Barkley on the Sixers, second only to GOAT in his era.

[JtotheIzzo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJuINS6WZyA

[Im Still Ballin]

Karl Malone >

As usual

[TAZORAC]

Barkley is underrated, dead on jump shot, great rebounder, quick for a chubby guy as well.

[Gone_Fishin]

If If fatass Green can do what he does, I would love to see Barkley in this era.

[LAZERUSS]

Between Barkley, D-Rob, Hakeem, and Karl.

[AngelEyes]

Barkley is underrated, dead on jump shot, great rebounder, quick for a chubby guy as well.

Barkley in his prime 90' - 93' wasn't chubby at all.

[senelcoolidge]

Great player. Unique player. He played in an area that was stacked with excellent big men at the 4 and 5.

[TAZORAC]

Barkley in his prime 90' - 93' wasn't chubby at all.

I like Barkley better with the Suns actually, when he developed the jump shot. Barkley has always been chubby.

[lucky001]

If If fatass Green can do what he does, I would love to see Barkley in this era.

Barkley would be like a pedophile in a kindergarten. Big ass grin on his face while the rest of the league cries for their mothers

[warriorfan]

was such an awful defender though

no lie like the worst

[Sarcastic]

Barkley would be like a pedophile in a kindergarten. Big ass grin on his face while the rest of the league cries for their mothers

:biggums:

[Dragonyeuw]

Barkley unfortunately wouldn't be the same player today, I'm glad he existed in the era he did. He played with a certain attitude and ferocity that would be neutered by today's pussified rules.

[SugarHill]

Barkley would be like a pedophile in a kindergarten. Big ass grin on his face while the rest of the league cries for their mothers
dat analogy

[feyki]

Barkley in his prime 90' - 93' wasn't chubby at all.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/michael-jordan-of-the-chicago-bulls-drives-to-the-basket-for-a-layup-picture-id56382483

[JtotheIzzo]

was such an awful defender though

no lie like the worst

urban legend from his later years. He was at times lazy, he was also the best defender on the floor at times.

[SpaceJam]

Barkley would be like a pedophile in a kindergarten. Big ass grin on his face while the rest of the league cries for their mothers

God damn :oldlol:

[Round Mound]

Charles Was The 2nd Best Player in The League After Jordan 1990-1993 . And 3rd Best Player in The League 1993-95 after Hakeem. Check Out The Video I Posted With Robinson. He Would Dominate Today!

[feyki]

Charles Was The 2nd Best Player in The League After Jordan 1990-1993 . And 3rd Best Player in The League 1993-95 after Hakeem. Check Out The Video I Posted With Robinson. He Would Dominate Today!

I disagree with 93-95 .

There was no longer Peak Barkley after 93 Finals . Hakeem,Ewing,Admiral were better than him at that period .

[Dragonyeuw]

I disagree with 93-95 .

There was no longer Peak Barkley after 93 Finals . Hakeem,Ewing,Admiral were better than him at that period .

Hakeem and Admiral yes, they peaked in that period. Ewing, not sure about that one....

[feyki]

Hakeem and Admiral yes, they peaked in that period. Ewing, not sure about that one....

Ewing battled Peak Hakeem , who was one of the goat peaks , and it was close battle . He also could finals in the next year . And his team was bad man . 92-96 Ewing had great prime .

Back to my first post ,

I guess , I think Shaq was better than Barkley too in 94 and 95 , as total .

[Dragonyeuw]

Ewing battled Peak Hakeem , who was one of the goat peaks , and it was close battle . He also could finals in the next year . And his team was bad man . 92-96 Ewing had great prime .



Ewing's prime wasn't 92-96, more like 89 to 93....

[feyki]

Ewing's prime wasn't 92-96, more like 89 to 93....

He reached his peak in 90 offensively . But in defensive side , 92-96 Ewing was better defensive force . He also played terrible against Bulls at first round of the 91 Playoffs . His 92 to 96 era , more consistency , more a team player (also better leadership ) and had one of the greatest defensive impacts ( specially against tougher competitions ) in nba history . .

[Dragonyeuw]

He reached his peak in 90 offensively . But in defensive side , 92-96 Ewing was better defensive force . He also played terrible against Bulls at first round of the 91 Playoffs . His 92 to 96 era , more consistency , more a team player (also better leadership ) and had one of the greatest defensive impacts ( specially against tougher competitions ) in nba history . .


With all that said, the point you were making above is that Ewing between 93-95 was better than Barkley. And I don't recall that being the general opinion at the time.I don't think Ewing was ever considered better than Barkley during their primes/peaks including the period you're talking about.

[feyki]

With all that said, the point you were making above is that Ewing between 93-95 was better than Barkley. And I don't recall that being the general opinion at the time.I don't think Ewing was ever considered better than Barkley during their primes/peaks including the period you're talking about.

If you want point about those days' perceptions , Ewing had more mvp votes than Barkley at 94 and 95 seasons .

I always interest on playoffs when measure the individual level . And that's why i prefer Ewing . But if you want that , like i said ; mvp votes ..

[Dragonyeuw]

If you want point about those days' perceptions , Ewing had more mvp votes than Barkley at 94 and 95 seasons .

I always interest on playoffs when measure the individual level . And that's why i prefer Ewing . But if you want that , like i said ; mvp votes ..

The MVP vote swings so wildly from one season to the next, not sure if you want to hinge your argument on that one. By that reckoning Mark Price had more votes than Barkley in 94, you wouldn't make the argument that he was better than Barkley though, right? By the same token, Hakeem was 5th in MVP voting in 95, in fact he was behind Ewing at 4th. I'm sure you wouldn't make the argument that Ewing was better though, right?

[feyki]

The MVP vote swings so wildly from one season to the next, not sure if you want to hinge your argument on that one. By that reckoning Mark Price had more votes than Barkley in 94, you wouldn't make the argument that he was better than Barkley though, right? By the same token, Hakeem was 5th in MVP voting in 95, in fact he was behind Ewing at 4th. I'm sure you wouldn't make the argument that Ewing was better though, right?

I said that earlier . My answer was about your "considered" point .

Ewing played as good as Hakeem defensively in 94 finals , even could better . I don't say He was better offensive player than Barkley . But Ewing had far better defensive impact . He played with 1.3 steals , 4.3 blocks and 95 Drtg against Rox . Barkley had 2.3 steals , 1 blocks and 104 Drtg . Gap is huge defensively . Barkley was playing good defence but Ewing was playing like Russell level .

His 100 poss steals and blocks numbers in 94 finals ;




1.63 Steals , 5.45 Blocks



Amazing with one word .

[Dragonyeuw]

I said that earlier . My answer was about your "considered" point .

Ewing played as good as Hakeem defensively in 94 finals , even could better . I don't say He was better offensive player than Barkley . But Ewing had far better defensive impact . He played with 1.3 steals , 4.3 blocks and 95 Drtg against Rox . Barkley had 2.3 steals , 1 blocks and 104 Drtg . Gap is huge defensively . Barkley was playing good defence but Ewing was playing like Russell level .

His 100 poss steals and blocks numbers in 94 finals ;




1.63 Steals , 5.45 Blocks



Amazing with one word .

You would never measure Barkley by his defensive impact, whether compared to Ewing or general at any point in their careers.

[ClipperRevival]

You could make an argument from 1989-1992 but prior to that, there was Bird/Magic. I thought he deserved the MVP in 1990. But even then, I think most people on the planet would've taken Magic up until 1991, when he led a vastly inferior Lakers team past the tough Blazers to the finals. It was maybe the GOAT era ever for superstars so being top 3-4 is not bad either.

[feyki]

You would never measure Barkley by his defensive impact, whether compared to Ewing or general at any point in their careers.

I already didn't . I posted Ewing's greatness with his goat level defence . Barkley was better on offence . But defensive gap is huge between of them . I choose Ewing as total impact .

[JtotheIzzo]

You could make an argument from 1989-1992 but prior to that, there was Bird/Magic. I thought he deserved the MVP in 1990. But even then, I think most people on the planet would've taken Magic up until 1991, when he led a vastly inferior Lakers team past the tough Blazers to the finals. It was maybe the GOAT era ever for superstars so being top 3-4 is not bad either.

Barkley was the best player in the league in 89-90, the Sixers were a dumpster fire and he still lead them to 53 wins and the Atlantic Division title (Bulls won 55 and came second in the Central).

Jordan was Jordan as per usual, and no one is doubting the body of work, but in 89-90 Barkley was unstoppable and shot 60% from the field.

He had way more first place votes than anyone else, but some biased media members voted him way down the ranks (not even top 5) because they didn't like his commentary or antics. Magice ended up winning on the strength of second place votes. Barkley won the Sporting News MVP when that actually mattered

[Round Mound]

Barkley was the best player in the league in 89-90, the Sixers were a dumpster fire and he still lead them to 53 wins and the Atlantic Division title (Bulls won 55 and came second in the Central).

Jordan was Jordan as per usual, and no one is doubting the body of work, but in 89-90 Barkley was unstoppable and shot 60% from the field.

He had way more first place votes than anyone else, but some biased media members voted him way down the ranks (not even top 5) because they didn't like his commentary or antics. Magice ended up winning on the strength of second place votes. Barkley won the Sporting News MVP when that actually mattered

:applause:

[Jacks3]

Barkley was the best player in the league in 89-90

He has no argument against Jordan. Get real.

[Round Mound]

He has no argument against Jordan. Get real.

Yes he does. His team won two less games than the Bulls while the Bulls had a 2nd option that was better than any player other than Charles in the Sixers: Scottie Pippen.

[Dragonyeuw]

I already didn't . I posted Ewing's greatness with his goat level defence . Barkley was better on offence . But defensive gap is huge between of them . I choose Ewing as total impact .

Honestly it's really not worth the back and forth posts. In 94 and 95 they were more or less in the same tier, if you prefer Ewing that's your preference. My main point from before is you saying Hakeem, Admiral, and Ewing being better at that point. I think only Admiral and Hakeem are the two you can definitely claim were better at that time, Ewing is more debatable.

[feyki]

Honestly it's really not worth the back and forth posts. In 94 and 95 they were more or less in the same tier, if you prefer Ewing that's your preference. My main point from before is you saying Hakeem, Admiral, and Ewing being better at that point. I think only Admiral and Hakeem are the two you can definitely claim were better at that time, Ewing is more debatable.

I see . Hakeem was clearly at #1 . If Admiral played like his seasons level on playoffs , i would pick Admiral and Hakeem as first tier . But he didn't . And i don't think he was clearly better than Ewing .

Barkley played with 40 PER in 94 first round and 30+ PER in 95 first round . But did he play great against tough competitions ? No . I think Hakeem at #1 , Ewing and Admiral at #2 and #3 . And Barkley and Karl at #4 and #5 . Also , Shaq had case in 95 and Pippen had case in 94 . Their performances had case too .

[Dragonyeuw]

I see . Hakeem was clearly at #1 . If Admiral played like his seasons level on playoffs , i would pick Admiral and Hakeem as first tier . But he didn't . And i don't think he was clearly better than Ewing .

Barkley played with 40 PER in 94 first round and 30+ PER in 95 first round . But did he play great against tough competitions ? No . I think Hakeem at #1 , Ewing and Admiral at #2 and #3 . And Barkley and Karl at #4 and #5 . Also , Shaq had case in 95 and Pippen had case in 94 . Their performances had case too .

You're kidding yourself if you think Ewing was the 2nd best player in 94 and 95. Hakeem, Admiral and Shaq were pretty much your top 3 players in those years, after that you can pick the bones between Pippen, Malone, Barkley and whoever else. To be perfectly honest, for the period in time being discussed by your profile you were a baby at the time. So what exactly are you basing your views on? This would be like me speaking with some level of authority about 60s or 70s ball when it was before my time.

[AngelEyes]

Yes he does. His team won two less games than the Bulls while the Bulls had a 2nd option that was better than any player other than Charles in the Sixers: Scottie Pippen.

Barkley wasn't better than Jordan. . . there's no argument. Calling Barkley MVP is one thing but saying he was a better player than Jordan is just stupid.

[Round Mound]

Barkley wasn't better than Jordan. . . there's no argument. Calling Barkley MVP is one thing but saying he was a better player than Jordan is just stupid.

I Ment Better MVP in 1990. He Wasn`t Better But He was Close to as Good. Jordan had Grant and Pippen: Better Players Than What Chuck Had in The Sixers That Year.

[sportjames23]

Barkley would be like a pedophile in a kindergarten. Big ass grin on his face while the rest of the league cries for their mothers



dat analogy


:eek:

[Im Still Ballin]

Karl Malone > Barkley

[Round Mound]

Karl Malone > Barkley

Jazz Fan in the house.....:oldlol:

[JtotheIzzo]

Barkley wasn't better than Jordan. . . there's no argument. Calling Barkley MVP is one thing but saying he was a better player than Jordan is just stupid.

During that season he was. Historically referencing it now, it seems foolish, but Jordan was still titless, he played a brand of ball that the press and many fans were convinced 'couldn't win championships' and the Bulls couldn't get over the hump in the playoffs.

Barkley took a ragtag bunch of lottery bound losers past the Celtics and into the 2 seed in a VERY tough East, he had the best season of anyone that year.

[Dragonyeuw]

Jazz Fan in the house.....:oldlol:

Can I see an argument for this other than longevity? Barkley was easily a more dynamic talent, more capable of creating his own offense in a variety of situations which is why he was a better playoff performer, and a more dynamic rebounder. Malone's defense superiority isn't nearly as pronounced as the difference in their overall capabilities. Malone was a great player, but he and Stockton had a symbiotic relationship feeding off each other.

[feyki]

You're kidding yourself if you think Ewing was the 2nd best player in 94 and 95. Hakeem, Admiral and Shaq were pretty much your top 3 players in those years, after that you can pick the bones between Pippen, Malone, Barkley and whoever else. To be perfectly honest, for the period in time being discussed by your profile you were a baby at the time. So what exactly are you basing your views on? This would be like me speaking with some level of authority about 60s or 70s ball when it was before my time.

Pure ignorance . Did you hear ever about history science ? I talking about Gok Blue or Huns a lot of times . That was 1500 years ago . And you can't understand Ewing's greatness. This conversation is over for me .

[Dragonyeuw]

Pure ignorance . Did you hear ever about history science ? I talking about Gok Blue or Huns a lot of times . That was 1500 years ago . And you can't understand Ewing's greatness. This conversation is over for me .

Yes, you're correct. Pure ignorance. I don't claim to be an expert on history and science beyond what I read. Bottomline is other than you looking up youtube highlights or basketball reference and jerking off to stats, you have no clue about the period you're trying to argue about. The reality is there are very few seasons you could argue Ewing as a top 5 player, maayybe around 90 and even then he had no case over MJ, Magic, and Barkley at the least. The seasons you're trying to make a case for( 94 and 95) is laughable, especially your point that he was ahead of Robinson.

[Stringer Bell]

Magic was the best in 1986-87, Jordan was the best from 1987-93 and then 95-98.

The 2nd best player behind Jordan for all those years can change year-by-year and is debatable. What Magic did shouldn't be overlooked.


1987-88:
Bird (2nd in MVP voting), 30, 9, 6. 53% FG.

Magic (3rd in MVP voting), 20, 6, 12. 49% FG. Worthy won Finals MVP thanks to his amazing game 7, but I don't think anyone would claim that Magic was not the most important player on the team.

Barkley (4th in MVP voting), 28, 12, 3. 59% FG.

1988-89:
Magic (MVP winner). 22, 8, 13. 51% FG. Led the Lakers to 11 straight postseason wins before they lost to the Pistons and he got injured in game 2. By then, Kareem was a shell of what he once was, although he did have a very good player in Worthy and some other solid players.

Olajuwon (5th in MVP voting). 25 and 13 a game, 51% FG 3.4 BPG, 2.6 SPG. Yes, a center with 2.6 steals per game!

Barkley (6th in MVP voting). 26, 12, 4. 58% FG.

1989-90 (maybe the toughest MVP race ever):
Magic (MVP winner) 22, 6.6, 11.5, 48% FG. Led the Lakers to 63 wins. Outside of Worthy, his supporting cast of a rookie Divac, agng Cooper, Scott, Woolridge, aging Thompson isn't the type of teammates you'd expect would be on a team that wins 63 games.

Barkley (2nd in MVP voting despite getting 11 more 1st place votes than Magic). 25, 11, 4, 60% FG. Led the Sixers to 53 wins with a supporting cast of Hawkins, Dawkins, Gminski, Mahorn. Really impressive (meaning Barkley, not the team's overall talent).

Hell, Jordan finished 3rd in MVP voting, putting up 34, 7, 6, 3 SPG, 53% FG, great defense (unlike Magic and Barkley). This year also had Malone putting up 31 and 11 on 56% FG, Ewing putting up 29 and 11 with 4 BPG on 55% FG, Olajuwon putting up 24 and 14 with 2.1 SPG and 4.6 BPG, and rookie Robinson putting up 24 and 12 with 4 BPG, 53% FG, and leading the Spurs to THIRTY-FIVE more wins than the previous season.

1990-91:
Magic (2nd in MVP voting). 19, 7, 12.5. Moreover, he led the Lakers past the far more talented Blazers to reach the NBA finals. That was especially impressive, as the Lakers' style of play changed down to a slower pace, with Magic spending increasing amount of time in the post, meanwhile still being the orchestator on offense, and getting farther in the postseason than they really should have.

Robinson (3rd in MVP voting). 26, 13, 4 BPG, 55% FG.

Barkley (4th in MVP voting). 28, 10, 4, 57% FG.

Looking back it's kind of funny that Clyde Drexler was being touted as possibly Jordan's equal during the 1991-92 season and into the finals. He did have an excellent season, finishing 2nd in MVP voting, 25, 7, 7, but it just seems funny (perhaps in retrospect) that people actually thought that Drexler may have been Jordan's equal. Barkley had an off-year, as did Hakeem.

1992-93:

Barkley won MVP, Hakeem finished 2nd, Jordan finished 3rd.

Barkley: 26, 12, 5, 52% FG, led the Suns to 62 wins.
Hakeem: 26, 13, 3.5 APG, 53% FG, 1.8 SPG, 4.2 BPG, led the Rockets to 55 wins, DPOY.
Jordan: 32.6, 6.7, 5.5, 50% FG, 2.8 SPG, All-NBA 1st defensive first team again.


Again, each year is debatable on who was 2nd to Jordan. I find it hard to put Barkley, even with his amazing efficiency, great scoring and rebounding, over Hakeem in 1992-93. Hakeem gave you that AND he was the defensive player of the year. He was a big impact defensively. Barkley could be very clever on defense with getting steals, but was inconsistent and lazy defensively, and had trouble defending the pick-and-roll.

I also don't think I can put Barkley over Magic. Despite Magic not having quite the glossy stats that Barkley had (and Magic's numbers were impressive too), Magic did a great job at leading some underwhelming Lakers teams to 63 wins (1989-90) and the finals (1990-91). Magic's numbers don't show the whole story because he ran that offense. If it was football, he'd be the quarterback and the offensive coordinator at the same time.

[Stringer Bell]

I see . Hakeem was clearly at #1 . If Admiral played like his seasons level on playoffs , i would pick Admiral and Hakeem as first tier . But he didn't . And i don't think he was clearly better than Ewing .

Barkley played with 40 PER in 94 first round and 30+ PER in 95 first round . But did he play great against tough competitions ? No . I think Hakeem at #1 , Ewing and Admiral at #2 and #3 . And Barkley and Karl at #4 and #5 . Also , Shaq had case in 95 and Pippen had case in 94 . Their performances had case too .


You're kidding yourself if you think Ewing was the 2nd best player in 94 and 95. Hakeem, Admiral and Shaq were pretty much your top 3 players in those years, after that you can pick the bones between Pippen, Malone, Barkley and whoever else. To be perfectly honest, for the period in time being discussed by your profile you were a baby at the time. So what exactly are you basing your views on? This would be like me speaking with some level of authority about 60s or 70s ball when it was before my time.


Yes, you're correct. Pure ignorance. I don't claim to be an expert on history and science beyond what I read. Bottomline is other than you looking up youtube highlights or basketball reference and jerking off to stats, you have no clue about the period you're trying to argue about. The reality is there are very few seasons you could argue Ewing as a top 5 player, maayybe around 90 and even then he had no case over MJ, Magic, and Barkley at the least. The seasons you're trying to make a case for( 94 and 95) is laughable, especially your point that he was ahead of Robinson.

:oldlol: at Ewing being top 2 in 1994-95, and "battling Hakeem close".

Hakeem outplaying Ewing is the main reason why the Rockets beat the Knicks in the 94' Finals. Not Starks's brickfest in game 7, but rather Ewing's series-long brickfest. Ewing did a great job at blocking shots, but so did Hakeem. Ewing got what, 3 or 4 more blocks in 7 games than Hakeem? Wow, whopping amount. Ewing also did a good job at rebounding, but his offense was HORRIBLE. It was one of the worst offensive performances ever by a great player in an NBA finals. Moreover, all the games were close and competitive. The Rockets beat the Knicks in games 3 and 6 by the narrowest of margins and Ewing couldn't hit anything in those games. Not only was his shooting terrible, but he couldn't get to the line. When great scorers can't get their shot to fall, they get to the line. Ewing couldn't do either. He averaged 19 PPG on 23 field goal attempts per game. That is atrocious.

If you look at the production of both teams' backcourts, the Rockets did not outperform the Knicks. Kenny Smith struggled badly. Maxwell, Cassell, Starks, and Harper were all inconsistent. But Harper clearly performed the best of any of the guards on either teams. Starks also put up better and more efficient offensive numbers than Ewing even after his 2-18 game 7. The Houston forwards didn't outplay the Knick forwards. It came down to Hakeem clearly outplaying Ewing.

I don't want to bash Ewing too hard, he was indeed an excellent player, but it is what it is. Olajuwon had a much better series than him, and that was the key difference. Starks's awful game 7 made people forget how awful Ewing was offensively all series long.

Ewing wasn't even the 2nd best center in 1994 and 1995, let alone top 2 in the NBA. Hakeem, Shaq, and Robinson were all better.

[Dragonyeuw]

:oldlol: at Ewing being top 2 in 1994-95, and "battling Hakeem close".

Hakeem outplaying Ewing is the main reason why the Rockets beat the Knicks in the 94' Finals. Not Starks's brickfest in game 7, but rather Ewing's series-long brickfest. Ewing did a great job at blocking shots, but so did Hakeem. Ewing got what, 3 or 4 more blocks in 7 games than Hakeem? Wow, whopping amount. Ewing also did a good job at rebounding, but his offense was HORRIBLE. It was one of the worst offensive performances ever by a great player in an NBA finals. Moreover, all the games were close and competitive. The Rockets beat the Knicks in games 3 and 6 by the narrowest of margins and Ewing couldn't hit anything in those games. Not only was his shooting terrible, but he couldn't get to the line. When great scorers can't get their shot to fall, they get to the line. Ewing couldn't do either. He averaged 19 PPG on 23 field goal attempts per game. That is atrocious.

If you look at the production of both teams' backcourts, the Rockets did not outperform the Knicks. Kenny Smith struggled badly. Maxwell, Cassell, Starks, and Harper were all inconsistent. But Harper clearly performed the best of any of the guards on either teams. Starks also put up better and more efficient offensive numbers than Ewing even after his 2-18 game 7. The Houston forwards didn't outplay the Knick forwards. It came down to Hakeem clearly outplaying Ewing.

I don't want to bash Ewing too hard, he was indeed an excellent player, but it is what it is. Olajuwon had a much better series than him, and that was the key difference. Starks's awful game 7 made people forget how awful Ewing was offensively all series long.

Ewing wasn't even the 2nd best center in 1994 and 1995, let alone top 2 in the NBA. Hakeem, Shaq, and Robinson were all better.

Exactly. I dont know where that guy was going with the 'Ewing was second best' talk, at no point was he ever the second best player. He was a top ten player between 88 and 95 but he was never more than a fringe top 5 player even in his best years. Top 2 is a joke...