If Prime Charles Barkley Had Prime Parker and Prime Ginobili...how many Rings?

[Round Mound]

Interesting question.:D

[Lebron23]

3

Duncan was better defensively than Barkley, but Barkley was the superior offensive player.

[warriorfan]

0

N igga doesn’t play defense

[HunterSThompson]

maybe 1 or 2. Charles was a lazy fatass with no heart or ability to play defense (admittedly)

he would squander that opportunity and maybe just win in 2005 and 2007


a real question is what would garnett have done with those teams. I say he wins at least 5 or 6 out of these years ( 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

he would be looked at like how kobe and lebron are right now ... secondary goats

[warriorfan]

Dude had Kevin Johnson and Dan Marjele back in a non stacked two star format league and still couldn’t win. Charles Barkley is a piece of shit. You don’t win chips with a defensive sieve logging huge minutes at power forward. It doesn’t happen.

[jayfan]

I love Barkley, but he wasn't the complimentary player that Duncan was. Wasn't the defensive player, either. Would have been interesting to see what unfolded with that group, though.

Also interesting - Replace Barkley with prime Duncan on the '93 Suns, what kind of team would it have been? As successful? Moreso?


.

[LLL3]

You can't just plug and play equal talent and expect it to have the same results. You have glue guys, then you have one of the rarest beasts in all the magical land. A Glue Superstar. That was Duncan. Very little ego. Extremely coachable. Outstanding fundamentals. He was a little bit of a crybaby bitch at times but settled down quick. The only players that might have squeezed 5 rings out of that squad would MAYBE be Magic, Bird or Lebron and that's iffy. I doubt Jordan, Kobe, Wilt or Shaq would get more than 2 or 3. Sir Charles probably could get only one max playing alongside a prime DRob

[HoopsNY]

Probably none.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Prime Tony Parker might not be as good as you think he was lol

[Real Men Wear Green]

3

Duncan was better defensively than Barkley, but Barkley was the superior offensive player.

If Barkley was the better scorer the margin was small. But the difference in their defensive impact was massive. Won't say Barkley gets no rings but that extra rim protection would have to come from somewhere.

[ShawkFactory]

maybe 1 or 2. Charles was a lazy fatass with no heart or ability to play defense (admittedly)

he would squander that opportunity and maybe just win in 2005 and 2007


a real question is what would garnett have done with those teams. I say he wins at least 5 or 6 out of these years ( 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

he would be looked at like how kobe and lebron are right now ... secondary goats

He definitely doesn't win in Duncan's spot in 03. Probably not in 12 or 13 either.

[AussieSteve]

Interesting question.:D

With a respectable centre, that team would be a force obviously.

Keep in mind though, that Barkley was only 'prime Barkley' for about 6-7 seasons. Its a short window, so he may not have won more than 2 or 3.

If he didn't hurt his back in his 10th season Barkley's legacy would likely be 2xMVP, 2xFMVP 2x champion.

[HoopsNY]

What does Parker and Ginobili bring to the table that KJ and Majerle don't? Or those mid-80s Sixers team with Dr. J, Moses Malone, Mo Cheeks, and Bobby Jones?

KJ was a superior player to Parker and Majerle is at least comparable to Ginobili. I don't see Barkley winning any titles, mostly because he couldn't impact a game defensively the way Tim Duncan could.

[RRR3]

If Barkley was the better scorer the margin was small. But the difference in their defensive impact was massive. Won't say Barkley gets no rings but that extra rim protection would have to come from somewhere.
No it wasn’t.

[Round Mound]

No it wasn’t.

I agree. The margin was not small inside the 3-point line:

21.6 PPG on 58.13% FG on 12.9 FGAs PG (Season Career)
22.5 PPG on 55.13% FG on 14.5 FGAs PG (Play-Off Career)

That's what Barkley shot and scored per game if you take away threes made and attempted for his season and play-off career.

[Thenameless]

If we're implying that Duncan should be replaced by Barkley here, I wouldn't do it if I were the Spurs. Barkley is one of those guys who can volume score against weak opposition so his stats look nice. Duncan is who you want when it counts. He'll score the clutch baskets, and make the key stops. Just a far superior player to build around.

Barkley had some decent help too in guys like super fast point guard Kevin Johnson, Thunder Dan Majerle, Tom Chambers, and Cedric Ceballos. He just isn't the centerpiece that Tim Duncan is.

[houston]

none

[Round Mound]

The underrating of Prime Sir Charles is insane. Especially knowing that old crippled Barkley outplayed Prime Duncan in the Head to Heads. Barkley from 1989 to 1993 was something else. He would definetly win rings with the stacked teams Duncan ALWAYS had (in his prime and their primes).

[ShawkFactory]

The underrating of Prime Sir Charles is insane. Especially knowing that old crippled Barkley outplayed Prime Duncan in the Head to Heads. Barkley from 1989 to 1993 was something else. He would definetly win rings with the stacked teams Duncan ALWAYS had (in his prime and their primes).

Did he..?

[3ba11]

See the 94' and 95' Playoffs where KJ dominated Hakeem but lost because he was carrying Barkley.

KJ was a 20/10 guy and easily better than Parker, while Majerle was a far superior 2-way player than Manu

So Barkley already had better teammates than Duncan, but Duncan simply didn't have to face goat comp (a top seed led by MJ) like Barkley did a bunch of times.

We know that a good team led by MJ is the goat comp because only MJ was undefeated with 1 or 2 seeds, while everyone else in history like Magic, Kareem or Lebron lost 5+ times with top seeds

[ClipperRevival]

Probably none.

Chuck always said he hates colluding but he did the same thing TWICE. He joined a Suns team that had won 53, 55, 54, and 55 games the prior 4 seasons. And later colluded with Hakeem and Pip.

And how about D? Parker sucks at D and Chuck does too. Manu was average. People always ignore D for some reason.

This trio is nothing special.

[Round Mound]

See the 94' and 95' Playoffs where KJ dominated Hakeem but lost because he was carrying Barkley.

KJ was a 20/10 guy and easily better than Parker, while Majerle was a far superior 2-way player than Manu

So Barkley already had better teammates than Duncan, but Duncan simply didn't have to face goat comp (a top seed led by MJ) like Barkley did a bunch of times.

We know that a good team led by MJ is the goat comp because only MJ was undefeated with 1 or 2 seeds, while everyone else in history like Magic, Kareem or Lebron lost 5+ times with top seeds

KJ only played 49 games the 92-93 season and the Suns actually had a better winning % without him. In the 1993 finals he totally disappeared. In the 1995 play-offs vs the Rockets Barkley was injured most of the series so KJ had to be the scorer. KJ was a great scoring PG but he was not John Stockton in terms of getting others involved. BTW when Jordan left the Bulls won 55 games with Pippen as the focal point. Pippen was a better 2nd option than what any other suprestar had during the 90's.

[Round Mound]

Did he..?

Yes

[ShawkFactory]

Yes

I’m what respect?

Also you said prime Duncan but we’re talking rookie Duncan.

[Round Mound]

I’m what respec?

He oustscored, out shot, out rebounded, out assisted, outstoled him. Duncan only had more blocks that's it. And This was 34-37 year old Barkley injured,old and overweight. It wasn't 1989 to 1993 Prime & Peak Barkley. So just imagine

[Round Mound]

I’m what respect?

Also you said prime Duncan but we’re talking rookie Duncan.

Duncan was one of the most ready rookies ever. He dominated on fundamentals not athletic ability (while for Barkley his athleticism was needed because of his height). Duncan was ages 21-23 while Barkley was usually injured, overweight and old and he still outplayed Duncan. Go watch 1989 to 1993 Barkley play and you'll see he was a totally different player.

[La Frescobaldi]

Old @$$ Barkley way outplayed Timmy the times they matched up. It was noticeable levels of difference.
Would he have outplayed older prime Duncan who knows. probly not. but it’s little doubt a younger Barkley outplays an older prime Duncan in a man to man situation.
Now teams is a different story. I doubt any team Charles was ever on beats any championship Spurs team. Which is why the idea of this thread doesn’t go far enough.

Replace Duncan with Barkley, 2000s Spurs would win some rings.
Replace Barkley’s 80s & 90s teams with championship Spurs teams he has good odds in earlier 80s and it would surely be something to see against Bulls in 90s

[tpols]

People underrating Barkley. A guy who was MVP and battled peak MJ to almost a draw. Duncan didn't have his offensive gear or ferocity. Duncan outside 2003 doesn't have any dominant offensive runs, a year Dirk got hurt in the WCFs and the spurs faced the kidd kittles Nets in the Finals.

Barkley had a truly dominant post game, midrange game, dunk game, etc. He could have and easily would have won titles with the spurs. And its hard to imagine Duncan being as good in the 90s when he wouldn't be able to hide at PF and would have to battle real, heavy centers.

[La Frescobaldi]

See the 94' and 95' Playoffs where KJ dominated Hakeem but lost because he was carrying Barkley.

KJ was a 20/10 guy and easily better than Parker, while Majerle was a far superior 2-way player than Manu

So Barkley already had better teammates than Duncan, but Duncan simply didn't have to face goat comp (a top seed led by MJ) like Barkley did a bunch of times.

We know that a good team led by MJ is the goat comp because only MJ was undefeated with 1 or 2 seeds, while everyone else in history like Magic, Kareem or Lebron lost 5+ times with top seeds
This is drivel.

[ShawkFactory]

Duncan was one of the most ready rookies ever. He dominated on fundamentals not athletic ability (while for Barkley his athleticism was needed because of his height). Duncan was ages 21-23 while Barkley was usually injured, overweight and old and he still outplayed Duncan. Go watch 1989 to 1993 Barkley play and you'll see he was a totally different player.

I understand that. But he wasn't as good as a rookie as he was a couple years later. No matter how fundamentally sound you are, you learn more as you go.

Duncan in 2002 was a way better player than in 1998.

[FireDavidKahn]

He isn't better then Duncan if that's what you're getting at.

[ShawkFactory]

People underrating Barkley. A guy who was MVP and battled peak MJ to almost a draw. Duncan didn't have his offensive gear or ferocity. Duncan outside 2003 doesn't have any dominant offensive runs, a year Dirk got hurt in the WCFs and the spurs faced the kidd kittles Nets in the Finals.

Barkley had a truly dominant post game, midrange game, dunk game, etc. He could have and easily would have won titles with the spurs. And its hard to imagine Duncan being as good in the 90s when he wouldn't be able to hide at PF and would have to battle real, heavy centers.

Nah. As has already been stated, what Duncan brought defensively was invaluable. After 2003 Parker and Manu were excellent offensive players so Duncan being the ultimate basketball logistician was okay taking a step backwards on that end and focusing on other things that helped the team win.

I'm not sure Barkley had the entire package that would allow that.

[Round Mound]

People underrating Barkley. A guy who was MVP and battled peak MJ to almost a draw. Duncan didn't have his offensive gear or ferocity. Duncan outside 2003 doesn't have any dominant offensive runs, a year Dirk got hurt in the WCFs and the spurs faced the kidd kittles Nets in the Finals.

Barkley had a truly dominant post game, midrange game, dunk game, etc. He could have and easily would have won titles with the spurs. And its hard to imagine Duncan being as good in the 90s when he wouldn't be able to hide at PF and would have to battle real, heavy centers.

:applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

People underrating Barkley. A guy who was MVP and battled peak MJ to almost a draw. Duncan didn't have his offensive gear or ferocity. Duncan outside 2003 doesn't have any dominant offensive runs, a year Dirk got hurt in the WCFs and the spurs faced the kidd kittles Nets in the Finals.

Barkley had a truly dominant post game, midrange game, dunk game, etc. He could have and easily would have won titles with the spurs. And its hard to imagine Duncan being as good in the 90s when he wouldn't be able to hide at PF and would have to battle real, heavy centers.

All of that is correct.

But to this point of the thread and further, looking at Charles prime which was prolly about 87 or 88 to 93, give Charles both Manu & Parker on his actual teams does he win rings I have to say no. because there is no way those guys stand against the Pistons teams of that time frame.

Manu & Tony vs Dumars & Thomas I simply do not see them standing up to those beatings or worse the filthy disgusting cheating in the Detroit paint.

[tpols]

Nah. As has already been stated, what Duncan brought defensively was invaluable. After 2003 Parker and Manu were excellent offensive players so Duncan being the ultimate basketball logistician was okay taking a step backwards on that end and focusing on other things that helped the team win.

I'm not sure Barkley had the entire package that would allow that.

The Spurs could've still been great defensively without Duncan. Do they still have Robinson, Bowen, Manu, Kawhi etc. Can they prioritize an elite defensive center to compliment Barkley instead of rasho nesterovic or thiago splitter? Sure. Barkley brings different talents than Duncan. He's much better offensively and more ferocious / better on the boards. Duncan is better on defense. So that means it would behoove the GM to give him some help there. Either way its silly to act like prime for prime there was some legit difference. Its merely circumstance. Does Duncan beat the dynasty Bulls with Kevin Johnson playing like shit? Nope. Barkley was a couple shots away from doing it. Actually one shot and one game.

[HoopsNY]

People underrating Barkley. A guy who was MVP and battled peak MJ to almost a draw. Duncan didn't have his offensive gear or ferocity. Duncan outside 2003 doesn't have any dominant offensive runs, a year Dirk got hurt in the WCFs and the spurs faced the kidd kittles Nets in the Finals.

Barkley had a truly dominant post game, midrange game, dunk game, etc. He could have and easily would have won titles with the spurs. And its hard to imagine Duncan being as good in the 90s when he wouldn't be able to hide at PF and would have to battle real, heavy centers.

Peak Duncan played in one of the slowest eras and the greatest defensive era of all-time. In the playoffs, he put up 24 PPG on 51% while Barkley put up 26 PPG on 52%.

The difference is splitting hairs when you account for era and defense. I'd also add that while Duncan didn't have a ton of great centers on the low block, that wasn't what Barkley was facing, either.

In fact, I'd say Duncan faced just as many if not greater PFs when you consider guys like Malone, Webber, KG, Dirk, Wallace, etc, while still having centers down low like Big Ben, Howard, Shaq, and Zo.

[ShawkFactory]

The Spurs could've still been great defensively without Duncan. Do they still have Robinson, Bowen, Manu, Kawhi etc. Can they prioritize an elite defensive center to compliment Barkley instead of rasho nesterovic or thiago splitter? Sure. Barkley brings different talents than Duncan. He's much better offensively and more ferocious / better on the boards. Duncan is better on defense. So that means it would behoove the GM to give him some help there. Either way its silly to act like prime for prime there was some legit difference. Its merely circumstance. Does Duncan beat the dynasty Bulls with Kevin Johnson playing like shit? Nope. Barkley was a couple shots away from doing it. Actually one shot and one game.

Yea I'm of the mindset that prime for prime there isn't much difference between most of the greatest players.

But I don't think Barkley wins the championship in 2003 if you put him in Duncan's position. Maybe he does the other years but just that slight difference is enough for me. I think that Duncan was more likely to make the right play at the right time than Charles was. Not 100% of the time. But just more likely.