Better Player: Barkley or Malone?

[Roundball_Rock]

This came up in another thread so let's see how this shakes out in a poll.

[HoopsNY]

I haven't looked too deeply into it, but those who watched Charles play in the 80s would probably say him. He had amazing athletic skills and was such a dominant rebounder. Malone has longevity on his side and wasn't lazy on defense as he got older, so I think that's a plus for him, in addition to leading his team to two finals appearances. I'd say Barkley.

[Carbine]

Better player - Barkley. No question in my mind.

[Roundball_Rock]

Barkley for me too.

[Clippersfan86]

Malone has the more storied career and longevity, but in terms of actual peak play and skillset? Barkley easily. If you're talking about all time ranking, that gets a lot harder because Malone had a longer prime and stupid longevity.

[Phoenix]

Malone has the more storied career and longevity, but in terms of actual peak play and skillset? Barkley easily. If you're talking about all time ranking, that gets a lot harder because Malone had a longer prime and stupid longevity.

That seems to be the most common opinion I see. Barkley had more to his game overall but both great PFs. Barkley peaked higher in the same space (88-93) and I'd take his peak over whatever period you deem to be Malone's best ( based on team success and accolades he peaked between 94-98, unless you take the view that he was a better player in the early 90's but the league was stronger and hence he enjoyed less success). Generally I tend to give a bit more weight to Malone's longevity but that's completely subjective reasoning. In terms of GOAT rankings IMO where one ranks the other should be right under him.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Malone because he's the better defender and better longevity but I take Dirk/KG over both of them.

[Patrick Chewing]

Malone and it's not even close.

[97 bulls]

Overall? Malone

Barkley had more talent. But he didnt have to motivation. A motivated Charles Barkley (meaning he stayed in excellent shape and was dedicated to the defensive side of the ball) would've been top 5 in my opinion.

[Round Mound]

Overall? Malone

Barkley had more talent. But he didnt have to motivation. A motivated Charles Barkley (meaning he stayed in excellent shape and was dedicated to the defensive side of the ball) would've been top 5 in my opinion.

That's what i always say when Chuck was Motivated, Angry or Pissed Off: Only Jordan was Better.

Barkley was clearly better from 84-85 to 92-93 and equal from 93-94 to 94-95. Then from 95-96 to 1999-00 Malone was better.

Malone had better longevity because the system he played in was designed for him through Stockton and because he was a work horse on the gym. Barkley hardly trained and was gifted naturally. Barkley had to do more on his own from 87 to 92.

Barkley was the better scorer, post player, ballhandler, coast to coast player, rebounder, passer, floor and team defender, stealer, shot blocker, big game player, and clutch shooter.

Malone was the better post defender, free throw shooter and had better longevity through better training etc.

[FireDavidKahn]

The one that didn't get a 13 year old pregnant.

[SouBeachTalents]

That's what i always say when Chuck was Motivated, Angry or Pissed Off: Only Jordan was Better.

Barkley was clearly better from 84-85 to 92-93 and equal from 93-94 to 94-95. Then from 95-96 to 1999-00 Malone was better.

Malone had better longevity because the system he played in was designed for him through Stockton and because he was a work horse on the gym. Barkley hardly trained and was gifted naturally. Barkley had to do more on his own from 87 to 92.

Barkley was the better scorer, post player, ballhandler, coast to coast player, rebounder, passer, floor and team defender, stealer, shot blocker, big game player, and clutch shooter.

Malone was the better post defender, free throw shooter and had better longevity through better training etc.
Surprised you went with Barkley tbh

[Reggie43]

Malone was equally as good on both ends and he could play with anyone and adapt to any style of play. His longevity will give you more chances to win because he was good enough to reinvent his game when he was older. You basically get 2 mvp caliber versions in one player. The athletic prime Malone or the older but bigger Malone who would force his way to the basket for the and one or shoot the jumper in your face. Both versions could run the break as good as any power forward in history.

[Whoah10115]

Malone is an all-time player, but he couldn't take the game on like Barkley.

There aren't 15 better players in the history of the sport.

There aren't 15 "greater" ones, either.

[lucky001]

It's close enough to go either way, but most days I lean towards Chuck. Transcendent offense against any defense plus top-5 level rebounding puts him ahead. Malone's longevity is incredible. Also, the value of his work-ethic and discipline on defense and to work on his game (he was poor free throw shooter as a rookie but brought it up really quick) as the team's best player can't be measured.

[Marchesk]

Moses Malone: 3 MVPs, a chip and FMVP, 6X led the league in rebounding, topped out at 31.1 ppg.

[jayfan]

"Who was a better basketball player?" is a simple question. It's not a question about career longevity or career accolades. High level longer is not the same as better. More accomplishments is not the same as better.

Having seen both guys at their best (if you have), who was better at basketball?



.

[Phoenix]

Moses Malone: 3 MVPs, a chip and FMVP, 6X led the league in rebounding, topped out at 31.1 ppg.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/6a/f7/e46af74bb4d8d1bf2a841dfbd24ba7cc.jpg

[KD7]

Barkley for sure, neither were great defensively but Barkley could do so much more on offense and elevated his team's better

[AussieSteve]

Barkley

Better skill set. Better at elevating his team mates. Better at elevating himself in the clutch and in the playoffs.

[RRR3]

Barkley for sure, neither were great defensively but Barkley could do so much more on offense and elevated his team's better
Malone made multiple all defense teams.

[KD7]

Malone made multiple all defense teams.
And Kobe has the most all defense selections in NBA history, what's your point

[AussieSteve]

While Barkley was peaking c.1990 he was something to behold. Just unstoppable combination of athleticism, power and skill. Up until he hurt his ankle in Jan 91, he was going at 31ppg on a ridiculous 61.3%efg and 66.3%ts that season.

You can probably count on one hand the number of players who have ever been comparable to him offensively at that point of his career.

From that point on, his conditioning started to affect him. Starting with ankle and knee injuries in 91, which meant he had to where quite a bulky knee brace through the 91 playoffs, then his back injury in Jan 94 which effectively ended his ability to ever play at that peak level again.

No question though that peak Barkley was not just better than Malone, he was a tier above him.

[Horatio33]

Surprised you went with Barkley tbh

Hahaha!

[oldtimer28]

I haven't looked too deeply into it, but those who watched Charles play in the 80s would probably say him. He had amazing athletic skills and was such a dominant rebounder. Malone has longevity on his side and wasn't lazy on defense as he got older, so I think that's a plus for him, in addition to leading his team to two finals appearances. I'd say Barkley.

No Malone easily.

More consistent and better defensively.

[oldtimer28]

While Barkley was peaking c.1990 he was something to behold. Just unstoppable combination of athleticism, power and skill. Up until he hurt his ankle in Jan 91, he was going at 31ppg on a ridiculous 61.3%efg and 66.3%ts that season.

You can probably count on one hand the number of players who have ever been comparable to him offensively at that point of his career.

From that point on, his conditioning started to affect him. Starting with ankle and knee injuries in 91, which meant he had to where quite a bulky knee brace through the 91 playoffs, then his back injury in Jan 94 which effectively ended his ability to ever play at that peak level again.

No question though that peak Barkley was not just better than Malone, he was a tier above him.

See my post. Malone overall but your post is a good summary.

Barkley was unstoppable and so dominant at his peak but in a unique Barkley way.

Barkley also had better teammates.

[AussieSteve]

See my post. Malone overall but your post is a good summary.

Barkley was unstoppable and so dominant at his peak but in a unique Barkley way.

Barkley also had better teammates.

Barkley's 93-95 Suns cast were better than any team Malone ever played with, I'll give you that. In 93 Chuck probably should have won. From 94 onwards, he just wasn't the same player.

But 93 aside, Barkley's best years were spent on trash teams. In 86, Moses was injured for the playoffs, leaving Barkley without a lot of help, then from 87 to 92 his casts ranged from kind of bad to very bad.

Malone never had a cast as bad as Barkley in Philly. His team's were generally balanced, deep, well coached and of course he had Stockton.

[Phoenix]

Peak Barkley was much less dependent on a PG to 'get his'. He and Stockton probably still could have run a good PnR but Barkleys scoring arsenal was overall better than Mailmans and would have added another dimension to the Jazz attack. I don't see the Suns getting to the finals with Malone in place of him.

[Whoah10115]

93 Jordan is the best Jordan. That playoff run, and the Finals against the Suns he was just absurd, even by Jordan standards.

That said, if KJ was 93/94 KJ, or 91/92 KJ, series at least gets to 7. And no way the Suns don't win in 94, hsd Barkley not hurt his back in the 22nd game or whenever it was.

I mean, you can say they blew the 3-1 lead to Houston, who won the title beating the 4 best records in the league, but instead you should look at the fact they wete good enough to take Houston down to the wire, wire, because Barkley was still elite in big games.

I remember being shocked and super sad when Houston came back.

There really haven't been 10 players better than prime Chuck.

[Round Mound]

93 Jordan is the best Jordan. That playoff run, and the Finals against the Suns he was just absurd, even by Jordan standards.

That said, if KJ was 93/94 KJ, or 91/92 KJ, series at least gets to 7. And no way the Suns don't win in 94, hsd Barkley not hurt his back in the 22nd game or whenever it was.

I mean, you can say they blew the 3-1 lead to Houston, who won the title beating the 4 best records in the league, but instead you should look at the fact they wete good enough to take Houston down to the wire, wire, because Barkley was still elite in big games.

I remember being shocked and super sad when Houston came back.

There really haven't been 10 players better than prime Chuck.

:applause:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Bit more lopsided than I thought, RR. :lol

Then again if you asked whose CAREER was greater, Malone probably wins the poll. Good to know there are posters here that can distinguish between the two.

[oldtimer28]

Barkley's 93-95 Suns cast were better than any team Malone ever played with, I'll give you that. In 93 Chuck probably should have won. From 94 onwards, he just wasn't the same player.

But 93 aside, Barkley's best years were spent on trash teams. In 86, Moses was injured for the playoffs, leaving Barkley without a lot of help, then from 87 to 92 his casts ranged from kind of bad to very bad.

Malone never had a cast as bad as Barkley in Philly. His team's were generally balanced, deep, well coached and of course he had Stockton.

Respectfully disagree. Barkley teams had more talent.

However, jazz and Malone had a more consistent system and better coaching in my view.

This is all a popularity contest though. Barkley has always been more popular than Malone

[Whoah10115]

Respectfully disagree. Barkley teams had more talent.

However, jazz and Malone had a more consistent system and better coaching in my view.

This is all a popularity contest though. Barkley has always been more popular than Malone

No.

[dankok8]

I would take Malone on both counts, peak and career, although peak is very close and think this is what the thread is asking. You gotta remember that Chuck after his early years played almost exclusively PF and his defense (lack thereof) was a liability for a big man. Barkley's teams would often excel offensively but be either below average or near last in the league in defense and he was a major reason why. He himself said many times he didn't commit to that end of the floor. And stuff like conditioning counts... and for A LOT. Was Barkley more talented than Malone? Probably. But more talented doesn't equal better. I would take Malone at his best over Barkley at his best for what they actually brought a team. For all his off court drama, Malone was a pure professional on the court, great teammate, with amazing work ethic. Malone was ALWAYS ready to play. Barkley wasn't. I mean we can make all excuses we want for Barkley but other than 1993 and early in his career when he had Moses and Dr J as his superiors, Barkley never even came close to a serious playoff run.

[Round Mound]

Barkley was actually hated by the media and mani fans in his later years with the Sixers which actuallt cost him to loose the 1989-90 MVP to Magic in which he had ALL THE 1ST PLACE VOTES BUT THEN NO OTHER VOTES. He was even more deserving that season than the 1992-93 award (62 wins with KJ only playing 49 games). While Barkley had pathetic teams from 87 to 92 both Malone and Stockton: the 2nd and 3rd best at their positions and had Mark Eaton who was the games best rim protector, shot blocker and defensive player of th year twice. They also had Thurl Baily who was similar to James Worthy yet at 6´11 verstaile shooting and good defensive SF. Malone and Stockton lived off each other like no players ever did. Barkley was better than Malone from 1984-85 to 1992-93. Similar from 1993-94 and 1994-94. While Barkley declined after that Malone took over as the best PF from 1995-96 onwards. Barkley was not only more talented but also certainly more skilled than Malone ever was : It takes more than just talent but actual skill and heart to be te most dominating PF at 6´4 5/8 ft. It was his body and injuries that made it impossible for him to maintain a certain leve after 96. People say Malone was the best running finishing PF that's mainly because of Stockton feeding him the ball every time down the court while Barkley could not only do that but he could actually get a defensive rebound and run WITH THE BALL all down the court to finish his own play with a Dunk, Basket or Pass. Barkley was a much better post player than Malone won't go into the details that i already covered as comparison in the 2-Point region or the post. Barkley was the better rebounder, passer, ballhandler, creator of offense, stealer, shot blocker, team defender, far range shooter and clutch big game performer Malone was a better post defender, free throw shooter, as he aged he got better from the mid range and has the longevity as a resume against Barkley. That's all. Malone might have better longevity but that does not make him a better player in the same way Lebron James is not better than MJ. Barkley was more dominant, skilled and efficient than Malone ever was even though he had the 3rd best PG in the game and the 1st or 2nd (depends on what you feel about Magic) creator of offense in John Stockton.

[AussieSteve]

The clearest way to show the disparity between Barkley's level and Malone's is to look at their playoff performances.

% of PO games with game score >20

Barkley 42.3%
Malone 36.3%

% of PO games with game score >25

Barkley 24.4%
Malone 16.1%

% of PO games with game score >30

Barkley 15.4%
Malone 4.7%

% of PO games with game score >35

Barkley 8.9%
Malone 1.6%

% of PO games with game score >40

Barkley 2.4%
Malone 0.5%

% of PO games with game score >45

Barkley 2.4%
Malone 0.0%

% of PO games with game score >50

Barkley 0.8%
Malone 0.0%


If we call a game score of 30 an exceptional performance, the Barkley had one of these around once every 6.5 playoff games. Malone had one once every 21.3 games.

At the ATG end of the spectrum, once you start looking at game scores of 35-40+, Malone almost never had these kinds of performances in the playoffs.

[Reggie43]

What are the best years for both of these players together with their stats? Claiming that one is better at a certain skill doesnt show how close they really are. Barkley was more efficient and could score in more ways but Malone actually scored more in his best years and was effective on the skills that he had and was just slightly less efficient on his best year while scoring more. Malone being able to impact the game on both ends equally is the main reason I chose him. He was actually their defensive anchor in some years which is the one edge he has against Barkley that is hard to ignore.

[Round Mound]

What are the best years for both of these players together with their stats? Claiming that one is better at a certain skill doesnt show how close they really are. Barkley was more efficient and could score in more ways but Malone actually scored more in his best years and was effective on the skills that he had and was just slightly less efficient on his best year while scoring more. Malone being able to impact the game on both ends equally is the main reason I chose him. He was actually their defensive anchor in some years which is the one edge he has against Barkley that is hard to ignore.


Season:

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 FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs:

Barkley shot 55.13% Two-Point 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

Malone was a good scorer but BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

There is a big difference scoring wise efficiently especially in the Play-Offs

[AussieSteve]

I would take Malone on both counts, peak and career, although peak is very close and think this is what the thread is asking. You gotta remember that Chuck after his early years played almost exclusively PF and his defense (lack thereof) was a liability for a big man. Barkley's teams would often excel offensively but be either below average or near last in the league in defense and he was a major reason why. He himself said many times he didn't commit to that end of the floor. And stuff like conditioning counts... and for A LOT. Was Barkley more talented than Malone? Probably. But more talented doesn't equal better. I would take Malone at his best over Barkley at his best for what they actually brought a team. For all his off court drama, Malone was a pure professional on the court, great teammate, with amazing work ethic. Malone was ALWAYS ready to play. Barkley wasn't. I mean we can make all excuses we want for Barkley but other than 1993 and early in his career when he had Moses and Dr J as his superiors, Barkley never even came close to a serious playoff run.

Hard to make a serious playoff run when you're relying on Hersey Hawkins and Armen Gilliam to score on and defend Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen every time you reach the 2nd round

[Whoah10115]

I would take Malone on both counts, peak and career, although peak is very close and think this is what the thread is asking. You gotta remember that Chuck after his early years played almost exclusively PF and his defense (lack thereof) was a liability for a big man. Barkley's teams would often excel offensively but be either below average or near last in the league in defense and he was a major reason why. He himself said many times he didn't commit to that end of the floor. And stuff like conditioning counts... and for A LOT. Was Barkley more talented than Malone? Probably. But more talented doesn't equal better. I would take Malone at his best over Barkley at his best for what they actually brought a team. For all his off court drama, Malone was a pure professional on the court, great teammate, with amazing work ethic. Malone was ALWAYS ready to play. Barkley wasn't. I mean we can make all excuses we want for Barkley but other than 1993 and early in his career when he had Moses and Dr J as his superiors, Barkley never even came close to a serious playoff run.

None of this is accurate.

[Reggie43]

If you read the bolded I was actually talking about his best scoring year where he scored 31ppg on 56% shooting for the season.

[AussieSteve]

If you read the bolded I was actually talking about his best scoring year where he scored 31ppg on 56% shooting for the season.

If you take every 25+ ppg season in NBA history (that's 363 individual seasons), and rank them by points per field goal attempt, Barkley has the #1, #2, #3 and #7 seasons all time.

Let that sink in.

[Phoenix]

It's amazing that Barkley was taking 15-17 shots a game at his peak. This guy could have had multiple 30ppg seasons without having to shot-jack.

[bizil]

From a GOAT status, easily the Mailman. But peak-prime wise, Chuck. Chuck was WAY AHEAD OF HIS TIME! He was pretty much a PF-SF hybrid at 6'5 and 260 pounds. He was a perfect blend of PF toughness and rebounding AND SF handles and scoring skillset. Plus he was a freakish athlete on top of it! And displayed point forward elements from the PF position. So he wasn't just an elite passer from the PF spot. He could play as the primary facilitator and create in the open court like the premier perimeter players. The only player at that weight or close that was MORE EXPLOSIVE than Barkley in the open court is Lebron himself. BUT once again Lebron is a perimeter player.

So the fact Barkley was doing what he did from PF spot in the 80's was WAY AHEAD of his time. He was the best blend of scoring-rebounding-passing EVER at the PF position for many years. Even today, u still say he's a bit ahead of Giannis in that regard. But Chuck had the mantle for many years. Even over guys like KG, Duncan, Webber, etc. who also combined those facets great. When Magic and Bird were outta of the league, it was A LOCK that Barkley would be the 2nd best player on the planet. I'm talking before Hakeem peaked. So the point is Malone was like your old school prototype Bob P-Hayes PF. Barkley was more of a POSITIONLESS (at least on offense) type of PF! Combined the old school PF elements with the skillset of the great perimeter players!

[Whoah10115]

From a GOAT status, easily the Mailman. But peak-prime wise, Chuck. Chuck was WAY AHEAD OF HIS TIME! He was pretty much a PF-SF hybrid at 6'5 and 260 pounds. He was a perfect blend of PF toughness and rebounding AND SF handles and scoring skillset. Plus he was a freakish athlete on top of it! And displayed point forward elements from the PF position. So he wasn't just an elite passer from the PF spot. He could play as the primary facilitator and create in the open court like the premier perimeter players. The only player at that weight or close that was MORE EXPLOSIVE than Barkley in the open court is Lebron himself. BUT once again Lebron is a perimeter player.

So the fact Barkley was doing what he did from PF spot in the 80's was WAY AHEAD of his time. He was the best blend of scoring-rebounding-passing EVER at the PF position for many years. Even today, u still say he's a bit ahead of Giannis in that regard. But Chuck had the mantle for many years. Even over guys like KG, Duncan, Webber, etc. who also combined those facets great. When Magic and Bird were outta of the league, it was A LOCK that Barkley would be the 2nd best player on the planet. I'm talking before Hakeem peaked. So the point is Malone was like your old school prototype Bob P-Hayes PF. Barkley was more of a POSITIONLESS (at least on offense) type of PF! Combined the old school PF elements with the skillset of the great perimeter players!

Easily is a terrible word here. Overall, Barkley is greater. He had the greater career. You can take the longevity stuff only so far.

That said, since Malone has only Lebron and maybe Kareem to compete with for longevity argument, I can accept Malone higher on someone's GOAT list.

Easily? That's easily wrong.

[97 bulls]

The question is whi was better. Not wo was the better scorer. As talented as Charles Barkley was (he was much more talented than Malone) his terrible work ethic and total disregard for defense outside of outrebounding, would lead me to take a lesser talented player like Malone.

This isnt basketball talk from knowledgeable fans. This is again a conversation on who is the better scorer.

[Whoah10115]

The question is whi was better. Not wo was the better scorer. As talented as Charles Barkley was (he was much more talented than Malone) his terrible work ethic and total disregard for defense outside of outrebounding, would lead me to take a lesser talented player like Malone.

This isnt basketball talk from knowledgeable fans. This is again a conversation on who is the better scorer.

Barkley was the better player. You're falling back on stereotypes that have nothing to do with the actual player, leaving you as not being knowledgeable.

[AussieSteve]

The question is whi was better. Not wo was the better scorer. As talented as Charles Barkley was (he was much more talented than Malone) his terrible work ethic and total disregard for defense outside of outrebounding, would lead me to take a lesser talented player like Malone.

This isnt basketball talk from knowledgeable fans. This is again a conversation on who is the better scorer.

Well Barkley was obviously the better scorer. But he was also clearly the better rebounder and passer.

And while you highlight a lack of defensive effort as the clincher for Malone, I'm not convinced there's that much difference. The truth is that during both the RS and PO, Barkley blocked more shots, effected more steals, grabbed more defensive rebounds and committed fewer fouls. These are the only quantifiable measures of individual defense we have for the era, and Barkley wins all of them. And, more importantly, each of Barkley's individual defensive numbers improved in the playoffs, while Malone's declined.

Barkley also played better defense than Malone in the clutch. I can point you to multiple clips of Barkley blocking shots at the rim in clutch playoff moments, including big time rejections of Ewing, DRob, Pippen and other HoFers. Can you do the same for Malone?

Finally, check out Barkley's team defensive rating in games he missed versus games he played over the years. Each season that he missed more than a couple of games, his team's DRtg was the same or worse across the games he missed than games he played.

Having said all this, Malone was obviously a better defender than Barkley overall. I'm not disputing that.

But as per my previous post, the absolute clincher for Barkley is playoff performance. Barkley was 3 times more likely to have a 30+ Game Score game in the playoffs and 6 times more likely to have a 35+ Game Score game. Malone was usually solid, but rarely great in the playoffs. In the 93 WCF and Finals alone, Barkley had three 40+ point games and two triple doubles in the space of 6 games. Malone never sniffed that level of performance in the playoffs.

[97 bulls]

Barkley was the better player. You're falling back on stereotypes that have nothing to do with the actual player, leaving you as not being knowledgeable.

What are you talking about? He was cut from the Olympic team for an unwillingness to get in shape, he was well over 300lbs when he was drafted, his nickname was the "Round Mound". That meant he was FAT!!!!

He even said himself he was was a terrible defender. I remember him sayimg that as long as Larry Bird was in the league, hed only be the second worse defender in the NBA.

I mean go back and look at that final play in the 93 Finals Barkelys bad defense got Paxson open
https://youtu.be/GnAr4I3-Z48

Heres Bobby Knight talking about Barkely

https://youtu.be/ePv2YdWXjsw

And this never changed. Pippen didnt lie when he said MJ told him that Barkely was lazy and not committed to winning.

[97 bulls]

Well Barkley was obviously the better scorer. But he was also clearly the better rebounder and passer.

And while you highlight a lack of defensive effort as the clincher for Malone, I'm not convinced there's that much difference. The truth is that during both the RS and PO, Barkley blocked more shots, effected more steals, grabbed more defensive rebounds and committed fewer fouls. These are the only quantifiable measures of individual defense we have for the era, and Barkley wins all of them. And, more importantly, each of Barkley's individual defensive numbers improved in the playoffs, while Malone's declined.

Barkley also played better defense than Malone in the clutch. I can point you to multiple clips of Barkley blocking shots at the rim in clutch playoff moments, including big time rejections of Ewing, DRob, Pippen and other HoFers. Can you do the same for Malone?

Finally, check out Barkley's team defensive rating in games he missed versus games he played over the years. Each season that he missed more than a couple of games, his team's DRtg was the same or worse across the games he missed than games he played.

Having said all this, Malone was obviously a better defender than Barkley overall. I'm not disputing that.

But as per my previous post, the absolute clincher for Barkley is playoff performance. Barkley was 3 times more likely to have a 30+ Game Score game in the playoffs and 6 times more likely to have a 35+ Game Score game. Malone was usually solid, but rarely great in the playoffs. In the 93 WCF and Finals alone, Barkley had three 40+ point games and two triple doubles in the space of 6 games. Malone never sniffed that level of performance in the playoffs.

Read post 51

[AussieSteve]

What are you talking about? He was cut from the Olympic team for an unwillingness to get in shape, he was well over 300lbs when he was drafted, his nickname was the "Round Mound". That meant he was FAT!!!!

He even said himself he was was a terrible defender. I remember him sayimg that as long as Larry Bird was in the league, hed only be the second worse defender in the NBA.

I mean go back and look at that final play in the 93 Finals Barkelys bad defense got Paxson open
https://youtu.be/GnAr4I3-Z48

Heres Bobby Knight talking about Barkely

https://youtu.be/ePv2YdWXjsw

And this never changed. Pippen didnt lie when he said MJ told him that Barkely was lazy and not committed to winning.

It did change, because Barkley was 30lb lighter by the time he reached the nba. And lighter still by his 2nd season.

And no one was as committed to winning as Jordan, so him saying that about Barkley doesn't mean a whole lot. How does a guy win 2 mvps if he wasn't committed to winning?

[goozeman]

I give the edge slightly to Barkley because his offensive ceiling is a bit higher, but I could see how somebody could have Malone. It's so close that the difference is negligible. Barkley was the more explosive scorer and the more skilled offensively, but Malone's overall body of work is superior due to his longevity. Both were freak athletes, but Malone's ability to tank NBA seasons year after year and play at such a high level is almost unparalleled outside of a handful of players. If I had to choose between them, I'd probably just flip a coin and be happy either way.

[97 bulls]

It did change, because Barkley was 30lb lighter by the time he reached the nba. And lighter still by his 2nd season.

And no one was as committed to winning as Jordan, so him saying that about Barkley doesn't mean a whole lot. How does a guy win 2 mvps if he wasn't committed to winning?

What about for his career? It was no secret that Barkley had a terrible work ethic. And had a flippant attitude towards defense.

Look I'm not saying Barkley was a bumb. But in this comparison, was Barkely a better scorer yes? But by a wide margin? Hell no. Was Barkley a better rebounder? Yes. But by a wide margin ? No. Was Malone a better defender. Hell yes and it not even close. And that's why Malone accomplished more in the league than Barkley did.

[Round Mound]

What about for his career? It was no secret that Barkley had a terrible work ethic. And had a flippant attitude towards defense.

Look I'm not saying Barkley was a bumb. But in this comparison, was Barkely a better scorer yes? But by a wide margin? Hell no. Was Barkley a better rebounder? Yes. But by a wide margin ? No. Was Malone a better defender. Hell yes and it not even close. And that's why Malone accomplished more in the league than Barkley did.

Malone never reached the level that Barkley, Hakeem or Jordan did. He just outlasted his peers in staying still a pretty good player. in his later years. If you talk about primes he's not close to them.

[AussieSteve]

What about for his career? It was no secret that Barkley had a terrible work ethic. And had a flippant attitude towards defense.

Look I'm not saying Barkley was a bumb. But in this comparison, was Barkely a better scorer yes? But by a wide margin? Hell no. Was Barkley a better rebounder? Yes. But by a wide margin ? No. Was Malone a better defender. Hell yes and it not even close. And that's why Malone accomplished more in the league than Barkley did.

I would say that Barkley WAS a better scorer and rebounder by a wide margin... particularly on the boards.

Do you realize that of all players who have played at least 100 playoff games in the 3 point era, Barkley ranks #1 in the post season in BOTH offensive and defensive rebounds per game.

As far as scoring goes, Malone played 40 conference finals and finals games in his career and never once scored 40 points. Barkley passed 40 points 3 times in the WCF and finals during his 93 run alone.

Malone scored lots in the RS and sometimes during the early playoff rounds. But when the stakes were highest, when the defenses were the toughest and he wasn't getting 20 stockton-to-malone pick n roll points a game, he couldn't score any where near as freely as Barkley. Barkley was content to pick his shots for the most part, and didnt score as much as Malone in the RS, but he had that extra gear he could go to on the biggest stages that Malone just didn't have.

[97 bulls]

I would say that Barkley WAS a better scorer and rebounder by a wide margin... particularly on the boards.

Do you realize that of all players who have played at least 100 playoff games in the 3 point era, Barkley ranks #1 in the post season in BOTH offensive and defensive rebounds per game.

As far as scoring goes, Malone played 40 conference finals and finals games in his career and never once scored 40 points. Barkley passed 40 points 3 times in the WCF and finals during his 93 run alone.

Malone scored lots in the RS and sometimes during the early playoff rounds. But when the stakes were highest, when the defenses were the toughest and he wasn't getting 20 stockton-to-malone pick n roll points a game, he couldn't score any where near as freely as Barkley. Barkley was content to pick his shots for the most part, and didnt score as much as Malone in the RS, but he had that extra gear he could go to on the biggest stages that Malone just didn't have.

And for all that Malone still went farther than Barkley in the POs. Malone is the more accomplished player.

[AussieSteve]

Because... ?

Because, for the most part, he had better teams, better coaching and easier competition in the West playoffs compared to Barkley while he was in Philly.

And of course because he had such insane longevity and was still making deep playoff runs while Barkley was basically done. Massive props to Malone for this. But for all the reasons I've outlined, he was not better than Barkley.

[Whoah10115]

What are you talking about? He was cut from the Olympic team for an unwillingness to get in shape, he was well over 300lbs when he was drafted, his nickname was the "Round Mound". That meant he was FAT!!!!

He even said himself he was was a terrible defender. I remember him sayimg that as long as Larry Bird was in the league, hed only be the second worse defender in the NBA.

I mean go back and look at that final play in the 93 Finals Barkelys bad defense got Paxson open
https://youtu.be/GnAr4I3-Z48

Heres Bobby Knight talking about Barkely

https://youtu.be/ePv2YdWXjsw

And this never changed. Pippen didnt lie when he said MJ told him that Barkely was lazy and not committed to winning.

You continue to lack knowledge.

I've heard him say he was a better defender than Bird. Not true but he said that. He usually makes fun of himself.

You've literally not one iota of what you're talking about, and then pretending that you've got a real take.

At their best there is no question who was better. Malone at his best, to be fair, came in his mid-late 30s. But he didn't play better than Barkley. A better defender? Yes, but Barkley was a good defender.

Also, in his last three seasons in Philly, Barkley played SF. He still averages 11RPG in that time, still made plays, still shot an obscene percentage.

If you wanna pick Malone go ahead, but you're clinging to talking points like these creepy LeBron stans, as well as Roundball_Rock, a tool.

[97 bulls]

You continue to lack knowledge.

I've heard him say he was a better defender than Bird. Not true but he said that. He usually makes fun of himself.

You've literally not one iota of what you're talking about, and then pretending that you've got a real take.

At their best there is no question who was better. Malone at his best, to be fair, came in his mid-late 30s. But he didn't play better than Barkley. A better defender? Yes, but Barkley was a good defender.

Also, in his last three seasons in Philly, Barkley played SF. He still averages 11RPG in that time, still made plays, still shot an obscene percentage.

If you wanna pick Malone go ahead, but you're clinging to talking points like these creepy LeBron stans, as well as Roundball_Rock, a tool.

What talking points? I guess ignorance is bliss. History is on my side my friend.

Like I said. Barkley was more skilled. Malone outworked him. And thus made him the better player.

[Whoah10115]

What talking points? I guess ignorance is bliss. History is on my side my friend.

Like I said. Barkley was more skilled. Malone outworked him. And thus made him the better player.

Again, you're making things up.

In their primes, if you don't think Barkley is better, it's your call. But you're wrong, and it's not difficult to see.

But your post is littered with bullshit rather than any worth talking about.

[Roundball_Rock]

Malone never reached the level that Barkley, Hakeem or Jordan did. He just outlasted his peers in staying still a pretty good player. in his later years. If you talk about primes he's not close to them.

Agreed. Due to that, Malone is "greater" all-time (although they both have to be 1-2 spots within each other) but Barkley was "better."

[Phoenix]

Thing is, I don't think Malone was necessarily a better player in,say, 93, than he was in 97. The league was overall weaker post-expansion( he won the 99 MVP at 36 years old, what does that tell you?), most of the 90's stars were at the end of their primes or past it, and the younger guys like Garnett, Kobe, Iverson etc hadn't taken off yet( exception Duncan but I'm not sure the Spurs win the title if not for the lockout, but another topic). Shaq was individually dominant but hadn't won yet. In the West, Phoenix was no longer a contender( after Barkley left for Houston), Seattle stepped back, and Houston tried to revamp with an aging Barkley alongside Hakeem and Drexler and lost. Utah, to their credit, rose to the fore with an older Stockton, Malone and Co. but I don't think that team makes the finals 5 years prior. Nor doesn't Malone in 97 win MVP over peak MJ and Hakeem or likely even someone like Robinson in 95. He achieved most of his accolades in a three year window in the weaker back half of the decade.

Barkley won his MVP in a year with peak MJ, Hakeem, the state of the league was stronger pre-expansion. All the big name 90's guys were at or near their best. Houston, Seattle, San Antonio, Portland, all strong teams in the west and Chicago, New York, Cleveland, Indiana and an ascending Orlando out east. All good to great teams with young/prime stars. IMo Barkley was better than Malone in the period of the decade that was stronger, and this is where he ultimately separates himself as the 'better' prime for prime player, with Malone being the better post-prime/old man player and ultimately the most important part of his legacy even more than his MVP awards and finals trips, the fact that he pretty much outlasted everyone that came into the league with him in terms of being an elite player.

[dankok8]

Malone in the late 80's and early 90's is getting incredibly underrated. Utah ran into Showtime then Blazers who were much stronger but Malone was putting up monster numbers. For a 5-year span from 87-88 to 91-92, the Mailman averaged 29/12 on 48 %FG/56 %TS in the postseason. And not to mention playing very good defense which is something Barkley could never say.

[Round Mound]

What where Barkley's play-off numbers with pathetic teams from 87-91?

[Round Mound]

Raw Play-Off Numbers

Barkley 23.0 PPG on 51.13% FG% taking 16.0 FGAs PG, 12.9 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.6 SPG, 0.9 BPG

Malone 24.7 PPG on 46.3% FG% taking 19.5 FGAs PG, 10.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.3 SPG and 0.7 BPG

Barkley vs Malone Play-Off Numbers as Scorers Inside 3-Pointline:

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

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

[Roundball_Rock]

Raw Play-Off Numbers

Barkley 23.0 PPG on 51.13% FG% taking 16.0 FGAs PG, 12.9 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.6 SPG, 0.9 BPG

Malone 24.7 PPG on 46.3% FG% taking 19.5 FGAs PG, 10.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.3 SPG and 0.7 BPG

Barkley vs Malone Play-Off Numbers as Scorers Inside 3-Pointline:

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

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

One issue with Malone is his perennial PO declines.

Malone PO TS % change from RS

1988: -3
1989: -2
1990: -12
1991: -6
1992: +2
1993: -8
1994: -2
1995: -4
1996: -8
1997: -10
1998: -7
1999: -9

Large drops nearly every year. Barkley in the playoffs was as efficient as Malone was in the RS as a comparison.

[bizil]

Easily is a terrible word here. Overall, Barkley is greater. He had the greater career. You can take the longevity stuff only so far.

That said, since Malone has only Lebron and maybe Kareem to compete with for longevity argument, I can accept Malone higher on someone's GOAT list.

Easily? That's easily wrong.

GOAT status wise, I'm sorry but Malone EASILY is ahead of Chuck:


Solo Accolades - Mailman
Team Accolades- Mailman
Numbers - Mailman
Longevity being great- Mailman
Peak-prime- Barkley
Impact on the league - Barkley (totally redefined the PF position. While Malone was the evolution to a Hayes or Bob P, Chuck shattered the mold of what a PF could be)

So when u break it down like this, u still gotta give the GOAT edge EASILY to Malone. The reason why is he owns the first four categories. And peak-prime wise, Barkley was better. BUT Malone wasn't far off at all. Especially when u look at their production across the board. Chuck gets the edge because he could do things on the court that Malone wasn't capable of. Chuck was more of PF-SF hybrid while Malone was a true prototype PF. Who NEVER played SF or C in his career pretty much.

[Round Mound]

GOAT status wise, I'm sorry but Malone EASILY is ahead of Chuck:


Solo Accolades - Mailman
Team Accolades- Mailman
Numbers - Mailman
Longevity being great- Mailman
Peak-prime- Barkley
Impact on the league - Barkley (totally redefined the PF position. While Malone was the evolution to a Hayes or Bob P, Chuck shattered the mold of what a PF could be)

So when u break it down like this, u still gotta give the GOAT edge EASILY to Malone. The reason why is he owns the first four categories. And peak-prime wise, Barkley was better. BUT Malone wasn't far off at all. Especially when u look at their production across the board. Chuck gets the edge because he could do things on the court that Malone wasn't capable of. Chuck was more of PF-SF hybrid while Malone was a true prototype PF. Who NEVER played SF or C in his career pretty much.

Numbers PER GAME actually go to Barkley.

Accumulative numbers go to Malone do to longevity.

Accolades i don't really care for as Shaq and Kobe have 1 MVP each while Steve Nash has 2. Is Nash better than Shaq or Kobe? Nope!

Barkley was just a better player than Malone when healthy. Barkley could carry scrubs to the play-offs while Malone lived off John Stockton's playmaking and could could relax on defense when he had the best rim protector in Eaton.

Longevity is not a skill...If you look at MJ's numbers in his peak and prime they are better than Lebron's relative to position. Is Lebron better than MJ cause of accumulative stats? Nope!

[bizil]

Numbers PER GAME actually go to Barkley.

Accumulative numbers go to Malone do to longevity.

Accolades i don't really care for as Shaq and Kobe have 1 MVP each while Steve Nash has 2. Is Nash better than Shaq or Kobe? Nope!

Barkley was just a better player than Malone when healthy. Barkley could carry scrubs to the play-offs while Malone lived off John Stockton's playmaking and could could relax on defense when he had the best rim protector in Eaton.

Longevity is not a skill...If you look at MJ's numbers in his peak and prime they are better than Lebron's relative to position. Is Lebron better than MJ cause of accumulative stats? Nope!

You're WAY OFF!! GOAT status takes into account numbers, solo accolades, team accolades, longevity being great, peak-prime value, and impact on the league. Longevity means A HELL OF A LOT GOAT WISE!!! If it didn't MEAN SHIT then Bill Walton would be a top 6-7 center EVER GOAT wise. He has an MVP, a ring, and at one point was a top 3 player in the world up there with Kareem and Dr. J.

And when u look at stats, it takes into account a number of factors. U can look a career, season, and playoff stats to come to a conclusion. FOR ME personally, Malone's numbers TAKING EVERY THING INTO ACCOUNT are more impressive than Chuck's. Like I said earlier, I think Chuck peak-prime wise was the better player. BUT on a GOAT list, numbers ARE FOR DAMN SURE a factor!

Once again accolades AREN'T the be all end all. BUT ONCE AGAIN, they factor into GOAT status. And you are REACHING BIG TIME when it comes to Nash vs. Shaq and Kobe when it comes to MVPs. FOR STARTERS, the best player in the league doesn't always win MVP. EVERYBODY knows that. And secondly, Nash's MVPs DON'T MAKE A DAMN DIFFERENCE when it comes to Shaq and Kobe in a comparison. Because Shaq and Kobe peak-prime wise were much more dominant and better players on a peak-prime level. And on a GOAT stage, Nash's MVPs DON'T BEEF UP HIS RESUME enough to pass Shaq and Kobe by.

And when it comes to MJ vs. Lebron in terms of numbers, EVEN IF some consider Bron superior in that regard, MJ STILL has the edge in terms of:

Solo Accolades
Team Accolades
Peak-prime status
Impact on the league

So I don't understand WHAT THE HELL you are talking about. I clearly broke down WHAT I CONSIDER GOAT status to be! Six different categories. One area ISN'T the be all end all. BUT one area or more can determine who gets the edge on a GOAT level.

[Round Mound]

All i remember is that in Jordan's /The GOAT Peak...Barkley was considered the 2nd Best Player in the World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiNvY93EmWc

Minute 2: 44 ..."For the majority...the 2nd best player in the world after Michael Jordan"

[kawhileonard2]

Malone makes your team better because he just plays. Barkley if things aren't going well will start to whine.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You're WAY OFF!! GOAT status takes into account numbers, solo accolades, team accolades, longevity being great, peak-prime value, and impact on the league. Longevity means A HELL OF A LOT GOAT WISE!!! If it didn't MEAN SHIT then Bill Walton would be a top 6-7 center EVER GOAT wise. He has an MVP, a ring, and at one point was a top 3 player in the world up there with Kareem and Dr. J.

And when u look at stats, it takes into account a number of factors. U can look a career, season, and playoff stats to come to a conclusion. FOR ME personally, Malone's numbers TAKING EVERY THING INTO ACCOUNT are more impressive than Chuck's. Like I said earlier, I think Chuck peak-prime wise was the better player. BUT on a GOAT list, numbers ARE FOR DAMN SURE a factor!

Once again accolades AREN'T the be all end all. BUT ONCE AGAIN, they factor into GOAT status. And you are REACHING BIG TIME when it comes to Nash vs. Shaq and Kobe when it comes to MVPs. FOR STARTERS, the best player in the league doesn't always win MVP. EVERYBODY knows that. And secondly, Nash's MVPs DON'T MAKE A DAMN DIFFERENCE when it comes to Shaq and Kobe in a comparison. Because Shaq and Kobe peak-prime wise were much more dominant and better players on a peak-prime level. And on a GOAT stage, Nash's MVPs DON'T BEEF UP HIS RESUME enough to pass Shaq and Kobe by.

And when it comes to MJ vs. Lebron in terms of numbers, EVEN IF some consider Bron superior in that regard, MJ STILL has the edge in terms of:

Solo Accolades
Team Accolades
Peak-prime status
Impact on the league

So I don't understand WHAT THE HELL you are talking about. I clearly broke down WHAT I CONSIDER GOAT status to be! Six different categories. One area ISN'T the be all end all. BUT one area or more can determine who gets the edge on a GOAT level.

Word.

I got Chuck for prime-peak play too although its tougher to argue dude had the 'greater' career. Malone has more MVPs. Finals trips. Better longevity and cumulative numbers.

The title says 'better player' and the turnout is expected. Checkout the advanced data that is now available. What it tells us is Chuck didn't even have to play defense to thwart Malone's impact. More confirmation on who the ACTUAL better player was.

[AussieSteve]

When Barkley won his MVP(s) in (1990 and) 1993 the players rounding out the top 5 in MVP voting guys like Jordan, Magic and Hakeem. Consensus top 10 GOATs in their primes.

Malone was never an MVP candidate throughout his 20s. But something happens c.1995 that opened the door for Malone and his ridiculous longevity. DRob and Shaq had some injuries, Hakeem and Barkley fell off a cliff. The rest of the Dream team were gone or old. For a couple of years it was only really Jordan who was a legitimate MVP candidate... and he himself was mid 30s.

So when Malone won his first MVP, MJ came 2nd, then it was Grant Hill, Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice rounding out the top 5.

When Malone won his 2nd MVP in the 99 lockout season, the rest of the top 5 were Mourning, TD in his 2nd season, Iverson in his 3rd season, and Kidd.

Kudos for the longevity, but the truth is he was not in the same class as some of rhe ATGs of the dream team era. He just outlasted them.

[72-10]

Chuck Barkley was the more well-rounded player, better rebounder - could get out there (or back there, if you will) and pop the three. Off the dome the Mailman put in more effort on D towards the tail end of his career than Barkley ever did, but that's not to say Barkley never played any D, and Karl didn't hit the type of shots that Chuck could - Chuck could really shoot 'em in there. The Mailman was the better athlete, that's for sure, put in more effort in the gym, although Barkley clearly had the edge in calisthenics to really get up there.

[Phoenix]

When Barkley won his MVP(s) in (1990 and) 1993 the players rounding out the top 5 in MVP voting guys like Jordan, Magic and Hakeem. Consensus top 10 GOATs in their primes.

Malone was never an MVP candidate throughout his 20s. But something happens c.1995 that opened the door for Malone and his ridiculous longevity. DRob and Shaq had some injuries, Hakeem and Barkley fell off a cliff. The rest of the Dream team were gone or old. For a couple of years it was only really Jordan who was a legitimate MVP candidate... and he himself was mid 30s.

So when Malone won his first MVP, MJ came 2nd, then it was Grant Hill, Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice rounding out the top 5.

When Malone won his 2nd MVP in the 99 lockout season, the rest of the top 5 were Mourning, TD in his 2nd season, Iverson in his 3rd season, and Kidd.

Kudos for the longevity, but the truth is he was not in the same class as some of rhe ATGs of the dream team era. He just outlasted them.

That was my point above. Barkley won his MVP against a younger, better version of MJ and Hakeem, compared to Malone in 97 against an end of prime MJ and a young Grant Hill. Barkley got to the finals in a tougher west. Yes, Malone doubled up his MVP and finals trip count but you have to put the state of the league into context. It wasn't Malone winning MVP in 93 or getting his team to the finals when the 'dream team' era were all in their primes. If you won MVP any point in the late 80s or early 90s, you had to be straight up balling when you look at who the competition was. Stacked hall of fame talent at the height of their career.

We're not comparing players who didnt play in the same era and thus makes it harder to contrast achievements. We're talking guys who basically came into the league at the same time( well Barkley came in a year early but you get my point) and you can directly compare them on multiple fronts across the spectrum of their careers.

[Round Mound]

Chuck Barkley was the more well-rounded player, better rebounder - could get out there (or back there, if you will) and pop the three. Off the dome the Mailman put in more effort on D towards the tail end of his career than Barkley ever did, but that's not to say Barkley never played any D, and Karl didn't hit the type of shots that Chuck could - Chuck could really shoot 'em in there. The Mailman was the better athlete, that's for sure, put in more effort in the gym, although Barkley clearly had the edge in calisthenics to really get up there.

Barkley was a better athlete. Malone could not jump or move like Barkley lateraly. Barkley had better lower torso strength, leaping ability, agility and coordinaton. Malone just worked harder on his upper body and arm strength weight lifting wise etc

[Whoah10115]

Barkley is literally a freak.

From Sporting News (I think):

"No one has done more with less jumping ability" - about Karl Malone.

I don't agree because these are extremes, but you get the point.

[72-10]

Barkley was a better athlete. Malone could not jump or move like Barkley lateraly. Barkley had better lower torso strength, leaping ability, agility and coordinaton. Malone just worked harder on his upper body and arm strength weight lifting wise etc

That's true they were both clearly at least one-a-days in fact so was Ewing

[AussieSteve]

Barkley was a better athlete. Malone could not jump or move like Barkley lateraly. Barkley had better lower torso strength, leaping ability, agility and coordinaton. Malone just worked harder on his upper body and arm strength weight lifting wise etc

Malone had much better conditioning, which is a crucial part of being an athlete. Barkley had much greater leaping ability, speed and quickness and was naturally stronger without having to put as much work in at the gym.

[AussieSteve]

This poll became quite the landslide

More than two thirds on non fence sitters picked Barkley. As it should be I suppose, but still a little surprised.

[Round Mound]

Malone had much better conditioning, which is a crucial part of being an athlete. Barkley had much greater leaping ability, speed and quickness and was naturally stronger without having to put as much work in at the gym.

Yup Barkley was the better athlete and Malone was a good athlete aswell but he worked his strength(upper body and arms) and conditioning much more than Chuck. That's also why Malone lasted longer than most of his peers from the 85 draft.

Barkley was the better player. People in ISH needed posters whom actually watched Barkley before injuries and before leaving to the Rockets as a 3rd option role player. Now that there is more video tape show of prime and peak Barkley they are realizing this.

[Reggie43]

Which year was Barkley at his best stats wise and compare that to Malone's.

This comparison is so much closer than what the diehards would want you to think, basically a wash wherein there should barely be any arguments if one gets picked over the other because each has his own set of strengths and weaknesses.

[AussieSteve]

Which year was Barkley at his best stats wise and compare that to Malone's.

This comparison is so much closer than what the diehards would want you to think, basically a wash wherein there should barely be any arguments if one gets picked over the other because each has his own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Look at their playoff performance. That is where the difference between the two becomes evident.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?482155-Better-Player-Barkley-or-Malone&p=14055021&viewfull=1#post14055021

And

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?482155-Better-Player-Barkley-or-Malone&p=14055747&viewfull=1#post14055747

But in terms of peak RS performance...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?482155-Better-Player-Barkley-or-Malone&p=14055115&viewfull=1#post14055115

[Reggie43]

Peak numbers of 31 ppg 56% fg 11.1 rbs 2.8 ast 1.6 spg .6bpg for Malone in 89-90 for 82 games looks pretty good to me so I dont see how one is clearly better than the other.

Barkley was the more versatile scorer and was more efficient in the playoffs especially but Malone was actually scoring more points than him. Barkley had more rebounds but Malone was the better defender. As I said in one of my previous post I dont see how you can say that one is clearly better than the other because they each had their strengths and weaknesses.

[Phoenix]

Peak numbers of 31 ppg 56% fg 11.1 rbs 2.8 ast 1.6 spg .6bpg for Malone in 89-90 for 82 games looks pretty good to me so I dont see how one is clearly better than the other.

Barkley was the more versatile scorer and was more efficient in the playoffs especially but Malone was actually scoring more points than him. Barkley had more rebounds but Malone was the better defender. As I said in one of my previous post I dont see how you can say that one is clearly better than the other because they each had their strengths and weaknesses.

Barkley's peak scoring year was 28.3 in 88 on 16 shots(mailman was 20 shots), 59% shooting, 63% on 2pointers, 67% TS. Mailman also had two other double digit scorers in that season, Stockton at 17ppg and Thurl Bailey at 14, then a massive drop-off. Barkley had 3 other double digit guys, Cliff Robinson at 19ppg, Mike Gminski at 17, Maurice Cheeks at 14ppg( Roy Hinson averaged 12 but he only played 29 games so not really including him except just a mention). I'm inclined to say that depending on team makeup and taking enough shots, he's comfortably matching Malones high mark but he wasnt out there putting up 20 shots a night. In that window of 88-91 he was 26.7ppg on 15.8 shots,58% and 63% 2point numbers.

I don't think Barkley was 'much' better peak for peak, but he was clearly. Subtle difference. Post peak clearly goes to Mailman, especially once Chuck joined the Rockets. And at that point, the difference was not only clear but sizable.

[Roundball_Rock]

Good points, Phoenix and Aussie. I think playoff performance is the biggest separator from the two. If you put Barkley on the Jazz he wins rings.

Their advanced stats give an edge to Barkley too.

Highest BPM's: CB 9.3, CB/KM 8.2, CB 7.8, CB/KM 7.5, CB 7.4.
Highest VORP's: CB 8.0, KM 7.7, CB 7.5, CB 7.4, KM 7.3.


Peak numbers of 31 ppg 56% fg 11.1 rbs 2.8 ast 1.6 spg .6bpg for Malone in 89-90 for 82 games looks pretty good to me so I dont see how one is clearly better than the other.

Which turned into 25/10/2 on 44% (-12% :oldlol: ) in the playoffs.

[Reggie43]

Barkley was more efficient in the playoffs but he was losing in the same rounds as Malone so how does playoff play make him clearly better?

Shaq was head and shoulders more efficient than Malone when they matched up in the playoffs but guess who won? Not buying the efficiency advantage making Barkley better because results matter along with tons of intangibles that Malone brought to the table like defense, leadership and playing the right way and being able to adapt to any style of play.

I prefer Malone but I also know Barkleys advantages so this is basically a wash for me if peak play is the only criteria.

[Phoenix]

Barkley lost 3 times to the Bulls alone between 90 and 93. Two of those occasions the Bulls went on to win the title. If he gets past Chicago those years it's either a trip to the conference finals at least( 90,91) or winning the championship in 93. Malone had multiple first round losses in 89,90, and 93. To teams like Golden State and Phoenix. Good squads but compared to the Bulls? There's levels to this. He did get to the conference finals in 92. We can zig zag their team playoff records in terms of how far they advanced in different seasons, but the point is who was the better playoff performer in a vaccum during their peak years. Barkley's peak scoring ability was much better in a vaccum and less susceptible to major efficiency drops come playoff time. Who got to the finals during their peaks? Barkley. Who won the MVP in their peaks? Barkley. And in a stronger half of the decade. Malone didnt sniff an MVP or finals until 97 when the league was post expansion and the 'dream team' stars were well on the back nine.

You say Malone adapted to any style of play, but he ran the 2 man game with Stockton for 20 years lol. What other styles of play did he show adaptability to? Barkley played on Philly, Phoenix and Houston and showing varying levels of adaptability ( by 96 he was past his prime,overweight and injured) but we saw Chuck in more scenarios than we did Malone to speak on who is more adaptive. He gets traded to Phoenix and wins the MVP in year one and nearly win a title. Hows that for adaptability lol? The results in their primes dont favor Malone. The results in their post prime days do favor him and that's been said 100 times already.

I was talking about efficiency in the context of their scoring, specifically PPG since you mentioned Malones 31ppg. I was countering your point about Malones scoring to say you need to look under the hood a bit more. Barkley could generate offense pretty much independently. Push-ups, getting the ball on the wing and taking his man off the dribble, grabbing the rebound and going coast to coast ( and could also playmake on the break as opposed to being on the finishing end of Stocktons passes). Its pretty obvious to me watching who had the greater overall peak skillset, who's numbers were better in context, and who was better within the context of the state of the league through the 90s.

[GreatHILL]

sir charles will always be a better player than malone

[Reggie43]

Barkley also had multiple first round losses like Malone but the bad thing is he actually missed the playoffs at his peak twice.

The real question here is that do people think the offensive versatility/efficiency advantage of Barkley that actually produced less points than Malone is enough to overcome the defensive advantage of Malone and his other intangibles. Malone was actually a legit defensive anchor in the 2nd half of his career.

[Phoenix]

He missed the playoffs in 88 but you think if you gave him Stockton, Bailey, Darrel Griffith and Mark Eaton he's doing that? Malone got 47 wins with that crew. How much better you think he is doing that year with Gminski and an aging Maurice Cheeks? Likely not much better if at all. Charles had one first round loss in 89 to the Knicks in his peak. How many other times did he lose in the first round in his career where you'd hold him primarily accountable for? The real stain in his peak was 92 after falling out with Sixers management leading to the Suns trade. We saw the immediate dividends that paid, but fair enough if you want to use the falling out with Philly as an intangible argument about leadership or what have you. It's not a tangible one for who's the better oncourt player. Charles wasn't a worse player in 92 than Malone all because he fell out with Harold Katz.

Both have several years losing in the 2nd round, a few conference finals, a few first round losses. What did each guy do in that window of time where their peaks collided? Barkley was either winning MVP or getting robbed of one(90). He was losing to Chicago on 3 occasions which generally would have been the case for everyone else at that point ( other than 90 seeing as Chicago lost to Detroit). Otherwise theres no shame in losing to the peak Bulls team who went on to win the title. That's not equal to losing to Golden State or Phoenix in the first round. We're nitpicking degrees of failure here to find that little edge in the discourse. Barkley lost in the first round in 89! Yeah but Malone lost in 90! Those kinds of arguments end up a little petty. If you watched ball in the 90s you generally knew what the pecking order was with these two across the span of their careers. We can spin ourselves dizzy with numbers and who lost in what round from one year to the next. Watching these two extensively back then I dont need to strictly refer to google for my arguments.

[Reggie43]

Somebody commented Malone's first round losses, I bring up that Barkley had the same and actually missed the playoffs outright twice just to make the discussion fair. I see nothing wrong with that.

It is pretty obvious that Barkley was the more popular player because of the skillset and attitude so I just want to make the discussion fair on both sides that this is not as clear cut like the die hards make it out to be.

Like I said on one of my posts this is basically a wash but I prefer Malone because he is a better leader, plays the right way, is more coachable, can adapt to any style of play, plays better defense and is just more reliable all around on and off the court.

[Phoenix]

Ultimately neither one of them won a title so :confusedshrug: I'm not going through each year at this point but between 84 and 2000( when Barkley retired) they probably have similar numbers of first round losses and 2nd round losses. Probably similar enough numbers of conference finals. Then take into account the first 8 years or so they played in different conferences, so Malone losing in the first or 2nd round out west and Barkley doing the same out east with different teammates and different competition is probably the least relevant 'point' to make in the comparison.

Hell if we wanna go deeper into that, when Barkley goes west in 93 he immediately gets to the finals( something Malone failed to do for 8 years), and Mailman loses in the first round to the same Sonics team Phoenix beats in the conference finals( Barkley 44/24 in game 7 BTW). In 94 they both lose in the 2nd round( in Barkleys case to the eventual champion Rockets). In 95 Utah loses in the first round( to the eventual champion Rockets) then Phoenix loses in the 2nd round to the same team. In 96 Phoenix loses in the first round and Utah makes the conference final. So how much difference are we even talking between 93 and 96, outside of Barkley making the finals in 93? You're splitting hairs those years. Then Malone becomes definitively better from 96 onwards. Two MVPs and two finals trips achieved in a 3 year window from 97 to 99. Malone was much better as an older player and his team netted better results. We already know this and noone argues for Barkley after 95.

As far as things like playing the right way, what does that mean? Barkley played the wrong way? That's a vague statement. Same as being adaptable to any style of play. Based on what? He and Stockton ran the PnR their entire careers. How many styles and systems did he play in for you to draw that conclusion?

[Marchesk]

I voted for the same, but I'd take Barkley in his prime and Malone over an entire career. But I have no strong feeling either way. Similar to ranking Dr J or Moses Malone.

[Roundball_Rock]

If we are comparing team success between the two players, Barkley has implicitly won the debate. Malone played his entire prime with a top 25-30 all-time player and won nothing. Barkley's "sidekick" was Hersey Hawkins, a 1x all-star, in Philly. He did have KJ in Phoenix but for only one year of Barkley being Barkley and KJ decided to choke in the finals while Barkley showed up. If you give Barkley Stockton for his entire prime, he wins rings. The problem Utah had was its two HOF players consistently shrank in the playoffs but if you have Barkley that problem is half gone and Stockton would have done enough to win with Barkley's production.

Utah had a long window to contend. They won 55 games in 1990; they won 55 games in 2000. So where were the chips?

We will now get the "Jordan" get out of jail free excuse card. :oldlol: "Jordan" doesn't explain losing in the West time and again. "Jordan" doesn't explain Malone shrinking in the finals. Malone went from 60% TS in 97' to 49% in the finals--yet another double digit dip. Last I checked, "Jordan" wasn't guarding him. It was Rodman, Longley, Williams.

[Reggie43]

It took a while for op to make this a Jordan thread lol. I already said my piece about the comparison and taking one over the other is not really that bad outside of the diehards. Goodluck to anyone who would like to discuss the "Jordan" angle in this with OP :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It took a while for op to make this a Jordan thread lol. I already said my piece about the comparison and taking one over the other is not really that bad outside of the diehards. Goodluck to anyone who would like to discuss the "Jordan" angle in this with OP :lol

Jordan probably doesn't have anything to do with it. But RR is spot-on w/ the playoff talk

Here's a recent post I made on the two:




'90-96 Barkley in the playoffs: 7 OBPM and overall ~7 BPM on 57%TS
'90-98 Malone in the playoffs: 5 OBPM and overall 6 BPM on 53%TS

44 points and 24 rebounds in Game 7 vs the Sonics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP1MV2rSxIU)
Eliminates the Warriors scoring 56 points on 73% shooting (mostly on jumpshots and threes) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuR-GbZma1Q)
40-point finals game against Jordan. Shot 60%+ and had 13 rebounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EcC2FC-8wo)

Now picture Barkley playing with someone like Stockton? We know that Chuck could play either uptempo or @ a slow pace (w/ Houston). The havoc he and Stockton would create in p&r is a coaches dream. And as shown, Barkley could maintain high efficiency in the playoffs. Which also means there aren't as many wasted possesions for Stockton. The two would be unguardable.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?482063-John-Stockon-s-Offensive-Collapse-in-the-97-and-98-Playoffs&p=14052333&viewfull=1#post14052333

Barkley's defense didn't matter much if you're arguing impact. Or who the actual better player was. Their respective playoff performances were telltale. Prime Barkley was on another level.

[Roundball_Rock]

Jordan probably doesn't have anything to do with it. But RR is spot-on w/ the playoff talk

He is obsessed with MJ (claims to not be a MJ fan, doe! :lol )--the comment was a preemption of nuts like him and tpols who invoke "Jordan" as an excuse for all losses by guys like Malone, Stockton, Miller but you have to be MJ obsessed to think that made the thread about Jordan. In his sick mind, promoting Barkley (who played against MJ) somehow is anti-Jordan because it is at the expense of Malone (who played against MJ). Heads it is anti-MJ, tails it is anti-MJ too. :oldlol:

If you put Barkley on the Jazz they win rings--if you put Malone on the Suns or Sixers they do worse. That's the bottom line, Jordan or no Jordan. Barkley was that good and the Jazz that good if they got more from their #1.


'90-96 Barkley in the playoffs: 7 OBPM and overall ~7 BPM on 57%TS
'90-98 Malone in the playoffs: 5 OBPM and overall 6 BPM on 53%TS

That is pretty stark--and Barkley was steadily declining each year after 93'.

[Reggie43]

The only reason I liked the Jazz and Malone is because of those deep playoff runs wherein they faced the Bulls in the Finals where I absolutely wanted Jordan to lose (Brother and 2 of my friends are diehard Jordan fans while another is actually a Kukoc fan) But leave it to Roundball to be labeled as a Jordan stan :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The only reason I liked the Jazz and Malone is because of those deep playoff runs wherein they faced the Bulls in the Finals where I absolutely wanted Jordan to lose (Brother and 2 of my friends are diehard Jordan fans while another is actually a Kukoc fan) But leave it to Roundball to be labeled as a Jordan stan :oldlol:

Any thoughts on Barkley's superior postseason play?

His offense was high octane. And at a tier with just about anyone.

[Roundball_Rock]

Any thoughts on Barkley's superior postseason play?

His offense was high octane. And at a tier with just about anyone.

Nope--he is hear to talk MJ, evidently. :lol

[Reggie43]

Any thoughts on Barkley's superior postseason play?

His offense was high octane. And at a tier with just about anyone.

I know about Barkley's advantages but should I be faulted for preferring Malone? I already said they are basically equal imo.

[Whoah10115]

The only reason I liked the Jazz and Malone is because of those deep playoff runs wherein they faced the Bulls in the Finals where I absolutely wanted Jordan to lose (Brother and 2 of my friends are diehard Jordan fans while another is actually a Kukoc fan) But leave it to Roundball to be labeled as a Jordan stan :oldlol:

He knows all!

[97 bulls]

I have a question. If Barkley is so much better than Malone, why didn't Barkley Beat out Malone for All-NBA teams throughout their careers?

You guys are putting too much emphasis on 1 year.

[kawhileonard2]

I have a question. If Barkley is so much better than Malone, why didn't Barkley Beat out Malone for All-NBA teams throughout their careers?

You guys are putting too much emphasis on 1 year.

Yeah agreed! Malone was all nba every year except 1988. From 1989-1999 he was all nba each year 1st team. From 1992, 1994-1998 Barkley was not 1st team any year.

[Roundball_Rock]

I have a question. If Barkley is so much better than Malone, why didn't Barkley Beat out Malone for All-NBA teams throughout their careers?

You guys are putting too much emphasis on 1 year.

They both usually took the two F first team spots when both were in their primes. Exceptions are 88' when it was Barkley/Bird, 92' when it was Malone/Mullin and then from 94' on when Barkley no longer was 1st team (Pippen/Malone from 1994-1996).

We would need to see the all-NBA voting results from 1988-1993 to get a better handle on the gap between the two. If anyone has a New York Times subscription, you should get the votes for some years in their archive.

We can use MVP, but it won't tell us as much since Barkley was playing with Hersey Hawkins in Philly and Malone with a top 25-30 ATG in Utah.

1986: Barkley 6th
1987: Barkley 6th, Malone 12th
1988: Barkley 4th, Malone 8th
1989: Malone 3rd, Barkley 6th
1990: Barkley 2nd, Malone 4th
1991: Barkley 4th, Malone 5th
1992: Malone 4th, Barkley 12th
1993: Barkley 1st, Malone 8th
1994: Malone 7th, Barkley 10th
1995: Malone 3rd, Barkley 6th

Barkley was consistently ahead of Malone until he began to decline in 94'. This is surprising since Malone was on better teams, but suggests MVP voters recognized Barkley was the better player despite worse team results.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I know about Barkley's advantages but should I be faulted for preferring Malone? I already said they are basically equal imo.

I mean, you're not 'faulted' or anything. But you're a Reggie guy taking a dude that routinely choked in the playoffs.

And who despite playing 'good defense' had less overall impact. Documented with A) big game performances and B) overall numbers / postseason efficiency

If this were career vs career? I could see the case for Malone's longevity. For sure. This is prime vs prime though, and Barkley being higher quality checks out.

[Round Mound]

They both usually took the two F first team spots when both were in their primes. Exceptions are 88' when it was Barkley/Bird, 92' when it was Malone/Mullin and then from 94' on when Barkley no longer was 1st team (Pippen/Malone from 1994-1996).

We would need to see the all-NBA voting results from 1988-1993 to get a better handle on the gap between the two. If anyone has a New York Times subscription, you should get the votes for some years in their archive.

We can use MVP, but it won't tell us as much since Barkley was playing with Hersey Hawkins in Philly and Malone with a top 25-30 ATG in Utah.

1986: Barkley 6th
1987: Barkley 6th, Malone 12th
1988: Barkley 4th, Malone 8th
1989: Malone 3rd, Barkley 6th
1990: Barkley 2nd, Malone 4th
1991: Barkley 4th, Malone 5th
1992: Malone 4th, Barkley 12th
1993: Barkley 1st, Malone 8th
1994: Malone 7th, Barkley 10th
1995: Malone 3rd, Barkley 6th

Barkley was consistently ahead of Malone until he began to decline in 94'. This is surprising since Malone was on better teams, but suggests MVP voters recognized Barkley was the better player despite worse team results.

:applause:...Any person that watched Barkley and Malone from 85 to 93 knows Barkley was clearly better (except for Jazz fans ofcourse).

Barkley could take over games in ways Malone couldn't. Barkley could get you 30 points and 20 rebounds in a heart beat.

His injuries in 94-96 slowed him down a bit and by 96 he just culdn't move, leap, agility gone etc that's when Malone became better.

Malone was a better post defender, ft shooter and had a superior longevity than Barkley. All other skills: post play, shooting, ballhandling, going coast to coast, rebonding, passing, floor defense, help defense, shot blocking, stealing and clutch play or shooting Barkley > Malone.

And no Malone was not a better scorer: he just shot more attempts and way worse efficiency. If you go by PPG then Allen Iverson was a better scorer than Kobe Bryant which is not true ofcourse.

[Reggie43]

I mean, you're not 'faulted' or anything. But you're a Reggie guy whose picking a dude who routinely choked in the playoffs.

I liked all kinds of players not just Miller types, the closest to his stye of game that I liked is Steve Smith. The best playstyle I liked is actually similar to Pippen, guys like Kirilenko, Artest, Shawn Marion, Odom etc and shotblockers like Mutombo, Zo etc. Every player on those Pacers team in the 90s i liked especially in 98.

I liked the Jazz because they are a disciplined chemistry based team like the Pacers back in the day. Fundamentally sound, always playing within the offense and trying to find the open man. Playing together on both ends. I have no control on how they seemingly underperformed but I liked the way they played.

[Roundball_Rock]

:applause:...Any person that watched Barkley and Malone from 85 to 93 knows Barkley was clearly better (except for Jazz fans ofcourse).

Barkley could take over games in ways Malone couldn't. Barkley could get you 30 points and 20 rebounds in a heart beat.

His injuries in 94-96 slowed him down a bit and by 96 he just culdn't move, leap, agility gone etc that's when Malone became better.

Malone was a better post defender, ft shooter and had a superior longevity than Barkley. All other skills: post play, shooting, ballhandling, going coast to coast, rebonding, passing, floor defense, help defense, shot blocking, stealing and clutch play or shooting Barkley > Malone.

And no Malone was not a better scorer: he just shot more attempts and way worse efficiency. If you go by PPG then Allen Iverson was a better scorer than Kobe Bryant which is jot true ofcourse.



:applause:

Jazz fans thought D Will>CP too. :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I liked all kinds of players not just Miller types, the closest to his stye of game that I liked is Steve Smith. The best playstyle I liked is actually similar to Pippen, guys like Kirilenko, Artest, Shawn Marion, Odom etc and shotblockers like Mutombo, Zo etc. Every player on those Pacers team in the 90s i liked especially in 98.

I liked the Jazz because they are a disciplined chemistry based team like the Pacers back in the day. Fundamentally sound, always playing within the offense and trying to find the open man. Playing together on both ends. I have no control on how they seemingly underperformed but I liked the way they played.

Sure, I don't doubt you did. Although knowing that Miller raised his level of play in the postseason, you could appreciate Barkley doing that too. His numbers prime vs prime outclass Malone's.

I liked the Jazz too. Ditto with Sloan. To me, had Barkley swapped places with Malone, Utah wins in some of the years they fell short.

[Reggie43]

Sure, I don't doubt you did. Although knowing that Miller raised his level of play in the postseason, you could appreciate Barkley doing that too. His numbers prime vs prime outclass Malone's.

I liked the Jazz too. Ditto with Sloan. To me, had Barkley swapped places with Malone, Utah wins in some of the years they fell short.

We just have to agree to disagree. Barkley winning a ring being swapped with Malone is not an outrageous opinion but not really sold on it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Almost everyone liked watching the Jazz. They had a top 20 ATG, a top 25-30 second ATG, then other good players like Hornacek, J. Malone, and Eaton. Sloan was a respected coach, a Bulls legend.

That doesn't erase the issues their two HOF players had on the PO stage--especially the finals stage.


To me, had Barkley swapped places with Malone, Utah wins in some of the years they fell short

Agree. That's the difference between the two. This isn't a diss of Malone. He is top 20 all-time and Malone is ahead of Barkley all-time justifiably so due to his longevity but prime versus prime Barkley was better. We can respect legends while acknowledging they had flaws.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Agree. That's the difference between the two. This isn't a diss of Malone. He is top 20 all-time and Malone is ahead of Barkley all-time justifiably so due to his longevity but prime versus prime Barkley was better. We can respect legends while acknowledging they had flaws.

Yeah we're on the same page here.

Think of all the big and close games Utah played in. Lot of them came down to the final possesions with the smallest margin of error. Give Barkley, a superior offensive player, that kind of opportunity and he probably cashes in. It clearly is never that simple, but if you're replacing a playoff 'choker' with a dude who upped the ante in big games, it couldn't hurt.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah we're on the same page here.

Think of all the big and close games Utah played in. Lot of them came down to the final possesions with the smallest margin of error. Give Barkley, a superior offensive player, that kind of opportunity and he probably cashes in. It clearly is never that simple, but if you're replacing a playoff 'choker' with a dude who upped the ante in big games, it couldn't hurt.

Yup. People forget how close Utah actually came, not just in the finals but the WCF and other series (e.g., even taking champ Houston to the final game in the first round in 95'). Barkley would be a clear upgrade through the 1993 season and I would like their chances in the PO with Barkley in 94' for sure (declined but had a strong PO) and maybe 95' as well (would have to check how Malone performed in 95').

I don't think the Jazz with Barkley win 5 rings or something. I can just see them cashing in once or twice.

[Phoenix]

That's a tough one. It's possible that Barkley between 90 and 93 gets Utah to a final or two but I don't think they're beating Chicago in those years. 94 Utah got to the conference finals. If Barkley gets them that far is he the difference vs Houston? And does Utah then beat the Knicks? That's tricky too. Utah loses in the first round in 95 in 5, I don't know if Barkley at that point is the difference. If Houston is out it's pretty wide open from there through the finals where they'd see Orlando( who while talented was prone to a veteran, smartly coached and disciplined team but 95 Barkley certainly was no Hakeem). Funny enough 94 and 95 Barkley may have a little better chance at winning than 90 to 93 Barkley despite being a lesser version of himself then. Depends on the matchups as always....

[Roundball_Rock]

How would you rank these teams?

1988-1995 Jazz with Barkley
1988-1995 Jazz (actual, so Malone)
1988-1992 Blazers
1994-1995 Rockets
1993-1995 Suns (the versions with Barkley compare to the "twin" Barkley on the Jazz)

It would turn on these. If you assume, like I do, that Barkley on the Jazz is an upgrade, then some of those WCF losses or even potentially an earlier loss (e.g., 95' first round) could turn into a finals trip and then the question is can they beat the Bulls, Pistons, Knicks, etc.?

The Blazers and Suns almost took the Bulls to 7. I think the Jazz with Barkley are better than those teams. Whether they win is tough but you would think, like we talked about in the Malone/Price hypothetical, they would cash in at some point with their fatal flaw (PO scoring/efficiency) cured.

1994 and 1995 the Suns took the Rockets to 7, the Jazz took the 95' Rockets to the limit. If Barkley on the Jazz>these teams then those outcomes likely shift.

94' would be their best chance. Barkley wasn't Barkley anymore but still a top 10 guy and had a strong PO. The Knicks weren't a juggernaut. They needed 7 against the Bulls, 7 against the Pacers and then had another 7 game series against the Rockets. A Jazz team with Barkley would have a good shot against the Knicks.


Funny enough 94 and 95 Barkley may have a little better chance at winning than 90 to 93 Barkley despite being a lesser version of himself then.

Yup, ironically. :lol

[Phoenix]

It's tricky ranking the teams spread over multiple seasons since there is variance between the respective teams year over year, then you get into the relative strength of the league 5-7 years apart. 95 for example represents not only expansion which spreads the talent, but an influx of younger guys and most 90's major stars on the wrong side of 30. Still great and MVP caliber in some cases but I think it means a team like Utah making the finals in 97 doesn't happen 5 years earlier. 93, for example, was the convergence point where the league had forged its own identity from the 80s with top flight prime talent spearheading some really good teams.

Boiling down to the molecules where you're trying to go with this, I'm going to look at 92,93, 94 and 95...since I believe the Jazz in those seasons mixed with Barkley makes the most compelling cases. There may be more potent versions of Barkley (88 to 90 for example) but I don't think Utah was at the point of strongly considering whether they get to the finals. Or you could say 88-90 Barkley didn't have the intangibles of 92-94 Barkley so there's a degree of trade-off between peak ability and experience. Once you get past 92 we have data that Barkley can get the right team to the finals or at least the conference finals. So let's theorize shall we...?

In 92 Utah gets to the conference finals and loses in 5. I think that series is chiefly on the back of how badly Porter nuked Stockton than whether Barkley outplays Malone to the point of reversing the outcome. But let's say he tangibly does and he gets to the finals. The pivotal matchup then isn't MJ vs Drexler but Barkley vs whoever the Bulls use to neutralize him. He's going to see heavy doses of Pip and Grant who are a hell of a frontcourt defensive pair. They can't match him in strength but will try to disrupt with length, mobility and athleticism(we see this matchup a year later so we have an idea how it will go). MJ will likely spend alot of time pressing Stockton to disrupt the flow of the offense. Barkley will get his numbers, but I don't think it's enough here so I'd roll with the Bulls in a well-contested 6 game series. Jeff Malone was a good scorer but really, there's nobody here to offset MJ offensively/defensively( the Blazers at least had Drexler to keep him honest and the Suns used KJ to stay in front of MJ and they had Majerle and IIRC Dumas in spurts. MJ ended up going off of course). Pip is likely to be unleashed in this series too. I can see something like 22/9/7 for him. MJ won't need to go 41ppg batshit crazy but he'll probably drop like 35. You know there's gonna be a 40 or 50 point game in there somewhere.

93 is interesting. If Barkley is on the Jazz then Phoenix is not in the title hunt( and probably not in the playoffs with KJ missing 30 plus games). Utah wins 47 games and ends up losing to Seattle in 5 in the playoffs. So let's insert Barkley here: Charles got 62 wins out of a Suns team with the aforementioned KJ missing 30+. Now KJ didn't make huge dividends in the win column as Barkley still more than kept them winning, which speaks to his floor-raising ability here. So I'm transposing that on a less offensively potent but healthier Utah squad and suggest they win around 60 games. This gets the top seed and the same general path Phoenix saw. And I think the net results end up largely the same. We've taken 97 and 98 and pushed the results back a half decade where Utah falls back to back in competitive 6 game series.

[Phoenix]

con't

94 there's falloff from Barkley but when his body allows, he still has thar floor raising/ impose his will ability. Phoenix won 56 this year. Utah wins 53 amidst the transition from Jeff Malone to Hornacek. In spite of ISH silliness with the 'wipe face' free throw meme, Hornacek was a good upgrade at that point seeing as J.Malone fell right off a cliff after that. Moving on, the Suns took Houston to 7 games. Outside of game 5, KJ balled out this series. Barkley averaged 23/13/4 on 46% shooting. I don't recall what happened to Majerle here but he was dogshit as the third option (9/4/2 30% :wtf:). That alone may have been the difference. The Jazz the next round lose in 5. Mailman drops 26/13/5 on 43%. Now outside of Barkley/Malone in a bubble, the Jazz didn't have anyone like KJ( 27/10/4 44%). Hornacek was the 2nd scorer at 17ppg/44% and Stockton third at 12ppg/42%.....not great. So what likely happens? Barkley without a strong second scorer increases his scoring but we see from earlier that his efficiency isn't 'peak Barkley' level or even 93 level. Beyond the team dynamics of replacing Malone with Barkley, just as a simple plug and play exercise I would say Barkley here doesn't get Utah over the hump. I don't want to rely strictly on stats but what they suggest to me is that whatever their relative scoring ability is in 94, Barkley isn't in 93 form where he wasn't going to be denied other than to Chicago. Hakeem on the other side was 29/14/5/4 56%, full-on BITW mode and supported by the depth of Thorpe, Maxwell, Jet, Cassell, Horry and Elie. There was no defined '2nd star' there but the depth of that team and how well the role players played off Hakeem is underrated. A perfect case of where we can't always measure the ability of a team by the names on the roster.

So we're onto to 95. Barkley's efficiency advantage on top of scoring volume has clearly fallen off. Somehow the team manages 59 wins with Charles missing 14 games, KJ 35, Manning comes on-board and gives scoring punch but it's a hodge-podge of a team gobbled together when you look at how many people started significant numbers of games. In any event Utah and Phoenix are trending in different directions, and this isn't dis-associated from Malone and Barkley starting to do the same. Not immediately obvious judging by the W/L column( Utah 60 wins to Phoenix 59), and Houston is really the bane for both of these guys( and their teams) in 94 and 95. But in the first round, Houston takes out Utah in 5. Malone delivers a more than solid 30/13/4 47%. The next round, it's another to the brink series with Phoenix. Barkley delivers 22/13/3 46%. A percentage point worse % on 8 less ppg volume, it's hard to make a case that Charles raises the tide here. KJ again delivers(28/9/4 on a nuclear 58%) and goes off for 43 in game 4 and 46 in game 7. Barkley in the same do or die? Grabbed 23 boards, but only 18 points on 7/16. Ain't this a bitch :oldlol:? If you couple 93 Barkley with 94 or 95 KJ, those series with Chicago and Houston are very interesting.

[Phoenix]

end-note

I think when you look at it, and it's just the way the cookie crumbles, Barkley and the best team and year for him to win missed each other by like a season. I think 93 Barkley on the 94 Jazz, or even the 94 Suns, could have gotten by Houston and won the title. Or if you take like 94 KJ back a year and he performs roughly as well against the Bulls as he did Houston? Well, the teams each magically scored 106.7 PPG. The biggest point differential in any game was a 10 point win for Phoenix. You can't get more 'down to the wire' than game 6 ( we all know the final sequences from the Paxson shot to the last second Grant rejection of KJs last shot attempt).

In a reality where KJ provides 94/95 production like he did against Houston? Let's just say I'm not so narrow-minded in my view of the Bulls to not consider the possibility of that series outcome flipping. There's so much myth and legend attached to '6-0' that alternative outcomes sometimes fall by the wayside and dismissed with 'the Bulls will always find a way to prevail'. I think that notion lowers the bar on their competition and has the opposite intended effect for someone arguing on behalf of Chicago.

[Phoenix]

You know.... talking about 88-90 Barkley above..... I said I don't think Barkley gets Utah to the finals ( it means they'd need to take out the Lakers in 88 and 89). There's a window in 90 where Barkley, in the eyes of many the MVP that year, gets the Jazz past the Suns in round one. It would then be Utah having to get past the Lakers ( who lost 4-1 to Phoenix so not inconceivable),and past what may be the best Blazer squad. That's a good matchup. If Utah manages to get out of the west Detriot is waiting. That's quite the gauntlet overall. I'm less concerned about Barkley's ability to rise to the occasion in a vacuum than I am his supporting cast series by series. But I thought it worth mentioning since 90 Barkley is IMO good enough for a finals run based on the right team. He was a Tpols wet dream in advanced metrics that year. Top 5 in VORP, winshares, Offensive +/-, and leads the league with 128 ORtg. I want to stop short of making excuses but he's one of these guys whose peak was wasted on the wrong team more than perhaps any of the other MVP caliber guys of his era.

Roundball, this is what 3 cups of morning coffee looks like. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Good stuff. :cheers:

Yeah, 92' Barkley doesn't change the outcome in retrospect since Stockton getting crushed by Porter was the difference. If they got to the finals we know Barkley would put up numbers against the Bulls from the following year but they would need J. Malone to have a big series. The other difference is Pippen, Grant were better in 92' than 93' so the 92' Bulls are a tougher task than the 93' team worn out by two consecutive finals/four consecutive ECF runs (plus the Olympics for MJ, Pip).


This gets the top seed and the same general path Phoenix saw. And I think the net results end up largely the same. We've taken 97 and 98 and pushed the results back a half decade where Utah falls back to back in competitive 6 game series.

Agreed upon further thought.


In spite of ISH silliness with the 'wipe face' free throw meme, Hornacek was a good upgrade at that point seeing as J.Malone fell right off a cliff after that.

Agreed, Hornacek was good, especially in his prime which is what he was around 94'.


Barkley without a strong second scorer increases his scoring but we see from earlier that his efficiency isn't 'peak Barkley' level or even 93 level. Beyond the team dynamics of replacing Malone with Barkley, just as a simple plug and play exercise I would say Barkley here doesn't get Utah over the hump.

94' is where I think they could get over the hump and win. One benefit of Barkley being more efficient is it helps his teammates, although it is a chicken and egg thing: if they did more scoring, Malone would benefit as well.


The next round, it's another to the brink series with Phoenix. Barkley delivers 22/13/3 46%. A percentage point worse % on 8 less ppg volume, it's hard to make a case that Charles raises the tide here

True.


If you couple 93 Barkley with 94 or 95 KJ, those series with Chicago and Houston are very interesting.

:lol That is ironic. KJ was a good playoff performer--except in 93', the one year there were real expectations, which to me either is a coincidence or choking under pressure/expectations. The latter is more likely IMO.


There's so much myth and legend attached to '6-0' that alternative outcomes sometimes fall by the wayside and dismissed with 'the Bulls will always find a way to prevail'. I think that notion lowers the bar on their competition and has the opposite intended effect for someone arguing on behalf of Chicago.

Another irony: they will defend any 90's star (except Pippen) to the death because they think it diminishes MJ's comp to criticize in any way another 90's star--but they will then say those other teams never had a shot no matter what--which diminishes MJ's comp. :lol Look at the Miller thread. The Pacers narrowly lost with Miller going 17/2/2 but somehow if Miller went 21/3/3 or 23/3/3 the Pacers still would lose.


There's a window in 90 where Barkley, in the eyes of many the MVP that year, gets the Jazz past the Suns in round one.

Maybe a finals loss? Tough run of teams, though.


He was a Tpols wet dream in advanced metrics that year. Top 5 in VORP, winshares, Offensive +/-, and leads the league with 128 ORtg.


Roundball, this is what 3 cups of morning coffee looks like.

:lol to both comments.

I had to cut down some of your quotes to get under the 3,500 limit BTW.

[Whoah10115]

It would have been great to see Barkley play with Stockton.

The only knock on Stockton is that he was too unselfish. Malone runs the floor probably better than any player ever, and in the pick n' roll is unbelievable. But given Barkley can literally always get his own shot, as well as get someone else a shot...maybe Stockton's assist numbers wouldn't have hit 14 but could've stayed consistently 11-12 and, beyond maybe increasing his PPG, he'd have been more like Nash who could drop 25 no problem. Nash didn't always do it, but in pointing out how stats limit perspectives, what Nash has in his favor over Stockton is his his scoring ability.

Stockton could have been more selfish with Barkley.

[Phoenix]

I had to cut down some of your quotes to get under the 3,500 limit BTW.

Most of the time I'm on my phone when replying here. This morning I had my desktop/keyboard. You see what that can mean for the post limit combined with caffeine :lol.

As for 1990, that's tough. I would take 90 Barkley over 90 Drexler but that Portland squad would have been a tough out. It's either a narrow loss to the Blazers in the WCFs or a 5 game series for Detroit in the finals. The Pistons have an assortment of bodies to throw at him...Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Salley. Philly never got to face the peak Pistons squads in the playoffs so we don't even have a reference point for how Charles performs. I'm sure he probably ends up with some 25/13/4 line but he'll work for those numbers.

[Roundball_Rock]

Most of the time I'm on my phone when replying here. This morning I had my desktop/keyboard. You see what that can mean for the post limit combined with caffeine

:lol Hey I can understand. I just wanted to note that because some of the quotes I had were cut-off without the full discussion because of the limit.


I would take 90 Barkley over 90 Drexler but that Portland squad would have been a tough out. It's either a narrow loss to the Blazers in the WCFs or a 5 game series for Detroit in the finals. The Pistons have an assortment of bodies to throw at him...Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Salley.

Agreed. Either way, a higher ceiling than the Jazz with Malone.

The argument for Malone is longevity, that he gave them a full decade's worth of contention but when the result of that is 0 chips it doesn't mean the same.

[Phoenix]

It would have been great to see Barkley play with Stockton.

The only knock on Stockton is that he was too unselfish. Malone runs the floor probably better than any player ever, and in the pick n' roll is unbelievable. But given Barkley can literally always get his own shot, as well as get someone else a shot...maybe Stockton's assist numbers wouldn't have hit 14 but could've stayed consistently 11-12 and, beyond maybe increasing his PPG, he'd have been more like Nash who could drop 25 no problem. Nash didn't always do it, but in pointing out how stats limit perspectives, what Nash has in his favor over Stockton is his his scoring ability.

Stockton could have been more selfish with Barkley.

There was conversation some weeks ago about Stockton's scoring holding back the potential of that duo. Part of that unselfishness was in part due to his own limitations as a scorer. He's way more likely to play out the PnR so that Malone ends up with the ball than calling his own number. He was more opportunistic with his shot attempts and not someone you'd really fear to break the game open with his own offense. I actually think playing with Barkley nullifies him to some degree, because Charles could call his own number. He would be getting less PnR assists and find himself more in a spot of finding Charles in the post and watching him back his way into a scoring opportunity. Or Barkley grabbing the rebound and going coast to coast. This creates less playmaking opportunities for Stockton. And shoehorning Chuck into an offense built around the PnR nullifies some of his own offensive creativity and playmaking.

Which is where I usually enter Mark Price into the conversation. We don't even need to go as far as Nash when we have a guy right in Stockton's era that was kind of a precursor to the Nash mold, but without rules that expressly enhance his impact(like 2004 onwards).I think Price in that short peak window may have been a better option just as a scorer. He was more than fine letting it fly with a bit of daylight or doing his patented 'split the pick' move. Was also a quicker slasher forcing the defense to collapse where he can dump off for easy bucket. And Price was no slouch himself as a passer. I'd go as far as to say a Barkley-Price duo in the early 90's would be the best of both worlds here since they can both create their own offense better than their Jazz counterparts.

This video has a good breakdown:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sua9u318wGo

[Roundball_Rock]

Some of it was Stockton's limited scoring ability but some of it was he was too conservative. He would tend to take only wide open shots or layups (so his percentages look much better than his scoring value on the court). Well, how many of those a game was he going to get, especially against good defenses?


Which is where I usually enter Mark Price into the conversation. We don't even need to go as far as Nash when we have a guy right in Stockton's era that was kind of a precursor to the Nash mold, but without rules that expressly enhance his impact(like 2004 onwards).I think Price in that short peak window may have been a better option just as a scorer. He was more than fine letting it fly with a bit of daylight or doing his patented 'split the pick' move. Was also a quicker slasher forcing the defense to collapse where he can dump off for easy bucket. And Price was no slouch himself as a passer. I'd go as far as to say a Barkley-Price duo in the early 90's would be the best of both worlds here since they can both create their own offense better than their Jazz counterparts.

Agreed. That is probably the other side of this equation: Price in place of Stockton versus Barkley in place of Malone. In both cases the Jazz's window would shorten a lot, in Price's case he wasn't a star after 94'. Do Malone-Price cash in and make the shorter window worth it?

1992 may be their best shot. Porter destroyed Price. How would Price do? Price had some bad series too but I think Price gives you a higher ceiling in a given series than Stockton. Careers? Stockton easily but if you are giving me something like the 1992 playoffs with both players, the Price is right.

[Whoah10115]

There was conversation some weeks ago about Stockton's scoring holding back the potential of that duo. Part of that unselfishness was in part due to his own limitations as a scorer. He's way more likely to play out the PnR so that Malone ends up with the ball than calling his own number. He was more opportunistic with his shot attempts and not someone you'd really fear to break the game open with his own offense. I actually think playing with Barkley nullifies him to some degree, because Charles could call his own number. He would be getting less PnR assists and find himself more in a spot of finding Charles in the post and watching him back his way into a scoring opportunity. Or Barkley grabbing the rebound and going coast to coast. This creates less playmaking opportunities for Stockton. And shoehorning Chuck into an offense built around the PnR nullifies some of his own offensive creativity and playmaking.

Which is where I usually enter Mark Price into the conversation. We don't even need to go as far as Nash when we have a guy right in Stockton's era that was kind of a precursor to the Nash mold, but without rules that expressly enhance his impact(like 2004 onwards).I think Price in that short peak window may have been a better option just as a scorer. He was more than fine letting it fly with a bit of daylight or doing his patented 'split the pick' move. Was also a quicker slasher forcing the defense to collapse where he can dump off for easy bucket. And Price was no slouch himself as a passer. I'd go as far as to say a Barkley-Price duo in the early 90's would be the best of both worlds here since they can both create their own offense better than their Jazz counterparts.

This video has a good breakdown:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sua9u318wGo

I don't actually disagree with any of this. One be interesting to see Price and Barkley. But I wonder if I'd like a more aggressive rim attacker like KJ. He and Barkley traded injury periods, and it would have been very interesting to see KJ at his best playing with Barkley at his. Outside of the beginning of the 93-94 season, never actually happened.

Would still want to see Stockton and Barkley for two seasons. Price still a more natural scorer, but I think it's at least possible that Charles brings out a more aggressive streak in Stockton.

[Phoenix]

Agreed. That is probably the other side of this equation: Price in place of Stockton versus Barkley in place of Malone. In both cases the Jazz's window would shorten a lot, in Price's case he wasn't a star after 94'. Do Malone-Price cash in and make the shorter window worth it?

1992 may be their best shot. Porter destroyed Price. How would Price do? Price had some bad series too but I think Price gives you a higher ceiling in a given series than Stockton. Careers? Stockton easily but if you are giving me something like the 1992 playoffs with both players, the Price is right.

Price could play with pace so I think he transitions well to the faster paced/less physical western style back then. Stockton in that 92 WCFs scored 14ppg on 39% shooting. Malone with 28/11 on 55% actually did his part. What does Price do here? I'm inclined to think he responds to Porter by going back at him whereas Stockton stayed within the team's offense with his usual conservatism, scored poorly compounded by terrible percentages. Whether he matches Terry is one thing, because Porter played well beyond his usual level there.

The question is whether he plays better than Stockton here, and I'm inclined to guess Price drops 18-20 on decent efficiency. Or perhaps as a point of reference, Price dropped 19ppg on 61% TS vs Chicago in the ECFs, and that's with him having a crap elimination game 6 (14 points on 5/18, yikes). There was also an oddity in game 5 where he scored 13 points ( on 8 shots), dished out 2 assists...and the Cavs win by 14. He'd need to up the ante big-time on that but generally speaking, he could score well on good efficiency against a great defensive team. The other issue here is defense and Mark doesn't solve that issue even if he provides stiffer resistance on offense. The Blazers had games scoring 129, 121, and 119. They outscored Utah 110 to 104 over the series but it wasn't really that close. They won game one by 25 points, game two by 17. The rest of the games were closer and Portland did have one game of 89 points which skews the numbers a bit. Generally they had little trouble scoring and only Malone on the other side was anything to worry about.

The irony of Stockton getting torched in that series is 3 months later he's on the dream team. Porter must have been like :wtf: didn't I just eat this guys soul? :lol

[Phoenix]

I don't actually disagree with any of this. One be interesting to see Price and Barkley. But I wonder if I'd like a more aggressive rim attacker like KJ. He and Barkley traded injury periods, and it would have been very interesting to see KJ at his best playing with Barkley at his. Outside of the beginning of the 93-94 season, never actually happened.

Would still want to see Stockton and Barkley for two seasons. Price still a more natural scorer, but I think it's at least possible that Charles brings out a more aggressive streak in Stockton.

Yep, that's what I was saying earlier. 93 Barkley with like 94 KJ may have gotten over the hump vs the Bulls in 93 or the Rockets in 94. These teams were alot closer than history may remember if we only look at the end result of who won. It's too bad Barkley didn't land on the Suns even two years before he did. Philly used up all of his peak except the 93 season then it was a slow decline from there. The west would have been even wilder.

[Roundball_Rock]

What does Price do here? I'm inclined to think he responds to Porter by going back at him whereas Stockton stayed within the team's offense with his usual conservatism, scored poorly compounded by terrible percentages. Whether he matches Terry is one thing, because Porter played well beyond his usual level there.

Good points.


The question is whether he plays better than Stockton here, and I'm inclined to guess Price drops 18-20 on decent efficiency. Or perhaps as a point of reference, Price dropped 19ppg on 61% TS vs Chicago in the ECFs, and that's with him having a crap elimination game 6 (14 points on 5/18, yikes). There was also an oddity in game 5 where he scored 13 points ( on 8 shots), dished out 2 assists...and the Cavs win by 14. He'd need to up the ante big-time on that but generally speaking, he could score well on good efficiency against a great defensive team

Agreed.


The other issue here is defense and Mark doesn't solve that issue even if he provides stiffer resistance on offense. The Blazers had games scoring 129, 121, and 119. They outscored Utah 110 to 104 over the series but it wasn't really that close.

I looked up what they did against the Bulls as a comp and they went from 110 to 97. That was basically all Porter, though, as he went from 26 to 16 so everyone else lost only a combined 3 PPG as Porter shed 10 PPG alone.


The irony of Stockton getting torched in that series is 3 months later he's on the dream team. Porter must have been like didn't I just eat this guys soul?

:lol

[Lebron23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b__CcXRUVs

[Lee]

Malone had a longer career and better longevity and is #3 in scoring all time.

Malone 2 MVP vs Barkley 1. Plus Malone better defender

[Round Mound]

Barkley better player and better prime. Malone better longevity. Same with MJ vs Lebron debates.

[Lee]

Barkley better player and better prime. Malone better longevity. Same with MJ vs Lebron debates.

Defense gives edge to Malone for me.

[1987_Lakers]

Barkley was the better player in their primes, Malone was the better defender, but he wasn't all-time level on that end. Barkley's edge on offense is good enough for me to put him ahead of Malone, he could create for himself on a level Malone couldn't and his offense translated better come playoff time.

[Round Mound]

Most people here where not there to watch prime Barkley in his peak 88-93. They mostly remember Malone in the late 90s who was great but not even close to prime mobile Malone. Lets also remember that Barkley was robbed from the 1989-90 MVP. He got all the 1st place votes and lost to Magic who had a way better team. Barkley should have two MVPs which coincide with MJ's prime and peak. Malone was never that close to prime and peak MJ.

[TheGoatest]

It's become fashionable and extremely predictable to say something like "Barkley had a better peak, Malone had better longevity".
In fact it's more like: "Malone had at least as good of a peak and had way better longevity".
You want to talk primes/peaks? Okay, let's talk primes: Tell me, what season did Barkley have as good of a season offensively as Karl Malone did in 1996-97? Or 1989-90? I'm talking offense only. At best, you'll only find one where he is equal. At best, if we're really friendly towards Barkley. The only difference is that Malone was also all-defensive 1st team in 1996-97, whereas Barkley was never even all-defensive 2nd team, nor probably even sniffed one.
Everything you can say about Malone's choking in the playoffs, you can say about Barkley. The two were virtually the same age and faced each other in the 1997 playoffs. Barkley's out-of-shape choking 16.2 ppg on .429 averages in the series which caused the Rockets to lose cost us the only truly epic finals of the 1990s.
The only aspect where Barkley was unquestionably better was rebounding, and um... He was better than Malone on both the 1992 and 1996 USA teams.
I hate Malone's guts and I truly wish that Barkley was better, but he just wasn't.

[TheGoatest]

Also, I do think that if Barkley had been a little less like this:

http://dsz7vodgjx60a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/barkley1.jpg

and a little more like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cXCNzW4uvt0/TMxtOqMv65I/AAAAAAAAAew/nR1Oy2rW0E4/s1600/Karl+Malone.jpg

throughout the course of his career, he would've been better. But in this parallel universe where Barkley was an out-of-shape junk food addict and Malone was a gym rat, Malone was better.
And anyone who doesn't think so needs to separate their emotions for a moment and take one look at factual evidence.

[RRR3]

Also, I do think that if Barkley had been a little less like this:

http://dsz7vodgjx60a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/barkley1.jpg

and a little more like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cXCNzW4uvt0/TMxtOqMv65I/AAAAAAAAAew/nR1Oy2rW0E4/s1600/Karl+Malone.jpg

throughout the course of his career, he would've been better. But in this parallel universe where Barkley was an out-of-shape junk food addict and Malone was a gym rat, Malone was better.
And anyone who doesn't think so needs to separate their emotions for a moment and take one look at factual evidence.
Serge Ibaka is better than Luka by this “logic”

[TheGoatest]

Serge Ibaka is better than Luka by this “logic”

More like Giannis is currently better than Luka because of this "logic".
Except that Giannis is a more naturally gifted athlete than Luka to begin with, so Luka would work extra hard.
Whereas Barkley was actually a more naturally gifted athlete than Malone, but Barkley actively ruined his maximum potential with poor work ethic while Malone raised his through extra work.

[kawhileonard2]

The one that didn't get a 13 year old pregnant.

:facepalm

[Lee]

They are anyway two different players, with two different playing styles.

[SATAN]

Always thought Barkley was more talented as a player but that's not to say I'd 100% choose him over Malone when building a team.

[100grandman]

I don’t really like either one of them. But Malone was better. I’m not even big on Chuck as a commentator. He’s an Uncle Tom to me.

[L.Kizzle]

People keep saying Barkley had a better prime. When was his prime?
Chuck was All NBA 1st team from 88-91 and once more in 93.
Karl from 89-99.

Doesn't surprise me, people take McHale over Malone here as well even tho nothing backs it up.

[L.Kizzle]

Barkley vs Malone MVP voting through the years

1986
Barkley 6 vs Malone n/a
1987
Barkley 6 vs Malone 12
1988
Barkley 4 vs Malone 8
1989
Barkley 6 vs Malone 3
1990
Barkley 2 vs Malone 4
1991
Barkley 4 vs Malone 5
1992
Barkley 12 vs Malone 4
1993
Barkley 1 vs Malone 8
1994
Barkley 10 vs Malone 7
1995
Barkley 6 vs Malone 3
1996
Barkley 12 vs Malone 7
1997
Barkley 16 vs Malone 1
1998
Barkley n/a vs Malone 2
1999
Barkley n/a vs Malone 1
2000
Barkley n/a vs Malone 4
2001
Barkley n/a vs Malone 7

[L.Kizzle]

All NBA Voting through the years

All NBA Voting
1986
Barkley 7 vs Malone n/a
1987
Barkley 7 vs Malone 19
1988
Barkley 5 vs Malone 6
1989
Barkley 4 vs Malone 1
1990
Barkley 2 vs Malone 2
1991
Barkley 5 vs Malone 3
1992
Barkley 10 vs Malone 2
1993
Barkley 1 vs Malone 4
1994
Barkley 8 vs Malone 3
1995
Barkley 6 vs Malone 1
1996
Barkley 11 vs Malone 4
1997
Barkley 21 vs Malone 1
1998
Barkley 43 vs Malone 1
1999
Barkley 27 vs Malone 1
2000
Barkley n/a vs Malone 8
2001
Barkley n/a vs Malone 11
2002
Barkley n/a vs Malone 19
2003
Barkley n/a vs Malone 17