Chris Webber or charles barkley?

[GIF REACTION]

I'm taking Webber. Chuck didn't have the size nor the work ethic.

[bobopenguin]

I'm taking Webber. Chuck didn't have the size nor the work ethic.

hmm..
i take webber, the guy was clearly go to guy, and he can do just about everything, while being dominating and impactful.

barkley almost the same, just slightly behind at every category..

[Bigsmoke]

Barkley not only was a lot better but he no where are injury prone.


Webber was basically done by the time he was 33 and Barkley was still averaging like 13 rebounds a game at 36 years old


The only understandable excuse for someone to pick Webber over Barkley is if he or she was addicted to crack

[SHAQisGOAT]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/3938684_o.gif

[Dragonyeuw]

WTF? Barkley was a more dynamic scorer and rebounder, neither one of them were lockdown defenders so thats a wash. I really dont see the argument at all for Webber. He was very, very good, even great especially in his Kings heyday but he has no argument over Sir Charles as a player or career-wise.

[rmt]

Barkley. Check out Webber on Open Court "The Next 10" where he thinks he should be in the next 10 (after the 50 Greatest) over Wade and Durant.

[Dragonyeuw]

Barkley. Check out Webber on Open Court "The Next 10" where he thinks he should be in the next 10 (after the 50 Greatest) over Wade and Durant.

LOL no. I'd say at least 10 players since then have moved into top 50, and Nique should have been in there from the start:

Duncan
Garnett
Kobe
Lebron
Wade
Dirk
Pierce
Kidd
Payton
Durant
Allen
Nash

And I'm sure a few more I haven't thought of. Webber's somewhere in the 70 range.

[artificial]

I think Chris Webber usually gets underrated, and think he was greater than history will give him credit for.

That said, the closest Webber ever got to MVP was 4th in votes. Once. Barkley got an MVP in an era where Olajuwon and Jordan had entered their prime. Not saying the MVP counts for everything, but I do believe Chuck has the advantage on this one. Not by much, but fairly clearly in my opinion.

[Dragonyeuw]

I think Chris Webber usually gets underrated, and think he was greater than history will give him credit for.

That said, the closest Webber ever got to MVP was 4th in votes. Once. Barkley got an MVP in an era where Olajuwon and Jordan had entered their prime. Not saying the MVP counts for everything, but I do believe Chuck has the advantage on this one. Not by much, but fairly clearly in my opinion.

Not only that, he was 4th in 88, 2nd in 90( and many argue he was robbed of MVP that year), 4th in 91, throw in a few 6th place finishes. As you said, at that time the league was stacked with HOF talent in their primes, and Barkley was basically a top 4 player between 88 and 93, top 7 94, 95 and 96( and he was past his prime those last 2 years). Granted, I suppose you could apply the same argument that Webber's prime coincided with Shaq,Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Iverson, Dirk, etc etc. But still, having seen both's careers, Barkley overall was a more dynamic and dominant presence.

[eeeeeebro]

im offended by anyone who says webber

[imdaman99]

If Webber never got hurt, he would have been better than Barkley. Unfortunately, injuries are a part of the game.

[GreggPopazit]

Why are people feeding the troll?

[ImKobe]

Webber had more potential, but Chuck was a much better player to me considering his MVP and him being top 5 in voting every other year and leading a team to the Finals and taking MJ to 6 games while Jordan was putting up 40+ a night that series...

C-Webb no doubt is the more likeable player but Charles was something else...

[ClipperRevival]

Not only that, he was 4th in 88, 2nd in 90( and many argue he was robbed of MVP that year), 4th in 91, throw in a few 6th place finishes. As you said, at that time the league was stacked with HOF talent in their primes, and Barkley was basically a top 4 player between 88 and 93, top 7 94, 95 and 96( and he was past his prime those last 2 years). Granted, I suppose you could apply the same argument that Webber's prime coincided with Shaq,Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Iverson, Dirk, etc etc. But still, having seen both's careers, Barkley overall was a more dynamic and dominant presence.

Barkley clearly deserved the MVP in 1990. He got more 1st place votes but Magic was so loved, they had to give it to him again. And I think MJ deserved it in 1993, but the media sort of made up for 1990 by giving it to Chuck.

[Dragonyeuw]

If Webber never got hurt, he would have been better than Barkley. Unfortunately, injuries are a part of the game.

We got to see prime/peak Webber though, and he wasn't better.

[Dragonyeuw]

Barkley clearly deserved the MVP in 1990. He got more 1st place votes but Magic was so loved, they had to give it to him again. And I think MJ deserved it in 1993, but the media sort of made up for 1990 by giving it to Chuck.

I also think Charles' tough guy image( was that the year he spat on the girl or something like that) factored into it, as much as the Magic love. As for MJ, between 88 and 93 he legitimately could have won it every year, including the years he didn't.

[imdaman99]

We got to see prime/peak Webber though, and he wasn't better.
Prime Webber took a dominant Lakers team to 7 games. Yes he had help and a good team around him but he was the biggest reason in the Kings culture change into contenders. Barkley was very good/borderline great and made the Finals but he also cost them the Finals with horrible defense on that Paxson 3 that beat them. Webber guarded Shaq down the stretch in the playoffs and wasn't overwhelmed like Divac was.

Did Barkley have better numbers? Sure. But Webber was capable of 27-13-5 seasons as well.

[Pointguard]

I think Webber is a smoother fit on most teams while Barkley had more impact. Webber is a good mend and adjust type of player - a bit more serviceable than Chuck. I think Webber is better if you have more stars on your team. Barkley better if you have less. I'm pondering if Webber was a better fit on that Pheonix team that made the finals. Now that one is really tough.

With that said Barkley ranks much higher for me.

[PJR]

The Mailman would wash both of them.

[Dragonyeuw]

Prime Webber took a dominant Lakers team to 7 games. Yes he had help and a good team around him but he was the biggest reason in the Kings culture change into contenders. Barkley was very good/borderline great and made the Finals but he also cost them the Finals with horrible defense on that Paxson 3 that beat them. Webber guarded Shaq down the stretch in the playoffs and wasn't overwhelmed like Divac was.



You lost me at borderline great. Barkley is a top 15-20 all-time player. Webber being on a team that took the 2002 Lakers to 7 doesn't really provide enough of an argument to say he was better than Barkley. I just think he was singularly a more dominant presence, not to say Webber wasn't but not IMO at the level of Chuck between 88 and 93.

[ClipperRevival]

I also think Charles' tough guy image( was that the year he spat on the girl or something like that) factored into it, as much as the Magic love. As for MJ, between 88 and 93 he legitimately could have won it every year, including the years he didn't.

MJ had a legit case to win the MVP every season starting 1988 until 1998.

[kshutts1]

I think Webber is a smoother fit on most teams while Barkley had more impact. Webber is a good mend and adjust type of player - a bit more serviceable than Chuck. I think Webber is better if you have more stars on your team. Barkley better if you have less. I'm pondering if Webber was a better fit on that Pheonix team that made the finals. Now that one is really tough.

With that said Barkley ranks much higher for me.
Pippen v Melo type of thing?

Obviously, Melo is not the best example, just the quickest/easiest for me to use. But essentially a guy that is not as able to mold his game to support the team (Melo) can is devastatingly good at what he is, vs a guy that can do whatever the team needs and is also amazing at it (Pippen).

Players in my analogy aside, I really like how you said it.

[imdaman99]

You lost me at borderline great. Barkley is a top 15-20 all-time player. Webber being on a team that took the 2002 Lakers to 7 doesn't really provide enough of an argument to say he was better than Barkley. I just think he was singularly a more dominant presence, not to say Webber wasn't but not IMO at the level of Chuck between 88 and 93.
What I'm saying is that if Webber was healthy, he would be better than Barkley...in my opinion. You don't have to agree with it because we didn't get to see Webber healthy for more than a couple of years, there is no proving it either way. It's just my opinion. Webber was as talented as any PF coming out of college. He could do it all. He wasn't as dominant as Barkley because Barkley played in a league where you could back someone down for 24 seconds and it was legal. They had to change the rules because of him because they realized bully ball is not really basketball.

[kennethgriffin]

webber was nearly just as fat and lazy as fat butt barkley

[Dragonyeuw]

MJ had a legit case to win the MVP every season starting 1988 until 1998.

Well yeah, not including 94 and 95 since he was out of the league, but he easily could have won in 97.

[uber]

I'm taking Webber. Chuck didn't have the size nor the work ethic.
:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[Dragonyeuw]

What I'm saying is that if Webber was healthy, he would be better than Barkley...in my opinion. You don't have to agree with it because we didn't get to see Webber healthy for more than a couple of years, there is no proving it either way. It's just my opinion. Webber was as talented as any PF coming out of college. He could do it all. He wasn't as dominant as Barkley because Barkley played in a league where you could back someone down for 24 seconds and it was legal. They had to change the rules because of him because they realized bully ball is not really basketball.

Of course it's your opinion, I haven't argued that it's invalid. I don't think 'what ifs' are particularly useful. Webber was 28-30 in the early 2000's on those Kings teams. That was prime Webber, who although great, was not in my opinion better than Barkley. And there is no guarantee that based on what we saw, that he would have improved much beyond that. He very well may have improved, but we may very well have seen him as good as we ever would see him even if he didn't get injured. So, sorry, the 'if Webber hadn't gotten injured' argument is speculation and doesn't hold much water.

As for the rules governing postplay, I don't recall the specifics about why it was changed but I imagine it's more to do with not stalling ball movement as opposed to minimizing bully-ball. That said, that's far from the only thing Barkley was capable of doing offensively.

Edit: looking up the 5 second rule, from what I found on wikipedia( you're free to research whatever you feel is a more valid source) the 5 second rule AKA 'the Mark Jackson rule' was implemented to promote continuous play( basically what I said about not stalling ball movement).

[Papaya Petee]

I just watched the game 3 vs Warriors and Suns where Barkley dropped 56 points vs a rookie Webber guarding him and eliminated the Spreewell Mullin Webber Warriors. Barkley was unstoppable

[305Baller]

Barkley all day, son.

[AnaheimLakers24]

Kings are trash. 28 wins max for them this year.

[Smoke117]

Prime Webber took a dominant Lakers team to 7 games. Yes he had help and a good team around him but he was the biggest reason in the Kings culture change into contenders. Barkley was very good/borderline great and made the Finals but he also cost them the Finals with horrible defense on that Paxson 3 that beat them. Webber guarded Shaq down the stretch in the playoffs and wasn't overwhelmed like Divac was.

Did Barkley have better numbers? Sure. But Webber was capable of 27-13-5 seasons as well.

Wow...27 points on 23 shots...super impressive. Barkley averaged a career high 28 points on 16 shots...yeah. Webber wasn't close to as good as Barkley and everyone saying Webber or that they are close is a moron or knows nothing about basketball.

[T_L_P]

Webber had a four year Playoff run of 24/10/4/.495 TS%.

Barkley had a 13 year Playoff career of 23/13/4/.584 TS%, and a five year run of 26/13/5.

It's Chuck and it's not even close.

[CJ Mustard]

Barkley is much, much better than Chris Webber.

[imdaman99]

Wow...27 points on 23 shots...super impressive. Barkley averaged a career high 28 points on 16 shots...yeah. Webber wasn't close to as good as Barkley and everyone saying Webber or that they are close is a moron or knows nothing about basketball.
Barkley never won a ring and Webber never won a ring. And that's the bottom line on this forum. Barkley came closer to winning (although, Webber went to OT in pretty much the championship WCFs against the Lakers) and surpassed his potential while Webber didn't due to injuries. So Barkley > Webber. But I still maintain Webber could have been better. Don't act like there's no chance of that.

[Round Mound]

Webber had a four year Playoff run of 24/10/4/.495 TS%.

Barkley had a 13 year Playoff career of 23/13/4/.584 TS%, and a five year run of 26/13/5.

It's Chuck and it's not even close.

:applause:

[Fire Colangelo]

Barkley >>>>>>>

His biggest knock is that he went out of shape and suffered some injuries... Eve then his prime/peak lasted way longer than Webber's...

How this is comparable is beyond me, Chuck at his best was owning the likes of Karl Malone, along with other elite big men....

[GIF REACTION]

Chris had size AND skill.

Can't say the same for charlie.

[Fire Colangelo]

Chris had size AND skill.

Can't say the same for charlie.

He should've used his skill to score more effectively instead of taking jumpers...

Man had all the offensive potential in the world, but chose to settle with jump shots. Kinda like KG did, but KG was an elite defender to make up for it while Webber doesn't really come close...

[Pointguard]

Pippen v Melo type of thing?

Obviously, Melo is not the best example, just the quickest/easiest for me to use. But essentially a guy that is not as able to mold his game to support the team (Melo) can is devastatingly good at what he is, vs a guy that can do whatever the team needs and is also amazing at it (Pippen).

Players in my analogy aside, I really like how you said it.
Exactly!

[GIF REACTION]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=barklch01&p2=webbech01

Webber wins the H2H.

[Fire Colangelo]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=barklch01&p2=webbech01

Webber wins the H2H.

??

Pretty sure Barkley won the H2H...

[SHAQisGOAT]

I really like C-Webb but people picking him over Chuck? :wtf: :rolleyes: :facepalm

[Dragonyeuw]

Barkley never won a ring and Webber never won a ring. And that's the bottom line on this forum. Barkley came closer to winning (although, Webber went to OT in pretty much the championship WCFs against the Lakers) and surpassed his potential while Webber didn't due to injuries. So Barkley > Webber. But I still maintain Webber could have been better. Don't act like there's no chance of that.

What Webber could have been, might have been, is irrelevant. You do not know if he was going to get better than we saw him. We got to see his prime, which was between 99 and 03,ages 26-30. By that point he had put in 10 years, more than enough to see what kind of player he was. The 'Webber would have better if not for injury' schtick is literally a non-argument.

[RedBlackAttack]

WTF? Barkley was a more dynamic scorer and rebounder, neither one of them were lockdown defenders so thats a wash. I really dont see the argument at all for Webber. He was very, very good, even great especially in his Kings heyday but he has no argument over Sir Charles as a player or career-wise.
Webber was a fantastic passer. Really, that is the only part of the game I'd give Webber a significant edge.

Other than that, it's Barkley all day and not all that close, tbh. Webber had the talent and skill, but I never thought he completely maximized it, be it due to injury or work ethic or whatever. He just didn't have the "it" factor.

Charles Barkley was one of the many great players who had his path to a championship impeded by Jordan and the Bulls. That '93 Suns team was very good and Barkley was a dominating player for years, culminating in that season... and then for years afterward.

Webber never had that kind of impact in the NBA. The funny thing is, in general, I feel like Webber is underappreciated... but this is pushing it.

[GIF REACTION]

Webber had worse injuries than Barkley for sure.

Prime Webber was something else. Averaged roughly 25/11/4/1.5/1.7 for 4 years coinciding with the toughest defensive era too.

[Round Mound]

What Where Webber`s Play-Off Stats?

Barkley`s Was Something Like This: 23 PPG (51% FG and 55% on Two-Point FGs and 22.5 PPG Through Those), 12.9 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.6 SPG and 0.9 BPG.

Barkley Was a Monster Play-Off Performer While Webber Not So Much. Still Webber Deserves To Be In The HOF (If Rodman and Reggie Miller Are In, Even More So)....

[Dragonyeuw]

Webber was a fantastic passer. Really, that is the only part of the game I'd give Webber a significant edge.

Other than that, it's Barkley all day and not all that close, tbh. Webber had the talent and skill, but I never thought he completely maximized it, be it due to injury or work ethic or whatever. He just didn't have the "it" factor.

Charles Barkley was one of the many great players who had his path to a championship impeded by Jordan and the Bulls. That '93 Suns team was very good and Barkley was a dominating player for years, culminating in that season... and then for years afterward.

Webber never had that kind of impact in the NBA. The funny thing is, in general, I feel like Webber is underappreciated... but this is pushing it.

Yep, 100 % agree and I'll echo that Webber probably is underrated, but Barkley to this day remains one of the most unique talents in the history of the league.

[senelcoolidge]

This is a no-brainer. Charles Barkley is a first ballot Hall of Famer. There was no doubt that he was a Hall of Famer. While Webber was a very good player, he had the potential to be a great player. He's a borderline Hall of Famer, personally I don't think he should get in. It's like people all of sudden forgot what a beast Barkley was. A bigger Webber could not grab boards like Barkley. For a man of his size Barkley was a marvel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu3vkwP3GHQ

[And1AllDay]

Why are people feeding the troll?

This is what I was thinking too

[bizil]

For me its Sir Charles! C Webb was awesome, but Barkley was just more dynamic in terms of dominating a game. Peak Barkley was probably the most dominant PF of all time in terms of taking over a game. The guys like Duncan and KG were the better two way PF's. But when it came to taking a game by throat in an alpha dog fashion, Barkley was the best. But peak wise, C Webb is a top 10 PF of all time.

[LAZERUSS]

This isn't even a topic for discussion.

Barkley >>>>> Webber.

[Dragonyeuw]

For me its Sir Charles! C Webb was awesome, but Barkley was just more dynamic in terms of dominating a game. Peak Barkley was probably the most dominant PF of all time in terms of taking over a game. The guys like Duncan and KG were the better two way PF's. But when it came to taking a game by throat in an alpha dog fashion, Barkley was the best. But peak wise, C Webb is a top 10 PF of all time.

Nearer to the bottom of the list, most likely. I mean, you're going through the names of Duncan, Barkley, Malone, Dirk, KG, Petit, Hayes, McHale, before you start considering Webber's name in terms of peak play. Otherwise, agree with your post.

[JohnnySic]

If Webber never got injured this would be a legit argument.

[Thorpesaurous]

If Webber never got injured this would be a legit argument.


This is really the case. Somewhere between the mature can't really move Webber who still has that insane feel for the game, and the tempermental can't control himself but is changing ends like a maniac Webber, is a truly great great player. I still consider the Michigan Webber one of the greatest prospects I've ever seen come into the league, regardless of how things turned out.

Barkley has a little of that too. It's not injury driven, but it's a shame it took Charles as long to mature as it did, because he was a different physical being in Philadelphia than he was in Phx.

[JohnnySic]

This is really the case. Somewhere between the mature can't really move Webber who still has that insane feel for the game, and the tempermental can't control himself but is changing ends like a maniac Webber, is a truly great great player. I still consider the Michigan Webber one of the greatest prospects I've ever seen come into the league, regardless of how things turned out.

Barkley has a little of that too. It's not injury driven, but it's a shame it took Charles as long to mature as it did, because he was a different physical being in Philadelphia than he was in Phx.
YES.

The younger people on here only remember the older, limited Webber during his Kings days, so they judge him on that. Young Webber was an absolute monster, the power forward equivalent of Shaq with a greater skill set. To this day I cannot believe that Orlando traded him for Penny; I think they only did it to placate Shaq (he didn't want to share the paint with Webber).

[imdaman99]

YES.

The younger people on here only remember the older, limited Webber during his Kings days, so they judge him on that. Young Webber was an absolute monster, the power forward equivalent of Shaq with a greater skill set. To this day I cannot believe that Orlando traded him for Penny; I think they only did it to placate Shaq (he didn't want to share the paint with Webber).
This is what I was talking about. He had all time great talent. He was known for his soft hands and he would catch everything. I was used to watching Ewing with his hands of stone bobble the ball out of bounds a couple times a game :oldlol:

Webber to Shaq would have been fun to watch because Webber loved to pass. He could have averaged 5 assists a game with ease and been a triple double threat every night without stealing Shaq's shine (Shaq's insecurities with his co-stars being more popular than him).

When he first got to Sacramento, he was a beast on the boards and I think he led the league. I thought his best year in Sac was because he developed a baby hook, it was a go-to move when they needed crunch time points. So it's not like he was lazy working on it. He did settle for too many jumpers, but that probably had something do with him not wanting to get injured banging down low. What could have been :(

[Dragonyeuw]

If we're going to use the injury angle, Barkley became injury prone around 31, same as Webber. Can we apply the same standards to him as well in terms of 'what ifs'? Because his last fully healthy season was 93, and he won MVP. Barkley could have just as easily continued to improve, but that would be speculation. Grant Hill and Penny may have wound up as good as Kobe, but got injured as they were entering their peaks. Same with Tmac..... its really not a great argument.

[midatlantic09]

OP, get your head examined if you think Webber was better than Barkley.

[JohnnySic]

If we're going to use the injury angle, Barkley became injury prone around 31, same as Webber. Can we apply the same standards to him as well in terms of 'what ifs'? Because his last fully healthy season was 93, and he won MVP. Barkley could have just as easily continued to improve, but that would be speculation. Grant Hill and Penny may have wound up as good as Kobe, but got injured as they were entering their peaks. Same with Tmac..... its really not a great argument.
No. Webber got injured his second season at age 21. He was never the same player after that; he didn't have the same explosiveness.

[Dragonyeuw]

No. Webber got injured his second season at age 21. He was never the same player after that; he didn't have the same explosiveness.

OK. So ultimately, he wasn't better than Barkley and 'if he wasn't injured' still remains a non-argument. We can only compare on the circumstances that took place, not what ifs.

[GIF REACTION]

No. Webber got injured his second season at age 21. He was never the same player after that; he didn't have the same explosiveness.
This

Is amazing that he was able to play at such an elite level despite never being the same. It's a testament to his skill and finesse. People need to see what kind of player he was with Golden State that first year. Way more athletic.

[bizil]

Nearer to the bottom of the list, most likely. I mean, you're going through the names of Duncan, Barkley, Malone, Dirk, KG, Petit, Hayes, McHale, before you start considering Webber's name in terms of peak play. Otherwise, agree with your post.

I agree with that! Peak wise, I think C Webb would be closer to the bottom of the top 10 GOAT PF's. All the guys u named were dominant for a longer period of time than C Webb. C Webb wasn't as durable as those guys.

[And1AllDay]

Sir Charles

All day, all day! /Kanye

[And1AllDay]

Sir Charles
Reg Season:
Barkley put up 20 & 11 (or better) for 11-consecutive seasons.
Barkley's peak: 28/12/3 on 59%

Post Season:
Barkley put up 25 & 11 (or better) for 5-consecutive post seasons
Barkley's peak: 28-13-5 on 51%


Chis Weber
Reg Season:
Weber put up 20 & 10 (or better) for 7-consecutive seasons
Weber's peak: 27-11-4 on 48%

Post season:
Weber put up 23 & 8 (for 4-consecutive seasons)
Weber's peak: 24-10-5 on 43%

-----

So, basically Barkley had a better career both in the regular season and the post season. He had a longer, more consecutive career in both the regular season and the post season. He had a better regular season and post season peak. He won an MVP. And he went to the Finals (it wasn't his fault he had to face MJ's Bulls)

So um...Basically...Barkley...

[And1AllDay]

I agree with that! Peak wise, I think C Webb would be closer to the bottom of the top 10 GOAT PF's. All the guys u named were dominant for a longer period of time than C Webb. C Webb wasn't as durable as those guys.

Meh, even peak wise as I pointed out, Barkley had him beat. And Barkley doesn't normally get consideration for top PF: Duncan, Malone, Dirk, KG, (Barkley is probably 5th all time, which is still pretty huge). But if we are just taking the peak, C Weber's post season peak wasn't anything special (not likely considered top 10 at least)

24/10/5 on 43% with 2 blocks and 1.5 steals

I can probably find 4-5 PF that had similar post season peak right now without thinking too hard...

Let's try:

Chris Bosh, Josh Smith, Zach Randolph, LaMarcus Aldridge, Griffin, Pau, Amare, Milsap, Horford

Post season peak:

Bosh: 24/9/4 on 47% with 0.4 blocks and 1.6 steals
Smith: 17/14/5 on 39% with 1 block and 0.6 steals
Randolph: 22/11/2 on 45% with 0.8 blocks an 1.1 steals
LMA: 26/11/2 on 45% with 1.6 blocks and 0.6 steals
Griffin: 26/13/6 on 51% with 1.0 blocks and 1.0 steals
Pau: 20/11/4 on 54% with 2.1 blocks and 0.4 steals
Amare: 30/11/2 on 54% with 2.0 blocks and 0.7 steals
Milsap:19/11 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)
Horford: 19/8 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)

And, this isn't even including other all-time PF greats like Dennis Rodman, Kevin McHale, Elvin Hayes, Bob Pettit...

[Cali Syndicate]

Barkley...

[Norcaliblunt]

Webber should have stayed in Golden State.

[Nastradamus]

Webber averaged 20.1 and 9.5 per 36 with a .513 TS%, 20.9 PER and a 3.9 box plus/minus.

Barkley averaged 21.7 and1 11.5 per 36 with a .612 TS%, 24.6 PER and 7.4 box plus/minus(top 5 all time in that last category)



This is a stupid question. Webber is my all time favorite player too, as I'm a big UM fan and grew up in the Fab Five era, but Barkley was just flat out better. More efficient, more dominant at his best, more longevity.

[bizil]

Meh, even peak wise as I pointed out, Barkley had him beat. And Barkley doesn't normally get consideration for top PF: Duncan, Malone, Dirk, KG, (Barkley is probably 5th all time, which is still pretty huge). But if we are just taking the peak, C Weber's post season peak wasn't anything special (not likely considered top 10 at least)

24/10/5 on 43% with 2 blocks and 1.5 steals

I can probably find 4-5 PF that had similar post season peak right now without thinking too hard...

Let's try:

Chris Bosh, Josh Smith, Zach Randolph, LaMarcus Aldridge, Griffin, Pau, Amare, Milsap, Horford

Post season peak:

Bosh: 24/9/4 on 47% with 0.4 blocks and 1.6 steals
Smith: 17/14/5 on 39% with 1 block and 0.6 steals
Randolph: 22/11/2 on 45% with 0.8 blocks an 1.1 steals
LMA: 26/11/2 on 45% with 1.6 blocks and 0.6 steals
Griffin: 26/13/6 on 51% with 1.0 blocks and 1.0 steals
Pau: 20/11/4 on 54% with 2.1 blocks and 0.4 steals
Amare: 30/11/2 on 54% with 2.0 blocks and 0.7 steals
Milsap:19/11 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)
Horford: 19/8 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)

And, this isn't even including other all-time PF greats like Dennis Rodman, Kevin McHale, Elvin Hayes, Bob Pettit...

Peak and GOAT wise I said Barkley was the clear choice over Webber. No doubt about it. Peak wise, Barkley gets HUGE CONSIDERATION as the best PF of all time. GOAT wise, Duncan is the clear choice. And GOAT wise, some people still have Barkley AS HIGH as #3 for PF's. His prime was SO EPIC that they would take that over the one ring Dirk and KG have.

C Webb's peak in general is worthy enough to be considered top 10 PF caliber of all time. GOAT wise, C Webb is FIMRLY in the top 15-20 PF's ever. His durability issues is what stopped him from cracking the top 10 GOAT PF's. Peak Webber was the best passing PF in the world getting 27 points and 11 boards a night. Peak wise, I could see people taking these PF's over Webber:

Barkley
Malone
KG
Duncan
Hayes
Pettit
Dirk
McHale

After these guys, u can EASILY have Webber next in line. And even looking at a guy like Dirk, I think u could argue Webber's peak over Dirk. The main reason why is because of rebounding and passing. Even though he wasn't a great defender, C Webb SMOKES Dirk on that side of the court. Sure Dirk was the superior alpha dog, but peak Webber was still getting 27 points a night. I would probably take Dirk, but I could see an argument for Webber peak wise. C Webb was all NBA First or Second time FOUR TIMES in the Golden Era of PF's.

[Pointguard]

Meh, even peak wise as I pointed out, Barkley had him beat. And Barkley doesn't normally get consideration for top PF: Duncan, Malone, Dirk, KG, (Barkley is probably 5th all time, which is still pretty huge). But if we are just taking the peak, C Weber's post season peak wasn't anything special (not likely considered top 10 at least)

24/10/5 on 43% with 2 blocks and 1.5 steals

I can probably find 4-5 PF that had similar post season peak right now without thinking too hard...

Let's try:

Chris Bosh, Josh Smith, Zach Randolph, LaMarcus Aldridge, Griffin, Pau, Amare, Milsap, Horford

Post season peak:

Bosh: 24/9/4 on 47% with 0.4 blocks and 1.6 steals
Smith: 17/14/5 on 39% with 1 block and 0.6 steals
Randolph: 22/11/2 on 45% with 0.8 blocks an 1.1 steals
LMA: 26/11/2 on 45% with 1.6 blocks and 0.6 steals
Griffin: 26/13/6 on 51% with 1.0 blocks and 1.0 steals
Pau: 20/11/4 on 54% with 2.1 blocks and 0.4 steals
Amare: 30/11/2 on 54% with 2.0 blocks and 0.7 steals
Milsap:19/11 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)
Horford: 19/8 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)

And, this isn't even including other all-time PF greats like Dennis Rodman, Kevin McHale, Elvin Hayes, Bob Pettit...
Great research!

Webber was a glue guy on that Sacramento team. So he was great for that team. And he's a top three team player at the power forward position. You could put peak Barkley on that Sacramento team and they wouldn't be better..With standdout team players (Kidd, Marc Gasol, Ben Wallace) individual stats can be misleading. IIRC Kidd took a last place team that had Stephen Marbury at 24ppg with 8 assist and replaced it with his (Kidd)17 and 9 and took them to the finals in his first year. Stats aren't everything.

[kshutts1]

Meh, even peak wise as I pointed out, Barkley had him beat. And Barkley doesn't normally get consideration for top PF: Duncan, Malone, Dirk, KG, (Barkley is probably 5th all time, which is still pretty huge). But if we are just taking the peak, C Weber's post season peak wasn't anything special (not likely considered top 10 at least)

24/10/5 on 43% with 2 blocks and 1.5 steals

I can probably find 4-5 PF that had similar post season peak right now without thinking too hard...

Let's try:

Chris Bosh, Josh Smith, Zach Randolph, LaMarcus Aldridge, Griffin, Pau, Amare, Milsap, Horford

Post season peak:

Bosh: 24/9/4 on 47% with 0.4 blocks and 1.6 steals
Smith: 17/14/5 on 39% with 1 block and 0.6 steals
Randolph: 22/11/2 on 45% with 0.8 blocks an 1.1 steals
LMA: 26/11/2 on 45% with 1.6 blocks and 0.6 steals
Griffin: 26/13/6 on 51% with 1.0 blocks and 1.0 steals
Pau: 20/11/4 on 54% with 2.1 blocks and 0.4 steals
Amare: 30/11/2 on 54% with 2.0 blocks and 0.7 steals
Milsap:19/11 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)
Horford: 19/8 (okay so not really, but was just guessing)

And, this isn't even including other all-time PF greats like Dennis Rodman, Kevin McHale, Elvin Hayes, Bob Pettit...
First, Barkley is considered by some to have had the greatest peak of any PF. Duncan is universally considered the greatest PF because of defense, team wins and longevity.

Second, only Amare and Griffin come anywhere near Webber. The rest are a joke. And both Amare and Griffin, at those ages, had the chance to be all-time great players. So that's not a disservice to Webber.

My opinion is that Barkley was better than Webber at everything except passing/fitting in. But that's not say that Webber was not great.

And where Webber really annoys me is he had the potential to be one of the greatest players of all time, and just chose to play a less-efficient game than others; he didn't really want to bang down low or anything.

[GIF REACTION]

Webber was never the same after that first injury in his 2nd season.

[Replay32]

Barkley.

I just have to laugh at the posters who says Webber was better than Barkley. Obviously you guys didn't watch both players careers.

I was a Webber fan growing up too. But he was never better than Charles Barkley.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Stringer Bell]

Barkley, both for peak and career.

There was something missing about Webber. He was still a terrific player but he just lacked that extra spark. He had some bad luck with injuries but it wasn't like he was Yao/Sampson/Penny with the injuries. I thought he had the gifts to be the best ever at the 4 spot.

[D.J.]

Barkley easily. His offensive efficiency was insane. His TS% at peak was 66-67%. Absolutely absurd.

[Brunch@Five]

stats aside, I'd take the guy who isn't a mental midget.