GOAT wise, Malone is over Chuck NO ARGUMENT! Malone ALSO had EPIC LONGEVITY being a great player. Chuck was losing steam WHILE MALONE was winning MVPs! And getting Utah to the Finals! I would put Mailman's longevity being a great player AGAINST anybody. Even when he slipped out of his prime, he was still a top 5 caliber PF in the world in his late 30's.

On the Lakers, he was playing as an ultimate 3rd option. If needed, I'm sure he could have put up 20-22 points and 8-9 boards. So while I would side with Chuck peak wise, Malone EASILY maintained his greatness longer than Chuck. In terms of passing from a stationary position, Malone was JUST AS GOOD of a passer than Chuck.

But since Chuck had SF elements and even played the SF position at times, he played more like an SF to create dimes. But as I've stated before, Chuck was like a combo forward in many ways. While Malone was the ultimate PF through and through. The things Bob P and Hayes put on the map, Malone MAXIMIZED it in a 6'9 260 pound body. This is an argument where Chuck may have the better peak. BUT Malone, like a Kareem or MJ were ONLY SLOWED basically by not having the wind and energy of the younger superstars. All three were still AMONG the best in the world (talking top 20 in the world caliber players) in their late 30's.

[AussieSteve]

You said Barkley was better quantitatively than Malone. He wasn't by any measure. You were wrong but its no biggie.


I've gotta say that I agree with pretty much everything you say. The things I disagree with are not self-evident facts and definitely open for discussion, so I won't push the issue. What I will do is qualify my previous statement by agreeing that Malone was quantitatively the better scorer, but I still maintain that Barkley was a quantitatively better player.

By this I mean, Barkley's single season peak and career averages are better than Malone's in every basic stat (rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%) except scoring and FT%. Barkley also outshines Malone in every major advanced stat (PER, ORtg, WS/48, BPM, VORP) except DRtg, in both single season peak and over his career. This is true in the regular season and even more so in the post-season, where Barkley's numbers are generally much better than Malone's. Malone's career totals are much higher because of his longevity, but on a per-game basis, Barkley was quantitatively better at pretty much everything.

And in regards to Stockton's role in Malone's scoring, I agree that even without Stockton Malone still probably gets 17 straight 20+ ppg seasons, and finishes his career way ahead of Barkley in total points, that's all Malone. However my belief is that his peak output is probably no more than Barkley's peak 28.3ppg without Stockton... but this is obviously just conjecture.

[Pointguard]

I've gotta say that I agree with pretty much everything you say. The things I disagree with are
not self-evident facts and definitely open for discussion, so I won't push the issue. What I will do is qualify my previous statement by agreeing that Malone was quantitatively the better scorer, but I still maintain that Barkley was a quantitatively better player.
I agree with you. When Barkley really knuckled down and played he was in that super zone. He was in that rare Bird, Magic, Jordan area. Capable of being more of a beast too, but, I thought those three had something extra going on upstairs tho. Barkley never learned when to start winning the game or when to unleash his great powers with total abandon.


By this I mean, Barkley's single season peak and career averages are better than Malone's in every basic stat (rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, FG%) except scoring and FT%. Barkley also outshines Malone in every major advanced stat (PER, ORtg, WS/48, BPM, VORP) except DRtg, in both single season peak and over his career. This is true in the regular season and even more so in the post-season, where Barkley's numbers are generally much better than Malone's. Malone's career totals are much higher because of his longevity, but on a per-game basis, Barkley was quantitatively better at pretty much everything.
As I've said here before, Barkley's high numbers aren't always what they seem. If he favored aggression over efficiency he's a GOAT. players and I was impressed with his high ability but less impressed in his outcomes. Malone had a crazy high 12 year prime where he came to play everyday and forced his will on people. Barkley had about half that time because of lost days and because of lack of focus and not getting in tip top shape.


And in regards to Stockton's role in Malone's scoring, I agree that even without Stockton Malone still probably gets 17 straight 20+ ppg seasons, and finishes his career way ahead of Barkley in total points, that's all Malone. However my belief is that his peak output is probably no more than Barkley's peak 28.3ppg without Stockton... but this is obviously just conjecture.
Yesh, we can't start taking away players and adding them... it just becomes crazy. I do think Barkley would have lost concentration and freaked if he had to keep running the same pick and roll over and over again. Malone could stick with his strengths and keep manipulating a defender the same way over and over and over again. Barkley didn't have that same type of ability to lock in like that. In the end its about imposing your will on the game. Malone was able to do that, sobeit, not at the level Barkley could, but peak for peak, he did it in more games than Barkley did because of his superior conditioning. Malone was a very accountable machine that could even figure out ways to manipulate Duncan and KG, a machine that did its work every game. That's why he's got those crazy amount of points. Malone was a work horse so its hard to say what he wouldn't do without Stockton.

With all that said, I like you as a poster because you do explain your points well. We will disagree further down the line somewhere as well, its just the way we learn things.

Keep up the good work though, the board needs it.

[Pointguard]

Great post! GOAT wise, Malone is over Chuck NO ARGUMENT! Malone ALSO had EPIC LONGEVITY being a great player. Chuck was losing steam WHILE MALONE was winning MVPs! And getting Utah to the Finals! I would put Mailman's longevity being a great player AGAINST anybody. Even when he slipped out of his prime, he was still a top 5 caliber PF in the world in his late 30's.

On the Lakers, he was playing as an ultimate 3rd option. If needed, I'm sure he could have put up 20-22 points and 8-9 boards. So while I would side with Chuck peak wise, Malone EASILY maintained his greatness longer than Chuck. In terms of passing from a stationary position, Malone was JUST AS GOOD of a passer than Chuck.

But since Chuck had SF elements and even played the SF position at times, he played more like an SF to create dimes. But as I've stated before, Chuck was like a combo forward in many ways. While Malone was the ultimate PF through and through. The things Bob P and Hayes put on the map, Malone MAXIMIZED it in a 6'9 260 pound body. This is an argument where Chuck may have the better peak. BUT Malone, like a Kareem or MJ were ONLY SLOWED basically by not having the wind and energy of the younger superstars. All three were still AMONG the best in the world (talking top 20 in the world caliber players) in their late 30's.

Great post as usual. It's definitely a case of the turtle racing the rabbit. Barkley was a rare breed indeed. Malone was methodical and consistent.

[Big164]

Karl Malone was the worst player in nba history. Just watch any Laker game in 2004, he aint ish without Stockton.

[Gimmedarock]

I love both guy & honestly they're really close. Malone was more consistent. You could pencil him in for 20+ & around 10 boards every night. Barkley was the more explosive player, capable of 40 point games. Barkley had a bit more talent but Malone had more hustle. Not many power forwards could get up & down the floor like Karl. His speed is often over looked. What Barkley was able to accomplish playing power forward at his height is amazing! Crazy rebounder, great passing skills, & he could give you the occasional three. He seemed to combine power forward & guard at times. Malone was pure power forward with limited ball handling skills. Barkley operated more as a solo act. I remember him backing guys down all game some nights. Malone didn't dominate the ball like Barkley & seemed to play within the team concept more.

Too tough for me. I always think of Malone paird with Stockton whereas I Barkley just seemed to be dominate the teams he was on. Barkley a shade more talented but Malone was more consistent. Two of my favorites though.

[ClipperRevival]

I love both guy & honestly they're really close. Malone was more consistent. You could pencil him in for 20+ & around 10 boards every night. Barkley was the more explosive player, capable of 40 point games. Barkley had a bit more talent but Malone had more hustle. Not many power forwards could get up & down the floor like Karl. His speed is often over looked. What Barkley was able to accomplish playing power forward at his height is amazing! Crazy rebounder, great passing skills, & he could give you the occasional three. He seemed to combine power forward & guard at times. Malone was pure power forward with limited ball handling skills. Barkley operated more as a solo act. I remember him backing guys down all game some nights. Malone didn't dominate the ball like Barkley & seemed to play within the team concept more.

Too tough for me. I always think of Malone paird with Stockton whereas I Barkley just seemed to be dominate the teams he was on. Barkley a shade more talented but Malone was more consistent. Two of my favorites though.

Malone's speed gets overlooked. He was one of the best runners in history for a 4. He could really fill the lanes and wasn't just a brute force. He had GOAT level strength and the ability to run in transition. Very rare combo.

And maybe Barklye's odd set of talents wasn't always optimal because he was more of a solo act as you stated while Malone was great at playing within a system. He was also a noticeably better defender for most of his career.

I think the consensus is Barkley peaked higher but Malone had the better career.

[ClipperRevival]

Karl Malone was the worst player in nba history. Just watch any Laker game in 2004, he aint ish without Stockton.

Malone was 41 in 2004. Damn Wilt fans are salty. :oldlol:

[Pointguard]

Karl Malone was the worst player in nba history. Just watch any Laker game in 2004, he aint ish without Stockton.
He was one of the best 40 to 41 year olds ever that year. Wow, this screams that you just don't know.

[Round Mound]

All Eye View Test and Broken Down Stats (Same That Put MJ and Lebron As The Best of Their Eras) Clearly State That Barkley Was Better. Malone Had Better Longevity and Stockton. Thats About It. :confusedshrug:

[Gimmedarock]

Malone's speed gets overlooked. He was one of the best runners in history for a 4. He could really fill the lanes and wasn't just a brute force. He had GOAT level strength and the ability to run in transition. Very rare combo.


Malone regularly beat small forwards & guards down the floor. Dude could fly & did that all game long. He then had the power to finish through contact.


I think Barkley had the more flashy plays. More spectacular. Malone's scored so many points off layups & plays that took place directly under the basket. Barkley caught my eye first because he was explosive. Malone was meat & potatoes. I can't argue against either guy. The game is so perimeter dominated now, I miss seeing guys playing down low.

[Dragonyeuw]

He was one of the best 40 to 41 year olds ever that year. Wow, this screams that you just don't know.

I was just looking at Malone's basketball-ref page. Guy was 38-39 years old, playing 36-38 mins, and putting up 20+ points, 7+rebounds. Crazy longevity.

[comerb]

I don't put Barkley even in the same league as Malone.

So how long have you been willfully retarded?

[La Frescobaldi]

I can't say he is better at anything except defense, but I'd take Tim Duncan 500,000 times over either one of these guys.

Duncan is hands down the best 4 I've ever seen, and if you want to call him a center (which is a valid point, the Spurs played a lot of two-center ball), I'd still put him right up there towards the top of the all-time lists.

That said, gimme Barkley for peak, Malone for career; but if they had traded places and Sir Charles played with Stockton I doubt a lot of people would even remember Karl Malone.

[AussieSteve]

There were some similarities between Barkley in the 90s and LeBron today in that, you can't really read too much into what they did in the regular season, because they only really gave their full effort in the post season. Chuck's numbers improved in the playoffs every year and his career playoff averages are higher than his regular season across the board.

As an example, in 1993-94, when I suppose most people today would look at his numbers and say he was past his best, he averaged 24.5/12.0/5.1/1.9/0.8 on .527 FG% over the first couple of months, before getting injured and missing a few games. When he came back, he was content to average 19.6/10.8/4.1/1.4/0.4 on .468 FG% for the second half of the season. But then in the playoffs, he lifted his numbers to 27.6/13.0/4.8/2.5/0.9 on .509 FG%. His true level was far higher than what his regular season numbers suggested. He was still one of the best players going around, he was just saving himself for the playoffs - just like LeBron does these days.

The opposite was true for Malone. His numbers generally declined in the playoffs. His regular season output really was the best he had in him.

[ClipperRevival]

There were some similarities between Barkley in the 90s and LeBron today in that, you can't really read too much into what they did in the regular season, because they only really gave their full effort in the post season. Chuck's numbers improved in the playoffs every year and his career playoff averages are higher than his regular season across the board.

As an example, in 1993-94, when I suppose most people today would look at his numbers and say he was past his best, he averaged 24.5/12.0/5.1/1.9/0.8 on .527 FG% over the first couple of months, before getting injured and missing a few games. When he came back, he was content to average 19.6/10.8/4.1/1.4/0.4 on .468 FG% for the second half of the season. But then in the playoffs, he lifted his numbers to 27.6/13.0/4.8/2.5/0.9 on .509 FG%. His true level was far higher than what his regular season numbers suggested. He was still one of the best players going around, he was just saving himself for the playoffs - just like LeBron does these days.

The opposite was true for Malone. His numbers generally declined in the playoffs. His regular season output really was the best he had in him.

LOL.

Now you're making Barkley look like he was some consistent, clutch performer. First off, he went to a Suns team that had won 55, 54, 55 and 53 games before joining that team, including 2 WCF appearances. So that Suns team was VERY good before he got their. He does probably win a ring in many other seasons in 1992-93. He just had the misfortune of playing MJ when he went off.

And his 1994-95 Suns had a historical collapse when his team with a 59-23 record lost a 3-1 lead to a 45-37 Rockets team, including losing 2 of the last 3 games AT HOME. That's Wilt like choking.

Malone might've had a rep for underperforming in the playoffs but so did Barkley, regardless of what the numbers say.

[Pointguard]

LOL.

Now you're making Barkley look like he was some consistent, clutch performer. First off, he went to a Suns team that had won 55, 54, 55 and 53 games before joining that team, including 2 WCF appearances. So that Suns team was VERY good before he got their. He does probably win a ring in many other seasons in 1992-93. He just had the misfortune of playing MJ when he went off.

And his 1994-95 Suns had a historical collapse when his team with a 59-23 record lost a 3-1 lead to a 45-37 Rockets team, including losing 2 of the last 3 games AT HOME. That's Wilt like choking.

Malone might've had a rep for underperforming in the playoffs but so did Barkley, regardless of what the numbers say.

Malone averaged 25 and 10 in both seasons - he was a machine and might have envisioned that number in some mental exercise of attaining goals. While he did kill Kemp, a couple of times, in WCF and was clearly outplaying young Duncan and Barkley in successive playoff series in the later 90's. Rodman held Malone to his usual 25 and 10 over both of those series. People forget how good Rodman was defensively and Malone caught a bad rap for not having an extra gear for Jordan, which upset me too, but Rodman was still capable of bringing Shaq down 50% off his production so Malone, in hindsight, wasn't that bad..

Barkley did up his numbers to 23 and 13 (from 22 and 12) in the post season.

[AussieSteve]

LOL.

Now you're making Barkley look like he was some consistent, clutch performer. First off, he went to a Suns team that had won 55, 54, 55 and 53 games before joining that team, including 2 WCF appearances. So that Suns team was VERY good before he got their. He does probably win a ring in many other seasons in 1992-93. He just had the misfortune of playing MJ when he went off.

And his 1994-95 Suns had a historical collapse when his team with a 59-23 record lost a 3-1 lead to a 45-37 Rockets team, including losing 2 of the last 3 games AT HOME. That's Wilt like choking.

Malone might've had a rep for underperforming in the playoffs but so did Barkley, regardless of what the numbers say.


Chuck blew it in both 94 and 95 no doubt. Especially in 95, but even then, the Suns only went down by a point in game 7. A bucket the other way and they almost certainly go all the way, with Barkley the most likely finals MVP... But of course this didn't happen. And you are correct that when it mattered most Barkley couldn't get it done in those two game 7s.

My main point though was this. If you judged Lebron's 2016 by his regular season, you'd have him definitely top 5 but certainly not the #1 player in the league. But after the finals there is no doubt he is still the best. Barkley obviously is not the same player as LBJ, but a similar thing can be said. If we rate him on his regular season output, we get a different picture from his post season performances.

In 94 he went from 22 ppg & 11 rpg in the reg. season to 28ppg & 13rpg in playoffs. In 95 he went from 23ppg & 11rpg to 26ppg & 13rpg, with improved FG% in both playoffs. He lifted, as he did almost every postseason of his career.

The other conclusion that can be drawn is that both Jordan and Hakeem were just better players than Barkley. They got it done when he couldn't. But it's a legit point in the Barkley v Malone debate.

[ClipperRevival]

Chuck blew it in both 94 and 95 no doubt. Especially in 95, but even then, the Suns only went down by a point in game 7. A bucket the other way and they almost certainly go all the way, with Barkley the most likely finals MVP... But of course this didn't happen. And you are correct that when it mattered most Barkley couldn't get it done in those two game 7s.

My main point though was this. If you judged Lebron's 2016 by his regular season, you'd have him definitely top 5 but certainly not the #1 player in the league. But after the finals there is no doubt he is still the best. Barkley obviously is not the same player as LBJ, but a similar thing can be said. If we rate him on his regular season output, we get a different picture from his post season performances.

In 94 he went from 22 ppg & 11 rpg in the reg. season to 28ppg & 13rpg in playoffs. In 95 he went from 23ppg & 11rpg to 26ppg & 13rpg, with improved FG% in both playoffs. He lifted, as he did almost every postseason of his career.

The other conclusion that can be drawn is that both Jordan and Hakeem were just better players than Barkley. They got it done when he couldn't. But it's a legit point in the Barkley v Malone debate.

Fair enough.

The odd thing is he would be viewed much differently if he had just gotten that ring in 1992-93. I think if the Bulls/Suns play 100 times, Suns might win 25 times. I really do given their superior, overall talent and depth. MJ really needed to go OFF for them to win. 41.0 PPG on .50% is just ridiculous.

[Round Mound]

MJ prooved he was the best player but he also had THE BEST 2ND OPTION in SCOTTIE PIPPEN. Pippen > Stockton and KJ. That and GRANT who was one of the best defensive pfs in the game and prooved an All Star whem MJ left to play baseball. Also dont forget who MJ and Pippen had as coach: Phil Jackson.

[AussieSteve]

Fair enough.

The odd thing is he would be viewed much differently if he had just gotten that ring in 1992-93. I think if the Bulls/Suns play 100 times, Suns might win 25 times. I really do given their superior, overall talent and depth. MJ really needed to go OFF for them to win. 41.0 PPG on .50% is just ridiculous.

The Suns where 1 defensive stop away from a home game 7 against the Bulls in 93, and were a bucket away from beating Houston, who then cruised to the championship in 95. When you think about it, Barkley was 2 plays away from potentially being a 2 time champion. I know its one of those 'what ifs', and he still would have had more games to win in both cases, but the difference between how he's rated now compared to how he would be rated in that case is crazy... but then you could make a similar argument for Malone in 98. One stop away from a home game 7.

But I feel like Chuck is criticized more for not getting the ring than Malone is. Even though he performed well personally in each of the three post seasons that he had a real chance of winning it all. In those three post seasons he went 27/14/4 (27/13/6 in the finals), 28/13/5 and 26/13/3, all on good FG%. They're good numbers.

[AussieSteve]

MJ prooved he was the best player but he also had THE BEST 2ND OPTION in SCOTTIE PIPPEN. Pippen > Stockton and KJ. That and GRANT who was one of the best defensive pfs in the game and prooved an All Star whem MJ left to play baseball. Also dont forget who MJ and Pippen had as coach: Phil Jackson.

Also B.J. Armstrong was an All Star the year MJ didn't play.

We underestimate how good that Bulls team was. Not only did they have arguably the greatest coach ever and the greatest player ever in career best form, but the next year Pippen was 3rd in MVP voting and All Star MVP, and Grant and Armstrong were All Stars. The same Bulls team pushed the eastern conference champ Knicks to a game 7 without Jordan.

[Round Mound]

Also B.J. Armstrong was an All Star the year MJ didn't play.

We underestimate how good that Bulls team was. Not only did they have arguably the greatest coach ever and the greatest player ever in career best form, but the next year Pippen was 3rd in MVP voting and All Star MVP, and Grant and Armstrong were All Stars. The same Bulls team pushed the eastern conference champ Knicks to a game 7 without Jordan.

Indeed :applause:

And Chuck was robbed from the 1990 MVP. He was the NBAs best player in relation to level of teamates that year.

[AussieSteve]

Malone averaged 25 and 10 in both seasons - he was a machine and might have envisioned that number in some mental exercise of attaining goals. While he did kill Kemp, a couple of times, in WCF and was clearly outplaying young Duncan and Barkley in successive playoff series in the later 90's. Rodman held Malone to his usual 25 and 10 over both of those series. People forget how good Rodman was defensively and Malone caught a bad rap for not having an extra gear for Jordan, which upset me too, but Rodman was still capable of bringing Shaq down 50% off his production so Malone, in hindsight, wasn't that bad..

Barkley did up his numbers to 23 and 13 (from 22 and 12) in the post season.


You're being a bit disingenuous saying Malone clearly outplayed Barkley in 98. I know you want to get a +1 in the Malone column and a -1 in the Barkley column, but Barkley was obviously playing injured, and hardly played at all. He didn't start in any games, played just 9 mins in game 4 and didn't play at all in game 5. They probably only shared the court for about 75 out of Malone's 199 mins in the series. Furthermore, I'm not even sure he did outplay Chuck at all.

Houston won 2 of those first 3 games and were leading by double figures before Barkley left the court in the first half of game 4. They then got spanked for the rest of that game and in game 5, when Chuck wasn't there any more. So with Barkley they looked set for a 3-1 win, but then he left and they end up losing 2-3

Coincidence? Maybe.

But I do know that Chuck's ORtg and DRtg were both better than Malone's for those 3 and a bit games, and Malone's FG%, ORtg and DRtg improved enormously in Chuck's absence. Per 36 mins, while Chuck was in the series, Malone put up ~20/10/1 on ~.400FG% compared to Barkley's 15/9/2 on .522FG%. (the ~ is because I'm speculating a bit about what Malone did in Q1 of game 4, but it wouldn't have been much because the Rockets were up 21-10). Once Barkley was out of the series Malone put up ~30/13/2 per 36 mins, on ~.540FG%. Based on these numbers, it's not much of a stretch IMO to assume that Malone's stats while Barkley was on court were probably no better than Barkley's, and with a much lower FG%

So there's anecdotal evidence that perhaps Malone didn't 'clearly outplay' Barkley at all. Rather the truth might be that even injured, old, way past his prime Barkley was still a Malone stopper.