I hate the disparaging of Karl Malone who is consensus top 15... [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

dankok8

10-01-2016, 12:30 PM

Every time there is a thread about him a few people jump on talking about how Barkley was a better player. He wasn't... If you look at a single peak season there is an argument although Malone is still a way better defensive player and had a better attitude. Not to mention that his prime was about twice as long and there is a myth flowing around that Barkley was outplaying Malone head to head. From 1989 onwards, it was usually Malone outplaying Barkley and from 1995 onwards it was never even close as Malone kept chugging along and Chuck declined.

Malone's 1989-1990 season was his statistical peak and he averaged 31.0 ppg on 62.6 %TS with 11.1 rpg and 2.8 apg. He also played very good defense and ended the season 3rd in defensive rebounds and 4th in defensive win shares. That's quite possibly better than any other regular season by a PF in history.

How about the clutch play? Let's debunk some myths. Sure he missed two free throws in Game 1 in the 1997 Finals and sure he got stripped by MJ in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals (he had 31/11/7 on 57% shooting in this elimination game by the way). Everyone can miss free throws or lose the ball. Every great player had a bad moment in the playoffs. Malone is a 74.2% free throw shooter for his career and considering he had 193 playoff games on his name, surely he has a few big free throws he missed. He also has many many that he made.

Let's look at all of his fourteen Game 7's and decisive Game 5's:

1987 R1 Game 5 vs. Warriors: 23/9/2 on 53.3% shooting L
1988 R2 Game 7 vs. Lakers: 31/15/4 on 66.7% shooting L
1990 R1 Game 5 vs. Suns: 26/8/2 on 52.6% shooting L
1991 R1 Game 5 vs. Clippers: 19/16/2 on 29.4% shooting W
1993 R1 Game 5 vs. Sonics: 26/12/2 on 52.6% shooting L
1994 R2 Game 7 vs. Nuggets: 31/14/6 on 52.2% shooting W
1995 R1 Game 5 vs. Rockets: 35/10/3 on 47.6% shooting L
1996 R1 Game 5 vs. Blazers: 25/10/1 on 52.4% shooting W
1996 CF Game 7 vs. Sonics: 22/5/7 on 36.4% shooting L
1998 R1 Game 5 vs. Rockets: 31/15/5 on 54.5% shooting W
1999 R1 Game 5 vs. Kings: 20/12/2 on 31.6% shooting W
2000 R1 Game 5 vs. Sonics: 27/8/3 on 54.2% shooting W
2001 R1 Game 5 vs. Mavericks: 24/10/2 on 32.1% shooting L
2004 R1 Game 5 vs. Rockets: 18/9/5 on 50.0% shooting W

Overall Decisive Game Average: 25.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 3.3 apg on 47.5% shooting

Overall Playoff Average: 24.7 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.2 apg on 46.3% shooting

Overall Season Average: 25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg on 51.6% shooting

So he actually raised his level a bit in those decisive games! There is a few duds but also a few huge performances against the Showtime Lakers and then twice against Hakeem. His win loss record is a dead even 7-7.

EDIT: Malone is also an all-time leader in free throws made and attempted so his real efficiency and his impact in terms of fouling opponents out is also very underrated.

But here is where it gets the most interesting. Malone has a reputation as a choker but what really happened is he ran into MJ and the Bulls in two consecutive years.

Here is Karl Malone's likely career if Jordan never existed:

3x MVP (1997, 1998, 1999)
2x NBA Champion (1997, 1998) -- Utah would beat the Heat and Pacers
2x Finals MVP (1997, 1998)
5x Scoring Champion (1989, 1990. 1991. 1992. 1997) -- he was #2 to MJ five times
3x PER Leader
4x Win Shares Leader

and then...

#2 on the All-Time Scoring List
#1 in Free Throws Made and Attempted

That is a top 10 resume...

Basically Karl Malone wasn't as good as the GOAT MJ. Compared to MJ he wasn't that good as a scorer, or that clutch. MJ was a simply a better player. Comparing him to most other greats though, he stacks up quite nicely.

IGOTGAME

10-01-2016, 12:39 PM

Gotterdammerung

10-01-2016, 01:30 PM

Karl Malone is one of the greatest players of all time, IMO. He is borderline second tier, along with the likes of Barkley, Havlicek, Moses, Baylor, Erving, Pettit. :cheers:

dankok8

10-01-2016, 01:37 PM

I just see a bunch of stats but no talk of skill sets. What was the point? Everyone knows Malone's resume and statistical accomplishments?

I'm pretty sure most people could easily find 15 players whose prime they would take over Karl Malone. The object is to win games and win titles and other skill sets were better for those purposes. Give me Wade or Barkley or Dirk over him any day.

The point is that if he didn't have to face Michael Jordan in two consecutive finals that he would have 2 titles and 2 Finals MVP's which with his other accomplishments would make him a consensus pantheon player. If there was no MJ he would also have five scoring titles.

How in the world is Barkley better for winning games? He won less than Malone, also has no title... In terms of skill sets Barkley gets an edge in scoring with his back to the basket, both were great face up and in the open floor, Malone is better from mid-range, Malone is better at drawing fouls, Malone is way better at defense... And yes Malone's prime was about twice as long.

Dirk has to be the most overrated player on the internet. No other player saw such a stratospheric rise into completely another tier from winning a championship. On one hand Lebron's 2011 Finals is listed as "the biggest finals choke of all time" (it probably was by the way...). They say "Heat should have won the series and the only reason Mavs won is Lebron choked." Ok I can agree... But then Dirk is praised so much for winning a title over Lebron's Heat and he didn't even play THAT WELL in the finals... 26.0 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 2.0 apg but on just 41.6% shooting. Dirk wasn't defended by Rodman and Pippen either like Malone was. Anyways I find people's take on the 2011 finals extremely hypocritical. On one hand Lebron's choke gave away the series but on the other hand Dirk also gets all the credit.

Dirk is pretty one-dimensional when you compare him to other great PF's.

Here is the top 10 PF's give or take:

Duncan
Garnett
Malone
Barkley
Pettit
Dirk
McHale
Hayes
Rodman
Lucas

Out of those 10, Dirk is the single worst rebounder and the only guys not better than him on defense are Barkley and Lucas.

Offensively he's up there but he's not better than Malone on offense either. Malone is a better scorer on face-up drives, in the open court, and inside with his back to the basket. Dirk has a way better mid-range game and shoots his free throws better but he also doesn't get to the line as much.

Statistically Malone's best seasons and even post seasons are superior to Dirk's and Malone also sustained his prime longer.

I will give you Wade. At his peak he was actually better than Malone. However, Wade had four prime years... 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Malone had fourteen... Wade is fragile and can't stay healthy. Malone is THE IRON MAN of the NBA. He accumulated just 10 missed games in 1444 games or 18 seasons. 10 games missed in 18 seasons!

It is not just about how good you are but how long you maintain it...

JT123

10-01-2016, 01:42 PM

Karl Malone is one of the greatest players of all time, IMO. He is borderline second tier, along with the likes of Barkley, Havlicek, Moses, Baylor, Erving, Pettit. :cheers:
:applause: Kobe also belongs in this tier

Gotterdammerung

10-01-2016, 02:19 PM

The point is that if he didn't have to face Michael Jordan in two consecutive finals that he would have 2 titles and 2 Finals MVP's which with his other accomplishments would make him a consensus pantheon player. If there was no MJ he would also have five scoring titles.

For what it's worth, having watched almost every Western Conference playoffs game in the 90s, I thought that the Jazz were more of a beneficiary of the declining Western powers than anything they did in making the Finals in 1997 and 1998.

They were the up-and-coming power in 1988, after forcing the Showtime Lakers to a game 7. But by 1998, 10 years later, they never won a championship:

1989. First round. Got swept by the 7th seeded Warriors.
1990. First round. Lost in 5 tough games to the Phoenix Suns.
1991. Semis. Dusted in 5 by the Trailblazers.
1992. Conference finals. Dominated in 6 by the Blazers. The Blazers were in control the entire series.
1993. Choked in the first round to the Seattle Sonics. They were actually up 2-1
1994. Conference finals. Lost in 5 to the eventual Champs Houston Rockets.
1995. First round. Choked in 5 to the eventual champs, Houston Rockets. They were actually up 2-1
1996. Conference finals. Lost in 7 to the Seattle Sonics.
1997 & 1998, finally made the Finals, but choked a few games to the Bulls on their last legs.
1999. Semifinals. Lost in 6 to the Portland Trailblazers.
:coleman:

In other words, only when the Western powers like the Sonics, Blazers, and the Rockets declined, did the Jazz break through. But when the Blazers and the Spurs reloaded and revamped themselves, the Jazz faded away to mediocrity. :facepalm

Clifton

10-01-2016, 02:31 PM

I wasn't around for their primes, but I've seen several quality seasons of Malone's. He seems like the Chris Paul of PFs. So perfect that you get bored of it and take it for granted.

Barkley was the Westbrook of PFs. The highs were higher, and it was never boring, but is anyone taking prime Westbrook over Paul? Paul you know what you're getting every night. And again, it's perfect. It's not greater-than-perfect like Magic Johnson was, but it's the most you can expect from a normal human.

For 15-ish consecutive years, Malone was a 20+/10 player with good defense, great passing, great teamwork, and a great attitude. You want to know how many games he missed from 1985 until his year with the Lakers? 10. Over the first 18 seasons of his 19 year career, he missed 10 games. Total.

Among players at his position, Duncan's defensive impact, and comparable offensive perfection and consistency, and greater postseason success, give him the edge. But I'm not automatically putting KG ahead of him, not without a fight. Barkley neither.

ArbitraryWater

10-01-2016, 03:16 PM

dankok8

10-01-2016, 06:33 PM

For what it's worth, having watched almost every Western Conference playoffs game in the 90s, I thought that the Jazz were more of a beneficiary of the declining Western powers than anything they did in making the Finals in 1997 and 1998.

They were the up-and-coming power in 1988, after forcing the Showtime Lakers to a game 7. But by 1998, 10 years later, they never won a championship:

1989. First round. Got swept by the 7th seeded Warriors.
1990. First round. Lost in 5 tough games to the Phoenix Suns.
1991. Semis. Dusted in 5 by the Trailblazers.
1992. Conference finals. Dominated in 6 by the Blazers. The Blazers were in control the entire series.
1993. Choked in the first round to the Seattle Sonics. They were actually up 2-1
1994. Conference finals. Lost in 5 to the eventual Champs Houston Rockets.
1995. First round. Choked in 5 to the eventual champs, Houston Rockets. They were actually up 2-1
1996. Conference finals. Lost in 7 to the Seattle Sonics.
1997 & 1998, finally made the Finals, but choked a few games to the Bulls on their last legs.
1999. Semifinals. Lost in 6 to the Portland Trailblazers.
:coleman:

In other words, only when the Western powers like the Sonics, Blazers, and the Rockets declined, did the Jazz break through. But when the Blazers and the Spurs reloaded and revamped themselves, the Jazz faded away to mediocrity. :facepalm

Umm yeah... I agree the competition declined. However you must realize that Malone and Stockton were in their mid-30's by 1997. Karl had his best cast in the late 80's with Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, and a prime Stockton. In 1998 he had a role player Stockton, Jeff Hornacek who is basically Mike Dunleavy on steroids, and Antoine Carr who could provide some one-dimensional scoring off the bench. The rest of the team were relative scrubs like Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and Howard Eisley.

Malone was the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on those Jazz teams that made the Finals. He shouldered an enormous load and when push came to shove he rarely had another scorer to take the load off of him. And in 1997 and 1998 it was between him, MJ, and prime Shaq for best player in the league. The reason Jazz were worth shit was because of him.

I wasn't around for their primes, but I've seen several quality seasons of Malone's. He seems like the Chris Paul of PFs. So perfect that you get bored of it and take it for granted.

Barkley was the Westbrook of PFs. The highs were higher, and it was never boring, but is anyone taking prime Westbrook over Paul? Paul you know what you're getting every night. And again, it's perfect. It's not greater-than-perfect like Magic Johnson was, but it's the most you can expect from a normal human.

For 15-ish consecutive years, Malone was a 20+/10 player with good defense, great passing, great teamwork, and a great attitude. You want to know how many games he missed from 1985 until his year with the Lakers? 10. Over the first 18 seasons of his 19 year career, he missed 10 games. Total.

Among players at his position, Duncan's defensive impact, and comparable offensive perfection and consistency, and greater postseason success, give him the edge. But I'm not automatically putting KG ahead of him, not without a fight. Barkley neither.

Good post. I think KG has a case over Malone but Barkley has none whatsoever. His body of work just doesn't compare. Short prime, less awards, more weaknesses in his game, bad attitude.

Bingo. Their team got weaker as did the conference, and somehow that makes them a 2 time champion in another era?

OP arbitarily removes the Bulls as a threat, but adds no other sufficient contender?

Malone doesn't really touch Dirk on offensive matters, either. Lol at Malone drawing out defenders near the 3 point line.

I replaced them with sufficient contenders. Both the Heat and Pacers were 60+ win teams in 1997 and 1998 and the latter made a finals appearance in 2000.

Dirk draws defenders out to the three point line but Malone takes it to the rim and draws fouls and Malone grabs more offensive rebounds. In their peak seasons and over 10+ years Malone also has superior offensive production. Way to disregard all objective evidence... Of course when we look at the totality of their games including rebounding and defense it's not really close.

The only argument and literally the ONLY argument Dirk fans have is "but...but... Dirk won a championship". Yea... only it took a truly historic choke for him to win it and it appears to be a fluke considering that the Mavs did absolutely nothing a few years before and after that title. Oh and he didn't have to face the 90's Bulls...

I think the only titles in league history I would call flukes are Barry's Warriors in 1975 and Mavs in 2011. When your team flames out of the playoffs the year prior and the year following something is wrong don't you think?

Round Mound

10-01-2016, 07:56 PM

Chuck was better in both their primes. Why mention him. ALL BROKEN DOWN STATS suggest he was better too.

Gotterdammerung

10-01-2016, 08:00 PM

feyki

10-01-2016, 08:05 PM

More like top 20 .

fourkicks44

10-01-2016, 09:28 PM

ArbitraryWater

10-01-2016, 09:39 PM

Umm yeah... I agree the competition declined. However you must realize that Malone and Stockton were in their mid-30's by 1997. Karl had his best cast in the late 80's with Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, and a prime Stockton. In 1998 he had a role player Stockton, Jeff Hornacek who is basically Mike Dunleavy on steroids, and Antoine Carr who could provide some one-dimensional scoring off the bench. The rest of the team were relative scrubs like Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and Howard Eisley.

Malone was the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on those Jazz teams that made the Finals. He shouldered an enormous load and when push came to shove he rarely had another scorer to take the load off of him. And in 1997 and 1998 it was between him, MJ, and prime Shaq for best player in the league. The reason Jazz were worth shit was because of him.

Good post. I think KG has a case over Malone but Barkley has none whatsoever. His body of work just doesn't compare. Short prime, less awards, more weaknesses in his game, bad attitude.

I replaced them with sufficient contenders. Both the Heat and Pacers were 60+ win teams in 1997 and 1998 and the latter made a finals appearance in 2000.

Dirk draws defenders out to the three point line but Malone takes it to the rim and draws fouls and Malone grabs more offensive rebounds. In their peak seasons and over 10+ years Malone also has superior offensive production. Way to disregard all objective evidence... Of course when we look at the totality of their games including rebounding and defense it's not really close.

The only argument and literally the ONLY argument Dirk fans have is "but...but... Dirk won a championship". Yea... only it took a truly historic choke for him to win it and it appears to be a fluke considering that the Mavs did absolutely nothing a few years before and after that title. Oh and he didn't have to face the 90's Bulls...

I think the only titles in league history I would call flukes are Barry's Warriors in 1975 and Mavs in 2011. When your team flames out of the playoffs the year prior and the year following something is wrong don't you think?

There are no "flukes", and your idea of why it should be a fluke is completely retarded. Mavs acquire Chandler after multiple first round exits, win title with him, he leaves and becomes DPOTY with the Knicks. Mavericks lose to eventual finalist in first round, 3/4 close games. None of this is relevant but I adressed it anyway to adjust your mental gymnastics. How the opposition performed and what you deem a choke and what not is also irrelevant, since the odds were stacked against Dirk in a large manner in the first place. Mavericks were bigger underdogs than the Jazz.

ArbitraryWater

10-01-2016, 09:41 PM

AussieSteve

10-02-2016, 06:32 AM

AussieSteve

10-02-2016, 06:48 AM

I think KG has a case over Malone but Barkley has none whatsoever. His body of work just doesn't compare. Short prime, less awards, more weaknesses in his game, bad attitude.

Let's look at the stats...

Almost all per game, per possession and advanced stats, place Barkley ahead of Malone, in both peak season and career. Round Mound has posted about this at nauseam on this forum, so I won’t regurgitate the specifics; if you want to see them, visit pretty much any one of the Barkley v Malone threads and look for Round Mound’s analysis, or just check bball-reference.

To summarise, in basic stats Barkley’s peak, prime and career averages are better than Malone’s in Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks and FG%, while Malone trumps Barkley in Points and FT%. In advanced stats, Barkley trumps Malone in PER, OffWS/48 and WS/48, OffBPM, DefBPM and BPM, and VORP, while Malone tops Barkley in DefWS/48. And in per 100 pos stats, Barkley has the better peak and career Offensive Rtg, while Malone had the better peak and career Defensive Rtg. (It needs to be noted, regarding DRtg, that individual player DRtgs are heavily influenced by team DRtg, and Malone was on better defensive teams for his entire career than Barkley. At his defensive peak, Chuck was ranked #2 in then league in Def RPG, #7 in SPG and #18 in BPG. He was also #2 in Def WS, #2 in Def BPM and had a DRtg 6 points better than the next best on his team… So Chuck could play phenomenal defense when he wanted to.)

So clearly, if stats were all you had to go on, Barkley must be rated more highly than Malone. Obviously Malone’s career totals are much higher than Barkley in most stats, but this comes down to the longevity.

Now let's look at their MVP credentials...

At his absolute best, Barkley was legitimately standing shoulder to shoulder with the absolute best this game has ever seen.

He won the 1993 MVP in a landslide over Hakeem and Jordan, both of whom were at the peak of their powers, and in highly ranked teams. Some argue that it was Hakeem’s best season as he averaged 26/13 and won DPOY, while Jordan averaged 33/7/5.5 in a 57 win team.

1993 first place votes: Barkley 60.2%, Hakeem 22.4%, Jordan 13.3%.

It is also generally agreed that he deserved the 1990 over Magic and Jordan, again a season when both Magic and Jordan at their absolute best. He had the most first place votes - by some margin – but somehow did not come home with the trophy.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/6

Barkley’s personality rubbed some media voters the wrong way, which led to biased minor place voting. Two voters left him out of top 5 completely!!! Statistically it was Magic’s best season and the Lakers had the NBAs best record, while Jordon averaged 34/7/6 and lead the NBA in SPG. Note it is the only time a player has won the most first place votes and not won the MVP.

1990 first place votes: Barkley 41.3%, Magic 29.3%, Jordan 22.8%.

The take home message is that, at his best, Barkley was playing GOAT level basketball.

Malone won two MVPs, but the circumstances of his victories and the players he beat out make them significantly less impressive. His margins of victory (by # first place votes) were much lower than Barkley’s, they were over much lower calibre players (i.e. GOATS outside their peak, and non-GOATS), and many believe he didn’t deserve either of them

1997 first place votes: Malone 54.8% Jordan 45.2%. This was, and still is, widely disputed as being deservedly Jordan’s MVP. The result is generally put down to voter fatigue.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/9

Note also that Jordan was now 33 and all his averages and his shooting % were well down on the 90 and 93 seasons that Chuck beat him.

1999 first place votes: Malone 37.3%, Alonzo Mourning 30.5%, Tim Duncan 25.4%. This award is even more disputed than the 97 one. Many have BOTH Alonzo and TD as more deserving winners.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/2

Now Alonzo was good, but not the same level as Barkley’s competition a few years earlier. Obviously TD is an all-timer, but this was just his 2nd season.

Both Barkley and Malone played for a decade alongside a number of GOATs at the peak of their powers. Chuck beat them out for MVPs twice, but Malone never could. Malone’s longevity allowed him to stay on top of his game into the late 90s, which was a much weaker period, when he was able to win two disputed MVPs by slim margins – not the same accomplishment.

Other arguments that tell me that Barkley was better than Malone inlcude:
1. Barkley's numbers almost always improved in the post season, Malone's almost always declined.
2. Head-to-Head, Barkley beat Malone more often than not, until he left Phoenix.
3. Watch some footage - Barkley was just better.
4. Malone had Stockton.

EDIT: 2. Head-to-Head, Barkley beat Malone more often than not, until his last season in Phoenix

Round Mound

10-02-2016, 08:02 AM

Let's look at the stats...

Almost all per game, per possession stats and advanced, place Barkley ahead of Malone, in both peak season and career. Round Mound has posted about this at nauseam on this forum, so I won’t regurgitate the specifics; if you want to see them, visit pretty much any one of the Barkley v Malone threads and look for Round Mound’s analysis, or just check bball-reference.

To summarise, in basic stats Barkley’s peak, prime and career averages are better than Malone’s in Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks and FG%, while Malone trumps Barkley in Points and FT%. In advanced stats, Barkley trumps Malone in PER, OffWS/48 and WS/48, OffBPM, DefBPM and BPM, and VORP, while Malone tops Barkley in DefWS/48. And in per 100 pos stats, Barkley has the better peak and career Offensive Rtg, while Malone had the better peak and career Defensive Rtg. (It needs to be noted, regarding DRtg, that individual player DRtgs are heavily influenced by team DRtg, and Malone was on better defensive teams for his entire career than Barkley. At his defensive peak, Chuck was ranked #2 in then league in Def RPG, #7 in SPG and #18 in BPG. He was also # 2 in Def WS, #2 in Def BPM and had a DRtg 6 points better than the next best on his team… So Chuck could play phenomenal defense when he wanted to.)

So clearly, if stats were all you had to go on, Barkley must be rated more highly than Malone. Obviously Malone’s career totals are much higher than Barkley in most stats, but this comes down to the longevity.

Now let's look at their MVP credentials...

At his absolute best, Barkley was legitimately standing shoulder to shoulder with the absolute best this game has ever seen.

He won the 1993 MVP in a landslide over Hakeem and Jordan, both of whom were at the peak of their powers, and in highly ranked teams. Some argue that it was Hakeem’s best season as he averaged 26/13 and won DPOY, while Jordan averaged 33/7/5.5 in a 57 win team.

1993 first place votes: Barkley 60.2%, Hakeem 22.4%, Jordan 13.3%.

It is also generally agreed that he deserved the 1990 over Magic and Jordan, again a season when both Magic and Jordan at their absolute best. He had the most first place votes - by some margin – but somehow did not come home with the trophy.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/6

Barkley’s personality rubbed some media voters the wrong way, which led to biased minor place voting. Two voters left him out of top 5 completely!!! Statistically it was Magic’s best season and the Lakers had the NBAs best record, while Jordon averaged 34/7/6 and lead the NBA in SPG. Note it is the only time a player has won the most first place votes and not won the MVP.

1990 first place votes: Barkley 41.3%, Magic 29.3%, Jordan 22.8%.

The take home message is that, at his best, Barkley was playing GOAT level basketball.

Malone won two MVPs, but the circumstances of his victories and the players he beat out make them significantly less impressive. His margins of victory (by # first place votes) were much lower than Barkley’s, they were over much lower calibre players (i.e. GOATS outside their peak, and non-GOATS), and many believe he didn’t deserve either of them

1997 first place votes: Malone 54.8% Jordan 45.2%. This was, and still is, widely disputed as being deservedly Jordan’s MVP. The result is generally put down to voter fatigue.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/9

Note also that Jordan was now 33 and all his averages and his shooting % were well down on the 90 and 93 seasons that Chuck beat him.

1999 first place votes: Malone 37.3%, Alonzo Mourning 30.5%, Tim Duncan 25.4%. This award is even more disputed than the 97 one. Many have BOTH Alonzo and TD as more deserving winners.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/2

Now Alonzo was good, but not the same level as Barkley’s competition a few years earlier. Obviously TD is an all-timer, but this was just his 2nd season.

Both Barkley and Malone played for a decade alongside a number of GOATs at the peak of their powers. Chuck beat them out for MVPs twice, but Malone never could. Malone’s longevity allowed him to stay on top of his game into the late 90s, which was a much weaker period, when he was able to win two disputed MVPs by slim margins – not the same accomplishment.

Other arguments that tell me that Barkley was better than Malone inlcude:
1. Barkley's numbers almost always improved in the post season, Malone's almost always declined.
2. Head-to-Head, Barkley beat Malone more often than not, until he left Phoenix.
3. Watch some footage - Barkley was just better.
4. Malone had Stockton.

:applause:

Obviously you are one of the few posters who like me saw healthy Barkley play. Also, broken down stats and advanced metrics (the same that point to MJ as the GOAT) clearly give Barkley the edge. I do however believe that Malone did deserve the 1st 97 MVP.

Jasper

10-02-2016, 10:06 AM

OP you have a great point , bottom line is that 85% of ISH has never seen Karl Malone play.
Malone is a top 12 player of all time without a ring.
He was IMO the proto type PF that you basically see today and in his era.

Stockton would never be the all time dime leader unless Malone was a great finisher(.)

dankok8

10-02-2016, 06:51 PM

By the late 90s I was rooting for anyone to beat the Bulls. The Jazz seemed the best type of team to pull that off: a bona fide MVP, reliable system, hall of fame coach, a solid roster, great home court and defense, etc.

But I knew that when it came down to the clutch, Malone would try that low percentage turnaround jumper that took him out of rebounding position, and the Bulls would take off. Stockton, although a clutch shooter, could never take over the game, and Hornaceck was strictly a beneficiary who got open shots only in the flow of the offense.

While Malone was a solid rebounder, he was a bad interior defender. All you had to do was keep the ball over your head to avoid the patented strip move he had. :rolleyes:

The Bulls didn't really beat the Jazz. The Jazz lost to them because Karl Malone was not a clutch performer. In the Hall of Shame where the likes of Vince Carter and Walt Bellamy reside, there's the Failman :facepalm

Malone never had a teammate in the 90's that he could rely on to score 20+ points. Any time Karl had a bad shooting night, Utah had very little chance to win.

He wasn't a choker. If you look at his production in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's in the OP he actually put up better numbers than his regular production which was already really good. Maybe I'll extend the analysis to all elimination games...

There are no "flukes", and your idea of why it should be a fluke is completely retarded. Mavs acquire Chandler after multiple first round exits, win title with him, he leaves and becomes DPOTY with the Knicks. Mavericks lose to eventual finalist in first round, 3/4 close games. None of this is relevant but I adressed it anyway to adjust your mental gymnastics. How the opposition performed and what you deem a choke and what not is also irrelevant, since the odds were stacked against Dirk in a large manner in the first place. Mavericks were bigger underdogs than the Jazz.

I know the Mavs lost Chandler but they went from a champion to GETTING SWEPT IN THE FIRST ROUND. And in the previous year they lost in six games in the first round to a #7 seeded Spurs team that ended up getting swept by Phoenix right after.

Dirk had an epic choke help him win and he didn't even play that well in the finals to begin with. 26 ppg on 41.6% shooting is nothing to go ga-ga over...

By Game Score, Barkley beat Malone head to head more often than not, until 95.

If we're looking purely at stats, I can name a few seasons where Chuck trumps Malone's best season handsomely. By handsomely I mean that he beats Malone in every single stat except PPG, and when Malone was getting fed by Stockton, how much can you really read into his PPG?

For example:
86-87 - 23.0/14.6/4.9, 66.0 %TS
87-88 - 28.3/11.9/3.2, 66.5 %TS
88-89 - 25.8/12.5/4.1, 65.3 %TS
89-90 - 25.2/11.5/3.9, 66.1 %TS
92-93 - 25.6/12.2/5.1, 59.6 %TS

But as has been said - these are just stats. Anyone who saw them both play would agree. Chuck was the better player.

Maybe Game Score doesn't tell the whole story.

Chuck was better if you're an efficiency buff. If you look at their stats in 1990 which was probably Chuck's peak and Malone's statistical peak:

- wash in terms of rebounding
- slight edge to Barkley in playmaking
- 4% better efficiency for Barkley but at 6 ppg less
- Malone played better defense

I'm sorry but how is that clearly better?

Let's look at the stats...

Almost all per game, per possession and advanced stats, place Barkley ahead of Malone, in both peak season and career. Round Mound has posted about this at nauseam on this forum, so I won’t regurgitate the specifics; if you want to see them, visit pretty much any one of the Barkley v Malone threads and look for Round Mound’s analysis, or just check bball-reference.

To summarise, in basic stats Barkley’s peak, prime and career averages are better than Malone’s in Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks and FG%, while Malone trumps Barkley in Points and FT%. In advanced stats, Barkley trumps Malone in PER, OffWS/48 and WS/48, OffBPM, DefBPM and BPM, and VORP, while Malone tops Barkley in DefWS/48. And in per 100 pos stats, Barkley has the better peak and career Offensive Rtg, while Malone had the better peak and career Defensive Rtg. (It needs to be noted, regarding DRtg, that individual player DRtgs are heavily influenced by team DRtg, and Malone was on better defensive teams for his entire career than Barkley. At his defensive peak, Chuck was ranked #2 in then league in Def RPG, #7 in SPG and #18 in BPG. He was also #2 in Def WS, #2 in Def BPM and had a DRtg 6 points better than the next best on his team… So Chuck could play phenomenal defense when he wanted to.)

So clearly, if stats were all you had to go on, Barkley must be rated more highly than Malone. Obviously Malone’s career totals are much higher than Barkley in most stats, but this comes down to the longevity.

Individual DRtg depends on team DRtg but individual ORtg also depends on team ORtg. Both Philadelphia and especially Phoenix were high-powered offensive teams that sucked on defense.

I don't know which stats you're comparing when you say Barkley is higher in all those categories. Which years?

dankok8

10-02-2016, 06:52 PM

[QUOTE]

Now let's look at their MVP credentials...

At his absolute best, Barkley was legitimately standing shoulder to shoulder with the absolute best this game has ever seen.

He won the 1993 MVP in a landslide over Hakeem and Jordan, both of whom were at the peak of their powers, and in highly ranked teams. Some argue that it was Hakeem

AussieSteve

10-02-2016, 10:42 PM

So the 1997 MVP was denied to MJ because of voter fatigue...How about the 1993 MVP after MJ won two consecutive? Could that have been voter fatigue too?

It could've been, but it wasn't. Some people make the case that 93 was Hakeem's best year and it should have been his MVP, but MJ was the consensus 3rd. But at the time (and I remember, I'm not just making this up) it was generally expected that Chuck would win, and he went on to do so, as expected - by a large margin.

1. False

Malone's postseason numbers were remarkably stable and well in line with his season averages.

Were Malone's post season numbers lower than his regular season more often than not? YES. Are his career post season numbers lower than his career regular season numbers? YES.

Were Barkley's post season numbers higher than his regular season more often than not? YES. Are his career post season numbers higher than his career regular season numbers? YES.

You can't penalize Malone for having longevity.

I don't penalize Malone for his longevity, it was incredible and deserves to be recognized... I just say that it's all he has on Barkley.

2. False

Here are the head-to-head stats:

...

If anything it was Malone outplaying Barkley.

You didn't read my post - from the time both players were good (i.e. all-stars) until Chuck left the Suns, that's 10 years, Chuck did have better stats than Malone in their head to head games.

Malone: 24.8/9.5/2.7/51.0% avg. Game Score = 17.9
Barkley: 22.8/10.1/4.0/51.1% avg. Game Score = 18.9.

My EDIT admits that Malone was actually already beating Barkley in 95-96, and if you remove that season from the equation, so over 9-year period, the numbers become heavily in favor of Barkley.

From 96 onwards Malone beat Barkley pretty much every time. But I acknowledge Malone's longevity is incredible. Barkley cannot compete in this regard.

3. False

Actually, if you watch the footage you'll come to appreciate Barkley's immense intangible flaws. Even early on in his career in Philly despite being one of the best and most efficient inside scorers of all time, Barkley started launching an extraordinary number of outside shots. It got worse as the years went on and Barkley retired hoisting up 2,020 3pt shots in his career (just under two a game!) while making them at a 26.6% clip.

Barkley by his own admission simply didn't try hard on defense. And watching him play you'd see just how lazy he was on the defensive end. I don't care about defensive rebounds and steals. Iverson led the league in steals how many times...

I watched a game on YouTube a little while back, I forget which one, but in it Barkley went 1 for 5 on 3pt shots. Sounds crap... until you watch the game. He was 1 for 2 in general play, but he missed two half court heaves at the end of the 2nd and 3rd periods, and a last second rushed attempt on the last play of the first. My point is, stats don't tell the whole picture. Barkley wasn't concerned about how the stats looked, he was just the go to guy whose responsibility it was to take those shots. It's anecdotal I know, and I don't dispute he took too many 3's, but I'm saying that people read more than they should into Barkley's 3pt stats. And despite these 3's he still led the league in TS% and eFG% for a number of seasons.

In regards to defense, obviously Malone was the better defender, which is based purely on work ethic, not defensive ability. However, early on in his career, and when he was in Phoenix Chuck played D quite well. He also payed D with much more intensity in playoffs. Not going to argue that he was better than Malone, but he was no James Harden as people would have you believe.

4. True but Barkley had plenty of great teammates too. Dr J and Moses early in his career then KJ in Phoenix and then Hakeem/Drexler in Houston when a far less talented Utah team beat them in back-to-back postseasons with Malone handily outplaying Barkley.

Don't be ridiculous... Barkley had great team mates that were past their prime, when Barkley himself was not in his prime. Malone had an All-NBA point guard whose job it was to feed Malone the ball for his entire career.

Also, you're being a bit disingenuous saying Malone handily 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 'handily outplay' Barkley at all. Rather the truth might be that even injured, old, way past his prime Barkley was still a Malone stopper.

There are several irrefutable arguments for Malone:

1) He simply accomplished more.

No he didn't. At least not in a team sense. He had more individual accolades because he was good for longer.

Of course once Barkley got to Houston he was hot garbage.

Well, Chuck was riddled with injuries at this point. But he was still great if you care to look closer. He averaged 21/15/5 for the first two months of 96-97, before injuries began to take their toll. And he went 22/13/5 in the last 3 weeks, once he started to get right. But in the middle, while he was struggling with pelvis and ankle injuries, he went 15/11/4 for a couple of months. Yes, he was injured a lot and again, no one debates that Malone was great for longer, but Chuck was certainly not hot garbage. He was still the one of the best rebounders and the best passing forward in the game when not hampered by injury.

The case for Malone is he was good for longer and he had a better work ethic. THAT'S IT. He was great. No one disputes that. But he was not as good as Barkley. I seriously can't see how you could possibly deny this based on the evidence I have presented. You obviously just don't want it to be so.

AussieSteve

10-02-2016, 10:56 PM

Maybe Game Score doesn't tell the whole story.

Chuck was better if you're an efficiency buff. If you look at their stats in 1990 which was probably Chuck's peak and Malone's statistical peak:

- wash in terms of rebounding
- slight edge to Barkley in playmaking
- 4% better efficiency for Barkley but at 6 ppg less
- Malone played better defense

I'm sorry but how is that clearly better?

By clearly better, I mean that Barkley beat out Malone in every stat except PPG. You made the claim about how good Malone was based solely on a stats argument. I'm saying that any which way you look at it, Barkley's stats beat Malone's stats.

Individual DRtg depends on team DRtg but individual ORtg also depends on team ORtg. Both Philadelphia and especially Phoenix were high-powered offensive teams that sucked on defense.

Yes, but Barkley's ORtg was always the best on his team, and WAY superior to Malone's. And Barkley's DRtg was the best on his team many more times than Malone's was the best on the Jazz. And Barkley's Net Rtg was obviously better

I don't know which stats you're comparing when you say Barkley is higher in all those categories. Which years?

No particular season. Just pick Malone's best, and pick Barkley's best. I don't care if its best season, best 5 seasons, best 10 seasons or career. Barkley stats were better.

Dragonyeuw

10-03-2016, 07:32 AM

PPG asides, Barkley was a clearly more talented scorer, on greater efficiency to boot. The guy put up 28ppg on 67% TS in 88, FFS. It's one thing to look at the stats and say that Malone peaked at 31.1, while Barkley peaked at 28.3. But Barkley was taking 16-17 shots versus Malone's 19/20 in their highest scoring years. The Sixers had 6 double digit scorers in 91 when Barkley put 27.6, compared to Malone playing with 2 other double-digit scorers in the same year when he put up 29.1. Malone was 'slightly' better at getting to the line, but so much more of his offense was off feeds from Stockton( the most symbiotic partnership in NBA history, IMO). Barkley was significantly better at creating his own offense, and frankly the difference in their PPG in their primes can be easily summed up by Malone taking more shots. Barkley could have easily bumped his scoring into the 30ppg plateau if the Sixers offense wasn't typically spread amongst anywhere from 4-6 players. Plus there may not have been a more doubled post player in the league until Shaq's arrival, and Barkley was still a dominant interior scorer despite being considerably shorter than your average PF, and playing in a true big man's league. It's not more complicated than that.

BigKAT

10-03-2016, 07:42 AM

AussieSteve

10-03-2016, 07:58 AM

PPG asides, Barkley was a clearly more talented scorer, on greater efficiency to boot. The guy put up 28ppg on 67% TS in 88, FFS. It's one thing to look at the stats and say that Malone peaked at 31.1, while Barkley peaked at 28.3. But Barkley was taking 16-17 shots versus Malone's 19/20 in their highest scoring years. The Sixers had 6 double digit scorers in 91 when Barkley put 27.6, compared to Malone playing with 2 other double-digit scorers in the same year when he put up 29.1. Malone was 'slightly' better at getting to the line, but so much more of his offense was off feeds from Stockton( the most symbiotic partnership in NBA history, IMO). Barkley was significantly better at creating his own offense, and frankly the difference in their PPG in their primes can be easily summed up by Malone taking more shots. Plus there may not have been a more doubled post player in the league until Shaq's arrival, and Barkley was still a dominant interior scorer despite being considerably shorter than your average PF, and playing in a true big man's league. It's not more complicated than that.

Totally agree with everything you have said, except that Malone was not actually better than Barkley at getting to the line. Barkley was in fact better, and by some margin. In Barkley's best season in terms of getting to the line he had .741 FTA/FGA and his career average was .554. Malone's best season was .602 FTA/FGA, and his career average was 0.503.

In the playoffs, Barkley averaged .553 FTA/FGA, while Malone averaged .458.

So yes, Chuck was better at getting to the line to. Among the all time best I expect.

jayfan

10-03-2016, 08:14 AM

More like top 20 .

Yep.

.

Dragonyeuw

10-03-2016, 08:17 AM

Totally agree with everything you have said, except that Malone was not actually better than Barkley at getting to the line. Barkley was in fact better, and by some margin. In Barkley's best season in terms of getting to the line he had .741 FTA/FGA and his career average was .554. Malone's best season was .602 FTA/FGA, and his career average was 0.503.

In the playoffs, Barkley averaged .553 FTA/FGA, while Malone averaged .458.

So yes, Chuck was better at getting to the line to. Among the all time best I expect.

OK cool, I was just looking at their FTA straight up without comparing them against their FGA attempts. So that just emphasizes the overall point further.

PP34Deuce

10-03-2016, 02:34 PM

Malone was more consistent and that's the edge.

Barkley was a better passer, athlete, rebounder and comparable scorer.

Karl was better defensively.

Dragonyeuw

10-03-2016, 02:55 PM

Malone was more consistent and that's the edge.

Barkley was a better passer, athlete, rebounder and comparable scorer.

Karl was better defensively.

Comparable in what sense, exactly? Malone vs Barkley's scoring ability is one of those things where I think one had to really see them at their respective peaks to appreciate the ways in which they scored. Malone's only 'edge' is in PPG, but that's without the context of looking at how many shots they took or the number of offensive options around them. Points per shot, FTA:FGA ratio, TS, field goal %, and most other offensive metrics favor Barkley. This is in addition to simply watching them play and seeing that Barkley simply had a more varied offensive arsenal.

dankok8

10-03-2016, 07:00 PM

It could've been, but it wasn't. Some people make the case that 93 was Hakeem's best year and it should have been his MVP, but MJ was the consensus 3rd. But at the time (and I remember, I'm not just making this up) it was generally expected that Chuck would win, and he went on to do so, as expected - by a large margin.

It still doesn't prove that Jordan wasn't snubbed. MJ had a better statistical year than in 1992 and the team had a worse record because they were cruising. That is voter fatigue if I've ever seen it. Jordan was the best player in the league in the regular season.

Were Malone's post season numbers lower than his regular season more often than not? YES. Are his career post season numbers lower than his career regular season numbers? YES.

Were Barkley's post season numbers higher than his regular season more often than not? YES. Are his career post season numbers higher than his career regular season numbers? YES.

Even if I concede this point (Malone marginally declined, Barkley marginally increased) it's still how they played in comparison to each other that matters. Barkley was more efficient but on much lower volume and Malone was much better defensively.

I don't penalize Malone for his longevity, it was incredible and deserves to be recognized... I just say that it's all he has on Barkley.

Malone literally had a prime twice as long.

You didn't read my post - from the time both players were good (i.e. all-stars) until Chuck left the Suns, that's 10 years, Chuck did have better stats than Malone in their head to head games.

Malone: 24.8/9.5/2.7/51.0% avg. Game Score = 17.9
Barkley: 22.8/10.1/4.0/51.1% avg. Game Score = 18.9.

My EDIT admits that Malone was actually already beating Barkley in 95-96, and if you remove that season from the equation, so over 9-year period, the numbers become heavily in favor of Barkley.

From 96 onwards Malone beat Barkley pretty much every time. But I acknowledge Malone's longevity is incredible. Barkley cannot compete in this regard.

You took these numbers from an old Round Mound post in the other thread... He included 1987 for Malone which is before he made his first all-star game and wasn't in his prime. Barkley admittedly also outplayed Malone in 1988. From 1989 though it was Malone who came out ahead in like every season until the end of their careers except 1994.

I don't know why you protested my data from 1989-1993. It's a five year span where peak Barkley got outplayed by Malone.

I watched a game on YouTube a little while back, I forget which one, but in it Barkley went 1 for 5 on 3pt shots. Sounds crap... until you watch the game. He was 1 for 2 in general play, but he missed two half court heaves at the end of the 2nd and 3rd periods, and a last second rushed attempt on the last play of the first. My point is, stats don't tell the whole picture. Barkley wasn't concerned about how the stats looked, he was just the go to guy whose responsibility it was to take those shots. It's anecdotal I know, and I don't dispute he took too many 3's, but I'm saying that people read more than they should into Barkley's 3pt stats. And despite these 3's he still led the league in TS% and eFG% for a number of seasons.

That's one game... Barkley took more than 2,000 3pt shots in his career and shot them at 26%... That's just terrible.

In regards to defense, obviously Malone was the better defender, which is based purely on work ethic, not defensive ability. However, early on in his career, and when he was in Phoenix Chuck played D quite well. He also payed D with much more intensity in playoffs. Not going to argue that he was better than Malone, but he was no James Harden as people would have you believe.

Work ethic still counts. It doesn't matter if Barkley could play defense. Malone was the better defensive player and it's not close. I will add that Barkley is just 6'5'' barefoot about same height as Kobe and MJ so he didn't have the size to bother most PF's or protect the rim whereas Karl could. So Malone was more physically gifted on the defensive end as well.

Don't be ridiculous... Barkley had great team mates that were past their prime, when Barkley himself was not in his prime. Malone had an All-NBA point guard whose job it was to feed Malone the ball for his entire career.

The Stockton argument is overblown. Karl Malone had two MVP caliber seasons in 1998 and 1999 when Stockton was a role player.

Also, you're being a bit disingenuous saying Malone handily 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 'handily outplay' Barkley at all. Rather the truth might be that even injured, old, way past his prime Barkley was still a Malone stopper.

Barkley wasn't outplaying Malone at this point. Being injured is not an excuse and being old certainly isn't when Malone and Barkley are the same age.

No he didn't. At least not in a team sense. He had more individual accolades because he was good for longer.

Malone made more finals and conference finals appearances in his career. In another thread it was correctly pointed out the Jazz teams in the late 90's didn't have good talent. They beat far more talented Lakers and Rockets teams.

dankok8

10-03-2016, 07:07 PM

Well, Chuck was riddled with injuries at this point. But he was still great if you care to look closer. He averaged 21/15/5 for the first two months of 96-97, before injuries began to take their toll. And he went 22/13/5 in the last 3 weeks, once he started to get right. But in the middle, while he was struggling with pelvis and ankle injuries, he went 15/11/4 for a couple of months. Yes, he was injured a lot and again, no one debates that Malone was great for longer, but Chuck was certainly not hot garbage. He was still the one of the best rebounders and the best passing forward in the game when not hampered by injury.

He was hot garbage relative to Malone who an MVP-caliber player.

The case for Malone is he was good for longer and he had a better work ethic. THAT'S IT. He was great. No one disputes that. But he was not as good as Barkley. I seriously can't see how you could possibly deny this based on the evidence I have presented. You obviously just don't want it to be so.

By clearly better, I mean that Barkley beat out Malone in every stat except PPG. You made the claim about how good Malone was based solely on a stats argument. I'm saying that any which way you look at it, Barkley's stats beat Malone's stats.

Barkley wasn't better than Malone. That would require him being a much better offensive player (because gap on defense is large!) which he wasn't. Even in the years 1989-1993 which was Barkley's absolute 5-year peak his offense wasn't better than Malone's.

Basic Stats

Barkley 1989-1993: 25.4 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 4.3 apg on 56.3% shooting and 3.1 topg in 38.3 mpg
Malone 1989-1993: 28.8 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 3.1 apg on 53.7% shooting and 3.2 topg in 38.6 mpg

Advanced Stats

Barkley 1989-1993: 26.6 PER, 16.9 %TRB, 73.8 WS, 0.245 WS/48
Malone 1989-1993: 25.6 PER, 16.6 %TRB, 77.1 WS, 0.236 WS/48

Those numbers are as close to a wash as you can get. If you said they are about the same offensively I would agree.

You can make the argument that Barkley could score more points while keeping the same efficiency but you simply don't know. I can also make the argument that if Malone took 3 fewer shots each game his efficiency would be considerably higher.

Yes, but Barkley's ORtg was always the best on his team, and WAY superior to Malone's. And Barkley's DRtg was the best on his team many more times than Malone's was the best on the Jazz. And Barkley's Net Rtg was obviously better

Lineup stats... Since Mark Eaton left, Malone was the defensive anchor of the Jazz. In the late 90's he was elite on defense. Not even very good but ELITE. He made two 1st Team All-Defense. The gap between them on that end is astronomical.

No particular season. Just pick Malone's best, and pick Barkley's best. I don't care if its best season, best 5 seasons, best 10 seasons or career. Barkley stats were better.

I just compared Barkley's five peak seasons and compared them directly to Malone. No edge...

Comparable in what sense, exactly? Malone vs Barkley's scoring ability is one of those things where I think one had to really see them at their respective peaks to appreciate the ways in which they scored. Malone's only 'edge' is in PPG, but that's without the context of looking at how many shots they took or the number of offensive options around them. Points per shot, FTA:FGA ratio, TS, field goal %, and most other offensive metrics favor Barkley. This is in addition to simply watching them play and seeing that Barkley simply had a more varied offensive arsenal.

Per possession and efficiency stats should always favor the guy shooting less if the two men are similarly great offensive players. By your logic I could say 2013 Lebron was a better scorer than MJ. He scored 5 ppg less but on 5% higher efficiency than 1993 Jordan, about the same gap between Barkley and Malone in 1990.

There is a world of difference between a guy scoring 31 ppg and a guy scoring 25 ppg... Mind you the 31 ppg guy was still shooting >56% from the floor so he was hardly a bricklayer.

You mention scoring skill sets. Barkley was better with his back to the basket. Both were beasts in the open floor and in face-up situations. Malone shot way better from the block and the midrange though. And Malone's shot selection was better. He knew his game and played within it more than Barkley did.

If you wanna argue raw talent that Barkley was a better prospect I can concede that but it's meaningless. It's about the results on the floor.

And you guys speak about work ethic and career longevity as if they don't matter.

AussieSteve

10-03-2016, 07:40 PM

It still doesn't prove that Jordan wasn't snubbed. MJ had a better statistical year than in 1992 and the team had a worse record because they were cruising. That is voter fatigue if I've ever seen it. Jordan was the best player in the league in the regular season.

My point is that no one is saying Barkley shouldn't have got the 93 MVP, it was assumed he would get it before he did, because he deserved it. Whereas Malone's are both looked upon questionably.

And don't tell me that Malone deserved the 98 MVP. Jordan carried the Bulls to the best record in the league (equal with the Jazz), with Pippen missing half the season and Longley missing 30 odd games. He also won 5 times as many fist place votes as Malone.

You took these numbers from an old Round Mound post in the other thread... He included 1987 for Malone which is before he made his first all-star game and wasn't in his prime. Barkley admittedly also outplayed Malone in 1988. From 1989 though it was Malone who came out ahead in like every season until the end of their careers except 1994.

I don't know why you protested my data from 1989-1993. It's a five year span where peak Barkley got outplayed by Malone.

I didn't get them from Round Mound. I sourced them myself. And I ignored the 89-93 stuff because its cherry picking data. I could easily point out that in 92-93 and 93-94, Barkley beat Malone 5 games in a row. Same for 86-87 and 87-88. Its irrelevant. If we take a 9 year period from 86-87 to 94-95, Barkley craps all over Malone, because when they were both at their best, Barkley was better. Here are the stats

Barkley: 24.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.6 bpg, .529 fg%, .54 FTA/FGA, 20.5 GmSc
Malone: 24.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.8 bpg, .514 fg%, .48 FTA/FGA, 18.4 GmSc

In 95-96, Malone won the head to head 3-1, and after that Malone beat Barkley regularly, because Barkley aged poorly... like many other players, who are not criticized anywhere near as much as Barkley is btw.

Barkley was a GOAT level player for a decade. Malone was never a GOAT level player, but he was a great player for nearly 2 decades. As I have said, longevity is ALL Malone has on Barkley.

He get's top 20 GOAT kudos BECAUSE of his insane longevity. Barkley gets top 20 GOAT kudos, DESPITE his lack of longevity, because he was THAT good.

Round Mound

10-03-2016, 08:23 PM

Barkley vs Malone Inside The 3-Pointline Scoring Efficiency:

Season Career:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 51.9% Two-Point FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs Career: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG

BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

ArbitraryWater

10-03-2016, 08:30 PM

dankok8

10-03-2016, 08:46 PM

My point is that no one is saying Barkley shouldn't have got the 93 MVP, it was assumed he would get it before he did, because he deserved it. Whereas Malone's are both looked upon questionably.

And don't tell me that Malone deserved the 98 MVP. Jordan carried the Bulls to the best record in the league (equal with the Jazz), with Pippen missing half the season and Longley missing 30 odd games. He also won 5 times as many fist place votes as Malone.

Karl Malone had better stats than MJ in 1998 pretty much across the board. Much higher efficiency, higher assists, and better defensively...

Pippen missing games is easily balanced by Stockton's decline who just became a role player in 1998. Utah was literally Karl Malone and plenty of guys who can play but aren't even close to stars. He was by far the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on the team.

I didn't get them from Round Mound. I sourced them myself. And I ignored the 89-93 stuff because its cherry picking data. I could easily point out that in 92-93 and 93-94, Barkley beat Malone 5 games in a row. Same for 86-87 and 87-88. Its irrelevant. If we take a 9 year period from 86-87 to 94-95, Barkley craps all over Malone, because when they were both at their best, Barkley was better. Here are the stats

Barkley: 24.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.6 bpg, .529 fg%, .54 FTA/FGA, 20.5 GmSc
Malone: 24.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.8 bpg, .514 fg%, .48 FTA/FGA, 18.4 GmSc

In 95-96, Malone won the head to head 3-1, and after that Malone beat Barkley regularly, because Barkley aged poorly... like many other players, who are not criticized anywhere near as much as Barkley is btw.

Barkley was a GOAT level player for a decade. Malone was never a GOAT level player, but he was a great player for nearly 2 decades. As I have said, longevity is ALL Malone has on Barkley.

He get's top 20 GOAT kudos BECAUSE of his insane longevity. Barkley gets top 20 GOAT kudos, DESPITE his lack of longevity, because he was THAT good.

Karl surely wasn't at his best in 1987 when he didn't even make the all-star game. Or in 1988... Yet still despite picking a ridiculous set of data Barkley still doesn't pull ahead noticeably. Less than 1 rebound per game and 1.5% in efficiency... And you said he "craps on Malone".... LOL

Barkley a GOAT-level player? How can a guy with no mindset, not work ethic, and who only plays one side of the floor (self-admitted!) be a GOAT level player? Give me a break...

Barkley vs Malone Inside The 3-Pointline Scoring Efficiency:

Season Career:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 51.9% Two-Point FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs Career: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG

BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

Another excuse for dumbass Barkley taking stupid shots from 3pt land.

Again I have no problem if you say Barkley is the BETTER TALENT. However, he wasn't the better player.

Thats more bullshit coming from you, the talk of the time was MJ reverting back to his chuck happy days, suddenly back at 26 (!) FGA, moving away from the established team game..

MJ scored 7 ppg more than Barkley on just 3% lower TS... MJ was also an infinitely better defender at his position. LOL at calling MJ a chucker!

Chuck won the 1993 MVP because of voter fatigue towards Jordan and because he had the storyline. He joined a new team and improved them although it's worth noting that the Suns won 53 games the year prior to Chuck's arrival so they weren't chopped liver either.

Round Mound

10-03-2016, 08:49 PM

Barkley took threes for fun mostly but inside the 3-pointline he used to get bored dominating the paint and the in between mid range and post game. Chuck owned Malone from 85 to 95 and its not even close. Malone however was probably the best catch and finish player while playing in a system designed by Stockton and Sloan and ofcourse more durable. He was more durable and a better ft shooter than Barkley. Thats about it.

dankok8

10-03-2016, 08:54 PM

How about this tidbit of info?

Out of all the teams Barkley was the best player on which are 1987-1992 Philly and 1993-1996 Phoenix (10 total seasons), his team only made it past the second round once and that was the finals run in 1993. They were contenders in 1994 and 1995 but they choked badly to the Rockets both years with Barkley under-performing. He missed the playoffs in 1988 and 1992.

Meanwhile Malone as the best player on the Jazz made two NBA finals and five conference finals and never once missed the playoffs. Unless you're gonna start convincing me that Malone played on stacked teams in the 90's, something is amiss here! :oldlol:

Barkley is also one of the worst big game players ever. Apart from his big Game 7 against Seattle in 1993 (monster effort... kudos!) he mostly played bad in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's in his career. Even in the 1993 finals he had three bad shooting games but this never gets talked about.

Round Mound

10-03-2016, 09:00 PM

ALL BROKEN DOWN STATS & METRICS show Barkley as better than Stockton-To-Malone.

Dragonyeuw

10-03-2016, 09:28 PM

Per possession and efficiency stats should always favor the guy shooting less if the two men are similarly great offensive players. By your logic I could say 2013 Lebron was a better scorer than MJ. He scored 5 ppg less but on 5% higher efficiency than 1993 Jordan, about the same gap between Barkley and Malone in 1990.

There is a world of difference between a guy scoring 31 ppg and a guy scoring 25 ppg... Mind you the 31 ppg guy was still shooting >56% from the floor so he was hardly a bricklayer.

You mention scoring skill sets. Barkley was better with his back to the basket. Both were beasts in the open floor and in face-up situations. Malone shot way better from the block and the midrange though. And Malone's shot selection was better. He knew his game and played within it more than Barkley did.

If you wanna argue raw talent that Barkley was a better prospect I can concede that but it's meaningless. It's about the results on the floor.

And you guys speak about work ethic and career longevity as if they don't matter.

You think Barkley didnt know his game? He played within it more than Barkley did? In other words, his offensive game was more limited. Easy to play within your offensive abilities when you have less of them in this comparison.

All the back and forth on stats going through this thread, Malones results on the floor werent decidedly better than Barkleys in their primes. Several metrics have Barkley ahead in various categories. Does Malone win the work ethic/longevity argument? Of course, at no point have I said otherwise so Im not sure why your reply to me makes mention of those intangibles.

AussieSteve

10-03-2016, 09:36 PM

Barkley a GOAT-level player? How can a guy with no mindset, not work ethic, and who only plays one side of the floor (self-admitted!) be a GOAT level player? Give me a break...

All I'm saying is that at his peak, he was right there with Magic and Jordan. People could and did make a solid case for him being the best player in the league, over Magic and MJ. He beat prime MJ out for MVP twice and beat Magic - in Magic's best season! This is not hyperbole, its the facts. Malone was not ever at this level.

Chuck won the 1993 MVP because of voter fatigue towards Jordan and because he had the storyline. He joined a new team and improved them although it's worth noting that the Suns won 53 games the year prior to Chuck's arrival so they weren't chopped liver either.

Worth noting that the Suns were largely injury free in winning 53 games in 91-92. In 92-93 their best player after Chuck, Kevin Johnson, missed nearly half the season through injury, as did Richard Dumas, and Barkley still led them to the leagues best record, 9 games better than their previous year. And it wasn't like Barkley was just inserted into the team. They did lose an All-Star in Jeff Hornacek, so it wasn't the same team plus Barkley. Also note that the Suns were 61-15 with Chuck and 1-5 without him that season. So the the injury free Suns were a .646 team in 91-92, but the same team, minus an All-Star and with significant injury problems, but with Chuck was a .803 team.

AussieSteve

10-03-2016, 10:56 PM

Barkley is also one of the worst big game players ever. Apart from his big Game 7 against Seattle in 1993 (monster effort... kudos!) he mostly played bad in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's in his career. Even in the 1993 finals he had three bad shooting games but this never gets talked about.

Here's a response to this nonsense, from http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4109224&postcount=943

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] ... To me Charles was the only one capable of getting near Michael

Pointguard

10-03-2016, 11:05 PM

All I'm saying is that at his peak, he was right there with Magic and Jordan. People could and did make a solid case for him being the best player in the league, over Magic and MJ. He beat prime MJ out for MVP twice and beat Magic - in Magic's best season! This is not hyperbole, its the facts. Malone was not ever at this level.

Ok, its getting a bit too far now. Barkley could visit Magic's level, he never could stay like family. While he could reach that level, I do agree, but never for any sustained time. Weeks at a time at most. Magic was maybe the smartest player ever. Barkley had frequent bonehead moments. Magic was the best at being efficient and aggressive and switching between the two. Barkley biggest criticism is that he was pretty much lost on when to turn it on. It was an automatic with Magic and Jordan. They knew how to win, automatically/subconsciously. Barkley could barely tune into it. And '90 wasn't one of Magic's best years. It was more likely his sixth best year.

This is one of the few guys that MJ said Barkley doesn't want to win. As a competitor he wasn't in their league. As a player, yes, he was stronger and could be harder to contain. But those moments were far and few in between.

AussieSteve

10-04-2016, 12:08 AM

Ok, its getting a bit too far now. Barkley could visit Magic's level, he never could stay like family. While he could reach that level, I do agree, but never for any sustained time. Weeks at a time at most. Magic was maybe the smartest player ever. Barkley had frequent bonehead moments. Magic was the best at being efficient and aggressive and switching between the two. Barkley biggest criticism is that he was pretty much lost on when to turn it on. It was an automatic with Magic and Jordan. They knew how to win, automatically/subconsciously. Barkley could barely tune into it. And '90 wasn't one of Magic's best years. It was more likely his sixth best year.

This is one of the few guys that MJ said Barkley doesn't want to win. As a competitor he wasn't in their league. As a player, yes, he was stronger and could be harder to contain. But those moments were far and few in between.

I would never say that Chuck was as good as Magic or MJ. I'm just trying to emphasize how good he was at his best... and he was right on there with them.

And in saying that 1989-90 was Magic's best season, I was just going off advanced metrics and the number of wins the Lakers had. By BPM, WS and VORP it was his best season, by PER it was his 3rd best. He also added the 3 pointer to his arsenal that year, which made him a greater offensive threat than previous years. Also the Lakers had the 2nd best reg. season record of Magic's career, in Magic's first season w/o Kareem.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 12:30 AM

Barkley statistically is easily a top 10 player of all time

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 12:50 AM

I would never say that Chuck was as good as Magic or MJ. I'm just trying to emphasize how good he was at his best... and he was right on there with them.

And in saying that 1989-90 was Magic's best season, I was just going off advanced metrics and the number of wins the Lakers had. By BPM, WS and VORP it was his best season, by PER it was his 3rd best. He also added the 3 pointer to his arsenal that year, which made him a greater offensive threat than previous years. Also the Lakers had the 2nd best reg. season record of Magic's career, in Magic's first season w/o Kareem.
True, statistically it's close and he proved a lot that year but it was his most selfish year as well. It ended weird too. It was the first time you really saw ego in him and while he averaged 30/12/6 in the loss to Pheonix (playoffs) it was obvious something was missing.

dankok8

10-04-2016, 01:27 AM

You think Barkley didnt know his game? He played within it more than Barkley did? In other words, his offensive game was more limited. Easy to play within your offensive abilities when you have less of them in this comparison.

All the back and forth on stats going through this thread, Malones results on the floor werent decidedly better than Barkleys in their primes. Several metrics have Barkley ahead in various categories. Does Malone win the work ethic/longevity argument? Of course, at no point have I said otherwise so Im not sure why your reply to me makes mention of those intangibles.

Malone was a much better shooter both from the low block and midrange compared to Barkley. Anyone who's watched them play knows it. And yet still despite being a much better shooter Karl never shot 3pt shots because he knew it's not his game. Barkley just didn't have that restraint.

Malone had better team and individual results than Barkley. Their offense in their primes is similar with Karl playing better defense. The intangibles comment wasn't directed at you. I said "you guys".

All I'm saying is that at his peak, he was right there with Magic and Jordan. People could and did make a solid case for him being the best player in the league, over Magic and MJ. He beat prime MJ out for MVP twice and beat Magic - in Magic's best season! This is not hyperbole, its the facts. Malone was not ever at this level.

Barkley was never on the level of Jordan and Magic. I am glad Pointguard is still thinking with his head.

Anyways plenty of people made arguments for Karl Malone as the best player in the league in 1997 and 1998 and that was over prime although declining MJ and also prime Shaq.

Worth noting that the Suns were largely injury free in winning 53 games in 91-92. In 92-93 their best player after Chuck, Kevin Johnson, missed nearly half the season through injury, as did Richard Dumas, and Barkley still led them to the leagues best record, 9 games better than their previous year. And it wasn't like Barkley was just inserted into the team. They did lose an All-Star in Jeff Hornacek, so it wasn't the same team plus Barkley. Also note that the Suns were 61-15 with Chuck and 1-5 without him that season. So the the injury free Suns were a .646 team in 91-92, but the same team, minus an All-Star and with significant injury problems, but with Chuck was a .803 team.

I know the circumstances with the Suns. Obviously Barkley had a big impact on that team. I just pointed out that they were still very good even before he came aboard. By the way Chuck's Philly team went from 35 wins missing the playoffs with him in 1992 to 26 wins without him.

Go home dankok8. Barkley was the better player. It's all but unanimous, among people who saw them both play and people who care to properly inform themselves. You're clutching at straws to make a case that isn't there.

Just because a few posters on here have come out publicly and said that Barkley is better doesn't mean squat. "Better" can also have different meanings. If you guys say Barkley is more talented and when/if he played to his potential he was better than Malone I wouldn't argue much. But Barkley didn't play to his potential so I'm judging him based on what he did not what he could have done.

Truth is Barkley's teams when he was the best player from 1987-1996 only made it out of the second round once in 1993 and missed the playoffs twice. He really didn't have much team success AT ALL.

By the way I have been watching basketball since the late 90's so while I didn't watch Barkley in his prime I did see most games that are available online, at least 30-40 so I have a very good idea about his game.

You are giving me closeout games when I specifically said he was poor in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's.

1987 R1 Game 5 vs. Bucks - 12/13/1 on 31.3% shooting
1990 R1 Game 5 vs. Cavs - 18/19/2 on 46.7% shooting
1993 R1 Game 5 vs. Lakers - 31/14/5 on 39.1% shooting
1993 CF Game 7 vs. Sonics - 44/24/1 on 60.0% shooting
1994 R2 Game 7 vs. Rockets - 24/15/4 on 47.4% shooting
1995 R2 Game 7 vs. Rockets - 18/23/5 on 43.8% shooting

He had one great game, two good games, and three bad games that include blowing two series with what should have been insurmountable leads.

By the way the most extensive year-by-year analysis that I've seen maybe ever is the RealGM POTY project. Tons of guys who saw the era, tons of stat geeks and basketball scholars. Here is how they broke down Malone vs. Barkley. Before 1988 neither guy was seriously considered.

1988 - edge Barkley
1989 - edge Barkley
1990 - edge Barkley
1991 - edge Malone
1992 - edge Malone
1993 - edge Barkley
1994 - edge Malone
1995 - edge Malone
1996 - edge Malone
1997 - edge Malone
1998 - edge Malone
1999 - edge Malone
2000 - edge Malone

That is 9-4 in favor of Karl Malone and even if we end the comparison at 1995 it's still 4-4 so Barkley is not ahead even in his best years.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 01:28 AM

[B]You can

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 01:33 AM

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]You can

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 01:59 AM

He had obvious flaws that haunted his whole career: Preparedness, Competitive fire, mental lapses, not unleashing his superior strength hardcore.

Not really. He was super competitive and agressive. He just did not take care of his body that much. Thats about it.

Dragonyeuw

10-04-2016, 07:11 AM

Malone was a much better shooter both from the low block and midrange compared to Barkley. Anyone who's watched them play knows it. And yet still despite being a much better shooter Karl never shot 3pt shots because he knew it's not his game. Barkley just didn't have that restraint.

Malone had better team and individual results than Barkley. Their offense in their primes is similar with Karl playing better defense. The intangibles comment wasn't directed at you. I said "you guys".

And Barkley had a greater variety of moves around the basket. Able to go coast to coast and finish for himself or create for others. Able to face up on the perimeter and drive better. They both had their advantages. Barkley simply had more elements to his game. Barkley's best scoring season was a few PPG less on TS numbers that Malone never sniffed, and with more scoring weapons on his team, and was easily doubled more. Barkley was a better overall rebounder. Malone was a better defender, but that's being thrown around like he was a defensive stopper.

The intangibles comment was in your response to me, so I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't take it as it being directed at me, even if you intended it to be directed to others. I have Malone over Barkley in my personal rankings BECAUSE of those intangibles. So you mean 'those guys', because I'm not in the category of trivializing or downplaying his longevity or consistency.

feyki

10-04-2016, 07:29 AM

Barkley statistically is easily a top 10 player of all time

Not even close , not for top 15 too .

Stockton had the better career than Karl Malone until 1995 summer . Just think about it . Karl Malone became Karl Malone after his 30 . That's the goat longevity , no doubt . But you can't in the top 15 , with peaking when aging .

Dragonyeuw

10-04-2016, 08:01 AM

feyki

10-04-2016, 11:40 AM

What do you base that on? And what do you mean he became Karl Malone after 30?

Impact , as always .

He peaked after his 30 . Also , his prime was in 96-98 .

Dragonyeuw

10-04-2016, 12:23 PM

Impact , as always .

He peaked after his 30 . Also , his prime was in 96-98 .

Oh really? Ok, so Stockton had greater impact between 85 and 95 than Malone did? Elaborate on this for those unable to grasp how you arrive at the term 'impact' without anything whatsoever backing up this sentiment.

Also, explain how he peaked after 30, or how you figure his 'prime' was at 34 years old. What period was he in between 88 and 93?

Pointguard

10-04-2016, 12:51 PM

You are giving me closeout games when I specifically said he was poor in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's.

1987 R1 Game 5 vs. Bucks - 12/13/1 on 31.3% shooting
1990 R1 Game 5 vs. Cavs - 18/19/2 on 46.7% shooting
1993 R1 Game 5 vs. Lakers - 31/14/5 on 39.1% shooting
1993 CF Game 7 vs. Sonics - 44/24/1 on 60.0% shooting
1994 R2 Game 7 vs. Rockets - 24/15/4 on 47.4% shooting
1995 R2 Game 7 vs. Rockets - 18/23/5 on 43.8% shooting

He had one great game, two good games, and three bad games that include blowing two series with what should have been insurmountable leads.
This is why I gave Malone the edge: You couldn't depend on Barkley, mentally or physically. He could have two or three great games but you are likely to get this in the finally. Malone will get 25 and 10 whether it be Hakeem or Rodman on him in any game for like 12 years. He was weirdly consistent.

By the way the most extensive year-by-year analysis that I've seen maybe ever is the RealGM POTY project. Tons of guys who saw the era, tons of stat geeks and basketball scholars. Here is how they broke down Malone vs. Barkley. Before 1988 neither guy was seriously considered.

1988 - edge Barkley
1989 - edge Barkley
1990 - edge Barkley
1991 - edge Malone
1992 - edge Malone
1993 - edge Barkley
1994 - edge Malone
1995 - edge Malone
1996 - edge Malone
1997 - edge Malone
1998 - edge Malone
1999 - edge Malone
2000 - edge Malone

That is 9-4 in favor of Karl Malone and even if we end the comparison at 1995 it's still 4-4 so Barkley is not ahead even in his best years.

That was my take as well.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 02:28 PM

1985-86: Barkley
1986-87: Barkley
1987-88: Barkley
1988-89: Barkley
1989-90: Barkley
1990-91: Barkley
1991-92: Barkley
1992-93: Barkley
1993-94: Barkley
1994-95: Barkley
1995-96: Stockton-To-Malone
1996-97: Stockton-To-Malone
1997-98: Stockton-To-Malone
1998-99: Stockton-To-Malone
1999-00: Stockton-To-Malone

Thats how it goes.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 02:34 PM

Not even close , not for top 15 too .

Stockton had the better career than Karl Malone until 1995 summer . Just think about it . Karl Malone became Karl Malone after his 30 . That's the goat longevity , no doubt . But you can't in the top 15 , with peaking when aging .

All Broken Down Stats and Avanced Metrics Give The Edge To Barkley as A Top 10 All Time Player.

For Malone...He Is Around A Top 20 Player of All Time At The Most.

Barkley > Stockton-To-Malone

feyki

10-04-2016, 03:21 PM

All Broken Down Stats and Avanced Metrics Give The Edge To Barkley as A Top 10 All Time Player.

For Malone...He Is Around A Top 20 Player of All Time At The Most.

Barkley > Stockton-To-Malone

Barkley had significantly better peak and prime . But Karl had the goat longevity . Neither of them not top 15 . But both have cases for 17-22 ( if you don't rank before NBA , It's 16 with left Mikan out of the list ) .

HurricaneKid

10-04-2016, 03:35 PM

Consensus top 15?

I'm curious to see how you calculated this OP. Does he get bonus points for hitting on his AS teammates wives? For knocking up a 12 year old? Or for alienating the team he played on for 18 years?

Dragonyeuw

10-04-2016, 05:04 PM

Barkley had significantly better peak and prime . But Karl had the goat longevity . Neither of them not top 15 . But both have cases for 17-22 ( if you don't rank before NBA , It's 16 with left Mikan out of the list ) .

Waiting for your explanation on how Stockton had a better career than Malone till 95, other than 'impact'. Thanks.

feyki

10-04-2016, 06:11 PM

Waiting for your explanation on how Stockton had a better career than Malone till 95, other than 'impact'. Thanks.

Regular Season ( which is you like ) ;

Stockton - %4.6 Rebs , %52 Ast , %4.2 Stl+Blk , %60.5 TS , 4.6 T(Per100Poss) , 20.5 Pts

Karl M. - %16.5 Rebs , %13.8 Ast , %3.4 Stl+Blk , %58.1 TS , 4.2 TO , 34.1 Pts

Playoffs ;

Stockton - %5.1 Rebs , %48.4 Ast , %3.6 Stl+Blk , %57.1 TS , 4.3 TO , 21.1 Pts

Karl M. - %16.1 Rebs , %10.1 Ast , %3.1 Stl+Blk , %54.7 TS , 3.5 TO , 33.7 Pts

..

I'd value playmaking and defence as most important aspects of the game . Playmaking gap is like Nash to Amar'e of between Karl and Stockton . And Stockton had the defence too . And also shooting .

Stockton was significantly better .

AussieSteve

10-04-2016, 06:19 PM

Malone had better team and individual results than Barkley. Their offense in their primes is similar with Karl playing better defense.

This is not actually true. NO ONE could objectively say they were comparable on offense.

Barkley was never on the level of Jordan and Magic. I am glad Pointguard is still thinking with his head.

Anyways plenty of people made arguments for Karl Malone as the best player in the league in 1997 and 1998 and that was over prime although declining MJ and also prime Shaq.

Barkley beat Jordan in MVP voting twice, when Jordan was at his absolute peak, averaging mid 33+ppg, 6+rpg and 6+ apg. Malone was never that good. I don't know how else to say it.

EDIT: In fact no one else ever did that except Magic. And one of the years he did it, Barkley beat him too!!!

Truth is Barkley's teams when he was the best player from 1987-1996 only made it out of the second round once in 1993 and missed the playoffs twice. He really didn't have much team success AT ALL.

Barkley missed the playoffs with a team that, the following year, picked up 20ppg Jeff Hornacek, and a 15ppg rookie, Clarence Weatherspoon, and still only won 26 games. Can you really put that down as a mark against Chuck. The 76ers were honestly a ~15 win team without him in 91-92.

Three years in a row, the Suns lost to the eventual champions. Twice in 7 games and twice by 1 point in the final game. Which round of the playoffs it was doesn't make it inferior to losing to the champions in the finals. Did Malone ever take the eventual champions to 7 games?

You are giving me closeout games when I specifically said he was poor in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's.

1987 R1 Game 5 vs. Bucks - 12/13/1 on 31.3% shooting
1990 R1 Game 5 vs. Cavs - 18/19/2 on 46.7% shooting
1993 R1 Game 5 vs. Lakers - 31/14/5 on 39.1% shooting
1993 CF Game 7 vs. Sonics - 44/24/1 on 60.0% shooting
1994 R2 Game 7 vs. Rockets - 24/15/4 on 47.4% shooting
1995 R2 Game 7 vs. Rockets - 18/23/5 on 43.8% shooting

He had one great game, two good games, and three bad games that include blowing two series with what should have been insurmountable leads.

So we should judge Barkley's career by his performance in these 6 games? I could easily go and find 6 playoff games that Malone bombed in. This is stupid... besides, only 1 of these games you would actually call a bad game. The rest are fine.

By the way the most extensive year-by-year analysis that I've seen maybe ever is the RealGM POTY project. Tons of guys who saw the era, tons of stat geeks and basketball scholars. Here is how they broke down Malone vs. Barkley. Before 1988 neither guy was seriously considered.

1988 - edge Barkley
1989 - edge Barkley
1990 - edge Barkley
1991 - edge Malone
1992 - edge Malone
1993 - edge Barkley
1994 - edge Malone
1995 - edge Malone
1996 - edge Malone
1997 - edge Malone
1998 - edge Malone
1999 - edge Malone
2000 - edge Malone

That is 9-4 in favor of Karl Malone and even if we end the comparison at 1995 it's still 4-4 so Barkley is not ahead even in his best years.

This is a joke. For one, thanks for omitting 86 and 87, which would go to Barkley, but also, the player with the best season doesn't determine who was the best player. For example, you cannot tell me that Malone was better than Barkley in 94... NO chance. Chuck went 25/12/5 for the first 2 months of that season. He paced himself when he came back from injury and averaged 19/10/4 for the last couple of months, but then he lifted in the playoffs to average 28/13/5. Sure Malone went 25/11.5/4 in the reg. season, but all his numbers were lower than Barkley in the playoffs. 94 MUST go to Barkley.

I would suggest that 91 would go Barkley's way too, but who cares. We all know Malone had more good years than Barkley. My contention is that Barkley was simply better than Malone, in the years that they were both good.

AussieSteve

10-04-2016, 07:30 PM

Regular Season ( which is you like ) ;

Stockton - %4.6 Rebs , %52 Ast , %4.2 Stl+Blk , %60.5 TS , 4.6 T(Per100Poss) , 20.5 Pts

Karl M. - %16.5 Rebs , %13.8 Ast , %3.4 Stl+Blk , %58.1 TS , 4.2 TO , 34.1 Pts

Playoffs ;

Stockton - %5.1 Rebs , %48.4 Ast , %3.6 Stl+Blk , %57.1 TS , 4.3 TO , 21.1 Pts

Karl M. - %16.1 Rebs , %10.1 Ast , %3.1 Stl+Blk , %54.7 TS , 3.5 TO , 33.7 Pts

..

I'd value playmaking and defence as most important aspects of the game . Playmaking gap is like Nash to Amar'e of between Karl and Stockton . And Stockton had the defence too . And also shooting .

Stockton was significantly better .

This is actually interesting... You prompted me to have a look at some Stockton stats and I think that Stockton's role in Utah's success is probably understated. Which obviously leads to an overstatement of Malone's impact.

Stocktons's ORtg was among the best in the league every single year of his career. And his DRtg was always great too. There were a number seasons when his NetRtg (ORtg-DRtg) was better than +20, and for his career it is +17... Identical to Magic and better than Jordan (whose career NetRtg is +15).

He led the league in eFG% in 95-96 and in TS% 3 times. This is very rare for a guard. And of course he had all those assists and steals, at a phenomenal AST/TOV rate.

Malone really hit the jackpot have Stockton by his side for his whole career.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 07:41 PM

This is actually interesting... You prompted me to have a look at some Stockton stats and I think that Stockton's role in Utah's success is probably understated. Which obviously leads to an overstatement of Malone's impact.

Stocktons's ORtg was among the best in the league every single year of his career. And his DRtg was always great too. There were a number seasons when his NetRtg (ORtg-DRtg) was better than +20, and for his career it is +17... Identical to Magic and better than Jordan (whose career NetRtg is +15).

He led the league in eFG% in 95-96 and in TS% 3 times. This is very rare for a guard. And of course he had all those assists and steals, at a phenomenal AST/TOV rate.

Malone really hit the jackpot have Stockton by his side for his whole career.

:applause:

And Lets not forget the impact Eaton had defensively. The Jazz where better in the late 80s and early 90s than the 97 or 98 Jazz.

dankok8

10-04-2016, 08:58 PM

Not even close , not for top 15 too .

Stockton had the better career than Karl Malone until 1995 summer . Just think about it . Karl Malone became Karl Malone after his 30 . That's the goat longevity , no doubt . But you can't in the top 15 , with peaking when aging .

Most people who know anything would laugh this comment off as trolling...

Malone finished higher than Stockton in MVP voting every single year when either of them received a single vote.

Speaking of MVP voting, Malone also finished higher than Barkley in 1989, 1992, 1994 and 1995. So out of eight seasons from 1988-1995 when both men were in their prime, the MVP voting record and the RealGM POTY voting record were 4-4.

Clearly if Barkley was a better player he'd get more love in MVP voting but that isn't what happened.

Barkley beat Jordan in MVP voting twice, when Jordan was at his absolute peak, averaging mid 33+ppg, 6+rpg and 6+ apg. Malone was never that good. I don't know how else to say it.

EDIT: In fact no one else ever did that except Magic. And one of the years he did it, Barkley beat him too!!!

Jordan put up better stats in those years than in 1997 and 1998 but he also played on teams that won far fewer games. How many wins your team has factors into MVP voting a lot. MJ won just 55 games in 1990 and 57 games in 1993 compared to 69 games in 1997 and 62 wins with Pippen missing lots of time in 1998.

Barkley missed the playoffs with a team that, the following year, picked up 20ppg Jeff Hornacek, and a 15ppg rookie, Clarence Weatherspoon, and still only won 26 games. Can you really put that down as a mark against Chuck. The 76ers were honestly a ~15 win team without him in 91-92.

Three years in a row, the Suns lost to the eventual champions. Twice in 7 games and twice by 1 point in the final game. Which round of the playoffs it was doesn't make it inferior to losing to the champions in the finals. Did Malone ever take the eventual champions to 7 games?

The Suns choked badly in 1994 and 1995. Bringing that up doesn't help Barkley's case especially because he played very poorly in both series down the stretch.

So we should judge Barkley's career by his performance in these 6 games? I could easily go and find 6 playoff games that Malone bombed in. This is stupid... besides, only 1 of these games you would actually call a bad game. The rest are fine.

We shouldn't judge it only based on six games but Barkley was a poor big game player, not a good one. He was on average worse in these decisive games than Malone was.

This is a joke. For one, thanks for omitting 86 and 87, which would go to Barkley, but also, the player with the best season doesn't determine who was the best player. For example, you cannot tell me that Malone was better than Barkley in 94... NO chance. Chuck went 25/12/5 for the first 2 months of that season. He paced himself when he came back from injury and averaged 19/10/4 for the last couple of months, but then he lifted in the playoffs to average 28/13/5. Sure Malone went 25/11.5/4 in the reg. season, but all his numbers were lower than Barkley in the playoffs. 94 MUST go to Barkley.

I would suggest that 91 would go Barkley's way too, but who cares. We all know Malone had more good years than Barkley. My contention is that Barkley was simply better than Malone, in the years that they were both good.

Neither player was under consideration for MVP or POTY in 1986 and 1987. Malone wasn't in his prime either. That's why those years aren't really apt for comparison. Just like we don't use 1996 and later.

1994 does not go to Barkley... He averaged 28 ppg in the playoffs because he dropped 56 in one game on the lowly Warriors. Then he disappeared against Houston and his team choked a 2-0 lead going back home.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 09:30 PM

Malone is Top 15-20

Barkley is Top 10-15

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 09:36 PM

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
11 Jerry Lucas 28.13 11
12 LeBron James 28.01 8
13 Hakeem Olajuwon 27.17 18
14 Jerry West 27.10 14
15 David Robinson 26.98 14
16 Karl Malone 26.94 19
17 Walt Bellamy 26.29 14
18 Dave Cowens 26.23 11
19 Shaquille O'neal 26.05 19
20 Kevin Garnett 25.98 16
21 Maurice Stokes 25.75 3
22 Tim Duncan 25.68 14

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating

NBA/ABA

Rank Player PER
1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 27.24
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.70
7. Chris Paul 25.44
8. Bob Pettit* 25.35
9. Tim Duncan 24.75
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* 28.60
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 27.10
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.13
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Tim Duncan 25.27
7. Kevin Durant 24.70
8. Dirk Nowitzki 24.68
9. Charles Barkley* 24.18
10. Dwyane Wade 24.06
11. Tracy McGrady 23.70
12. Dwight Howard 23.65
13. Dolph Schayes* 23.29
14. Jerry West* 23.06
15. David Robinson* 23.02
16. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 23.01
17. Magic Johnson* 22.95
18. Wilt Chamberlain* 22.77
19. Amare Stoudemire 22.63
20. Bob Pettit* 22.59
21. Kobe Bryant 22.40
22. Julius Erving* 22.05
23. Elgin Baylor* 21.83
24. Rick Barry* 21.79
25. Russell Westbrook 21.66
26. Moses Malone* 21.57
27. Kevin Garnett 21.49
28. Larry Bird* 21.41
29. Baron Davis 21.36
30. Allen Iverson 21.24
31. George Gervin* 21.17
32. Karl Malone* 21.12

More Fun with Statistical +/-

Posted by Neil Paine on February 27, 2009

The other day, I talked at some length about

Dragonyeuw

10-04-2016, 10:40 PM

Regular Season ( which is you like ) ;

Stockton - %4.6 Rebs , %52 Ast , %4.2 Stl+Blk , %60.5 TS , 4.6 T(Per100Poss) , 20.5 Pts

Karl M. - %16.5 Rebs , %13.8 Ast , %3.4 Stl+Blk , %58.1 TS , 4.2 TO , 34.1 Pts

Playoffs ;

Stockton - %5.1 Rebs , %48.4 Ast , %3.6 Stl+Blk , %57.1 TS , 4.3 TO , 21.1 Pts

Karl M. - %16.1 Rebs , %10.1 Ast , %3.1 Stl+Blk , %54.7 TS , 3.5 TO , 33.7 Pts

..

I'd value playmaking and defence as most important aspects of the game . Playmaking gap is like Nash to Amar'e of between Karl and Stockton . And Stockton had the defence too . And also shooting .

Stockton was significantly better .

I was really expecting something truly thought-provoking. Then you said the bolded, and now I know I don't have to bother taking you seriously from now on. I could just as easily say I value first option scoring and rebounding, and then where does that lead us? Malone was a legitimate MVP level player well prior to 95, Stockton though a great player was never in that discussion.

Just looking at your profile, how does a 23 year speak with such an authoritative tone about players whose primes occurred before you were in elementary school? I wouldn't have the gall to post a pile of stats of players I didn't see play and then make the retarded claim you did. It would be like me posting a bunch of Wilt stats and arguing with Lazerus or CavaliersFTW( who I'm guessing lived through that era). What's the extent of your knowledge on these players beyond basketball reference and youtube clips? ****ing ridiculous claim, I won't say trolling but you more or less invalidated yourself as far as even a modicum of basketball insight.

RoundMoundOfReb

10-04-2016, 10:59 PM

He's overrated if anything. I'd take Duncan, Garnett, Dirk and Barkley (prime for prime) over him fairly easily.

Round Mound

10-04-2016, 11:10 PM

Malone has no case over "prime-heathly" Barkley. I saw it live and the metrics and stats back it up aswell. :confusedshrug:

ILLsmak

10-04-2016, 11:37 PM

I'm surprised people think Karl is consensus top 15.

Personally I don't, but a helluva player. A lot of longevity.

-Smak

AussieSteve

10-05-2016, 12:35 AM

Speaking of MVP voting, Malone also finished higher than Barkley in 1989, 1992, 1994 and 1995. So out of eight seasons from 1988-1995 when both men were in their prime, the MVP voting record and the RealGM POTY voting record were 4-4.

Clearly if Barkley was a better player he'd get more love in MVP voting but that isn't what happened.

Jordan put up better stats in those years than in 1997 and 1998 but he also played on teams that won far fewer games. How many wins your team has factors into MVP voting a lot. MJ won just 55 games in 1990 and 57 games in 1993 compared to 69 games in 1997 and 62 wins with Pippen missing lots of time in 1998.

Malone had more MVP votes than Barkley in 89 and 92 because Chuck played on rubbish teams that would win 20 games without him, while Malone had an All-NBA point guard and All-D center helping him get to 50+ wins. It was not because Malone was the better player. You know that and I know that, so why make an argument that you know is BS.

And in 94 and 95, Barkley missed games to injury.

And Barkley won more MVP votes than Magic and Jordan when BOTH Magic and Jordan had more wins than Barkley, so don't use the stats vs wins argument on me, if anything, this works against your previous point about the 89 and 92 MVPs.

The Suns choked badly in 1994 and 1995. Bringing that up doesn't help Barkley's case especially because he played very poorly in both series down the stretch.

We shouldn't judge it only based on six games but Barkley was a poor big game player, not a good one. He was on average worse in these decisive games than Malone was.

If you call series of 23/13/4 on 46FG% and 25/17/3 on 51FG% playing badly, then sure he played badly. But hey many of Malone's series were worse so...

(NB: in 1995 I omitted game 3 where he played reduced mins and had only 5 points. I'm not sure what happened that game, but it was an anomaly. So those stats are over 6 games)

EDIT: And you didn't answer my question... did Malone ever push the eventual champions to 7 games, as Barkley did twice? (I actually don't know)

And I repeat... "The most amazing evidence of all however are his averages in closeout games in the postseason. From 1990-1996 Barkley averaged 32.3 points 16.4 rebounds and 4 assists per game in the final game of his teams series."

AussieSteve

10-05-2016, 12:47 AM

Neither player was under consideration for MVP or POTY in 1986 and 1987. Malone wasn't in his prime either. That's why those years aren't really apt for comparison. Just like we don't use 1996 and later.

I beg to differ.

After starting slowly in 1985-86, Chuck was at the top of his game in the second half of the season and in the playoffs. He averaged 22.6ppg, 15.9rpg, 4.5apg, 2.5spg and 1.6bpg post All-Star, with an .611 eFG%. That's not just good, it's all time great!! It was so good, that after starting the season so slowly that he missed the All-Star game, he ended it so strongly that he finished 6th (a hair shy of 5th) in MVP voting. For the season he was #2 in Def WS, #2 in Def BPM, #2 in VORP (behind only Larry Bird in each of these categories) and had a DRtg 6 points better than the next best on his team. In the playoffs he was even better, averaging 25.0ppg, 15.8rpg, 5.6apg, 2.3spg, 1.3bpg. He also won the Schick Pivotal Player Award for the best all-round player in the NBA. He was a monster on both ends of the floor.

In 1987 he was even better. He averaged 23.0ppg, 14.6rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 1.5bpg, led the league in RPG, eFG% and TS%. He was #4 in PER (behind only Jordan, Magic and Bird), #1 in BPM, #3 in VORP and #5 in WS/48. He won the Schick Award again and, despite missing 14 games and the 76ers only winning 45 games, he still only just missed the top 5 in MVP voting. And he was again even better in the playoffs. At this point of his career, he was already without doubt the best player in the league, not named Michael, Magic or Larry.

Here's my point. You're little comparisons of who was better in which year are cute, but they miss the fact that in 1986, Barkley was already a better all-round basketball player than Malone ever was, at any point in his career. And you've omitted it from your comparison as if it's irrelevant.

dankok8

10-05-2016, 01:46 AM

Malone had more MVP votes than Barkley in 89 and 92 because Chuck played on rubbish teams that would win 20 games without him, while Malone had an All-NBA point guard and All-D center helping him get to 50+ wins. It was not because Malone was the better player. You know that and I know that, so why make an argument that you know is BS.

And in 94 and 95, Barkley missed games to injury.

And Barkley won more MVP votes than Magic and Jordan when BOTH Magic and Jordan had more wins than Barkley, so don't use the stats vs wins argument on me, if anything, this works against your previous point about the 89 and 92 MVPs.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

If Barkley was the better player as you say he would consistently have more MVP votes and POTY votes on RealGM than Malone in his peak years from 1988-1995. However what we find is that they were dead even. And by the way by the time the 90's rolled around the Western Conference was stronger than the East.

The stats don't favor Barkley unless you're an efficiency buff and ignore Malone's sizable edge in scoring volume. You have yet to show me how Barkley has better stats.

If you call series of 23/13/4 on 46FG% and 25/17/3 on 51FG% playing badly, then sure he played badly. But hey many of Malone's series were worse so...

(NB: in 1995 I omitted game 3 where he played reduced mins and had only 5 points. I'm not sure what happened that game, but it was an anomaly. So those stats are over 6 games)

EDIT: And you didn't answer my question... did Malone ever push the eventual champions to 7 games, as Barkley did twice? (I actually don't know)

And I repeat... "The most amazing evidence of all however are his averages in closeout games in the postseason. From 1990-1996 Barkley averaged 32.3 points 16.4 rebounds and 4 assists per game in the final game of his teams series."

Here are Barkley's actual averages against Houston in the playoffs and mind you the stats are misleading. He was worse.

1994: 23.4 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 4.1 apg on 45.7 %FG/53.2 %TS

After his Suns had a 2-0 lead going back home, Barkley proceeded to completely wet the bet in Game 3 and 4 and didn't put a stamp on any remaining game.

1995: 22.3 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 3.1 apg on 46.3 %FG/53.6 %TS

After his Suns had a 3-1 lead with homecourt, Barkley went on to have absolutely terrible performance in both Game 5 and Game 7 on his home court. Barkley averaged 20 ppg and shot just 40 %FG and 46.5 %TS in the last five games of the series.

MVP caliber my ass!

As for Malone pushing the eventual champions to the limit, the Jazz took the Showtime Lakers to 7 games in 1988 and also took the 1995 Rockets to a decisive Game 5 in the first round. And unlike Barkley, Malone actually played really well in both of those series.

How many series did Barkley close out in total in his prime? Like five or six and one of those games was the 56-point effort against Webber and the Warriors which inflates those numbers tremendously. Besides, closeout games are not pressure games like elimination games are.

I beg to differ.

After starting slowly in 1985-86, Chuck was at the top of his game in the second half of the season and in the playoffs. He averaged 22.6ppg, 15.9rpg, 4.5apg, 2.5spg and 1.6bpg post All-Star, with an .611 eFG%. That's not just good, it's all time great!! It was so good, that after starting the season so slowly that he missed the All-Star game, he ended it so strongly that he finished 6th (a hair shy of 5th) in MVP voting. For the season he was #2 in Def WS, #2 in Def BPM, #2 in VORP (behind only Larry Bird in each of these categories) and had a DRtg 6 points better than the next best on his team. In the playoffs he was even better, averaging 25.0ppg, 15.8rpg, 5.6apg, 2.3spg, 1.3bpg. He also won the Schick Pivotal Player Award for the best all-round player in the NBA. He was a monster on both ends of the floor.

In 1987 he was even better. He averaged 23.0ppg, 14.6rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 1.5bpg, led the league in RPG, eFG% and TS%. He was #4 in PER (behind only Jordan, Magic and Bird), #1 in BPM, #3 in VORP and #5 in WS/48. He won the Schick Award again and, despite missing 14 games and the 76ers only winning 45 games, he still only just missed the top 5 in MVP voting. And he was again even better in the playoffs. At this point of his career, he was already without doubt the best player in the league, not named Michael, Magic or Larry.

Here's my point. You're little comparisons of who was better in which year are cute, but they miss the fact that in 1986, Barkley was already a better all-round basketball player than Malone ever was, at any point in his career. And you've omitted it from your comparison as if it's irrelevant.

The notion that Barkley in 1986 is a better all-around player than Malone at any point is just comical. You've lost all credibility.

How can Barkley be a better all around player when he plays one end of the floor when it comes down to it?

Round Mound

10-05-2016, 03:56 AM

Only Jazz Fans Think That Malone Was Better. Real B-Ball Fans Know Barkley Was Better :confusedshrug:

AussieSteve

10-05-2016, 04:01 AM

The notion that Barkley in 1986 is a better all-around player than Malone at any point is just comical. You've lost all credibility.

How can Barkley be a better all around player when he plays one end of the floor when it comes down to it?

You obviously didn't read correctly.

Did Malone ever average 14.6 RPG? No. Did he ever average 4.9 APG? No. Did he ever average 2.2 SPG? No. Did he ever average 1.6 BPG? No. Did he ever shoot .606 eFG%? No. Did he ever have a Def Rtg 6 points better than the next best person on his team? No.

Did Malone ever average 15.8 RPG in a postseason (that lasted longer than 3 games)? No. Did he ever average 5.6 APG in a postseason? No. Did he ever average 2.3 SPG in a postseason? No. Did he ever average 1.3 BPG in a postseason? No. Did he ever shoot .581 eFG% in a post season? No.

Malone couldn't manage any of these numbers at any point in his career. Chuck was getting them all at the same time.

In at least one of these two seasons (86 and 87), and both of them in most cases, Barkley averaged more OffRPG, DefRPG, APG, SPG, BPG and FG% than Malone did at any statge of his career, was among the league leaders in all advanced offensive and defensive stats, and was #1 on his team in both DRtg and ORtg (something that Malone only achieved once, but Barkley achieved many times).

Oh but wait, wait,wait!!! Malone scored more PPG... Because he had the greatest passer in history feeding him the ball!!

You started this thread by using a statistical argument...

Malone's 1989-1990 season was his statistical peak and he averaged 31.0 ppg on 62.6 %TS with 11.1 rpg and 2.8 apg. He also played very good defense and ended the season 3rd in defensive rebounds and 4th in defensive win shares. That's quite possibly better than any other regular season by a PF in history.

I am telling you that the stats say, that 86 Barkley was better than Malone ever was.

Stop letting your preconceived ideas of Barkley skew your objectivity.

AussieSteve

10-05-2016, 06:25 AM

The stats don't favor Barkley unless you're an efficiency buff and ignore Malone's sizable edge in scoring volume. You have yet to show me how Barkley has better stats.

We've been through this and I feel silly making it explicit, because I think that stats are given too much weight in these kinds of debates. Stats tell part of the story only. But seeing as though you're pushing me for it I'll give it.

Basic Stats

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 14.6 / 12.0
APG / 5.1 / 4.7
SPG / 2.2 / 1.9
BPG / 1.6 / 1.5
PPG / 28.3 / 31.0
FG% / .600 / .562

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 11.7 / 10.1
APG / 3.9 / 3.6
SPG / 1.5 / 1.4
BPG / 0.8 / 0.8
PPG / 22.1 / 25.0
FG% / .541 / .516

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 12.9 / 10.7
APG / 3.9 / 3.2
SPG / 1.6 / 1.3
BPG / 0.9 / 0.7
PPG / 23.0 / 24.7
FG% / .513 / .463

Per 100 Possession

(I don't really like these because they assume things about a players contribution to the team ORtg and DRtg, but I'll include them anyway)

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 128 / 120
DRtg / 100 / 96
NetRtg / +23 / +17

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 119 / 113
DRtg / 105 / 101
NetRtg / +14 / +12

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 118 / 106
DRtg / 107 / 103
NetRtg / +11 / +3

Note that in Barkley's best defensive season, his DRtg was 6 points better than the next best player on his team. While in Malone's best defensive season, his DRtg wasn't even the best on his team.

In Barkley's best offensive season, his ORtg was 8 points better than the next best on his team. Malone's was just 2 pts, and in fact it was the only season that he led his team in ORtg, while Chuck led his almost every season of his career.

This is why these stats aren't great. They require team context to be interpreted properly.

Advanced
These are all the advanced stats that try to quantify a players overall performance/value.

I've also included FTr (FTA/FGA) because a lot of Malone fans like to think that Malone was the boss at getting to the line... But they are mistaken.

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 28.9 / 28.9
OWS / 13.4 / 12.1
DWS / 5.5 / 6.6
WS / 17.2 / 16.7
WS/48 / .269 / .268
OBPM / 9.0 / 6.2
DBPM / 3.9 / 3.0
BPM / 9.9 / 8.5
VORP / 9.2 / 7.9
FTr / .741 / .602

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 24.6 / 23.9
OWS/48 / 0.150 / .124
DWS/48 / .066 / .081
WS/48 / .216 / .205
Off BPM / 5.7 / 3.6
Def BPM / 1.8 / 1.8
BPM / 7.4 / 5.4
VORP/82 games / 7.2 / 5.7
FTr / .554 / .503

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 24.2 / 21.1
OWS/48 / 0.134 / .069
DWS/48 / .058 / .071
WS/48 / .193 / .140
Off BPM / 4.0 / 1.2
Def BPM / 3.3 / 2.4
BPM / 7.3 / 3.6
VORP/82 games / 7.5 / 4.8
FTr / .533 / .458

There you have it dankok8. You asked for it. You've got it. Now you can bask in Karl Malone's glorious defeat. Barkley is superior in pretty much every stat. Especially in the playoffs, where he is far superior.

And we all know that Malone only wins in PPG because of Stockton. So it's all but unanimous apart from a couple of defensive stats, which I'm sure are much closer than you might have expected.

Don't you go and tell me now that these stats are irrelevant... You asked for them!

Obviously there are other factors in rating a player. BUT if stats were all we had, NO ONE would say that Malone was better than Barkley.

Iceman#44

10-05-2016, 09:41 AM

About the Barkley VS Malone argument, there is an interesting take in Jack McCallum book, DREAM TEAM.

Here we go:

"In March 1992, i asked coaches and GM around the League this question: If you were starting a team and could take either Malone or Barkley, which one would you select? ...Malone won the poll 15-7, and there were common threads in the voting. Malone's supporters invariably mentioned his loyal soldier qualities and contrasted them with Barkley's penchant for controversy. Barkley's backers felt there was no substitute for talent and that Charles achieved more with less, having no John Stockton to deliver him the ball.
Malone won, i suspect, because the question was which you would choose to start a team, not which was the better player. Malone played 19 seasons and in almost every one of them played in every game. Nobody ever prepared himself better than the gym-ripped Stairmaster addict from Louisiana.
Barkley, by contrast, played in 82 games in only his rookie season. He went like a madman during games but didn't take care of himself and something Always broke down.
Years later, upon considering the full flush of their careers, its still a difficult call by the numbers.
Both have been accused of folding under pressure, but that's more the result of retiring ringless. The big picture reveals that both were outstanding postseason players with numbers almost identical to their regular-season metrics.
But there is Always the root question in sports: who was better? You have that moment when you can give only one person the bat, the club, the ball and who would you choose? It's not a media thing, it's a player thing.
In basketball, i'm sure that if players spoke honestly, Jordan would Always get the ball over anyone. Magic or Bird? I have no basis on which to conclude this, but my guess is that the majority would say Bird, even though Magic had the Greater career.
And i'm equally certain that this Barkley-or-Malone nod would go to Barkley. Charles had that ineffable something that Malone didn't have. He was just better. He wasn't more important to a franchise, he wasn't as dependable, and he wasn't as good over the long haul. He was just better. "

ClipperRevival

10-05-2016, 10:03 AM

About the Barkley VS Malone argument, there is an interesting take in Jack McCallum book, DREAM TEAM.

Here we go:

Fair enough.

But longevity, consistency, durability, dedication to the game and the ability to execute within a team concept are all key factors that clearly favor Malone. Yes, in a vacuum, Barkley was more athletic, more explosive and more dynamic. But looking back at their careers and knowing what I know now, I take Malone without hesitation.

egokiller

10-05-2016, 01:33 PM

Come on, son....please.

No, he's correct on that one. Who else can get the title of greatest of all-time at a position who has never won a championship? No one else. Who else gets more celebrated for losing to MJ time after time? Karl Malone.

He lost every year of his 20 year career. It's a joke that he is considered the best and never could beat the best team of his era, the Bulls. Then when he goes to the lakers and has a shot, and gets injured. Just another moment Malone came up short when it mattered the most. Top 15? Maybe. Best PF ever, hell no.

AussieSteve

10-05-2016, 06:02 PM

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 14.6 / 12.0
APG / 5.1 / 4.7
SPG / 2.2 / 1.9
BPG / 1.6 / 1.5
PPG / 28.3 / 31.0
FG% / .600 / .562

And by the way, not only are Barkley's stats better in every single category except for PPG, it's interesting to note that the year Malone averaged his career best 31.0 PPG, his partner in crime John Stockton averaged 14.5 APG, which is only the most ever in the history of the game!!!. Malone also averaged 3.8 FGA more per game than Barkley in his 28.3 PPG season.

As if Barkley wouldn't have averaged at least 2.7 PPG more in his best scoring season if he was taking 4 more shots a game and his PG was having the all-time greatest assisting season.

So...

Malone's 1989-1990 season was his statistical peak and he averaged 31.0 ppg on 62.6 %TS with 11.1 rpg and 2.8 apg. He also played very good defense and ended the season 3rd in defensive rebounds and 4th in defensive win shares. That's quite possibly better than any other regular season by a PF in history.

Hardly.

dankok8

10-05-2016, 06:11 PM

AussieSteve

10-05-2016, 06:49 PM

@AussieSteve

You basically put all the career highs together and compared. If you don't realize how that's a faulty way to compare then I don't know what to tell you.

The right way to compare would be to go season by season and compare the basic stats plus maybe TS%. The other stats are way too situational.

And clearly PER, WS, BPM, and VORP aren't end-all stats when you look at who the all time leaders are. You see some great names and some "not so great" names like George Mikan and David Robinson. DRtg and DWS also do a horrific job at representing defense in many cases. Anyone who knows anything about 90's basketball will tell you that Malone was way way way better than Barkley on defense. No amount of stats is gonna convince us otherwise. Bird had higher DWS than Kawhi Leonald. He wasn't even close to Kawhi on defense.

You are obviously not willing to see reason. So this discussion is completely pointless.

You ask me to provide stats showing my assertion that Barkley was statistically better than Malone. I provide three posts (posts #77, #78 and #82), which prove to any reasonable person the Barkley was statistically superior, and you just dismiss it. When you were the one who wanted to build a case on stats in the first place!!!

Explain to me why Chuck beat Malone in everything in his peak, over his career and especially in the playoffs, if Malone was better.

If anything the career and playoff comparisons are flattering to Malone, when you consider how many of Barkley's seasons were affected by injury.

And if "The right way to compare would be to go season by season and compare the basic stats plus maybe TS%." Then just compare PER, because this is effectively what PER does. Guess who wins this more often than not, and by a massive margin in the playoffs.

EDIT: Or just look at the winners of the Pivotal Player Award, which was awarded every season of Barkley's and Malone's careers to the best player in the league based solely on statistics. Barkley won it in 86, 87 and 88. Malone won it in 98. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Award

Now, I'm not saying these stats prove Barkley was better than Malone, but they strongly imply it. And along with Barkley's superior MVP credentials (which I have discussed at length and you have disregarded) and his far superior playoff record (which you refuse to acknowledge despite the clear evidence in post #78), I have to reiterate that the only argument in favor of Malone is longevity. Malone was great for a long time. Barkley was much greater, but for a shorter time.

Also, you also laughed off Chuck being better in 86 than Malone ever was... then you ignored my response in post #77, which I think is a pretty damn solid one.

If you're going to start a thread, you need to be open to rational objections.

Round Mound

10-05-2016, 09:25 PM

We've been through this and I feel silly making it explicit, because I think that stats are given too much weight in these kinds of debates. Stats tell part of the story only. But seeing as though you're pushing me for it I'll give it.

Basic Stats

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 14.6 / 12.0
APG / 5.1 / 4.7
SPG / 2.2 / 1.9
BPG / 1.6 / 1.5
PPG / 28.3 / 31.0
FG% / .600 / .562

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 11.7 / 10.1
APG / 3.9 / 3.6
SPG / 1.5 / 1.4
BPG / 0.8 / 0.8
PPG / 22.1 / 25.0
FG% / .541 / .516

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 12.9 / 10.7
APG / 3.9 / 3.2
SPG / 1.6 / 1.3
BPG / 0.9 / 0.7
PPG / 23.0 / 24.7
FG% / .513 / .463

Per 100 Possession

(I don't really like these because they assume things about a players contribution to the team ORtg and DRtg, but I'll include them anyway)

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 128 / 120
DRtg / 100 / 96
NetRtg / +23 / +17

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 119 / 113
DRtg / 105 / 101
NetRtg / +14 / +12

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 118 / 106
DRtg / 107 / 103
NetRtg / +11 / +3

Note that in Barkley's best defensive season, his DRtg was 6 points better than the next best player on his team. While in Malone's best defensive season, his DRtg wasn't even the best on his team.

In Barkley's best offensive season, his ORtg was 8 points better than the next best on his team. Malone's was just 2 pts, and in fact it was the only season that he led his team in ORtg, while Chuck led his almost every season of his career.

This is why these stats aren't great. They require team context to be interpreted properly.

Advanced
These are all the advanced stats that try to quantify a players overall performance/value.

I've also included FTr (FTA/FGA) because a lot of Malone fans like to think that Malone was the boss at getting to the line... But they are mistaken.

Best Season
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 28.9 / 28.9
OWS / 13.4 / 12.1
DWS / 5.5 / 6.6
WS / 17.2 / 16.7
WS/48 / .269 / .268
OBPM / 9.0 / 6.2
DBPM / 3.9 / 3.0
BPM / 9.9 / 8.5
VORP / 9.2 / 7.9
FTr / .741 / .602

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 24.6 / 23.9
OWS/48 / 0.150 / .124
DWS/48 / .066 / .081
WS/48 / .216 / .205
Off BPM / 5.7 / 3.6
Def BPM / 1.8 / 1.8
BPM / 7.4 / 5.4
VORP/82 games / 7.2 / 5.7
FTr / .554 / .503

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 24.2 / 21.1
OWS/48 / 0.134 / .069
DWS/48 / .058 / .071
WS/48 / .193 / .140
Off BPM / 4.0 / 1.2
Def BPM / 3.3 / 2.4
BPM / 7.3 / 3.6
VORP/82 games / 7.5 / 4.8
FTr / .533 / .458

There you have it dankok8. You asked for it. You've got it. Now you can bask in Karl Malone's glorious defeat. Barkley is superior in pretty much every stat. Especially in the playoffs, where he is far superior.

And we all know that Malone only wins in PPG because of Stockton. So it's all but unanimous apart from a couple of defensive stats, which I'm sure are much closer than you might have expected.

Don't you go and tell me now that these stats are irrelevant... You asked for them!

Obviously there are other factors in rating a player. BUT if stats were all we had, NO ONE would say that Malone was better than Barkley.

:applause: :bowdown:

La Frescobaldi

10-06-2016, 12:06 AM

Umm yeah... I agree the competition declined. However you must realize that Malone and Stockton were in their mid-30's by 1997. Karl had his best cast in the late 80's with Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, and a prime Stockton. In 1998 he had a role player Stockton, Jeff Hornacek who is basically Mike Dunleavy on steroids, and Antoine Carr who could provide some one-dimensional scoring off the bench. The rest of the team were relative scrubs like Greg Ostertag, Bryon Russell, and Howard Eisley.

Malone was the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on those Jazz teams that made the Finals. He shouldered an enormous load and when push came to shove he rarely had another scorer to take the load off of him. And in 1997 and 1998 it was between him, MJ, and prime Shaq for best player in the league. The reason Jazz were worth shit was because of him.

Good post. I think KG has a case over Malone but Barkley has none whatsoever. His body of work just doesn't compare. Short prime, less awards, more weaknesses in his game, bad attitude.

I replaced them with sufficient contenders. Both the Heat and Pacers were 60+ win teams in 1997 and 1998 and the latter made a finals appearance in 2000.

Dirk draws defenders out to the three point line but Malone takes it to the rim and draws fouls and Malone grabs more offensive rebounds. In their peak seasons and over 10+ years Malone also has superior offensive production. Way to disregard all objective evidence... Of course when we look at the totality of their games including rebounding and defense it's not really close.

The only argument and literally the ONLY argument Dirk fans have is "but...but... Dirk won a championship". Yea... only it took a truly historic choke for him to win it and it appears to be a fluke considering that the Mavs did absolutely nothing a few years before and after that title. Oh and he didn't have to face the 90's Bulls...

I think the only titles in league history I would call flukes are Barry's Warriors in 1975 and Mavs in 2011. When your team flames out of the playoffs the year prior and the year following something is wrong don't you think?

wha??
Nate Thurmond missed the playoffs the year before, so did Clyde Lee. That was both of their big starters gone to DNP-I ... flame out is a really weird thing to say in that situation!
Somebody else called you out on this over the Mavs too, and rightly so. It was real controversial the way Cuban blew that team up almost the second they walked off the court after winning the trophy.

That 2011 playoff run is one of the terrific stories in all of sports. Actually the '75 Warriors was just as much a legendary story if not more. They both had great luck in key moments but so does every single champion team in every single sport.
No, that dog won't hunt.

dankok8

10-06-2016, 08:49 AM

You are obviously not willing to see reason. So this discussion is completely pointless.

You ask me to provide stats showing my assertion that Barkley was statistically better than Malone. I provide three posts (posts #77, #78 and #82), which prove to any reasonable person the Barkley was statistically superior, and you just dismiss it. When you were the one who wanted to build a case on stats in the first place!!!

Explain to me why Chuck beat Malone in everything in his peak, over his career and especially in the playoffs, if Malone was better.

If anything the career and playoff comparisons are flattering to Malone, when you consider how many of Barkley's seasons were affected by injury.

And if "The right way to compare would be to go season by season and compare the basic stats plus maybe TS%." Then just compare PER, because this is effectively what PER does. Guess who wins this more often than not, and by a massive margin in the playoffs.

EDIT: Or just look at the winners of the Pivotal Player Award, which was awarded every season of Barkley's and Malone's careers to the best player in the league based solely on statistics. Barkley won it in 86, 87 and 88. Malone won it in 98. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Award

Now, I'm not saying these stats prove Barkley was better than Malone, but they strongly imply it. And along with Barkley's superior MVP credentials (which I have discussed at length and you have disregarded) and his far superior playoff record (which you refuse to acknowledge despite the clear evidence in post #78), I have to reiterate that the only argument in favor of Malone is longevity. Malone was great for a long time. Barkley was much greater, but for a shorter time.

Also, you also laughed off Chuck being better in 86 than Malone ever was... then you ignored my response in post #77, which I think is a pretty damn solid one.

If you're going to start a thread, you need to be open to rational objections.

Iceman#44 posted posted an article in which 15/22 Coaches/GM's picked Malone over Barley... in 1992. Clearly longevity wasn't an issue here. Even in Barkley's peak years and both were the same age most people were still picking Malone.

I have already shown that from 1988-1995 their basic stats were very similar, their MVP voting results were even, and their RealGM POTY voting results were even. And of course birds on every tree branch know that Malone was simply better from the intangibles side. Hard worker, dedicated to defense, less of an ego, better team player etc. I never tried to prove prime Malone was more talented than prime Barkley but Malone was the better basketball player.

At the end of the day I can agree that Barkley was more talented. He was better than Malone IF he was healthy, IF he didn't take stupid shots, IF he put in a great effort on defense, IF he didn't think he's the biggest shit since sliced bread... IF IF IF...

dankok8

10-06-2016, 09:02 AM

wha??
Nate Thurmond missed the playoffs the year before, so did Clyde Lee. That was both of their big starters gone to DNP-I ... flame out is a really weird thing to say in that situation!
Somebody else called you out on this over the Mavs too, and rightly so. It was real controversial the way Cuban blew that team up almost the second they walked off the court after winning the trophy.

That 2011 playoff run is one of the terrific stories in all of sports. Actually the '75 Warriors was just as much a legendary story if not more. They both had great luck in key moments but so does every single champion team in every single sport.
No, that dog won't hunt.

I was talking about the Mavs when I said they flamed out in the 1st round. Sure Cuban "blew up" the team in 2012. Chandler and Barea left but they still had Kidd, Terry, and Marion and picked up Delonte West, Vince Carter, and Lamar Odom. Clearly a team coming off of a title should do better than get swept in the first round. I think they are the only team in history to fall off that dramatically... Then in 2013 they didn't even make the playoffs. In 2010 Mavs were a #2 seed but they lost to the #7 seed Spurs in Round 1. Those Spurs then proceeded to get swept by #2 seed Suns. That to me is important context when I look at their title.

Of course in the 2011 postseason they benefited from the fact that the Lakers completely self-destructed (Gasol was sleepwalking, Odom was losing it, and Bynum was imitating WWE...) and then Lebron disappeared in the finals. They had major major help in both series.

The Warriors in 1974 didn't even make the playoffs although it's a fact that Thurmond missed 20 games and Clyde Lee missed 28 games.

Both were legendary stories because they pulled off upset wins and both were extremely lucky. However, the Warriors were actually less of a fluke than the Mavs because they made the conference finals the following year in 1976 and if it wasn't for Barry's meltdown where he wouldn't shoot in Game 7 against Phoenix they would have made the finals.

fourkicks44

10-06-2016, 09:20 AM

No, he's correct on that one. Who else can get the title of greatest of all-time at a position who has never won a championship? No one else. Who else gets more celebrated for losing to MJ time after time? Karl Malone.

He lost every year of his 20 year career. It's a joke that he is considered the best and never could beat the best team of his era, the Bulls. Then when he goes to the lakers and has a shot, and gets injured. Just another moment Malone came up short when it mattered the most. Top 15? Maybe. Best PF ever, hell no.

Jordan is the GOAT, his team was the GOAT. The Jazz didn't lose cause Malone wasn't clutch. The Bulls were just flat out better.

IMOH and to be fair I have seen limited (but as much as I have been able to) footage of him, but Bob Pettit is the Best PF of all time. Has the ring, personal accomplishments and took the mantle of GOAT from Mikan and held it till Wilt came along. While I'm a massive Barkley fan, Pettit was the man.

Annyong!

10-06-2016, 03:14 PM

Here is Karl Malone's likely career if Jordan never existed:

3x MVP (1997, 1998, 1999)
2x NBA Champion (1997, 1998) -- Utah would beat the Heat and Pacers
2x Finals MVP (1997, 1998)
5x Scoring Champion (1989, 1990. 1991. 1992. 1997) -- he was #2 to MJ five times
3x PER Leader
4x Win Shares Leader

People often credit Malone's 97 MVP due to voter fatigue. It is likely that without Jordan, people get voter fatigue with Malone and give Mourning the MVP in 99.

1998 Pacers were much closer to beating the Bulls than the Jazz were. Not sure it is so cut and dry that "Utah would beat" them. I do think they beat the Heat though. If they only beat Heat, that is only 1 FMVP.

Nobody counts the amount of times somebody led in win shares. That just feels like grabbing onto anything you can find, but when has win shares been discussed when discussing the top 10 all time?

AussieSteve

10-06-2016, 06:40 PM

Iceman#44 posted posted an article in which 15/22 Coaches/GM's picked Malone over Barley... in 1992. Clearly longevity wasn't an issue here. Even in Barkley's peak years and both were the same age most people were still picking Malone.

I have already shown that from 1988-1995 their basic stats were very similar, their MVP voting results were even, and their RealGM POTY voting results were even. And of course birds on every tree branch know that Malone was simply better from the intangibles side. Hard worker, dedicated to defense, less of an ego, better team player etc. I never tried to prove prime Malone was more talented than prime Barkley but Malone was the better basketball player.

At the end of the day I can agree that Barkley was more talented. He was better than Malone IF he was healthy, IF he didn't take stupid shots, IF he put in a great effort on defense, IF he didn't think he's the biggest shit since sliced bread... IF IF IF...

I think that we are almost at a kind of reluctant agreement, which to paraphrase (maybe slightly differently from how you would paraphrase), is that Malone was never as good as Barkley, but he gets the nod GOAT wise because of his longevity and consistency.

In regards to the exert that Iceman#44 post from Dream Team, I agree that it was a great addition to the thread, but note it still finishes by saying that Barkley was better. Another point (that you will likely dispute but is quite relevant) is that March 1992 is the actual worst possible time in all of Barkley's prime to ask that question. At that stage he was fed up with the 76ers and wanted out, and was playing some the worst basketball of his career to that point. 6 months earlier and he was still the unanimous #1 PF in the world, and 6 months later he was the unanimous #1 player on the Dream Team, and 12 months later, he was the unanimous #1 PF in the world again.

Here's what Jack McCallum wrote this year in the SI top 50 list...

[QUOTE]In Dream Team, my 2012 book about, you know, the Dream Team, I wrote that Charles was a better player than Karl Malone when each was in their prime. I still believe that. But in an all time ranking, I

dankok8

10-06-2016, 09:57 PM

I think that we are almost at a kind of reluctant agreement, which to paraphrase (maybe slightly differently from how you would paraphrase), is that Malone was never as good as Barkley, but he gets the nod GOAT wise because of his longevity and consistency.

In regards to the exert that Iceman#44 post from Dream Team, I agree that it was a great addition to the thread, but note it still finishes by saying that Barkley was better. Another point (that you will likely dispute but is quite relevant) is that March 1992 is the actual worst possible time in all of Barkley's prime to ask that question. At that stage he was fed up with the 76ers and wanted out, and was playing some the worst basketball of his career to that point. 6 months earlier and he was still the unanimous #1 PF in the world, and 6 months later he was the unanimous #1 player on the Dream Team, and 12 months later, he was the unanimous #1 PF in the world again.

Here's what Jack McCallum wrote this year in the SI top 50 list...

I am not saying that at all...

I am saying that Barkley may be more talented than Malone but that Malone is the better basketball player. If I could either one of them at their peak I would take Malone without hesitation because he gives me a better chance to win.

Longevity and consistency as you say blow it out of the ball park to the point where it isn't even a debate. However, even without those, I would still take Malone and 15/22 of those people did too. I agree with your comment about timing but it wouldn't make enough difference to make Barkley an overwhelming favorite.

AussieSteve

10-06-2016, 11:10 PM

I am saying that Barkley may be more talented than Malone but that Malone is the better basketball player. If I could either one of them at their peak I would take Malone without hesitation because he gives me a better chance to win.

Unless it's the playoffs. Because...

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 12.9 / 10.7
APG / 3.9 / 3.2
SPG / 1.6 / 1.3
BPG / 0.9 / 0.7
PPG / 23.0 / 24.7
FG% / .513 / .463

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
ORtg / 118 / 106
DRtg / 107 / 103
NetRtg / +11 / +3

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
PER / 24.2 / 21.1
OWS/48 / 0.134 / .069
DWS/48 / .058 / .071
WS/48 / .193 / .140
Off BPM / 4.0 / 1.2
Def BPM / 3.3 / 2.4
BPM / 7.3 / 3.6
VORP/82 games / 7.5 / 4.8
FTr / .533 / .458

EDIT: In the playoffs, Malone took 3.5 more FGA per game than Barkley to get his extra 1.7 PPG. And Barkley had 0.7 more APG, which equates to around 1.7 PPG for his team mates. So they had the exact same offensive output, but Malone had to waste 2.8 extra possessions a game to get it. Also, Barkley had 2.2 more RPG, 0.3 more SPG and 0.2 more BPG (an extra 0.5 defensive stops per game), which gave his team an extra 2.7 possessions per game than Malone. He did have 0.1 more TOV, so doing the math, Barkley gave his team the exact same offensive production as Malone the playoffs, but also gave them an extra 5.4 possessions per game to do with as they please. I concede that Malone gave more in the way of the unquantified forms of defense, but 5.4 possessions a game? Not a chance.

Does that really sound like Malone gives you a better chance of winning?

dankok8

10-07-2016, 01:25 AM

Unless it's the playoffs. Because...

EDIT: In the playoffs, Malone took 3.5 more FGA per game than Barkley to get his extra 1.7 PPG. And Barkley had 0.7 more APG, which equates to around 1.7 PPG for his team mates. So they had the exact same offensive output, but Malone had to waste 3.5 possessions a game to get it. Also, Barkley had 2.2 more RPG, 0.3 more SPG and 0.2 more BPG (an extra 0.5 defensive stops per game), which gave his team an extra 3.7 possessions per game than Malone. He did have 0.1 more TOV, so doing the math, Barkley gave his team the exact same offensive production as Malone the playoffs, but also gave them an extra 6.1 possessions per game to do with as they please. I concede that Malone gave more in the way of the unquantified forms of defense, but 6.1 possessions a game? Not a chance.

Does that really sound like Malone gives you a better chance of winning?

This is very faulty reasoning. First you are taking their career playoff averages where one guy played more than 50% more playoff games than the other. Take Malone's best 120-130 consecutive playoff games which is how many Barkley played and then let's compare that data. It seems ridiculous to penalize Malone for playing longer by including his 21 games with the Lakers etc.

It's also quite wrong to assume that all rebounds and blocks give extra possessions or that assists give so many points in an era when far fewer threes were taken.

Round Mound

10-07-2016, 01:39 AM

Why is that all broken down stats and advnaced metrics favor Barkley in the same way it happens with MJ in both Chucks and Karls era and Lebron, in this era? :confusedshrug:

Barkley was Better than Malone. Period!

AussieSteve

10-07-2016, 01:48 AM

This is very faulty reasoning. First you are taking their career playoff averages where one guy played more than 50% more playoff games than the other. Take Malone's best 120-130 consecutive playoff games which is how many Barkley played and then let's compare that data. It seems ridiculous to penalize Malone for playing longer by including his 21 games with the Lakers etc.

It's also quite wrong to assume that all rebounds and blocks give extra possessions or that assists give so many points in an era when far fewer threes were taken.

If half of his assists were 2's and the other half were either a 3 or an and-1, that would be 1.75 points. So i made it a litte less than this.

Also, look at barkleys performances at in the last 3 years of his playoff career. If we took just thier best ~100 consecutive playoff games, I have no doubt it would be even more in barkleys favour.

You started out loving the stats. But now you seem very quick to downplay them all and focus on the intangibles... is that because you now see how much all the tangibles favor Barkley?

AussieSteve

10-07-2016, 11:06 PM

If I could either one of them at their peak I would take Malone without hesitation because he gives me a better chance to win.

I think we’ve proven beyond doubt that Barkley has far superior stats than Malone. But you want to focus on the intangibles. You say that you prefer Malone because he gives you a better chance of winning. But, Barkley was better at the intangibles as well and, if both players are in their prime, he gives you the better chance of winning. And I can prove it.

Let’s focus on the season you started the thread with 1989-90. A season in which you suggested Karl Malone's regular season was...

quite possibly better than any other regular season by a PF in history.

That year Barkley took the 76ers to 52 wins in his 79 games, a 66% winning record, and carried them to the #2 seeding in the East. Not only did Barkley do this without a single all-star on his team, he did it with a team in which not a single other player on the roster had ever been an all-star. In fact the entire roster went on to play a grand total of one all-star game in their entire combined careers. The second best player on the team was Hersey Hawkins in his 2nd season as a pro. It was a team of scrubs in the true sense of the word. This is why he beat out both Magic and Jordan in that years MVP voting… He was the best regular season player in the league that year, who got more out of his team than anyone else. With this team, he then went on to win a playoff series, before being denied in the second round by Jordan, who scored 43.0ppg for the series.

The same year Malone's PG set the all time record for assists and averaged 17.2 PPG with the highest FG% of any PG in the league. Malone also had, by anyone’s estimation, a much stronger supporting cast. And in ‘the greatest season ever by a PF’, he took this team to 55 wins in his 82 games, a 67% winning record - the same as Barkley and his scrubs. Malone then dropped all his numbers and shot 44% in a first round playoff exit.

Clearly the evidence is all there. Barkley's stats are better, he's a better winner and he is a better playoff performer. What other elements are there to consider?

Round Mound

10-08-2016, 03:52 AM

[QUOTE=AussieSteve]I think we

La Frescobaldi

10-08-2016, 04:23 AM

I was talking about the Mavs when I said they flamed out in the 1st round. Sure Cuban "blew up" the team in 2012. Chandler and Barea left but they still had Kidd, Terry, and Marion and picked up Delonte West, Vince Carter, and Lamar Odom. Clearly a team coming off of a title should do better than get swept in the first round. I think they are the only team in history to fall off that dramatically... Then in 2013 they didn't even make the playoffs. In 2010 Mavs were a #2 seed but they lost to the #7 seed Spurs in Round 1. Those Spurs then proceeded to get swept by #2 seed Suns. That to me is important context when I look at their title.

Of course in the 2011 postseason they benefited from the fact that the Lakers completely self-destructed (Gasol was sleepwalking, Odom was losing it, and Bynum was imitating WWE...) and then Lebron disappeared in the finals. They had major major help in both series.

The Warriors in 1974 didn't even make the playoffs although it's a fact that Thurmond missed 20 games and Clyde Lee missed 28 games.

Both were legendary stories because they pulled off upset wins and both were extremely lucky. However, the Warriors were actually less of a fluke than the Mavs because they made the conference finals the following year in 1976 and if it wasn't for Barry's meltdown where he wouldn't shoot in Game 7 against Phoenix they would have made the finals.

Wrong again, danko, although that Mavs collapse was indeed epic. There has been worse:

1970 Celtics
Record: 34-48, Finished 6th in NBA Eastern Division
Coach: Tom Heinsohn (34-48)
PTS/G: 114.9 (11th of 14) Opp PTS/G: 116.8 (7th of 14)
SRS: -1.59 (7th of 14) Pace: 117.5 (5th of 14)

That Celtics team was the worst Champion collapse of all time (that is, until the next team on here) and there were celebrations all over the country about how really bad they were in '70.

But worse yet:
1999 Bulls afaik were the worst collapse of all time

Record: 13-37, Finished 8th in NBA Central Division
Coach: Tim Floyd (13-37)
PTS/G: 81.9 (29th of 29) Opp PTS/G: 91.4 (14th of 29)
SRS: -8.58 (27th of 29) Pace: 88.1 (21st of 29)

both these teams drew playoffs, DNP-blown-up.

dankok8

10-08-2016, 09:56 AM

@AussieSteve

Let us actually do a proper comparison of playoff stats.

Let us look at the best 13 consecutive postseasons. That's how many Barkley has since he missed the playoffs in 1988 and 1992 and DNP in his last year.

1985-1999 Barkley: 23.0 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.9 apg on 51.3 %FG/58.4 %TS with 2.9 topg in 39.4 mpg (123 games)
1988-2000 Malone: 27.0 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 3.2 apg on 46.8 %FG/53.4 %TS with 2.8 topg in 41.0 mpg (149 games)

Four extra ppg is a larger edge than you think and Malone still has 26 more games there which shows he was taking his teams further in the playoffs.

That's pretty even. Maybe one can give a marginal edge to Barkley but that's easily made up by the better defense Malone played.

That year Barkley took the 76ers to 52 wins in his 79 games, a 66% winning record, and carried them to the #2 seeding in the East. Not only did Barkley do this without a single all-star on his team, he did it with a team in which not a single other player on the roster had ever been an all-star. In fact the entire roster went on to play a grand total of one all-star game in their entire combined careers. The second best player on the team was Hersey Hawkins in his 2nd season as a pro. It was a team of scrubs in the true sense of the word. This is why he beat out both Magic and Jordan in that years MVP voting… He was the best regular season player in the league that year, who got more out of his team than anyone else. With this team, he then went on to win a playoff series, before being denied in the second round by Jordan, who scored 43.0ppg for the series.

The same year Malone's PG set the all time record for assists and averaged 17.2 PPG with the highest FG% of any PG in the league. Malone also had, by anyone’s estimation, a much stronger supporting cast. And in ‘the greatest season ever by a PF’, he took this team to 55 wins in his 82 games, a 67% winning record - the same as Barkley and his scrubs. Malone then dropped all his numbers and shot 44% in a first round playoff exit.

Clearly the evidence is all there. Barkley's stats are better, he's a better winner and he is a better playoff performer. What other elements are there to consider?

Malone also played in the much tougher Western Conference. Sixers' 53 wins were enough for a #2 seed while the Jazz' 55 wins were enough for the #4 seed. The Sixers played the lowly #7 seeded Cavs who won 42 games and had a negative SRS in the first round. Meanwhile the Jazz played the #5 seed Suns who had 54 wins and a league leading +7 SRS.

It's really not clear-cut at all and Malone's stats that year were epic. 31.0 ppg on 62.6% shooting compared to Barkley's 25.2 ppg on 66.1 %TS. Their rebounding that year was dead even. And again... defense breaks every tie!

dankok8

10-08-2016, 09:57 AM

Wrong again, danko, although that Mavs collapse was indeed epic. There has been worse:

1970 Celtics
Record: 34-48, Finished 6th in NBA Eastern Division
Coach: Tom Heinsohn (34-48)
PTS/G: 114.9 (11th of 14) Opp PTS/G: 116.8 (7th of 14)
SRS: -1.59 (7th of 14) Pace: 117.5 (5th of 14)

That Celtics team was the worst Champion collapse of all time (that is, until the next team on here) and there were celebrations all over the country about how really bad they were in '70.

But worse yet:
1999 Bulls afaik were the worst collapse of all time

Record: 13-37, Finished 8th in NBA Central Division
Coach: Tim Floyd (13-37)
PTS/G: 81.9 (29th of 29) Opp PTS/G: 91.4 (14th of 29)
SRS: -8.58 (27th of 29) Pace: 88.1 (21st of 29)

both these teams drew playoffs, DNP-blown-up.

Ok you caught me on a technicality! :oldlol:

The 1969 Celtics lost Russell and Sam Jones to retirement.

The 1998 Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman.

Last time I checked the Mavs lost just one major contributor (Chandler) and replaced him with with a few solid guys. They shouldn't have dropped off like that if they were a great team.

Round Mound

10-08-2016, 07:30 PM

Just imagine if Barkley had Mark Eaton: Who Lead the League in Defensive Rating, BPG and Block % like 5-6 Times or more (plus 8-9 RPG) and ofcourse and Stockton Designing The Offense. It would have been unreal. Barkley when he had a Decent Center in Moses = Lead The Team in Defensive Rating and Ranked 7th in the League. Barkley was also The GOAT Stealing PF and Averaged More BPG than Malone.

All Metrics Point Out Barkley as The GOAT PF!

dankok8

10-08-2016, 10:32 PM

Round Mound

10-08-2016, 10:53 PM

@Round Mound

Carlos Boozer in 2011-2012 was #2 in DRtg and he's a terrible defensive player. Those defensive stats mean nothing. Barkley was never an above average let alone great defender. He didn't try on that end.

[B]Malone was a better man to man defender. But PRIME Barkley was a better team defender. Charles has the highest spg avg for the PF Spot Ever and in the 80s he was capable of 1.6 bpg. Something Malone never sniffed. When Charles was healthy he was a better shot blocker than Malone (Ive see Chuck Block Shaq

AussieSteve

10-08-2016, 11:07 PM

@AussieSteve

Let us actually do a proper comparison of playoff stats.

Let us look at the best 13 consecutive postseasons. That's how many Barkley has since he missed the playoffs in 1988 and 1992 and DNP in his last year.

1985-1999 Barkley: 23.0 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.9 apg on 51.3 %FG/58.4 %TS with 2.9 topg in 39.4 mpg (123 games)
1988-2000 Malone: 27.0 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 3.2 apg on 46.8 %FG/53.4 %TS with 2.8 topg in 41.0 mpg (149 games)

Four extra ppg is a larger edge than you think and Malone still has 26 more games there which shows he was taking his teams further in the playoffs.

That's pretty even. Maybe one can give a marginal edge to Barkley but that's easily made up by the better defense Malone played.

You have just done exactly what you accused me of doing. Including all of Barkley's playoffs, but only a subset of Malone's.

Try this: From 86 - 96, (11 years)

Barkley: 25.8ppg / 13.6rpg / 4.5apg / 1.6spg / 1.0bpg / .536eFG%.

Pick any 11 seasons you want and, and Malone's will be inferior in everything except ppg - especially in regards to efficiency.

Or pick any 9 playoffs if you want, seeing as though Barkley missed the playoffs twice in that span. Barkley will still be superior.

Malone also played in the much tougher Western Conference. Sixers' 53 wins were enough for a #2 seed while the Jazz' 55 wins were enough for the #4 seed. The Sixers played the lowly #7 seeded Cavs who won 42 games and had a negative SRS in the first round. Meanwhile the Jazz played the #5 seed Suns who had 54 wins and a league leading +7 SRS.

It's really not clear-cut at all and Malone's stats that year were epic. 31.0 ppg on 62.6% shooting compared to Barkley's 25.2 ppg on 66.1 %TS. Their rebounding that year was dead even. And again... defense breaks every tie!

Both teams had a very similar SRS (Jazz was marginally better), meaning that statistically both teams performed at a very similar level.

But in any event you're intentionally ignoring the point. Barkley did (almost) as much with a bunch of duds, as Malone did with a historically good point guard and superior support cast. Any pragmatic person would agree, Barkley outperformed Malone that year. Any way you want to quantify it...

Stats: Barkley beat Malone in everything except PPG. And in regards to PPG, you must consider that Malone's PG had THE GOAT assisting season ever(!) and Malone took 5(!) more FGA per game.

Team: Barkley had the same W/L ratio in his 79 games as Malone did in his 82 games, with a far inferior team.

MVP: Barkley had 40% more 1st place MVP votes than Magic and 70% more than Jordan.

Playoffs: Barkley lifted his numbers in the playoffs and won a series, Malone dropped his numbers and couldn't win a series.

But you say 'No! They were similar, but Malone's defense breaks the tie.' Malone was never an All-D team contender until years later, and I happen to know for a fact that this was one of Barkley's better defensive seasons, so this is obviously you clutching at straws.

Just admit it!!! Barkley was better that season by a very large margin. Admit that Malone could not have done as well as Barkley given the same circumstances at any point in his career. He was never good enough to lift a team of duds on his shoulders to a .600 season and a playoff series win. It's a self evident fact.

AussieSteve

10-08-2016, 11:15 PM

@dankok8

Malone was good for longer. I agree. Malone was better at defense. I agree. I can't objectively dispute this.

BUT...

You have used stats to argue that Malone was perhaps the GOAT PF. I have shown you that somewhere around his 3rd season, Barkley was, statistically speaking, already better than Malone was at any point in his career. And he maintained that advantage for his entire prime. You can't objectively dispute this.

I have proven to you that Barkley has superior MVP credentials. You can't objectively dispute this.

You showed me that Barkley had some bad playoffs games and Malone had some good ones. I have proven to you that Barkley was a much better and more consistent playoff performer over his career and especially in his prime. You can't objectively dispute this.

You say that Malone gives you a better chance of winning. I have proven that the exact opposite is true. You can't objectively dispute this.

You say that Malone's scoring and defense make the difference in a tie-breaker. I have proven to you that Malone's PPG is directly correlated to Stockton's record setting APG, and Malone's much higher number of field goal attempts. It is not because he was a better scorer. You can't objectively dispute this.

You say that Malone's defense breaks the tie breaker... Well he must have been Kawhi Leonard on steroids on D, because otherwise, there is no chance!!

EDIT: And we all know that he was an average defender early in his career, and then a good, but never great, defender later on.

dankok8

10-09-2016, 10:06 AM

You have just done exactly what you accused me of doing. Including all of Barkley's playoffs, but only a subset of Malone's.

Try this: From 86 - 96, (11 years)

Barkley: 25.8ppg / 13.6rpg / 4.5apg / 1.6spg / 1.0bpg / .536eFG%.

Pick any 11 seasons you want and, and Malone's will be inferior in everything except ppg - especially in regards to efficiency.

Or pick any 9 playoffs if you want, seeing as though Barkley missed the playoffs twice in that span. Barkley will still be superior.

Basically you don't like to compare 13 years so now you're shortening it to favor Barkley. Apart from 1993 and 1999, Malone played on a high level in every other postseason.

Both teams had a very similar SRS (Jazz was marginally better), meaning that statistically both teams performed at a very similar level.

But in any event you're intentionally ignoring the point. Barkley did (almost) as much with a bunch of duds, as Malone did with a historically good point guard and superior support cast. Any pragmatic person would agree, Barkley outperformed Malone that year. Any way you want to quantify it...

Stats: Barkley beat Malone in everything except PPG. And in regards to PPG, you must consider that Malone's PG had THE GOAT assisting season ever(!) and Malone took 5(!) more FGA per game.

Team: Barkley had the same W/L ratio in his 79 games as Malone did in his 82 games, with a far inferior team.

MVP: Barkley had 40% more 1st place MVP votes than Magic and 70% more than Jordan.

Playoffs: Barkley lifted his numbers in the playoffs and won a series, Malone dropped his numbers and couldn't win a series.

But you say 'No! They were similar, but Malone's defense breaks the tie.' Malone was never an All-D team contender until years later, and I happen to know for a fact that this was one of Barkley's better defensive seasons, so this is obviously you clutching at straws.

Just admit it!!! Barkley was better that season by a very large margin. Admit that Malone could not have done as well as Barkley given the same circumstances at any point in his career. He was never good enough to lift a team of duds on his shoulders to a .600 season and a playoff series win. It's a self evident fact.

It's like you didn't read my post. I pointed out that Malone played in a harder conference (fact!) and that he played a far tougher opponent in the first round (fact). That makes up for the extra talent Malone had.

All I know is that Malone was the one beating more talented teams in his career and not Chuck. In 1997 and 1998 Malone's Jazz beat the Rockets with Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler twice, a stacked Lakers team with Shaq/Kobe/Eddie Jones/Van Exel/Fisher/Horry twice, and the Spurs Twin Towers. Utah was just Malone and a bunch of role players. So let's cut the bullshit comparing talent here. If Malone had enough to win so did Barkley.

People always talk about the big 3's in history. How about the failure of Hakeem, Barkley, and Drexler. They were out of their primes but not any more so than KG, Pierce, and Allen. How come they didn't win shit? And Barkley sits around these days chirping about today's superstars joining forces when he did exactly the same thing including joining Hakeem who was a better player than he was. Give me a f**ken break...

You Barkley-apologists cling to Stockton like Velcro... Stockton wasn't able to take over games. He was a GOAT-level point guard at controlling tempo and getting guys involved but he wasn't a good second option to have. The man never averaged over 17 ppg and he did that in the flow of the offense. To give you an idea, Stockton was a less scoring minded Steve Nash on offense.

k0kakw0rld

10-09-2016, 10:34 AM

The point is that if he didn't have to face Michael Jordan in two consecutive finals that he would have 2 titles and 2 Finals MVP's which with his other accomplishments would make him a consensus pantheon player. If there was no MJ he would also have five scoring titles.

How in the world is Barkley better for winning games? He won less than Malone, also has no title... In terms of skill sets Barkley gets an edge in scoring with his back to the basket, both were great face up and in the open floor, Malone is better from mid-range, Malone is better at drawing fouls, Malone is way better at defense... And yes Malone's prime was about twice as long.

Dirk has to be the most overrated player on the internet. No other player saw such a stratospheric rise into completely another tier from winning a championship. On one hand Lebron's 2011 Finals is listed as "the biggest finals choke of all time" (it probably was by the way...). They say "Heat should have won the series and the only reason Mavs won is Lebron choked." Ok I can agree... But then Dirk is praised so much for winning a title over Lebron's Heat and he didn't even play THAT WELL in the finals... 26.0 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 2.0 apg but on just 41.6% shooting. Dirk wasn't defended by Rodman and Pippen either like Malone was. Anyways I find people's take on the 2011 finals extremely hypocritical. On one hand Lebron's choke gave away the series but on the other hand Dirk also gets all the credit.

Dirk is pretty one-dimensional when you compare him to other great PF's.

Here is the top 10 PF's give or take:

Duncan
Garnett :oldlol:
Malone :lol
Barkley :facepalm He is right behind Duncan
Pettit
Dirk
McHale
Hayes
Rodman
Lucas

You trippin' bro with your Garnett top 2 FOH with your foolishness :biggums:

La Frescobaldi

10-09-2016, 12:41 PM

Ok you caught me on a technicality! :oldlol:

The 1969 Celtics lost Russell and Sam Jones to retirement.

The 1998 Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman.

Last time I checked the Mavs lost just one major contributor (Chandler) and replaced him with with a few solid guys. They shouldn't have dropped off like that if they were a great team.

nobody said Mavs were a great team. At least, I certainly didn't.

You know too much history to make such a boondoggle statement, danko i had to call you on it.

La Frescobaldi

10-09-2016, 12:41 PM

You trippin' bro with your Garnett top 2 FOH with your foolishness :biggums:

he didn't actually say that??

wait.......... no.

ArbitraryWater

10-09-2016, 01:21 PM

You trippin' bro with your Garnett top 2 FOH with your foolishness :biggums:

did he actually say that??

edit: no not quite

AussieSteve

10-10-2016, 06:22 AM

Basically you don't like to compare 13 years so now you're shortening it to favor Barkley. Apart from 1993 and 1999, Malone played on a high level in every other postseason.

Well, I compared careers, and you didn't like it (I assume because Barkley's stats are better) and you compared Barkley's career with Malone's prime (because that's what you need to do to make their stats comparable). This is much less fair than the comparison I made. So I suggested that we compare primes only. Fair?

It's like you didn't read my post. I pointed out that Malone played in a harder conference (fact!) and that he played a far tougher opponent in the first round (fact). That makes up for the extra talent Malone had.

Their SRS was similar. This factors in strength of schedule. Their teams performed similarly.

All I know is that Malone was the one beating more talented teams in his career and not Chuck. In 1997 and 1998 Malone's Jazz beat the Rockets with Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler twice, a stacked Lakers team with Shaq/Kobe/Eddie Jones/Van Exel/Fisher/Horry twice, and the Spurs Twin Towers. Utah was just Malone and a bunch of role players. So let's cut the bullshit comparing talent here. If Malone had enough to win so did Barkley.

You are overstating how stacked those LA teams were. They were good for sure, but they were no 80s Celtics or Lakers. They had Shaq, a couple of fringe All-Stars and Kobe, who was more of a liability than and asset at that point of his career. You're right about Houston though, Hakeem was was great, but Chuck and Drexler couldn't perform.

It needs to be said however, that in the first of those two Lakers defeats and in the win over Houston, the Jazz did not win BECAUSE of Malone's good performances, rather they won IN SPITE of Malone's sub-par performances. He went a combined 41.7% from the field in those two series and dropped all his stats from the regular season, except RPG. It was other players, like Stockton, Hornacek and Bryon Russell who lifted their game to help get those wins.

I will grant that Malone dominated the 98 Lakers series.

You Barkley-apologists cling to Stockton like Velcro... Stockton wasn't able to take over games. He was a GOAT-level point guard at controlling tempo and getting guys involved but he wasn't a good second option to have. The man never averaged over 17 ppg and he did that in the flow of the offense. To give you an idea, Stockton was a less scoring minded Steve Nash on offense.

Stockton was the greatest passing and the most efficient scoring (with the present exception of Steph Curry) PG ever. You cannot deny that he made Malone better than he would other wise have been, and that he was crucial to whatever success the Jazz had in the 80s and 90s. And you cannot deny that Barkley never had a sidekick remotely close to Stockton. Particularly when he was at his peak from 88 to 93.

More to the point, Malone never had to play on a team as bad as some of the ones that Barkley had to put up with in Philly. For five of Barkley's best years, he was on teams that would definitely not have reached 30 wins without him. For at least 2 of them they probably wouldn't have got to 20 wins. Malone could not have done more with these teams. And even if Malone did manage to get them to the playoffs, based on his underwhelming playoff resume, there is no evidence to suggest he would have got them further into the post season than Chuck did. The evidence points to the opposite conclusion. If you dispute this you are choosing to ignore the facts.

dankok8

10-11-2016, 10:55 AM

Well, I compared careers, and you didn't like it (I assume because Barkley's stats are better) and you compared Barkley's career with Malone's prime (because that's what you need to do to make their stats comparable). This is much less fair than the comparison I made. So I suggested that we compare primes only. Fair?

Because Malone played in 19 postseasons and Barkley in 13, it is totally fair to compare Malone's best 13-year stretch against Barkley's career.

TOTALLY FAIR!

Their SRS was similar. This factors in strength of schedule. Their teams performed similarly.

I am not talking about their team's SRS. I'm talking about the SRS of teams they faced. The Cavaliers were garbage compared to the Suns that year.

You are overstating how stacked those LA teams were. They were good for sure, but they were no 80s Celtics or Lakers. They had Shaq, a couple of fringe All-Stars and Kobe, who was more of a liability than and asset at that point of his career. You're right about Houston though, Hakeem was was great, but Chuck and Drexler couldn't perform.

It needs to be said however, that in the first of those two Lakers defeats and in the win over Houston, the Jazz did not win BECAUSE of Malone's good performances, rather they won IN SPITE of Malone's sub-par performances. He went a combined 41.7% from the field in those two series and dropped all his stats from the regular season, except RPG. It was other players, like Stockton, Hornacek and Bryon Russell who lifted their game to help get those wins.

I will grant that Malone dominated the 98 Lakers series.

Those teams were still much more talented than Utah. Malone was the best player on his team in all those series. He outplayed Duncan, Barkley, and Shaq and pretty convincingly too although he didn't defend Shaq. Read some of the recaps if you want.

Stockton was the greatest passing and the most efficient scoring (with the present exception of Steph Curry) PG ever. You cannot deny that he made Malone better than he would other wise have been, and that he was crucial to whatever success the Jazz had in the 80s and 90s. And you cannot deny that Barkley never had a sidekick remotely close to Stockton. Particularly when he was at his peak from 88 to 93.

No one cares about efficiency when you score 17 ppg. Stockton wasn't an offensive minded player. He could not carry his team offensively. Stockton wasn't a great sidekick.

That's why virtually everyone who's been there in the 90's would take old Magic, Isiah, Payton, and even KJ over Stockton because those guys could take over games. And besides Stockton was already in serious decline in 1997 and a role player in 1998.

More to the point, Malone never had to play on a team as bad as some of the ones that Barkley had to put up with in Philly. For five of Barkley's best years, he was on teams that would definitely not have reached 30 wins without him. For at least 2 of them they probably wouldn't have got to 20 wins. Malone could not have done more with these teams. And even if Malone did manage to get them to the playoffs, based on his underwhelming playoff resume, there is no evidence to suggest he would have got them further into the post season than Chuck did. The evidence points to the opposite conclusion. If you dispute this you are choosing to ignore the facts.

I can agree some of Barkley's Philly teams were less talented but Barkley also played in a weaker conference.

You insist that Barkley in 1990 is a better scorer statistically than Malone when he's putting up 5.8 less PPG on 3.5% better TS%. Ok so then...

Is Lebron a better scorer than Jordan? From 2012-2014 Lebron put up 4.4 less PPG on 5.1% better TS% than 1991-1993 Jordan. Funny enough Lebron also had higher rebound and assist numbers. By your logic this Lebron should be clearly better than first threepeat Jordan. Lebron actually has a larger statistical advantage over Jordan than does Barkley over Malone.

Something is amiss here... :roll:

Round Mound

10-11-2016, 03:51 PM

dankok8 how is it then that Barkley is above Malone in broken down stats and advanvced metrics even when you include Barkley as a 3rd option in the Rockets (From 96 to 00)?

AussieSteve

10-12-2016, 01:26 AM

I am not talking about their team's SRS. I'm talking about the SRS of teams they faced. The Cavaliers were garbage compared to the Suns that year.

Is that why Malone shot 44eFG% and dropped his PPG, RPG and APG from the regular season?, while Barkley shot 56eFG% with a slightly lower PPG, but an increased RPG and APG? Notice that Malone dropped both his scoring efficiency (by a lot) and his playmaking in the post season, while Barkley increased his playmaking to compensate for the increased difficulty he had scoring himself.

You insist that Barkley in 1990 is a better scorer statistically than Malone when he's putting up 5.8 less PPG on 3.5% better TS%. Ok so then...

Is Lebron a better scorer than Jordan? From 2012-2014 Lebron put up 4.4 less PPG on 5.1% better TS% than 1991-1993 Jordan. Funny enough Lebron also had higher rebound and assist numbers. By your logic this Lebron should be clearly better than first threepeat Jordan. Lebron actually has a larger statistical advantage over Jordan than does Barkley over Malone.

Something is amiss here... :roll:

I'm just saying that you can't immediately jump to the conclusion that a player is a better scorer than another player, simply because he scores more PPG. There are other things to consider.

For one thing, Malone took an extra 4.9 FGA each game. Obviously if Barkley put up 4.9 more FGA a game, he'd likely have at least 5.8 more PPG. But he didn't because he was a playmaker as well as being a scorer himself. Malone, at that point of his career, was only really a scorer on offense.

Secondly, Stockton set the all-time record for assists that season, so we can safely assume that Malone had lots of scoring opportunities created for him, while Barkley more often had to create his own opportunities. Sure, Malone still had to make the buckets, but he certainly would have more often had better looks because Stockton constructed plays specifically to give him a good chance of scoring. Barkley would have had less of this, yet he still scored at a higher efficiency.

Whichever way you look at it, Barkley was the better player that season. His MVP result suggests this, as do all the advanced stats and his superior playoff numbers, and the fact that he was able to get to 53 wins without any help. Even if you want to say that Malone had the harder schedule, you can't deny that Barkley did a lot with very little, while Malone did only a little more with a lot more help.

I've been hard on late 90s Malone, in this thread. On closer inspection, he did have pretty limited help. But still, it was clearly more than what Barkley had in Philly. And Barkley came up against prime Jordan/Pippen three years out of four, from 90 to 93. I think it's unfair to blame Chuck for his teams' lack of success in those years - Lebron is this only player from the last 30-odd years that could have done substantially more with the same group. Malone certainly couldn't have IMHO.

And I think you could easily argue that regular season Lebron was a better scorer than regular season MJ over the 3 seasons you mentioned. Remember when Lebron had his jumper going, he was going at 40% from 3, and 60+% from everywhere else. He was seriously good and impossible to stop. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if he wanted to score another 4 PPG, he easily could have. Statistically, over those three seasons, MJ took 5.6 FGA more each game for only an extra 4.4 PPG!

EDIT: The difference between the MJ-Lebron comparison and the Barkley-Malone one is that whatever advantage Lebron may have in those three regular seasons evaporates during the post season. Barkley's advantage over Malone however, is accentuated in the playoffs.

Dragonyeuw

10-12-2016, 07:59 AM

I
And I think you could easily argue that regular season Lebron was a better scorer than regular season MJ over the 3 seasons you mentioned. Remember when Lebron had his jumper going, he was going at 40% from 3, and 60+% from everywhere else. He was seriously good and impossible to stop. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if he wanted to score another 4 PPG, he easily could have. Statistically, over those three seasons, MJ took 5.6 FGA more each game for only an extra 4.4 PPG!

Its all relatives. MJ was no doubt a better, more polished scorer between 91-93 than he was between 87 and 89. Without the structure of the triangle to create a more equal opportunity offense, he would have been posting the same 33-35ppg numbers as he did in the late 80s. He pretty much did 33ppg in 93, on what was a down year offensively for Pip( from 92 season), so 91 and 92 MJ at his absolute peak easily could score more than he did while maintaining high percentages.

Pointguard

10-12-2016, 12:23 PM

You trippin' bro with your Garnett top 2 FOH with your foolishness :biggums:

KG had the same strengths as Duncan. The only one of the PF's that could play Duncan to a tie in their primes and playoffs in the many categories that they were both great in. KG was the best rebounder of the modern powerforwards, the best passer and only Duncan is near him defensively. In his prime, when he guarded Dirk he outscored Dirk. If you were reading this thread, its basically about Barkley all around game being better than Malone's. KG had the best all around game. Outside of Duncan, KG is the only one that could make the conference finals on a defensive team or an offensive team. While he was more versatile than the others, he was also more of a true PF in responsibilities. He was nearly as consistent as Malone, more of a leader than the others as well. His intensity one of the best in the game. As a player he's very similar to Duncan. He's definitely in the conversation as the 2nd best PF.

dankok8

10-12-2016, 07:02 PM

Is that why Malone shot 44eFG% and dropped his PPG, RPG and APG from the regular season?, while Barkley shot 56eFG% with a slightly lower PPG, but an increased RPG and APG? Notice that Malone dropped both his scoring efficiency (by a lot) and his playmaking in the post season, while Barkley increased his playmaking to compensate for the increased difficulty he had scoring himself.

You're shifting goal posts. I said that Karl Malone may have had the greatest season by a PF ever. I wasn't talking about the playoffs.

For one thing, Malone took an extra 4.9 FGA each game. Obviously if Barkley put up 4.9 more FGA a game, he'd likely have at least 5.8 more PPG. But he didn't because he was a playmaker as well as being a scorer himself. Malone, at that point of his career, was only really a scorer on offense.

That's a hypothetical scenario. I could easily make an argument that if Karl Malone took 4.9 fewer FGA that he'd be cutting his least efficient shots and scoring better than Barkley.

Secondly, Stockton set the all-time record for assists that season, so we can safely assume that Malone had lots of scoring opportunities created for him, while Barkley more often had to create his own opportunities. Sure, Malone still had to make the buckets, but he certainly would have more often had better looks because Stockton constructed plays specifically to give him a good chance of scoring. Barkley would have had less of this, yet he still scored at a higher efficiency.

That's fair.

Whichever way you look at it, Barkley was the better player that season. His MVP result suggests this, as do all the advanced stats and his superior playoff numbers, and the fact that he was able to get to 53 wins without any help. Even if you want to say that Malone had the harder schedule, you can't deny that Barkley did a lot with very little, while Malone did only a little more with a lot more help.

Malone had a better season because he had a better regular season. A sample of a few postseason games isn't enough to tip the scale. Barkley made the second round which he lost in five games and he didn't even play very well against the Bulls.

I've been hard on late 90s Malone, in this thread. On closer inspection, he did have pretty limited help. But still, it was clearly more than what Barkley had in Philly. And Barkley came up against prime Jordan/Pippen three years out of four, from 90 to 93. I think it's unfair to blame Chuck for his teams' lack of success in those years - Lebron is this only player from the last 30-odd years that could have done substantially more with the same group. Malone certainly couldn't have IMHO.

Late 90's Malone had very limited help. Glad you conceded that.

And I think you could easily argue that regular season Lebron was a better scorer than regular season MJ over the 3 seasons you mentioned. Remember when Lebron had his jumper going, he was going at 40% from 3, and 60+% from everywhere else. He was seriously good and impossible to stop. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if he wanted to score another 4 PPG, he easily could have. Statistically, over those three seasons, MJ took 5.6 FGA more each game for only an extra 4.4 PPG!

I appreciate the consistency in your argument even though I disagree.:cheers: I think Malone in 1990 and Jordan from 1991-1993 are better scorers than Barkley and Lebron, respectively.

EDIT: The difference between the MJ-Lebron comparison and the Barkley-Malone one is that whatever advantage Lebron may have in those three regular seasons evaporates during the post season. Barkley's advantage over Malone however, is accentuated in the playoffs.

Lebron upped his playoff numbers in both 2012 and 2014. They dropped in 2013 largely because he was sleepwalking through the first two rounds. Regardless, I think we're done here!

We will never fully agree but this was an interesting discussion.

Round Mound

10-12-2016, 09:08 PM

Charles Barkley put these numbers vs the Bulls in the play-offs in 1990:

23.8 PPG on 53.2% FG on 15.4 FGAs Taken
17.0 RPG
5.0 APG

Karl Malone put these numbers vs the Suns in the play-offs in 1990:

25.2 PPG on 43.8% FG on 21.0 FGAs Taken
10.2 RPG
2.2 APG

Barkley was Better than Stockton to Malone in 89-90 and was robbed from the MVP that year. Infact, Barkley was Better Than Malone From 1985 to 1995.

AussieSteve

10-14-2016, 01:18 AM

Barkley was Better than Stockton to Malone in 89-90 and was robbed from the MVP that year. Infact, Barkley was Better Than Malone From 1985 to 1995.

Round Mound, you often point out (and rightly so) that Barkley has a large statistical advantage over Malone from 85 to 95. But I have some stuff for you that shows that even these raw stats totally understate how good Barkley was during those years...

The one thing that Malone had over Barkley during Barkley's prime was that he was able to stay injury free, and he played hard for the entire regular season. If it weren't for Barkley's injuries, and his tendency to take his foot off the gas late in regular season, to rest up for playoffs, the stats would be overwhelmingly in his favor. No one would argue that Chuck was better from 85 to 90, and in 93 but, barring injuries, you are completely correct that he was the better player for his entire prime. A couple of cases in point are 1991 and 1994.

1990-91
Its a generally accepted fact that Barkley was robbed of the 1990 MVP, but in 1991 before he got injured in mid-January, he was playing even better, probably the best that a PF has ever played, and would have been a clear front-runner for the MVP to that point - ahead of Jordan and Magic. Prior to his injury he was joint league leader in scoring (with Jordan), averaging 30.8ppg at an incredible .613eFG%, and he had the 76ers on track for 50 wins, despite a very shallow roster. He then missed 7 games though injury, after which he dropped his scoring output slightly, with Hersey Hawkins increasing his scoring load. He missed another 8 games late in the season, and played limited minutes in the last couple of weeks of the season, to rest up for the playoffs (the 76ers seeding was basically assured). In games that Barkley didn't play, or played less than a half, the 76ers went 5-12. In games that he played at least 24 minutes they were 39-26.

Barkley
Pre-injuries: 35 games. 38.3 MPG / 30.8 PPG / 10.4 RPG / 3.7 APG / .613eFG%

During/Post-injuries: 32 games. 36.2 MPG / 24.1 PPG / 9.8 RPG / 4.8 APG / .561eFG%

Playoffs: 8 games. 40.8 MPG / 24.9 PPG / 10.5 RPG / 6.0 APG / .600eFG%

Malone
Regular Season: 82 games. 40.3 MPG / 29.0 PPG / 11.8 RPG / 3.3 APG / .528eFG%

Playoffs: 9 games. 42.6 MPG / 29.7 PPG / 13.3 RPG / 3.2 APG / .455eFG%

Fully fit and fully active Barkley was again the clear MVP favorite ahead of Magic and Jordan, as he was the previous year. He still finished 4th in MVP voting (ahead of Malone) and received some first place votes, despite missing 15 games and playing only half games at season's end.

1993-94
Similar story to 1991. Barkley would have been short odds to repeat as MVP at the point he got injured, and no one would have had Malone ahead of him. He had the Suns 22-6, and was matching his statistical output from the previous year in which he won the MVP. He missed 17 games after this and paced himself for the rest of the season, before lifting (as always) in the playoffs.

Barkley
Pre-injuries: 28 games. 38.0 MPG / 24.5 PPG / 12.0 RPG / 5.1 APG / .552eFG%

During/Post-injuries: 37 games. 33.4 MPG / 19.4 PPG / 10.5 RPG / 4.1 APG / .489eFG%

Playoffs: 10 games. 42.5 MPG / 27.6 PPG / 13.0 RPG / 4.8 APG / .542eFG%.

Malone
Regular Season: 82 games. 40.6 MPG / 25.2 PPG / 11.5 RPG / 4.0 APG / .500eFG%

Playoffs: 16 games. 43.9 MPG / 27.1 PPG / 12.4 RPG / 3.4 APG / .467eFG%

In both of these seasons, Barkley's pre-injury and playoff output was well in excess of Malone's. People might casually look at each player's overall regular season stats and conclude that Malone was better, but clearly this was not the case.

Barkley's big flaw was that he was injury prone. His stats throughout his prime are still better than Malone's despite this, but if we were to only compare stats when both players were at or close to 100%, Chuck would be miles ahead of Malone.

Obviously being injury prone is not a defense in GOAT conversations, and GOAT-wise I have no issue with Malone being ahead of Barkley, due to his longevity and consistency. But if we're solely talking about who was the better player, Barkley at his best was miles in front... almost certainly the best PF ever.

Round Mound

10-14-2016, 02:25 AM

Round Mound, you often point out (and rightly so) that Barkley has a large statistical advantage over Malone from 85 to 95. But I have some stuff for you that shows that even these raw stats totally understate how good Barkley was during those years...

The one thing that Malone had over Barkley during Barkley's prime was that he was able to stay injury free, and he played hard for the entire regular season. If it weren't for Barkley's injuries, and his tendency to take his foot off the gas late in regular season, to rest up for playoffs, the stats would be overwhelmingly in his favor. No one would argue that Chuck was better from 85 to 90, and in 93 but, barring injuries, you are completely correct that he was the better player for his entire prime. A couple of cases in point are 1991 and 1994.

1990-91
Its a generally accepted fact that Barkley was robbed of the 1990 MVP, but in 1991 before he got injured in mid-January, he was playing even better, probably the best that a PF has ever played, and would have been a clear front-runner for the MVP to that point - ahead of Jordan and Magic. Prior to his injury he was joint league leader in scoring (with Jordan), averaging 30.8ppg at an incredible .613eFG%, and he had the 76ers on track for 50 wins, despite a very shallow roster. He then missed 7 games though injury, after which he dropped his scoring output slightly, with Hersey Hawkins increasing his scoring load. He missed another 8 games late in the season, and played limited minutes in the last couple of weeks of the season, to rest up for the playoffs (the 76ers seeding was basically assured). In games that Barkley didn't play, or played less than a half, the 76ers went 5-12. In games that he played at least 24 minutes they were 39-26.

Barkley
Pre-injuries: 35 games. 38.3 MPG / 30.8 PPG / 10.4 RPG / 3.7 APG / .613eFG%

During/Post-injuries: 32 games. 36.2 MPG / 24.1 PPG / 9.8 RPG / 4.8 APG / .561eFG%

Playoffs: 8 games. 40.8 MPG / 24.9 PPG / 10.5 RPG / 6.0 APG / .600eFG%

Malone
Regular Season: 82 games. 40.3 MPG / 29.0 PPG / 11.8 RPG / 3.3 APG / .528eFG%

Playoffs: 9 games. 42.6 MPG / 29.7 PPG / 13.3 RPG / 3.2 APG / .455eFG%

Fully fit and fully active Barkley was again the clear MVP favorite ahead of Magic and Jordan, as he was the previous year. He still finished 4th in MVP voting (ahead of Malone) and received some first place votes, despite missing 15 games and playing only half games at season's end.

1993-94
Similar story to 1991. Barkley would have been short odds to repeat as MVP at the point he got injured, and no one would have had Malone ahead of him. He had the Suns 22-6, and was matching his statistical output from the previous year in which he won the MVP. He missed 17 games after this and paced himself for the rest of the season, before lifting (as always) in the playoffs.

Barkley
Pre-injuries: 28 games. 38.0 MPG / 24.5 PPG / 12.0 RPG / 5.1 APG / .552eFG%

During/Post-injuries: 36 games. 33.9 MPG / 19.6 PPG / 10.8 RPG / 4.1 APG / .488eFG%

Playoffs: 10 games. 42.5 MPG / 27.6 PPG / 13.0 RPG / 4.8 APG / .542eFG%.

Malone
Regular Season: 82 games. 40.6 MPG / 25.2 PPG / 11.5 RPG / 4.0 APG / .500eFG%

Playoffs: 16 games. 43.9 MPG / 27.1 PPG / 12.4 RPG / 3.4 APG / .467eFG%

In both of these seasons, Barkley's pre-injury and playoff output was well in excess of Malone's. People might casually look at each player's overall regular season stats and conclude that Malone was better, but clearly this was not the case.

Barkley's big flaw was that he was injury prone. His stats throughout his prime are still better than Malone's despite this, but if we were to only compare stats when both players were at or close to 100%, Chuck would be miles ahead of Malone.

Obviously being injury prone is not a defense in GOAT conversations, and GOAT-wise I have no issue with Malone being ahead of Barkley, due to his longevity and consistency. But if we're solely talking about who was the better player, Barkley at his best was miles in front... almost certainly the best PF ever.

Indeed :applause:

[B]Check this out...these are Chucks numbers in the 1991 play-offs vs the Champion Bulls of Jordan-Pippen-Grant and Phil Jackson

25.6 PPG on 64.0% FG! On Only 15.0 FGAs Taken Per Game!
10.2 RPG
5.4 APG
1.4 SPG

*If You Take Aways Barkley

AussieSteve

10-14-2016, 04:56 AM

[QUOTE=Round Mound]Indeed :applause:

[B]Check this out...these are Chucks numbers in the 1991 play-offs vs the Champion Bulls of Jordan-Pippen-Grant and Phil Jackson

25.6 PPG on 64.0% FG! On Only 15.0 FGAs Taken Per Game!
10.2 RPG
5.4 APG
1.4 SPG

*If You Take Aways Barkley

warriorfan

10-14-2016, 04:59 AM

Barkley is the Steve Nash of Power Forwards

He is the epitome of a one way player

Round Mound

10-14-2016, 05:35 AM

Barkley is the Steve Nash of Power Forwards

He is the epitome of a one way player

One Way Player? How About Curry? Magic (loaded squads)?

Barkley was a lazy defender no a bad one. See early sixer years with a decent center around him.

I Dont See Steve Nash in the Top 10 All Time in EFF, PER, Winshares, Winshares Per 48 Min, Plus/Minus etc

AussieSteve

10-14-2016, 07:54 AM

Barkley is the Steve Nash of Power Forwards

He is the epitome of a one way player

How many players have ever averaged 8.4 DRPG, 2.2 SPG and 1.6 BPG in the same season? I'll tell you... Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Charles Barkley and no one else.

How many have averaged more than 8.4 DRPG, 1.8 SPG and 1.5 BPG more than once? I'll tell you... Hakeem Olajuwon and Charles Barkley. That's it.

One way player?

Dragonyeuw

10-14-2016, 09:09 AM

Barkley is the Steve Nash of Power Forwards

He is the epitome of a one way player

Ironic from a Steph Curry fan, who's spent the entire offseason picking Kyrie's boot out of his ass.

Dragonyeuw

10-14-2016, 09:11 AM

And the other thing that Chuck usually did in the playoffs, that Malone rarely did, was increase his assist rate to compensate for the fact the he was having more trouble scoring efficiently.

It's standard for players' efficiency to drop in the playoffs, but Malone's usually dropped by around .100eFG% (ish) from the regular season, and his assist rate dropped too. So he was just throwing up more shots, and missing most of them, instead of looking to create for team mates - because that was his only game. Chuck's playoff efficiency usually didn't drop from the regular season (or at least not much if it did) but he always increased his assists. So he was creating for the team more in other ways, rather than just throwing up low percentage shots, a la Karl Malone.

Barkley was easily a better creator on offense, for himself and others, both in the half-court and on the break. Dude was a coordinated freight train in the open court.

aj1987

10-14-2016, 09:14 AM

Ironic from a Steph Curry fan, who's spent the entire offseason picking Kyrie's boot out of his ass.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

:applause:

dankok8

10-14-2016, 08:09 PM

warriorfan

10-14-2016, 08:16 PM

Ironic from a Steph Curry fan, who's spent the entire offseason picking Kyrie's boot out of his ass.
Hey ching chong, let me know when PG's share the same defensive responsibility as power forwards :lol

Next we are going to have people hating on Hakeem Olajuwon for not running the Rocket's offense :lol

warriorfan

10-14-2016, 08:17 PM

How many players have ever averaged 8.4 DRPG, 2.2 SPG and 1.6 BPG in the same season? I'll tell you... Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Charles Barkley and no one else.

How many have averaged more than 8.4 DRPG, 1.8 SPG and 1.5 BPG more than once? I'll tell you... Hakeem Olajuwon and Charles Barkley. That's it.

One way player?
Link any full game of Charles Barkely and watch him on the defensive end

Prepare to be horrified

Dragonyeuw

10-14-2016, 08:36 PM

Hey ching chong, let me know when PG's share the same defensive responsibility as power forwards :lol

Next we are going to have people hating on Hakeem Olajuwon for not running the Rocket's offense :lol

PGS can share alot of defensive responsibility. They just need defensive ability. Which takes us to Curry.....Kyries boot wedged way up there. He gonna have it out in time for the season?

MiseryCityTexas

10-14-2016, 11:54 PM

warriorfan

10-14-2016, 11:56 PM

PGS can share alot of defensive responsibility. They just need defensive ability. Which takes us to Curry.....Kyries boot wedged way up there. He gonna have it out in time for the season?
Ching chong, give it up, you don't know shit about basketball

Round Mound

10-15-2016, 12:18 AM

Neither one of these guys are better than Tim Duncan. Barkley was still a better rebounder than Malone though. Malone was just better than Chuck at everything else, and having John Stockton was a big reason for that. I bet if Malone played on another team without Stockton, Barkley would probably be better.

Malone a better pure scorer, rebounder and passer than Barkley? Get real! :facepalm Barkley was also a better post player, ballhandler and coast to coast player than Malone ever was.

fourkicks44

10-15-2016, 12:59 AM

Round Mound

10-15-2016, 01:20 AM

Don't forget Barkley was a better 3pt shooter.

He wasnt a great 3-point shooter but better than Malone? Yes...

AussieSteve

10-15-2016, 04:44 AM

Link any full game of Charles Barkely and watch him on the defensive end

Prepare to be horrified

This is just perpetuating hyperbole. There are plenty of games on youtube where Barkley's defense is fine. I would even say good. To name just one, there is an OT 76ers win over the Celtics, from 87 I think, where Barkley played one on one defense on Bird for all of OT. In the last couple of minutes he blocked one of Bird's shots, forced a Bird turnover and three consecutive misses, including an airball on the last play.

He was sometimes slow getting back, particularly after a play on which he had made a big offensive effort, and he sometimes took risks going for the steal, rather than doing the more disciplined things. But he was a good shot blocker before his back started to give him problems, he was great at making interceptions in the passing lanes, and when he played in good teams, he gave good effort on defense... and he always lifted his defensive intensity in the playoffs.

No one is saying he was better than Malone on defense but he was certainly no James Harden. He gets much more criticism for his defense than he deserves.

EDIT: Also Chuck chased offensive boards as hard as anyone in history. It stands to reason that he was often the last back in defense. He'd have to run the floor like Usain Bolt to be first. I'd hazard a guess that he has more put-back points than any other player in the last 30 years, so any points that this has cost his team on defense is more than made up for in extra points on offense.

AussieSteve

10-15-2016, 11:08 PM

I'm not sure what people are trying to argue here still. I feel like my points are flying right past AussieSteve.

I already conceded that Barkley is more talented. When Barkley was healthy, when he tried on defense, when he played well within his team... When he did ALL THOSE THINGS he was a better player than Malone. Problem is he never had a prolonged stretch like that which is why on average in their primes Karl Malone was the better player.

Please tell me if I have to clarify. I feel like the arguments are trying to convince me that Barkley is more talented/better on paper. I am not disputing that.

But that's just it... On average in their primes Barkley was the better player, you've got your head in the sand if you deny this. Malone's prime was longer and not interrupted by injuries, but at no point was it better. I showed you this numerous different ways, but you ignored all of them. So I'll say it one last time

From some point around the 1986 All-Star break until he got injured in January 1994 (with the exception of his last couple of months in Philly), Barkley played at a higher level than Malone did at any point in his career. This is just a fact. It is verifiable through stats, playoff performances, finals performances, how they affected their team's results, their MVP outcomes against GOAT competition. It's not a debate.

During this almost 8 seasons, Barkley averaged 25.5 PPG / 12.1 RPG / 4.3 APG, 1.7 SPG / 1.0 BPG and maintained an eFG% and TS% better than Malone ever reached even for a single season. And in the playoffs from 1986 to 1995, he averaged 25.9 PPG / 13.6 RPG / 4.5 APG, 1.7 SPG / 1.0 BPG and maintained an eFG% better than Malone ever reached even for a single post-season and a TS% that Malone only exceeded once.

I don't think that Malone has even a single season in which his regular or post season stats match Barkley's average output over the duration of his prime.

Round Mound

10-16-2016, 04:46 AM

But that's just it... On average in their primes Barkley was the better player, you've got your head in the sand if you deny this. Malone's prime was longer and not interrupted by injuries, but at no point was it better. I showed you this numerous different ways, but you ignored all of them. So I'll say it one last time

From some point around the 1986 All-Star break until he got injured in January 1994 (with the exception of his last couple of months in Philly), Barkley played at a higher level than Malone did at any point in his career. This is just a fact. It is verifiable through stats, playoff performances, finals performances, how they affected their team's results, their MVP outcomes against GOAT competition. It's not a debate.

During this almost 8 seasons, Barkley averaged 25.5 PPG / 12.1 RPG / 4.3 APG, 1.7 SPG / 1.0 BPG and maintained an eFG% and TS% better than Malone ever reached even for a single season. And in the playoffs from 1986 to 1995, he averaged 25.9 PPG / 13.6 RPG / 4.5 APG, 1.7 SPG / 1.0 BPG and maintained an eFG% better than Malone ever reached even for a single post-season and a TS% that Malone only exceeded once.

I don't think that Malone has even a single season in which his regular or post season stats match Barkley's average output over the duration of his prime.

:applause:

Pointguard

10-16-2016, 01:19 PM

But that's just it... On average in their primes...
Barkley was never consistent. Even taking advantage in his weight wasn't a guarantee in the middle of playoff games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTUF-ImL7Zw He was weird like that. Part of the package with him. This is in one of his best years, if not the best.

His peers Pippen and Jordan, one of his best friends, frequently make fun of his defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vuvKc5qA6s.

If you watched Barkley play, the efficiency argument is also a wash in comparison to Malone: Utah always knew what to expect from Malone for 15 years. He showed up on both sides of the ball. He will get 25 and 10 against Hakeem, Rodman or John Doe. Barkley was wildly inconsistent and not good on defense. Even his intelligence varied from game to game. These things mess up your teams expectations and efficiency tremendously, so-be-it, his looks great. While his efficiency numbers were crazy they were also indications of him not knowing when to be aggressive above being efficient. His efficiency was more indicative of him wanting to be a super role player than leader or game changer. Because he is a super talent he is supposed to force the issue not be a role player. His play in elimination games is indicative of him not wanting to push his will on players. In his finals run he didn't lead his team in scoring in either of the elimination games. The next year its the same thing.

Plus you knew that Malone was going to get the other team in foul trouble, his machine like production and top tier defense were money in the bank. So I say to hell with the efficiency argument. I rather have solid, consistent production and more of it than it looking good and efficient in the factory. Barkley liked getting rebounds so he did it. Barkley didn't like playing defense and working out so he didn't do it. His team wasn't foremost in his mind.

AussieSteve

10-16-2016, 05:55 PM

Barkley was never consistent. Even taking advantage in his weight wasn't a guarantee in the middle of playoff games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTUF-ImL7Zw He was weird like that. Part of the package with him. This is in one of his best years, if not the best.

His peers Pippen and Jordan, one of his best friends, frequently make fun of his defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vuvKc5qA6s.

f you watched Barkley play, the efficiency argument is also a wash in comparison to Malone: Utah always knew what to expect from Malone for 15 years. He showed up on both sides of the ball. He will get 25 and 10 against Hakeem, Rodman or John Doe. Barkley was wildly inconsistent and not good on defense. Even his intelligence varied from game to game. These things mess up your teams expectations and efficiency tremendously, so-be-it, his looks great. While his efficiency numbers were crazy they were also indications of him not knowing when to be aggressive above being efficient. His efficiency was more indicative of him wanting to be a super role player than leader or game changer. Because he is a super talent he is supposed to force the issue not be a role player. His play in elimination games is indicative of him not wanting to push his will on players. In his finals run he didn't lead his team in scoring in either of the elimination games. The next year its the same thing.

Plus you knew that Malone was going to get the other team in foul trouble, his machine like production and top tier defense were money in the bank. So I say to hell with the efficiency argument. I rather have solid, consistent production and more of it than it looking good and efficient in the factory. Barkley liked getting rebounds so he did it. Barkley didn't like playing defense and working out so he didn't do it. His team wasn't foremost in his mind.

You're using anecdotes to argue against facts, and very weak anecdotes at that. Jordan and Pippen were all-time defenders, and great friends with Chuck. Them making fun of his defense doesn't mean squat. And watch the Jordan interview again... first of all, of course Barkley couldn't guard Jordan, but do think Malone could have!? And secondly, he was very complimentary of Barkley's defensive effort.

If Barkley was inconsistent and unreliable and messed up his team expectations and efficiency, how did he get a bunch of duds to a .650 record that same year? Why the following year were the same team of duds 5-12 in games where Barkley was either missing or mostly inactive and 39-26 in games where he played close to his normal minutes? In fact every year Barkley's team did worse without him than with him. Even when he was at Houston, in 1996-97 when he spent most of the year nursing injuries, the Rockets were 41-12 with him and 16-13 without him.

If getting his opponent in foul trouble is part of what attracts you to Malone over Barkley, then you should actually prefer Barkley, seeing as though his free throw rate (FTA/FGA) is much higher than Malone's?

Anecdotes and opinions are nice, but they are trumped by facts. And anecdotes based on stats and youtube videos are trumped by anecdotes based on memories of people who watched them both in their primes. I remember, because I am old enough to remember, that Barkley was better than Malone.

Dragonyeuw

10-16-2016, 06:02 PM

Ching chong, give it up, you don't know shit about basketball

wayyyyy up there.

Pointguard

10-16-2016, 06:47 PM

You're using anecdotes to argue against facts, and very weak anecdotes at that. Jordan and Pippen were all-time defenders, and great friends with Chuck. Them making fun of his defense doesn't mean squat. And watch the Jordan interview again... first of all, of course Barkley couldn't guard Jordan, but do think Malone could have!? And secondly, he was very complimentary of Barkley's defensive effort.
:lol Its a joke but Jordan is very, VERY, confident EVERYbody will understand the joke. BECAUSE its impossible not to understand him. Barkley was horrible on defense. Are you arguing this??? Really?

If Barkley was inconsistent and unreliable and messed up his team expectations and efficiency, how did he get a bunch of duds to a .650 record that same year? Why the following year were the same team of duds 5-12 in games where Barkley was either missing or mostly inactive and 39-26 in games where he played close to his normal minutes? In fact every year Barkley's team did worse without him than with him. Even when he was at Houston, in 1996-97 when he spent most of the year nursing injuries, the Rockets were 41-12 with him and 16-13 without him. Barkley is a great talent, of course his team is going to be better with him. His efficiency, isn't a trump argument on Malone because Malone had a quality that allowed for others to know their role better and to count on his high production. Malone was going to be the high scorer on his team and situations rarely varied from that. Barkley wasn't going to be the high scorer most of the time later in the series as the pressure built.

Its a simple suggestion. Who was more consistent??? Who do you think played a more balanced game on both sides of the ball? Pick random days and who was more likely to get 27 points in a game throughout their primes. I can tell you that off of memory.

If getting his opponent in foul trouble is part of what attracts you to Malone over Barkley, then you should actually prefer Barkley, seeing as though his free throw rate (FTA/FGA) is much higher than Malone's?
I listed a lot of things, not just that.

Anecdotes and opinions are nice, but they are trumped by facts. And anecdotes based on stats and youtube videos are trumped by anecdotes based on memories of people who watched them both in their primes. I remember, because I am old enough to remember, that Barkley was better than Malone.
The anecdotes are common place and based on the fact that they are common. Are you actually saying there are facts that prove he was a good defensive player? I saw them play that's how I know you wouldn't be able to answer the questions put forth. The anecdotes were by his contemporary peers. Pippen wasn't a good friend of Barkley. And you think youtube is going to show Barkley playing good defense.

AussieSteve

10-17-2016, 12:54 AM

:lol Its a joke but Jordan is very, VERY, confident EVERYbody will understand the joke. BECAUSE its impossible not to understand him. Barkley was horrible on defense. Are you arguing this??? Really?

I have never stated that Barkley was good on defense. But he was not as bad as people like yourself try to make out. And he did average more steals, blocks and defensive rebounds than Malone for most of his career, so clearly there were at least some elements of defense that he was better than Malone at.

Barkley is a great talent, of course his team is going to be better with him. His efficiency, isn't a trump argument on Malone because Malone had a quality that allowed for others to know their role better and to count on his high production. Malone was going to be the high scorer on his team and situations rarely varied from that. Barkley wasn't going to be the high scorer most of the time later in the series as the pressure built.

Its a simple suggestion. Who was more consistent??? Who do you think played a more balanced game on both sides of the ball? Pick random days and who was more likely to get 27 points in a game throughout their primes. I can tell you that off of memory.

Let me just remind you of Barkley's and Malone's respective regular season and playoff stats.

Career
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 11.7 / 10.1
APG / 3.9 / 3.6
SPG / 1.5 / 1.4
BPG / 0.8 / 0.8
PPG / 22.1 / 25.0
FG% / .541 / .516

Playoffs
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / 12.9 / 10.7
APG / 3.9 / 3.2
SPG / 1.6 / 1.3
BPG / 0.9 / 0.7
PPG / 23.0 / 24.7
FG% / .513 / .463

Difference
Stat / Barkley / Malone
RPG / +1.2 / +0.6
APG / +0.0 / -0.5
SPG / +0.1 / -0.1
BPG / +0.1 / -0.1
PPG / +0.9 / -0.3
FG% / -.028 / -.053

What's the trend here? Malone dropping his level in the playoffs, and Barkley increasing his. Not just in scoring, but across the board. But you are saying that you prefer Malone, because he is almost certain to be your team's top scorer!?

Is realizing that you're being defended by two All-D defenders in Pippen and Grant and changing your game to compensate a flaw? Or should the go-to guy just keep putting up shots even if their not dropping for him?

Over his career, Malone averaged 1.7 more FGA in playoffs compared to the regular season, but averaged 0.3 less PPG. He also averaged less assists, which means he didn't try and bring in his team mates to help share the scoring load, he just kept putting up low percentage shots.

Barkley averaged 1.5 more FGA in playoffs compared to the regular season, but he reaped an extra 0.9 PPG as a result, and he also averaged the same number of assists. So he did increase his scoring load, but continued to look for team mates who were in a better position to score.

So what you call a dependable and reliable playoff scorer, I call a guy playing hero ball. And what you call a guy not stepping up his scoring when his team needed it, I call a guy continuing to play percentage basketball.

Also, you're comments about Barkley late in a series are actually not that accurate...

From 1990-1996 Barkley averaged 32.3 points 16.4 rebounds and 4 assists per game in the final game of his teams series.

... from http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4109224&postcount=943

MiseryCityTexas

10-17-2016, 01:33 AM

Malone a better pure scorer, rebounder and passer than Barkley? Get real! :facepalm Barkley was also a better post player, ballhandler and coast to coast player than Malone ever was.

You didn't catch that backhanded compliment I gave to Karl Malone? I said Malone put up better numbers mainly because of John Stockton's superior passing.If Barkley had a point like Stockton feeding him in his prime, he would probably put up much better numbers, especially if itwas the late 80s early 90s era Barkley.

Round Mound

10-17-2016, 02:40 AM

You didn't catch that backhanded compliment I gave to Karl Malone? I said Malone put up better numbers mainly because of John Stockton's superior passing.If Barkley had a point like Stockton feeding him in his prime, he would probably put up much better numbers, especially if itwas the late 80s early 90s era Barkley.

ok

Pointguard

10-17-2016, 03:46 PM

AussieSteve

10-17-2016, 08:11 PM

The Stockton references... I don't know. Malone had his best years scoring high and with efficiency when Stockton assist numbers had fell off like 25% off of his peak, and when Stockton's assist numbers were very similar to Kevin Johnson's/Maurice Cheeks numbers were with Barkley - and both were better penetrators than Stockton. In fact Utah had its best numbers when Stockton's numbers were around 9.5 per game instead of 14.5. It all goes to prove Malone's consistency. Showing that his efficiency could go up without Stockton's gaudy #s and the team playing a slower pace while being in his mid 30's.

I tend to agree to some extent. There's no doubt that Malone would have been a perennial all-star and All-NBA, and most likely scored 30+ thousand points, even without Stockton. But if you plot Malone's PPG against Stockton's APG, they're incredibly correlated, until about 1996-97, when Stockton's assists started to drop off. Many would say that Malone's best seasons were 96-97 and 97-98, and he averaged 27 PPG both seasons. So I would suggest that if Malone had a very good PG, rather than an all time-great one, for his whole career, 27-28 PPG might have been his peak scoring output, rather than 31 PPG... similar to Barkley. But even if we took 3 PPG off him for the nine years that Stockton was elite, he'd still have ended up with 34+ thousand points and be second all time. So the people who say that Stockton made Malone, are obviously either ignorant or trolling.

As an aside, I also think that if Barkley had even a very good PG when he was at his peak from 88 to 93 you could easily add a couple of PPG. So maybe his peak scoring year might have been up around the 30PPG mark with a John Stockton c.1997 PG. (I know he had KJ in 93, but he missed half the season and was well below his best)

dankok8

10-17-2016, 08:49 PM

AussieSteve

10-17-2016, 10:13 PM

When two players are close statistically as Malone and Barkley are, it's the intangibles that break the tie and is this case convincingly swing the pendulum to one side. Malone was:

- more healthy and took care of his body better
- had a superior mental approach to the game
- played smarter and didn't take stupid 3pt shots
- infinitely more committed on the defensive end

AussieSteve you are attacking Pointguard for using anecdotes but he was bang on regarding everything he said. And you are overrating efficiency. Adrian Dantley was scoring 30 ppg on monster efficiency in his prime and he was one of the biggest cancers on the court. Every team he left became better afterwards.

Please no more cherry-picked stats...

In 1992, fifteen out of twenty-two NBA general managers said they would have Malone over Barkley. And that of course is before Karl had any kind of longevity edge.

In 1989, 1992, 1994, and 1995 which were all seasons in Barkley's prime, Malone finished higher in MVP voting and also had decisively stronger postseason runs in the last three. In the eight seasons that both men were in their primes from 1988-1995, their MVP votes and RealGM player of the year votes were split exactly in half. Clearly people at the time didn't consider Barkley to be way better.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself and talking to a wall. I've made my case and it's clear as day.

You can't say that Malone was better than Barkley in 1989, 1992, 1994, and 1995, simply because he finished higher in the MVP! You and I both know that the number of games a player misses, and the number of wins his team gets matters in MVP voting. So if two players have play a similar number of games and their teams have a similar number of wins, then the MVP comparison is appropriate. In 94, Barkley missed 17 games. In 89 and 92 he played in horrible teams. There was never a season during Barkley's prime in which he played a comparable number of games and his team had a comparable number of wins, that he didn't dominate Malone in the MVP voting.

- In '87 he missed 14 games (5 games more than any other player who received even a single place vote) and his team won 45 games, and he finished a whisker out of the top 5 in the MVP. (and don't forget three of the guys above him were Jordan, Magic and Bird)
- In '88, Philly won 36 games, and Barkley still finished ahead of Malone, even though the Jazz had 11 more wins. In fact Chuck beat out everyone that year except for Jordan, Magic and Bird. That is unheard of on a 36 win team!
- In '90 he had more 1st place votes (a lot more) than prime Magic and prime Jordan and finished way ahead of Malone, even though his team had less wins than all of theirs.
- In '91, he missed 15 games in a team that won only 44 games and still finished above Malone, who had 10 more wins and played every game. Only Jordan, Magic and Robinson beat him.
- In '93 he won the MVP over Jordan and Hakeem in their primes.

Don't you think he would have had to play consistently at a pretty high level to achieve the above? Do you really think that Malone was ever able to play at that level?

Barkley is the only person not named Magic Johnson or Hakeem Olajuwon to beat prime MJ in the MVP, and the only person not named Magic to do it more than once. He is also the only person not named Michael Jordan to beat Magic Johnson after 1986. (I say he beat Magic because we all know he did) Barkley's MVP credentials are superior to Malone. Malone beat out Alonzo Mourning and past his prime Jordan for his MVPs. Barkley's peak coincided with Jordan's, Magic's, Hakeem's and the tail end of Bird's.

I'm all for Malone being above Chuck on a GOAT list, because of his longevity, consistence etc. But, there is no way that anyone ever thought he was better than Barkley at any point before 1995.

Round Mound

10-17-2016, 10:45 PM

Barkley > Stockton-To-Malone :confusedshrug:

Pointguard

10-17-2016, 11:35 PM

I tend to agree to some extent. There's no doubt that Malone would have been a perennial all-star and All-NBA, and most likely scored 30+ thousand points, even without Stockton. But if you plot Malone's PPG against Stockton's APG, they're incredibly correlated, until about 1996-97, when Stockton's assists started to drop off. Many would say that Malone's best seasons were 96-97 and 97-98, and he averaged 27 PPG both seasons. So I would suggest that if Malone had a very good PG, rather than an all time-great one, for his whole career, 27-28 PPG might have been his peak scoring output, rather than 31 PPG... similar to Barkley. But even if we took 3 PPG off him for the nine years that Stockton was elite, he'd still have ended up with 34+ thousand points and be second all time. So the people who say that Stockton made Malone, are obviously either ignorant or trolling.

As an aside, I also think that if Barkley had even a very good PG when he was at his peak from 88 to 93 you could easily add a couple of PPG. So maybe his peak scoring year might have been up around the 30PPG mark with a John Stockton c.1997 PG. (I know he had KJ in 93, but he missed half the season and was well below his best)
Malone was human his peak should have been closer to Barkley's peak age wise. Malone was old in some of his best scoring years. So I wouldn't have him being less effective in his peak scoring wise. The pick and roll was a very predictable play. When Malone hits his peak at 33 and 34 yo, that team won on Malone being more predominant in the overall scheme. Both Malone and Barkley could have thrived in a more running type system and its a shame they both could have been in better systems.

I think Barkley would have had Stockton traded after two years. I don't know of any two people that could repeat the same play over and over again. I got tired of watching it. I hated watching it over and over again. I couldn't even respect it while they played together anymore. I hated the play until I got into Steve Nash doing variations with it.

Round Mound

10-17-2016, 11:45 PM

Malone was human his peak should have been closer to Barkley's peak age wise. Malone was old in some of his best scoring years. So I wouldn't have him being less effective in his peak scoring wise. The pick and roll was a very predictable play. When Malone hits his peak at 33 and 34 yo, that team won on Malone being more predominant in the overall scheme. Both Malone and Barkley could have thrived in a more running type system and its a shame they both could have been in better systems.

I think Barkley would have had Stockton traded after two years. I don't know of any two people that could repeat the same play over and over again. I got tired of watching it. I hated watching it over and over again. I couldn't even respect it while they played together anymore. I hated the play until I got into Steve Nash doing variations with it.

I loved watching Stockton To Malone Pick and Roll. You didnt like it? It was predictable but unstoppable at the same time.

Pointguard

10-17-2016, 11:46 PM

AussieSteve you are attacking Pointguard for using anecdotes but he was bang on regarding everything he said. Yeah, could you imagine if Jordan made that joke about Malone? Nobody would get it and wouldn't take Jordan serious. That's when anecdotes are useful. As you stated, everybody knew that Malone came to play VERY seriously the whole game. Players left bruised and respecting him. And knew not to go too far with Stockton.

In 1992, fifteen out of twenty-two NBA general managers said they would have Malone over Barkley. And that of course is before Karl had any kind of longevity edge.

In 1989, 1992, 1994, and 1995 which were all seasons in Barkley's prime, Malone finished higher in MVP voting and also had decisively stronger postseason runs in the last three. In the eight seasons that both men were in their primes from 1988-1995, their MVP votes and RealGM player of the year votes were split exactly in half. Clearly people at the time didn't consider Barkley to be way better.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself and talking to a wall. I've made my case and it's clear as day.

AussieSteve

10-18-2016, 01:25 AM

You can't say that Malone was better than Barkley in 1989, 1992, 1994, and 1995, simply because he finished higher in the MVP! You and I both know that the number of games a player misses, and the number of wins his team gets matters in MVP voting. So if two players have play a similar number of games and their teams have a similar number of wins, then the MVP comparison is appropriate. In 94, Barkley missed 17 games. In 89 and 92 he played in horrible teams. There was never a season during Barkley's prime in which he played a comparable number of games and his team had a comparable number of wins, that he didn't dominate Malone in the MVP voting.

- In '87 he missed 14 games (5 games more than any other player who received even a single place vote) and his team won 45 games, and he finished a whisker out of the top 5 in the MVP. (and don't forget three of the guys above him were Jordan, Magic and Bird)
- In '88, Philly won 36 games, and Barkley still finished ahead of Malone, even though the Jazz had 11 more wins. In fact Chuck beat out everyone that year except for Jordan, Magic and Bird. That is unheard of on a 36 win team!
- In '90 he had more 1st place votes (a lot more) than prime Magic and prime Jordan and finished way ahead of Malone, even though his team had less wins than all of theirs.
- In '91, he missed 15 games in a team that won only 44 games and still finished above Malone, who had 10 more wins and played every game. Only Jordan, Magic and Robinson beat him.
- In '93 he won the MVP over Jordan and Hakeem in their primes.

Don't you think he would have had to play consistently at a pretty high level to achieve the above? Do you really think that Malone was ever able to play at that level?

Barkley is the only person not named Magic Johnson or Hakeem Olajuwon to beat prime MJ in the MVP, and the only person not named Magic to do it more than once. He is also the only person not named Michael Jordan to beat Magic Johnson after 1986. (I say he beat Magic because we all know he did) Barkley's MVP credentials are superior to Malone. Malone beat out Alonzo Mourning and past his prime Jordan for his MVPs. Barkley's peak coincided with Jordan's, Magic's, Hakeem's and the tail end of Bird's.

I'm all for Malone being above Chuck on a GOAT list, because of his longevity, consistence etc. But, there is no way that anyone ever thought he was better than Barkley at any point before 1995.

Just to drive this point home... there were only two seasons during Barkley's prime when his team won more than 50 games AND he did not miss games through injury. BOTH times he won the most 1st place MVP votes, by a large margin. Once over prime Magic and prime Jordan, and then over prime Hakeem and prime Jordan again. Malone played in 50+ win teams for most of his career, and remained injury free. His only MVP wins came by narrow margins, and over far inferior competition.

MrFonzworth

10-18-2016, 01:42 AM

Barkley never knocked up a 12 yr old

SamuraiSWISH

10-18-2016, 01:50 AM

Barkley never knocked up a 12 yr old
Disgusting

ArbitraryWater

10-18-2016, 03:27 AM

I like how OP decided that he's consensus (he probably is)

Round Mound

10-18-2016, 04:55 AM

Italian Video From 1992 on Sir Charles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiNvY93EmWc

Minute =2:44

"...For The Majority, The 2nd Best Player Behined Michael Jordan..."

In Italy and the World in 1992 he was considered the 2nd best player behined MJ.

Malone was never consired the 2nd best player in MJs prime. :no:

tomtucker

10-18-2016, 05:35 AM

Malone claimed it was consensus , but she was still under 15

MrFonzworth

10-18-2016, 03:30 PM

Barkley was a star on the dream team, Malone was a role player. Malone knocked up a 12 year old at the same time Barkley was getting married.

Barkley > Malone

AussieSteve

10-18-2016, 04:37 PM

Let's keep it about basketball guys... both Barkley and Malone have both had their issues off the court but its irrelevant to this discussion.

I just laid a knock out blow for Barkley and if people keep posting crap on here we won't get to see if dankok and co. can explain why Chuck thoroughly out MVP'd three GOATs at their peak, but Malone was never in MVP contention until there were no prime GOATs left in the league.

AussieSteve

10-20-2016, 06:26 AM

This is a little history lesson about Barkley's and Malone's relationship with the MVP. It proves, I think, that while Malone was obviously more durable, Barkley was a far superior player in their primes.

Barkley and the MVP
For 11 seasons from 1986 to 1996 , Chuck only finished outside the top 6 in MVP voting three times. Once when he missed 17 games through injury, once when his team had just 35 wins and once when he missed 11 games and his team won only 41 games.

There were only two seasons during Barkley's prime when his team won more than 46 games AND he played over 70 games. BOTH times he was the MVP. (He only gets recognised for one of them, but no one disputes that if voting was made public in 1990 as it is today, he definitely wins that one as well.) In 1990 he had 41% more first place votes than Magic, with Jordan third. A number of writers who held a grudge, purposely left Barkley off the ballot entirely (voting instead for the likes of Tom Chambers and Buck Williams). In 1993 he won in a landslide over Hakeem, with Jordan third again. Both years, every player in the top 7 were consensus top 40 GOATs in their primes.

Every other season in his prime he either played less than 70 games, and/or his team won 46 games or less, and he still finished in the top 6.

Barkley is the only person not named Magic or Hakeem to beat prime MJ in MVP voting, and the only person not named Magic to do it more than once. He is also the only person not named Michael Jordan to beat Magic after 1986.

Barkley was able to out-vote each of Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Malone and Robinson, playing fewer games AND with his team having fewer wins than theirs, at least once, while all were in their primes (multiple times for Hakeem and Malone).

Conclusion: If Barkley was on a winning team and had an injury free season, he was the MVP, regardless of the competition. We can safely say that had injuries not plagued his prime, or if his prime wasn’t wasted on pitiful teams and coinciding with one of the strongest era’s in NBA history, he would have a handful of MVPs.

Malone and the MVP
Malone played at least 80 games, and the Jazz won at least 47 games every single season of his prime. Let's first focus on his nine prime seasons prior to 1997. He finished 8th the two times that they had under 50 wins and he finished 7th twice, after playing every game on 53 and 55 win teams. He also finished third twice, but the only year he was really a contender was 1995, when the Jazz had 60 wins and he finished behind Robinson and Shaq. That year the only top 40 GOATs behind him who didn’t miss at least 10 games and were somewhat close to their peaks were Ewing and Pippen.

Malone never finished higher than Jordan, Magic, Robinson (except in Robinsons rookie year) or Shaq (except once when Shaq missed 28 games), and the only times he out-voted Barkley or Hakeem, were when they missed 10 or more games to injury and/or their teams had significantly fewer wins than the Jazz.

But something happened in 1997. The stars aligned for Malone to win an MVP. All the GOATs were gone. Robinson, Shaq and Barkley all missed lots of games, Hakeem had officially exited his prime, and statistically Jordan had the worst full season of his career. Malone reaped the rewards of his longevity and squeezed out an MVP over the weakest field the NBA had seen in decades. (After Jordan, the top 6 were rounded out by Grant Hill, Tim Hardaway, Glen Rice and Gary Payton). Even still, this award is largely disputed as being rightfully MJs. In ‘98, Malone came second behind Jordan, with Payton third. Shaq came fourth on only 60 games!! Rookie Tim Duncan was fifth and Hardaway sixth. In ’99 Malone won again, by a slim margin over Alonzo Mourning, which tells you about the strength of the field that year. And once again, this is a widely disputed result, with many feeling that BOTH Mourning or Duncan were more deserving winners. Also note that in both of Malone's MVP years, the Jazz had a the most wins in the West.

Conclusion: For Malone to be a MVP contender he needed to be on a .700+ team, and have historically weak competition. If one or both of these conditions was not true, he rarely threatened the leader board. We can safely say that had his prime not spilled into such a historically weak era, or had he played on a weaker team, he would never have truly been an MVP contender.

And if you don't believe me that Barkley throghouly deserved the 1990 MVP, and Malone likely didn't deserve either of his, here are some links for you to convince yourself.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/2
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/9
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/6
http://www.complex.com/sports/2015/03/the-year-the-real-nba-mvp-actually-wasnt
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/photos/michael-jordan-lebron-james-kobe-bryant-biggest-mvp-snubs-of-all-time-040715
http://www.thesportster.com/basketball/top-15-least-deserving-nba-mvps/