Karl Malone on Dan Patrick Show "Charles is the 3d Best PF, Duncan is a Center...

By today's standards, Duncan is a C.

Most of the best PF's in the game have converted to playing C's. Pau, KG, and Bosh. Heck, even the Clippers use LO as a C sometimes.

If Duncan were playing in Malone/Barkley's era, he would be considered a PF.

I also think that Barkley was the better PF. He never had a Stockton feeding him, and if he did, he might have been even more effective.

Malone is right. He is the best 4 ever, Barkley #2, and Duncan is a center.

[QUOTE=scm5]By today's standards, Duncan is a C.

Most of the best PF's in the game have converted to playing C's. Pau, KG, and Bosh. Heck, even the Clippers use LO as a C sometimes.

If Duncan were playing in Malone/Barkley's era, he would be considered a PF.

I also think that Barkley was the better PF. He never had a Stockton feeding him, and if he did, he might have been even more effective.[/QUOTE]



No, why do people keep repeating this? No, he's not. He played PF because of Robinson, not for any other reason. In no era would Duncan ever be a PF.



That's it.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]No, why do people keep repeating this? No, he's not. He played PF because of Robinson, not for any other reason. In no era would Duncan ever be a PF.



That's it.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't make it true. The NBA and Spurs have him listed officially as a PF. And that's what he'll go down as - the GOAT PF.

[QUOTE=JohnnySic]Malone is right. He is the best 4 ever, Barkley #2, and Duncan is a center.[/QUOTE]

No, he's certainly is not right about being the GOAT PF, even if I was to go with Duncan being a center.

And he said Barkley was a "distant" 3rd.

Duncan has way too much of an outside game to be considered purely a center.

#1 PF of all-time :applause:

[B]Barkley is Clearly The Best PF Ever.

And Yes, People Where Calling Him the 2nd Best Player in the Game in 1992

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiNvY93EmWc[/url]

Minute: 2:44

[I]"For The Majority, the 2nd Best Player in the Game after Michael Jordan" (In Italian)[/I]

Minute: 3:19

[I]"He is Not Over 1.95 mt"[/I] (In Italian) that is 6`4 3/4 ft"


And Coach Chuck Daily said He Was The 2nd Best Player after Jordan that same Year.[/B]

Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other. Plus, neither has a ring. I vote best PF:

Kevin Garnett. He has peak play at the caliber of Chuck, he has the longevity of Malone, and he has a RING !!!

KG is more of a legit PF than Tim Duncan. Duncan always was a center. Even when he played with D-Rob, he played like a center.

[QUOTE=Money 23]Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other. Plus, neither has a ring. I vote best PF:

Kevin Garnett. He has peak play at the caliber of Chuck, he has the longevity of Malone, and he has a RING !!!

KG is more of a legit PF than Tim Duncan. Duncan always was a center. Even when he played with D-Rob, he played like a center.[/QUOTE]

[B]Do You Think Kevin Garnett would be the 2nd Best Player after Michael Jordan in 1992 like Barkley was? I Don`t Think So. :no:

Garnett is Not Reliable Offensively in the Play-Offs as a Go To Go Guy.

He is a Great All Around Player but Is Certainly Not a Go To Go Guy.[/B]

[QUOTE=TMT]Duncan has way too much of an outside game to be considered purely a center.

#1 PF of all-time :applause:[/QUOTE]

Uhhh..he has less outside game than Hakeem DRob and Ewing

[QUOTE=Money 23]Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other.[/QUOTE]

Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a team in mind for your project that features Barkley and a dominant defensive big?

Charles > Malone and Duncan offensively, his game had so much more variety.

[QUOTE=Sharmer]Charles > Malone and Duncan offensively, his game had so much more variety.[/QUOTE]

[B]As a Passer, Creator Offense and Rebounder Also Better:

Barkley Had 1 on 1 Skills closer to a SF
Barkley Could Drive and Spin Off the Dribble like a SF/SG
Barkley Had The Best Handles Ever for a PF
Barkley Had The Better Post Game, Only McHale Rivals his.
Barkley Could Go Coast to Coast on his Own, Dish Off or Finish His Own Break With a Dunk
Barkley Was a Better Clutch Shooter
etc

Barkley as a Total Player > Duncan & Malone[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]As a Passer, Creator Offense and Rebounder Also Better:

Barkley Had 1 on 1 Skills closer to a SF
Barkley Could Drive and Spin Off the Dribble like a SF/SG
Barkley Had The Best Handles Ever for a PF
Barkley Had The Better Post Game, Only McHale Rivals his.
Barkley Could Go Coast to Coast on his Own, Dish Off or Finish His Own Break With a Dunk
Barkley Was a Better Clutch Shooter
etc

[U]Barkley as a Total Player > Duncan & Malone[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

Disagree. Half of the game is defense, and Barkley doesn't hold a candle to Duncan on the defensive end. Difference/impact on defense > their difference on offense.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Do you have a team in mind for your project that features Barkley and a dominant defensive big?[/QUOTE]

Actually, the very first team I envisioned for this particular project was around Russell and Barkley before the finished team I have now, with Barkley being an upgrade over Tom Heinsohn, trading a power forward who was nicknamed "Tommy Gun" and "Ack-Ack" for the most efficient power forward in NBA history. Heinsohn was a defensive liability, and "Auerbach always accused him of not being in shape" (Terry Pluto, [i]Tall Tales[/i], p. 289). Russell said of Heinsohn in 1966, "He had more physical ability than any forward who ever played the game, but in my opinion he never came close to playing to his potential" ([i]Go Up For Glory[/i], p. 81).

In December of 1963, it was said that Heinsohn was "the game's greatest offensive rebounder" ([i]Christian Science Monitor[/i], Dec. 4, 1963), and Barkley has the fifth-most offensive rebounds since the NBA began recording the statistic with 4,260, with only Moses Malone (6,731), Robert Parish (4,598), Buck Williams (4,526), and Dennis Rodman (4,329) grabbing more. And of those four, only Malone (5.1) and Rodman (4.8) averaged more offensive rebounds a game than Barkley (4.0). So they'd dominate the backboards, with Russell being the GOAT defensive rebounder and Barkley being one of the GOAT offensive rebounders. "He has been called the greatest last-second offensive rebounder in NBA history because of his nose for the ball. If you need someone to get one crucial offensive rebound, Barkley is your man" (Sam Smith, [i]Chicago Tribune[/i], Jun. 7, 1993). I liked the idea of Russell getting Barkley out in the open court (or Barkley could grab the defensive rebound himself and go coast-to-coast), and I envisioned them being able to run in transition like the Showtime Lakers, but also post up in the halfcourt like the Lakers did with Kareem.

I finished Russell's J is Nashty in Miller Time first because I couldn't decide what SF I wanted to pair with Barkley (two of them had potential chemistry problems, one of whom there actually [i]was[/i] a chemistry problem), and there were a couple of directions I could go. I wanted the lead scorer with Russell to be a forward, and since I wanted it to be a transition team, that made Barkley and Erving my top choices. As I started thinking about the latter, once I decided the roles I was looking for, the team pretty much picked itself. I haven't thought of another center yet, as I still have to decide what centers are going to the other teams that won't be built around the Top 5 GOAT centers (Magic has Walton and Duncan has Robinson as he did in actuality at the beginning of his career, but I still have to decide on centers for Jordan, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron) in order to know who will be available, since I can't create teams in a vacuum and have to create each team relative to the others (e.g., whomever I pick for a certain team will be off the board and thus not available for any other team). I want the teams to be balanced, each team being capable of competing with the others.

[QUOTE=rmt]Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't make it true. The NBA and Spurs have him listed officially as a PF. And that's what he'll go down as - the GOAT PF.[/QUOTE]



This hurts the brain so much. Who is arguing that he should be considered a PF?


As far as natural position, he's a center. In any era, that's the fact. It's been discussed at length. Had Robinson retired before Duncan's rookie year, then Duncan would have been the starting center. Had the Celtics gotten him, he'd have been the starting center. Had any other team in the draft gotten the #1 pick, he'd play center. He played alongside one of the best ever and so he played PF.


I say it, because it is true. And it's only recent years that people argue it.


Someone said he's too skilled or whatever. What does it matter if he's skilled? Robinson had at least equal handles and was a much much better athlete, who played offense like a SF. So why don't we call him a PF or PF/C?

[QUOTE=eliteballer]Uhhh..he has less outside game than Hakeem DRob and Ewing[/QUOTE]


Absolutely.

And more than his teammate.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that essentially what I said, though? You just went more in depth.

[QUOTE=rmt]Disagree. Half of the game is defense, and Barkley doesn't hold a candle to Duncan on the defensive end. Difference/impact on defense > their difference on offense.[/QUOTE]

[B]Barkley wasn`t that Bad of a Defender he Was Above Average and Was The Best Floor Defender for a PF Ever Having the Highest SPG Avg for the PF Spot of All Time!

You Can Call Barkley a Lazy Defender but Bad? No Way In His Phily Days he Was Averaging Like 2 SPG and 1.4 BPG Thats Very Good for a Man His Height.

What u Call This?: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqYWjCCGRs[/url]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Was a Better Scorer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Rebounder than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Passer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was More Skilled than Duncan By Miles, Had the Superior:

-Post Game
-Mid Range Game & Fadeways Game
-More Difficult to Stop 1 on 1 Off the Dribble and Driving to The Basket
-And Go Coast To Coast Rivaled by No Other PF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Difference in Offensively Inside Is VERY HIGH!!!

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Navy"][U]Duncan and Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[I][U]Season:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]21.6 PPG on 58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]12.9[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]20.2 PPG on 50.97%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]15.3[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

[I][U]Play-Offs:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]22.5 PPG on 55.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]14.5[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG.

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]22.2 PPG on 50.47%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]16.6 [/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

* No They Are Not Close Offensively, Scoring Wise, Rebounding Wise, Passing Wise and Talent Wise... :no:

Barkley Shoots and Scores More... With An 8% FG Difference to Duncan. Thats like a Player Shooting 42% FG vs a Player Shooting 50%. In the Play-Offs The Difference is Lesser but Still The Difference is 5% FG a Player Shooting 45% FG vs a Player Shooting 50% FG.

They are Not Close Offensively :banghead:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/B]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Actually, the very first team I envisioned for this particular project was around Russell and Barkley before the finished team I have now, with Barkley being an upgrade over Tom Heinsohn, trading a power forward who was nicknamed "Tommy Gun" and "Ack-Ack" for the most efficient power forward in NBA history. Heinsohn was a defensive liability, and "Auerbach always accused him of not being in shape" (Terry Pluto, [i]Tall Tales[/i], p. 289). Russell said of Heinsohn in 1966, "He had more physical ability than any forward who ever played the game, but in my opinion he never came close to playing to his potential" ([i]Go Up For Glory[/i], p. 81).[/QUOTE]

Yes, I recall that quote from Russell; I was rather surprised, but some other accounts do back up the conditioning claims.

[QUOTE]In December of 1963, it was said that Heinsohn was "the game's greatest offensive rebounder" ([i]Christian Science Monitor[/i], Dec. 4, 1963), and Barkley has the fifth-most offensive rebounds since the NBA began recording the statistic with 4,260, with only Moses Malone (6,731), Robert Parish (4,598), Buck Williams (4,526), and Dennis Rodman (4,329) grabbing more. And of those four, only Malone (5.1) and Rodman (4.8) averaged more offensive rebounds a game than Barkley (4.0). So they'd dominate the backboards, with Russell being the GOAT defensive rebounder and Barkley being one of the GOAT offensive rebounders. "He has been called the greatest last-second offensive rebounder in NBA history because of his nose for the ball. If you need someone to get one crucial offensive rebound, Barkley is your man" (Sam Smith, [i]Chicago Tribune[/i], Jun. 7, 1993). I liked the idea of Russell getting Barkley out in the open court (or Barkley could grab the defensive rebound himself and go coast-to-coast), and I envisioned them being able to run in transition like the Showtime Lakers, but also post up in the halfcourt like the Lakers did with Kareem. [/QUOTE]

I prefer the Russ-J partnership, but Russell would complement Barkley amazingly well. There wouldn't be an issue of the lane getting clogged if Barkley wanted to work inside (since Russ didn't demand too many touches), and as you noted they'd be excellent in the open court.

[QUOTE]I finished Russell's J is Nashty in Miller Time first because I couldn't decide what SF I wanted to pair with Barkley (two of them had potential chemistry problems, one of whom there actually [i]was[/i] a chemistry problem), and there were a couple of directions I could go. I wanted the lead scorer with Russell to be a forward, and since I wanted it to be a transition team, that made Barkley and Erving my top choices. As I started thinking about the latter, once I decided the roles I was looking for, the team pretty much picked itself. I haven't thought of another center yet, as I still have to decide what centers are going to the other teams that won't be built around the Top 5 GOAT centers (Magic has Walton and Duncan has Robinson as he did in actuality at the beginning of his career, but I still have to decide on centers for Jordan, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron) in order to know who will be available, since I can't create teams in a vacuum and have to create each team relative to the others (e.g., whomever I pick for a certain team will be off the board and thus not available for any other team). I want the teams to be balanced, each team being capable of competing with the others.[/QUOTE]

How much thought have you given to pairing Barkley with Moses? The one issue with that is that would make it difficult to add a consensus top 10 player without making the team too stacked. Ewing might be a great call (I have a couple of his early 90s Knicks squads among the 10 GOAT defensive team seasons). Walton's already taken, so he's out of the question. Same with Lakers Wilt (that would also waste him, since you only want to use each top 10 guy once, and I'd imagine you want one of his Sixers campaigns; like Walton and Russ, Lakers Wilt probably works with almost anybody). Hakeem is another possibility (perhaps you'd be interested in Pippen as well, since the three of them played together in that lockout season).

[QUOTE=Money 23]Isn't that essentially what I said, though? You just went more in depth.[/QUOTE]

You didn't say anything about Barkley as a postseason performer vis-a-vis Malone, and I don't recall you saying you'd take one over the other if you were building a team.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]You didn't say anything about Barkley as a postseason performer vis-a-vis Malone, and I don't recall you saying you'd take one over the other if you were building a team.[/QUOTE]
Because I wasn't injecting who I like better. I'm talking about comparing their RESUME and entire career.

I quite clearly said Barkley had the superior peak. It's very much obvious he was the superior post season player. I didn't feel it need be mentioned.

I personally rather have Barkley, but when talking about their all-time ranking, Malone's longevity counts for something. What Chuck had in natural ability, Malone counteracted with hard work and remaining relevant for WAY longer.

[QUOTE=fpliii]I prefer the Russ-J partnership, but Russell would complement Barkley amazingly well. There wouldn't be an issue of the lane getting clogged if Barkley wanted to work inside (since Russ didn't demand too many touches), and as you noted they'd be excellent in the open court.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I like the way the team turned out and how they fit together. Before building that team I've always seen Erving paired with Magic on all-time team scenarios. If I didn't make the team I did, then Barkley would be my next choice. I still like that pairing though, and I may just finish the team as a backup team to see what it would look like. If there are multiple players pairings I like, I might just finish them out even though only one would be in the all-time league.

[QUOTE=fpliii]How much thought have you given to pairing Barkley with Moses? The one issue with that is that would make it difficult to add a consensus top 10 player without making the team too stacked.[/QUOTE]

Moses I hadn't considered, as he wasn't the defensive anchor I had in mind. He had the one year in '83 he was First Team All-Defense, but he wasn't the player I had in mind. He and peak Barkley would dominate the offensive glass though. And yeah, adding a Top 10 player to Barkley and Moses would make it too stacked for my purposes.

Moses is going to head his own team, though. I envision a 12-team league with two divisions, with team led by:
1) Russell (complete)
2) Magic (complete)
3) Duncan (starting lineup complete)
4) Kareem (3/5 of starting lineup complete)
5) Jordan
6) Wilt
7) Hakeem
8) Shaq
9) Bird
10) Kobe
11) LeBron
12) Moses

I wanted LeBron with his own team because I didn't want him paired with any of the above 10 players because it'd make the team too stacked, so then I needed one more player to make each division even.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Ewing might be a great call (I have a couple of his early 90s Knicks squads among the 10 GOAT defensive team seasons). Walton's already taken, so he's out of the question. Same with Lakers Wilt (that would also waste him, since you only want to use each top 10 guy once, and I'd imagine you want one of his Sixers campaigns; like Walton and Russ, Lakers Wilt probably works with almost anybody). Hakeem is another possibility (perhaps you'd be interested in Pippen as well, since the three of them played together in that lockout season).[/QUOTE]

Ewing's a good choice and might be available. He'd popped in my mind, but as I said, I have to decide what centers are going to the teams that aren't already built around centers that I have yet to complete.

I thought about Wilt, as if you're building a transition team (and I'd want to take advantage of Barkley's ability in transition), if Russell and Walton are already taken, then you'd want Lakers Wilt, as he anchored the '72 Lakers. But Wilt's going to be the centerpiece of the team, so I'd want '67 Wilt. Choosing him in his Lakers years would be wasting him since I want the team to be built around him, and he's going to be facing peak Russell, '00 Shaq, '77 Kareem, '77 Walton, and peak Hakeem at his position alone, without even getting into teams led by peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird, etc. That would be handcapping him since he wasn't at his peak with the Lakers while everyone else will be.

Hakeem's a possibility, though despite the fact that they actually played together, Hakeem's team is going to run through him in the post, so I don't need Barkley, who would also work in the post as well when he's not on the break. Since I have everyone ever to choose from, there's no reason to choose players that have redundancies.

[QUOTE=Money 23]Because I wasn't injecting who I like better. I'm talking about comparing their RESUME and entire career.

I quite clearly said Barkley had the superior peak. It's very much obvious he was the superior post season player. I didn't feel it need be mentioned.

I personally rather have Barkley, but when talking about their all-time ranking, Malone's longevity counts for something. What Chuck had in natural ability, Malone counteracted with hard work and remaining relevant for WAY longer.[/QUOTE]

You said I essentially said the same thing you said, I pointed out how my post deferred from yours. I'm not sure why you should be taking issue with what I said when I'm not arguing with you.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Moses I hadn't considered, as he wasn't the defensive anchor I had in mind. He had the one year in '83 he was First Team All-Defense, but he wasn't the player I had in mind. He and peak Barkley would dominate the offensive glass though. And yeah, adding a Top 10 player to Barkley and Moses would make it too stacked for my purposes.[/QUOTE]

Apologies, I didn't insert him for defensive reasons, just because of chemistry/fit since they'd played together.

[QUOTE]Moses is going to head his own team, though. I envision a 12-team league with two divisions, with team led by:
1) Russell (complete)
2) Magic (complete)
3) Duncan (starting lineup complete)
4) Kareem (3/5 of starting lineup complete)
5) Jordan
6) Wilt
7) Hakeem
8) Shaq
9) Bird
10) Kobe
11) LeBron
12) Moses

I wanted LeBron with his own team because I didn't want him paired with any of the above 10 players because it'd make the team too stacked, so then I needed one more player to make each division even.[/QUOTE]

So does that mean West/Robertson/Garnett (perhaps I'm overrating KG by including him with the other two) are available to be paired with anyone (I'd imagine so since Erving is on Russell's team, since you used his best ABA season, which puts him in company with the others)? Or would it have to be one of the comparatively weaker (this sounds crazy given the stature of the guys you selected) among the 12?

[QUOTE]Ewing's a good choice and might be available. He'd popped in my mind, but as I said, I have to decide what centers are going to the teams that aren't already built around centers that I have yet to complete.[/QUOTE]

OT (mildly): What are the GOAT 10-15 defenders in your opinion, separated into tiers (sorry for the lack of a clear number of players, I'm interested in the placement before you get to non-anchors; I'd imagine Pippen is the only non-big, depending on where you have Rodman)? Do you think there are enough for none of the 12 teams to be at a significant disadvantage in that regard?

[QUOTE]I thought about Wilt, as if you're building a transition team (and I'd want to take advantage of Barkley's ability in transition), if Russell and Walton are already taken, then you'd want Lakers Wilt, as he anchored the '72 Lakers. But Wilt's going to be the centerpiece of the team, so I'd want '67 Wilt. [B]Choosing him in his Lakers years would be wasting him since I want the team to be built around him[/B], and he's going to be facing peak Russell, '00 Shaq, '77 Kareem, '77 Walton, and peak Hakeem at his position alone, without even getting into teams led by peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird, etc. That would be handcapping him since he wasn't at his peak with the Lakers while everyone else will be.[/QUOTE]

This is how I felt as well. BTW, regarding the 68 Sixers team, how much do you assess blame on:

1. Wilt (including the allegations of being overly passive as to win the assist title)
2. Injuries
3. Improvement of the Celtics that season

for the repeat not occurring?

[QUOTE]Hakeem's a possibility, though despite the fact that they actually played together, Hakeem's team is going to run through him in the post, so I don't need Barkley, who would also work in the post as well when he's not on the break. Since I have everyone ever to choose from, there's no reason to choose players that have redundancies.[/QUOTE]

That's what I'd figured...with the scope of players available, there's no reason to have to settle for less-than-ideal fits.

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Malone is a Bit Overrated...He Definetly Played More Seasons at a Good Level than Barkley but He NEVER REACHED THE LEVEL OF PRIME BARKLY, EVER!

His Longevity and Stat Padding Looks Nice on Paper an To The Eye (More Numbers Give the Impression of Better) but One You Analyze PER, EFF, Ws Per 48 Minutes, WS etc He Is Below Barkley in Both Their Primes.

Also, Charles calls himself the 2nd Best PF Ever in the Previous Chat With Dan Patrick I Think You Can Also See It If You Click On It[/B][/QUOTE]
You just don't value longevity. How is playing at a very high level longer than almost anyone else ever in the NBA "stat padding"? It just depends on what you value most when you rank players. There is certainly an argument that can be made for Malone over Barkley or Barkley over Malone.

[QUOTE=joshwake]You just don't value longevity. How is playing at a very high level longer than almost anyone else ever in the NBA "stat padding"? It just depends on what you value most when you rank players. There is certainly an argument that can be made for Malone over Barkley or Barkley over Malone.[/QUOTE]

[B]Longevity Is NOT A Skill.[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound]Barkley wasn`t that Bad of a Defender he Was Above Average and Was The Best Floor Defender for a PF Ever Having the Highest SPG Avg for the PF Spot of All Time!

You Can Call Barkley a Lazy Defender but Bad? No Way In His Phily Days he Was Averaging Like 2 SPG and 1.4 BPG Thats Very Good for a Man His Height.

What u Call This?: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqYWjCCGRs[/url]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Was a Better Scorer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Rebounder than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Passer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was More Skilled than Duncan By Miles, Had the Superior:

-Post Game
-Mid Range Game & Fadeways Game
-More Difficult to Stop 1 on 1 Off the Dribble and Driving to The Basket
-And Go Coast To Coast Rivaled by No Other PF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Difference in Offensively Inside Is VERY HIGH!!!

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Navy"][U]Duncan and Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[I][U]Season:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]21.6 PPG on 58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]12.9[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]20.2 PPG on 50.97%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]15.3[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

[I][U]Play-Offs:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]22.5 PPG on 55.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]14.5[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG.

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]22.2 PPG on 50.47%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]16.6 [/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

* No They Are Not Close Offensively, Scoring Wise, Rebounding Wise, Passing Wise and Talent Wise... :no:

Barkley Shoots and Scores More... With An 8% FG Difference to Duncan. Thats like a Player Shooting 42% FG vs a Player Shooting 50%. In the Play-Offs The Difference is Lesser but Still The Difference is 5% FG a Player Shooting 45% FG vs a Player Shooting 50% FG.

They are Not Close Offensively :banghead:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but Barkley HIMSELF agrees with me that Duncan is the best PF ever.

[QUOTE=fpliii]So does that mean West/Robertson/Garnett (perhaps I'm overrating KG by including him with the other two) are available to be paired with anyone (I'd imagine so since Erving is on Russell's team, since you used his best ABA season, which puts him in company with the others)? Or would it have to be one of the comparatively weaker (this sounds crazy given the stature of the guys you selected) among the 12?[/QUOTE]

Yes, West/Robertson/Garnett are available. I just haven't decided yet where they would go, being careful not to make one team too stacked, as the point of this exercise is to construct all-time teams differently than people usually do. Normally people do something like Wilt/Duncan/LeBron/Jordan/Magic, and then they'll have something like Kareem/Malone/Bird/Kobe/Oscar off the bench, which is completely ridiculous, as players of that caliber would never be happy with being limited to bench players for an actual season, there aren't enough shots or minutes to go around, and the only way a team like that could be assembled is if one GM somehow gets to pick an entire roster while all the other GMs just sit around and twiddle their thumbs waiting for his leftovers. It could never under any conceivable circumstance happen.

I try to choose players with complementary strengths. For instance, Auerbach said in '63 after falling behind 2-1 to the Cincinnati Royals, "The problem with my team is that we have a super defensive man in Russell and a super play maker in Bob Cousy, but we don't have a super star shooter. The super shooters are Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain .... We've never had a super shooter and people don't realize that." Hence the choice of Erving, who also demonstrated he could fit in with a team, and "may have been less interested in personal stats than just about any other player of comparable greatness." I don't stack strengths, which is why I didn't put peak J with Magic as I usually see. If Magic's the GOAT offensive player, then adding '76 Erving would stack it too much. Magic needs defense behind him, which was why I gave him Walton, Cowens, and Bobby Jones. So I have to decide where they would go where they would be the most complementary without making the team unbalanced as well as fitting chemistry-wise.

[QUOTE=fpliii]OT (mildly): What are the GOAT 10-15 defenders in your opinion, separated into tiers (sorry for the lack of a clear number of players, I'm interested in the placement before you get to non-anchors; I'd imagine Pippen is the only non-big, depending on where you have Rodman)? Do you think there are enough for none of the 12 teams to be at a significant disadvantage in that regard?[/QUOTE]

Hmm... I'd have to think about it, as I don't give answers off the cuff without considering them first. I'm not one for making lists, my interests are keeping a historical database and projects such as the current one I'm working on. But that was my concern, that there are enough players to go around so that all the teams are balanced. Also that there are enough bench players to go around for every team, as if I'm going with an 8-man rotation for each team, that means I need 36 bench players total, and I didn't want to have career starters come off the bench.

[QUOTE=fpliii]This is how I felt as well. BTW, regarding the 68 Sixers team, how much do you assess blame on:

1. Wilt (including the allegations of being overly passive as to win the assist title)
2. Injuries
3. Improvement of the Celtics that season

for the repeat not occurring?[/QUOTE]

A couple of years ago, I went on a moratorium from all Wilt/Russell-related discussion on this board due to how emotional and heated some people got over it, and their inability to have a calm, rational discussion whenever that subject rose. I'm tired of it and I'm not discussing any of the two in relation to the other anymore. I'll discuss the two separately, but I'm not discussing any situation in which they were in direct competition with each other.

[QUOTE=fpliii]That's what I'd figured...with the scope of players available, there's no reason to have to settle for less-than-ideal fits.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, other than constructing more realistic dream teams relative to the talent available, the other point was that with certain players you hear about how they didn't have any help, their teammatea sucked, and there have been instances of bad fit (e.g., '77 Sixers). So the idea was to put all these players who be put on equal footing by giving them ideal teams with complementary players who give them exactly what they need respective to whatever they bring on the court. Since they all bring different things, their complementary players will be different and thus their teams will be different, but suited to [i]them[/i].

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Yes, West/Robertson/Garnett are available. I just haven't decided yet where they would go, being careful not to make one team too stacked, as the point of this exercise is to construct all-time teams differently than people usually do. Normally people do something like Wilt/Duncan/LeBron/Jordan/Magic, and then they'll have something like Kareem/Malone/Bird/Kobe/Oscar off the bench, which is completely ridiculous, as players of that caliber would never be happy with being limited to bench players for an actual season, there aren't enough shots or minutes to go around, and the only way a team like that could be assembled is if one GM somehow gets to pick an entire roster while all the other GMs just sit around and twiddle their thumbs waiting for his leftovers. It could never under any conceivable circumstance happen.[/QUOTE]

Understandable. As I've mentioned, one of my background projects is an attempt to categorize all role players on championship teams (and a follow-up would entail looking at all non-championship teams that at least made the ECF/WCF or equivalent.

[QUOTE]I try to choose players with complementary strengths. For instance, Auerbach said in '63 after falling behind 2-1 to the Cincinnati Royals, "The problem with my team is that we have a super defensive man in Russell and a super play maker in Bob Cousy, but we don't have a super star shooter. The super shooters are Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain .... We've never had a super shooter and people don't realize that." Hence the choice of Erving, who also demonstrated he could fit in with a team, and "may have been less interested in personal stats than just about any other player of comparable greatness." I don't stack strengths, which is why I didn't put peak J with Magic as I usually see. If Magic's the GOAT offensive player, then adding '76 Erving would stack it too much. Magic needs defense behind him, which was why I gave him Walton, Cowens, and Bobby Jones. So I have to decide where they would go where they would be the most complementary without making the team unbalanced as well as fitting chemistry-wise.[/QUOTE]

Good stuff.

[QUOTE]Hmm... I'd have to think about it, as I don't give answers off the cuff without considering them first. I'm not one for making lists, my interests are keeping a historical database and projects such as the current one I'm working on. But that was my concern, that there are enough players to go around so that all the teams are balanced. Also that there are enough bench players to go around for every team, as if I'm going with an 8-man rotation for each team, that means I need 36 bench players total, and I didn't want to have career starters come off the bench.[/QUOTE]

My apologies...I'm not a huge proponent of rankings of players as well (that's why I also mentioned tiers, as they're a marginally better alternative to straight rankings), I just wanted to try to ensure that there would be suitable quality without huge mismatches (since Thurmond/Russell and Duncan/Robinson are paired, there might be a significant dropoff at some point; not every squad will have a supreme defensive flavor though I imagine, so some might be intentionally unbalanced, depending on to what degree you want to specialize the remaining teams).

[QUOTE]A couple of years ago, I went on a moratorium from all Wilt/Russell-related discussion on this board due to how emotional and heated some people got over it, and their inability to have a calm, rational discussion whenever that subject rose. I'm tired of it and I'm not discussing any of the two in relation to the other anymore. I'll discuss the two separately, but I'm not discussing any situation in which they were in direct competition with each other.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I won't put you on the spot then. Realistically, it's probably a combination of the three factors (since Cunningham was a big loss), but I can see why the 68 EDF would be off-limits.

[QUOTE]Yeah, other than constructing more realistic dream teams relative to the talent available, the other point was that with certain players you hear about how they didn't have any help, their teammatea sucked, and there have been instances of bad fit (e.g., '77 Sixers). So the idea was to put all these players who be put on equal footing by giving them ideal teams with complementary players who give them exactly what they need respective to whatever they bring on the court. Since they all bring different things, their complementary players will be different and thus their teams will be different, but suited to [i]them[/i].[/QUOTE]

I see, that was my understanding. Not to pry, but was the motivation behind that Kobe thread (i.e. ideal superstar with whom to surround him) to fish for suggestions for the team based around him?

[QUOTE=rmt]Sorry, but Barkley HIMSELF agrees with me that Duncan is the best PF ever.[/QUOTE]

[B]He Also Said He Could Create His Shot Way Better On Offense than Duncan During That Same Interview on Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick Asked If There Was a Last Shot To Take Who Would Be More Reliable, Is It You or Duncan? Chuck Said "Me...I Can Create Offense Better than Duncan".

You Still Don`t Admit That Charles Was Better Offensively When There is Proof Right Infront Of Your Eyes.

Duncan Was Better Defensively, Barkley Better Offensively.

Now That Leavs Rebounding, Passing, Team D, Clutchness etc.

And In Most Of Those Other Skills...Barkley > Duncan.[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]He Also Said He Could Create His Shot Way Better On Offense than Duncan During That Same Interview on Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick Asked If There Was a Last Shot To Take Who Would Be More Reliable, Is It You or Duncan? Chuck Said "Me...I Can Create Offense Better than Duncan".

You Still Don`t Admit That Charles Was Better Offensively When There is Proof Right Infront Of Your Eyes.

Duncan Was Better Defensively, Barkley Better Offensively.

Now That Leavs Rebounding, Passing, Team D, Clutchness etc.

And In Most Of Those Other Skills...Barkley > Duncan.[/B][/QUOTE]

What don't you understand about Barkley's [B]NUMEROUS[/B] statements that Duncan is the best PF ever? Does this statement not encompass the overall player and not the breaking down of "skills" as you keep doing? Are skills the entirety of a player? What about his intangibles - his leadership, the mental aspect of the game, the competitiveness, etc? You see basketball as just "skills" when it encompasses the entirety of the player and the total package.

[QUOTE=rmt]What don't you understand about Barkley's [B]NUMEROUS[/B] statements that Duncan is the best PF ever? Does this statement not encompass the overall player and not the breaking down of "skills" as you keep doing? Are skills the entirety of a player? What about his intangibles - his leadership, the mental aspect of the game, the competitiveness, etc? You see basketball as just "skills" when it encompasses the entirety of the player and the total package.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

[B]Malone Thinks He Was Better than Barkley and Duncan...Does That Make His Oppinion the Truth? :confusedshrug: Charles Said He Was Better than Malone Too? So? Opinions :sleeping

See the Difference is a I Break it Down Skill Wise and Use Statistical Evidence and That Bothers You Because It Does Not Favor Your Favorite Duncan. Period! If They Favored Duncan, Then You`d Probably Give Me a :applause: But They Don`t :rolleyes:

Duncan Was a Better Rim Protector and Shot Blocker. A Better Post Defender. I Admit To it.

While Barkley Was Better AT EVERYTHING ELSE Skill Wise. Admit To It Too!

If You Go About Intangibles: Please.... Players Where More Afraid Barkley than Duncan. Barkley was an Intimidator at Court Prior to Games Themselves. I Mean the Barkley Prior to 1995-96 ofcourse. Clutchness? Barkley Had More Buzzerbeaters and Last Second Shots than Duncan. Barkley Usually Played With the 24 Second Clock In his Games and Still Made his Shots Most Times Jus Too Goof Off and Wait Till the last 2nd.

Duncan was Lucky to Play with a Great Coach, D-Rob: The Best Rim Protector of the 90s (Defensive Rating Will Agree Too), Ginobili a Top 4 SG and Parker a Top 5 PG. In an Era Where there where NO Jordan-Pippen-Grant-Rodman-Kukoc Phil Jackson Bulls, Bird-McHale-Parish-DJ Celtics, Kareem-Magic-Worthy-Cooper Lakers or the Badboys of Laimbeer-Isiah-Dumars-Aguire-Rodman-Mahorn-Salley-Dantley.


Thats Why He Has Rings. Put him the 80s and 90s on a Bad Team like Chuck and He Would Have Had Zero Rings.[/B]

[QUOTE=fpliii]My apologies...I'm not a huge proponent of rankings of players as well (that's why I also mentioned tiers, as they're a marginally better alternative to straight rankings), I just wanted to try to ensure that there would be suitable quality without huge mismatches (since Thurmond/Russell and Duncan/Robinson are paired, there might be a significant dropoff at some point; not every squad will have a supreme defensive flavor though I imagine, so some might be intentionally unbalanced, depending on to what degree you want to specialize the remaining teams).[/QUOTE]

No, they're not all going to be defensive-oriented to the same degree, as it'll depend on the best player. Russell's the GOAT defender, and Duncan anchored the greatest defensive dynasty since Russell's Celtics, so defense is going to be part of the identity of those teams. Teams can be on an equal tier without having the same specific strengths. Though you're right in that a concern is making sure that everyone has enough defense. So far, Duncan's team has the best defensive team 1-5 in the league, is equipped to defend Shaq, and has three perimeter defenders they can throw at opposing wings backed by the Twin Towers. I don't see anyone else having a team like that as none of the other players aside from Russell led a defensive team like the Spurs, but I do have to make sure none of the other teams will be at a significant disadvantage. Which is what makes it challenging, and thus more interesting than the standard "What's Your Dream Team?" scenarios.

[QUOTE=fpliii]I see, that was my understanding. Not to pry, but was the motivation behind that Kobe thread (i.e. ideal superstar with whom to surround him) to fish for suggestions for the team based around him?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I was trying to see what people who watch every single one of Kobe's games would say. I haven't watched as many of Kobe's games as Kobe fans have/do, and I figured that since they talk about him enough, they should have an idea, especially since they've been complaining about his teammates during this disappointment of a season when this was supposed to be one of the greatest teams of all time. But those threads don't go over well on this board, hence the people who spammed the thread.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]No, they're not all going to be defensive-oriented to the same degree, as it'll depend on the best player. Russell's the GOAT defender, and Duncan anchored the greatest defensive dynasty since Russell's Celtics, so defense is going to be part of the identity of those teams. Teams can be on an equal tier without having the same specific strengths. Though you're right in that a concern is making sure that everyone has enough defense. So far, Duncan's team has the best defensive team 1-5 in the league, [B]is equipped to defend Shaq[/B], and has three perimeter defenders they can throw at opposing wings backed by the Twin Towers. I don't see anyone else having a team like that as none of the other players aside from Russell led a defensive team like the Spurs, but I do have to make sure none of the other teams will be at a significant disadvantage. Which is what makes it challenging, and thus more interesting than the standard "What's Your Dream Team?" scenarios.[/QUOTE]

This is key...I think we determined that Thurmond could do a serviceable job on him (even past his prime). There are actually a few concerns with Shaq, as equipping him with certain types of players could make his team very dangerous in a playoff setting and undermine the balance (this could be the case with Sixers Wilt as well, depending on which season of his you select and what type of team you surround him with).

[QUOTE]Yes, I was trying to see what people who watch every single one of Kobe's games would say. I haven't watched as many of Kobe's games as Kobe fans have/do, and I figured that since they talk about him enough, they should have an idea, especially since they've been complaining about his teammates during this disappointment of a season when this was supposed to be one of the greatest teams of all time. But those threads don't go over well on this board, hence the people who spammed the thread.[/QUOTE]

I'll have to take a look at the thread and see if I can parse out some reasonable suggestions.

Considering that Dirk led a team to the title with no other allstar help (Jason terry as the sidekick) and schooled the stacked Miami Heat squad Id say he has the 2nd best claim to the throne after Timmy D. Karl, chuck and kg all had better careers but winning is the ultimate trump card in my opinion. The last player to do that wht Dirk pulled off was hakeem with the 94 rockets. I don't let kg leapfrog Karl or chuck as he wasn't the leading man with his title.

Duncan
Nowitzki
Malone
Barkley
Garnet

[QUOTE=barkleynash]Considering that Dirk led a team to the title with no other allstar help (Jason terry as the sidekick) and schooled the stacked Miami Heat squad Id say he has the 2nd best claim to the throne after Timmy D. Karl, chuck and kg all had better careers but winning is the ultimate trump card in my opinion. [B]The last player to do that wht Dirk pulled off was hakeem with the 94 rockets[/B]. I don't let kg leapfrog Karl or chuck as he wasn't the leading man with his title.

Duncan
Nowitzki
Malone
Barkley
Garnet[/QUOTE]

Are you forgetting 03 Duncan? Or do you think that Dirk's 11 run > Duncan's 03 run?

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Longevity Is NOT A Skill.[/B][/QUOTE]
No one said it was?