Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[B]Malone`s FG% INMENSLY DROPPED In the Play-Offs ALWAYS. Infact he ONLY SHOT 50% FG for 3 of his Play-Off Runs...That is With HELP of a System Designed for Him Through the Pick and Rolls and Stockton as the Creator.

I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.

The 1995-96 Season was When Malone became Better Clearly.[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Malone`s FG% INMENSY DROPPED In the Play-Offs ALWAYS. Infact he ONLY SHOT 50% FG for 3 of his Play-Off Runs...That is With HELP of a System Designed for Him Through the Pick and Rolls and Stockton as the Creator.

I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.

The 1995-96 Season was When Malone became Better Clearly.[/B][/QUOTE]

Not only did Malone's FG% drop, but he didn't not come through when his team needed him. Then again, neither did Stockton. Malone is the only superstar player I know(aside from his teammate) where in game 7s(or game 5s in the first round), he had a losing record.

[QUOTE]Considering what he did against Buck Williams, it's definitely up there. I never said his '92 WCF was his best series for sure, just that it's one of his best.

Malone was anywhere from a top 2-4 player, and Barkley never got outplayed by Mo Cheeks except for his rookie year.[/QUOTE]
malone had better series in the previous two rounds and he was 8th best in the league.

barkley was ouplayed by cheeks in the 1989 playoffs.
[QUOTE]Yeah, that is quite a joke you told.[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]Ah, the benefits of being a sidekick. [/QUOTE]
actually, he was the best player on a team that made the conference finals
[QUOTE]Malone was always better than him.[/QUOTE]
stockton was better from '88 til '92.
[QUOTE]If you lose in an earlier round, but play at your usual level, it usually means you came to play, but aren't on a contending team. To me, that is not a playoff failure. But in Stockton's case, he was on a contending team, didn't come to play in the series he got eliminated in, and that is a playoff failure to me. I wasn't overly impressed with his play up to that point either.[/QUOTE]
to me to get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and not step up to where your team needs you to, to be in a winning position as a superstar player, and get outplayed and step up less than lesser players is a failure to me.
contending teams are contending teams because of individual performances.
[QUOTE]Barkley doesn't get outplayed by role players.[/QUOTE]
destroyed
[QUOTE]Key word, second best player. Barkley didn't have that luxury other than his rookie year and his real decline years in Houston.[/QUOTE]
what luxury?
[QUOTE]Malone had clearly been Utah's best player for a while.[/QUOTE]
only from 1993, so malone had been the jazz' best player for only 3 years
[QUOTE]Nah, they were relatively close, but Penny's offense was significantly better, imo. Payton was clearly the better defender and the gap in their defense was bigger than offense, but offense is more important at the point guard position. Penny finished 3rd in MVP voting, and led the team to a 20-8 record without Shaq, including a 17-5 start when he was averaging 26.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 6.8 apg, 2 spg, 50.3 FG%, 62.2 TS% showing what he could do as the man.

Payton's defense was clearly better as I mentioned, both help/team defense and man to man defense. But Penny's passing and court vision impressed me more, his mid-range game was better, imo and he was much bigger and much more athletic making him a greater threat driving to the basket and finishing. Just the better overall scorer and passer/playmaker to me.[/QUOTE]
penny was a superstar and only 1 spot separated these two on the official '96 rankings.

hardaway was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the east and got swept in the conference finals.

payton was the best player on a team that had the second best record in the league and lost in the nba finals, the sonics also won 2 games against the bulls in the finals - 1 more than the three teams combined managed before seattle played them, and swept the defending 2 time champion houston rockets in the second round.

payton also was the defensive player of the year, more valuable, and led the league in steals per game, making it an easy decision.
[QUOTE]Yes, and I don't care for the reason I already stated.[/QUOTE]
its ok that you don't care, as long as you agree
[QUOTE]Barkley's series was impressive to me, especially for a 3rd year player. It doesn't alter his ranking on my list one way or the other, though.[/QUOTE]
how many years a player has played doesn't come into consideration when ranking players for me. barkley decreasing his production on many different categories does matter, especially when he is losing in the first round and others around him are stepping up - guys like roy hinson, julius erving, and mo cheeks. and barkley's ranking dropped from 5th after the regular season, to 8th after the playoffs because of this.
[QUOTE]Nice imagination.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
[QUOTE]I don't know where you get this shit from. I don't think you're being serious.[/QUOTE]
i haven't thought you were serious since your first post in this thread
[QUOTE]Kobe not in the top 18? Again, you can't be serious. He was the consensus best player. Not only were his individual feats among the greatest ever, but his team overachieved considering their very limited talent level and the injuries to key players.

There was a total of 1 player who had a case to be over Kobe, and that was Tim Duncan. Everyone else was at least 1 tier below.[/QUOTE]
kobe had a nice regular season, but he simply did not win enought to be ranked anywhere near the top of the league. he also had a trash playoff series, and was destroyed by a suns outfit who had a top 3 paced offense and was almost outplayed by lamar odom, who stepped up alot more than bryant did.
[QUOTE]Nash was top 3, would have been top 4 if Dirk hadn't choked so bad in the first round.

Parker was a nice player, but just top 25[/QUOTE]
dirk's drop off in the post season wasn't enough for nash to surpass him. nowitzki was still in the top 5. also better than nash were tim duncan, lebron james, tracy mcgrady, jason kidd, and kevin garnett.

parker was top 11 overall
[QUOTE]Nothing I've said is the least bit surprising, or any sort of stretch. Kidd being top 10 in 2011 and closer to Nowitzki than he was to Chandler or Terry just sounds like a joke or trolling.

Kidd was comparable to Marion as their 4th/5th best player. He was pretty much a role player by that point. A very good one, but role players don't come close to top 10, or top 20 for that matter.[/QUOTE]
kidd was actually top 9 in 2011. the mavs had alot of one dimentional players but kidd wasn't one of them. in the regular season he was 6th in points, fifth in rebounds, had twice the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only turned the ball over 2 times per contest in 33 minutes, and had a 3.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the regular season.

in the playoffs he was fourth in points, fourth in rebounts, over two times the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only recorded 2.6 turnovers per game which is a very low number for a point guard, and had a 2.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the playoffs.

[QUOTE]I'd have him second behind Hakeem.[/QUOTE]
barkley more valuable than jordan :roll: :oldlol: :roll:
[QUOTE]4th best player behind Jordan, Magic and Ewing and probably deserved a top 3 MVP ranking as well over Ewing thanks to the extra wins.[/QUOTE]
10th best player behind jordan, robinson, olajuwon, johnson, ewing, thomas, drexler, stockton, and bird. top 8 mvp ranking behind jordan, robinson, johnson, stockton, malone, olajuwon, and ewing.
[QUOTE]No, he was second on his team. 3rd is underrating him, then again, Mark Eaton and Jeff Malone were pretty good.[/QUOTE]
eaton and jeff malone were pretty good, not as good as stockton tho. they were closer to karl malone than john stockton, and much closer to charles barkley than john stockton.
[QUOTE]Magic did what his team needed him to do, and that team happened to be the most talented in the league. He also did about what he was capable of doing, except he was capable of a bigger playmaking load[/QUOTE]
lol what a joke. he would've easily accepted the bigger playmaking load in 1982, but they already had one of the best point guards in the league in norm nixon there at point guard, and magic playing alongside him made him a better player.
[QUOTE]Scoring more would have been a detriment to the team because he didn't have the skill set for it at that point. When he did have the skill set for it with the outside shot and post game, the Lakers had their best record since he joined the Lakers had their best record with him(65-17) and were the first team to win back to back since '69.[/QUOTE]
another joke. what happened to this "scoring skillset" in just the next season when he dropped to 19.6ppg, which was less than his 21.6ppg in his sophmore season, and only 1 more than he averaged in 1982? :hammerhead:
[QUOTE]Magic was top 5 in '82, but I really can't see him higher.[/QUOTE]
thats ok, not everyone can see the truth. magic was easily the best player in the game at that point.
[QUOTE]Nope, Bird is less crazy, but in the end it doesn't make much sense to say anyone was as good as Moses that year.[/QUOTE]
it actually makes alot of sense to say 4 players were better than moses in 1982 and that he was barely better than robert parish.
[QUOTE]1.Moses Malone
2.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3.Larry Bird
4.Julius Erving
5.Magic Johnson
[/QUOTE]
2,3,and 4 are correct, swap 1 and 5 and you have a nice top 5.
[QUOTE]Bird has a case over Kareem and Magic has a case over Dr. J, but this order is better. Parish and Gervin would probably be the next player on the list.[/QUOTE]
bird and kareem are relatively close, bird and erving is the closest. parish, norm nixon, and gus williams are the next best players.
[QUOTE]'84 at the earliest, but still debatable.[/QUOTE]
not debatable as magic was easily better by 1982. 1981 is much more debatable as to who was the better player between the two.
[QUOTE]Are you forgetting about the triangle offense? That's not an offense that encourages ball-dominance. As it turned out, it was a great idea to rely on the triangle more than ever with much less potential offensively. Pippen played a similar role to what he had been playing except for bringing the ball up a little less and splitting playmaking duties a bit more. He still had a career season setting career highs in scoring(22.0 ppg), rebounding(8.7 rpg), steals and a career high at the time in 3s made(0.9) and 3P%(32%). His team also overachieved at least 15 games by Phil Jackson's estimate.[/QUOTE]
pippen had a nice season, but it wasn't up to the standard of the previous seasons, and with the lack of scorers on that team with the absence of mj, he should have picked up the scoring slack to average atleast 25-26ppg

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]
I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.[/B][/QUOTE]

I think that Barkley and Malone are debatable in '94 and '95, but Malone did surpass him a little by that point, imo. Although Barkley was clearly better from '86-'93 except for '92.

[QUOTE=D.J.]Not only did Malone's FG% drop, but he didn't not come through when his team needed him. Then again, neither did Stockton. Malone is the only superstar player I know(aside from his teammate) where in game 7s(or game 5s in the first round), he had a losing record.[/QUOTE]

While Malone deserves blame for his playoff failures, I think he's clearly been the better playoff performer than Stockton for most of their careers.

[QUOTE=Shep]malone had better series in the previous two rounds and he was 8th best in the league.[/QUOTE]

Once again, I said one of Malone's best series, not his absolute best. His '92 series vs the Clippers was not better, but I wouldn't necessarily argue with the Seattle series.

8th is way too low. He was great in all 3 rounds of the playoffs after an excellent regular season. it was Malone's best playoff run even though I think he became a better player later and peaked in '98.

[QUOTE]actually, he was the best player on a team that made the conference finals[/QUOTE]

What a joke, especially considering how heavily you weigh the playoffs. Malone's playoff run completely destroyed Stockton's.

[QUOTE]to me to get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and not step up to where your team needs you to, to be in a winning position as a superstar player, and get outplayed and step up less than lesser players is a failure to me.
contending teams are contending teams because of individual performances.[/QUOTE]

Contending teams are contending teams because they have quite a few good players, and usually execute well offensively or defensively. Obviously individual performances are a part of it, you need your players to perform well to contend, but one player playing well is far from all you need to contend.

[QUOTE]what luxury?[/QUOTE]

The luxury of being the second best player on his team.

[QUOTE]only from 1993, so malone had been the jazz' best player for only 3 years[/QUOTE]

Nope, every year Malone had been in the league, so from '86 until Stockton retired.

[QUOTE]penny was a superstar and only 1 spot separated these two on the official '96 rankings.

hardaway was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the east and got swept in the conference finals.

payton was the best player on a team that had the second best record in the league and lost in the nba finals, the sonics also won 2 games against the bulls in the finals - 1 more than the three teams combined managed before seattle played them, and swept the defending 2 time champion houston rockets in the second round.

payton also was the defensive player of the year, more valuable, and led the league in steals per game, making it an easy decision.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, i don't have a problem with you taking Payton, I think it's close and apparently you do as well since you ranked them right next to each other.

Team success isn't a real issue here when deciding between these 2 players. Both had a lot of success, Seattle fared better against Chicago, but still fell in a 3-0 hole. And Orlando was facing the Bulls with basically just Shaq and Penny due to injuries and pathetic shooting by the supporting cast.

The key to Seattle sweeping Houston was their swarming defense limiting Hakeem so much, and also balance, Payton, Kemp and Schrempf all averaged 20+ on better on at least 50% in the series.

[QUOTE]how many years a player has played doesn't come into consideration when ranking players for me. barkley decreasing his production on many different categories does matter, especially when he is losing in the first round and others around him are stepping up - guys like roy hinson, julius erving, and mo cheeks. and barkley's ranking dropped from 5th after the regular season, to 8th after the playoffs because of this.[/QUOTE]

Barkley being a 3rd year player is definitely relevant as far as I'm concerned. A 1st round series when a player is so young is not a career-altering event. Barkley's level of play was at least as high as it usually was that season and you're overrating his teammates.

[QUOTE]kobe had a nice regular season, but he simply did not win enought to be ranked anywhere near the top of the league. he also had a trash playoff series, and was destroyed by a suns outfit who had a top 3 paced offense and was almost outplayed by lamar odom, who stepped up alot more than bryant did.[/QUOTE]

He went 42-40 with his best teammates being Lamar Odom(who missed 26 games), Luke Walton(who missed 22 games), Smush Parker and kwame brown(who missed 41 games).

He did about as well as you could expect him to. How many players even make the playoffs when those are their key players and they miss that many games?

I'd expect them to be destroyed by Phoenix, the Suns were very talented, and 1 of 3 legit championship contenders that year. Kobe didn't play like trash either, he played fine and averaged 33 ppg.

[QUOTE]dirk's drop off in the post season wasn't enough for nash to surpass him. nowitzki was still in the top 5. also better than nash were tim duncan, lebron james, tracy mcgrady, jason kidd, and kevin garnett.[/QUOTE]

I'm fine with you ranking Dirk over Nash regardless. Duncan was clearly better of course.

Kidd over Nash in '07 is a joke, maybe if Kidd would have been 4 years younger we'd have a good debate. McGrady doesn't have much of a case by that stage in his career. Garnett has a case.

Lebron has a case as well, I can live with that, even though I really disagree. Lebron's '07 season is ridiculously overrated. His jump shot was painful to watch. Give me Nash any day.

[QUOTE]kidd was actually top 9 in 2011. the mavs had alot of one dimentional players but kidd wasn't one of them. in the regular season he was 6th in points, fifth in rebounds, had twice the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only turned the ball over 2 times per contest in 33 minutes, and had a 3.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the regular season.[/QUOTE]

You're citing Kidd finishing 6th in scoring and 5th in rebounds and blocks on his own team as some kind of case for being the 9th best player in the NBA?

Sorry, but it's so ridiculous to put Kidd that high I don't even have to argue it. He was pretty much a role player. Role players aren't close to top 20 players, much less top 10.

[QUOTE=Shep]barkley more valuable than jordan :roll: :oldlol: :roll:[/QUOTE]

Just for regular season MVP. Both Jordan and Hakeem were the top 2 players in the league overall.

[QUOTE]lol what a joke. he would've easily accepted the bigger playmaking load in 1982, but they already had one of the best point guards in the league in norm nixon there at point guard, and magic playing alongside him made him a better player.[/QUOTE]

How did Magic make Norm Nixon a better player?

[QUOTE]another joke. what happened to this "scoring skillset" in just the next season when he dropped to 19.6ppg, which was less than his 21.6ppg in his sophmore season, and only 1 more than he averaged in 1982? :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at you comparing numbers from '81 when he played 37 games. The Lakers pace had also slowed considerably so Magic couldn't live off transition points to the same extent he did in '82.

But again, it'd be much easier for you to watch the games. Magic improving so much is just too obvious to miss when you watch the games. But I'm supposed to believe that adding a good outside shot and a devastating post game doesn't make you considerably better?

[QUOTE]thats ok, not everyone can see the truth. magic was easily the best player in the game at that point.[/QUOTE]

That's ok, not everyone has the time to get old games from '82 and watch them, but those who do know how laughable your claim is.

[QUOTE]2,3,and 4 are correct, swap 1 and 5 and you have a nice top 5.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely no chance of this with the complete absence of an outside shot and post game.

[QUOTE]not debatable as magic was easily better by 1982. 1981 is much more debatable as to who was the better player between the two.[/QUOTE]

'81 is debatable? :wtf: Magic missed 45 games and then costs the Lakers that 3 game mini-series when he shoots 39% and airballs the potential series winning shot on a play designed for Kareem.

Kareem was still close to the top of his game then. They weren't close to the same tier.

'84 is the first year Magic has a case, this is obvious when watching the games. The most important part of ranking players.

[QUOTE]pippen had a nice season, but it wasn't up to the standard of the previous seasons, and with the lack of scorers on that team with the absence of mj, he should have picked up the scoring slack to average atleast 25-26ppg[/QUOTE]

I already dismantled this ridiculous claim.

[QUOTE]Once again, I said one of Malone's best series, not his absolute best. His '92 series vs the Clippers was not better, but I wouldn't necessarily argue with the Seattle series.

8th is way too low. He was great in all 3 rounds of the playoffs after an excellent regular season. it was Malone's best playoff run even though I think he became a better player later and peaked in '98.[/QUOTE]
the series vs the clippers was easily better, as well as the seattle series.

it was a nice playoff run, fourth in his career after 1998, 1997, and 1996. 1997 was malone at his peak. as for 1992 well it was just a little too stacked in the top 7 for malone to break into, regardless of how stellar his year was.
[QUOTE]What a joke, especially considering how heavily you weigh the playoffs. Malone's playoff run completely destroyed Stockton's.[/QUOTE]
lol malone's playoff run didn't completely destroy stockton's, atleast nowhere near how much stockton's regular season destroyed malone's.
[QUOTE]Contending teams are contending teams because they have quite a few good players, and usually execute well offensively or defensively. Obviously individual performances are a part of it, you need your players to perform well to contend, but one player playing well is far from all you need to contend.[/QUOTE]
yeh, and role players stepping up when your superstar isn't at all is usually to the detriment of your teams success.
[QUOTE]The luxury of being the second best player on his team.[/QUOTE]
i wouldn't really call that a luxury
[QUOTE]Nope, every year Malone had been in the league, so from '86 until Stockton retired.[/QUOTE]
:roll: stockton was the jazz' best player the second he was injected into the starting 5 until 1993, or 5 years.
[QUOTE]Like I said, i don't have a problem with you taking Payton, I think it's close and apparently you do as well since you ranked them right next to each other.[/QUOTE]
:cheers:
[QUOTE]Team success isn't a real issue here when deciding between these 2 players. Both had a lot of success, Seattle fared better against Chicago, but still fell in a 3-0 hole. And Orlando was facing the Bulls with basically just Shaq and Penny due to injuries and pathetic shooting by the supporting cast.
[/QUOTE]
team success is a issue here considering payton was the best player on his team that made the finals, where as hardaway was the second best player on his team that made the conference semifinals. seattle fell into a 3-0 hole, but won the next two games, orlando fell into a 3-0 hole, and proceeded to lose the next game and get swept. the magic average losing margin was also almost 20 points :oldlol:
[QUOTE]The key to Seattle sweeping Houston was their swarming defense limiting Hakeem so much, and also balance, Payton, Kemp and Schrempf all averaged 20+ on better on at least 50% in the series.[/QUOTE]
and payton was the mvp of that series
[QUOTE]Barkley being a 3rd year player is definitely relevant as far as I'm concerned. A 1st round series when a player is so young is not a career-altering event. Barkley's level of play was at least as high as it usually was that season and you're overrating his teammates.[/QUOTE]
his teammates stepped up, barkley did not
[QUOTE]He went 42-40 with his best teammates being Lamar Odom(who missed 26 games), Luke Walton(who missed 22 games), Smush Parker and kwame brown(who missed 41 games).

He did about as well as you could expect him to. How many players even make the playoffs when those are their key players and they miss that many games?[/QUOTE]
odom was a top 5 power forward, walton was a nice all-round player and averaged 11.4/5.0/4.3 and 39% from downtown, smush parker and andrew bynum were also nice contributers. and the lakers were 3-2 without kobe. one of those losses was also without lamar odom and odom showed superstar potential in those 4 games without kobe averaging 22/12/7.
[QUOTE]I'd expect them to be destroyed by Phoenix, the Suns were very talented, and 1 of 3 legit championship contenders that year. Kobe didn't play like trash either, he played fine and averaged 33 ppg.[/QUOTE]
odom stepped up alot more
[QUOTE]Kidd over Nash in '07 is a joke, maybe if Kidd would have been 4 years younger we'd have a good debate[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: nash had the better regular season, but kidd's performance in the playoff's is the difference between the two.
[QUOTE]McGrady doesn't have much of a case by that stage in his career[/QUOTE]
by that stage of his career? :lol this was mcgrady's 4th best season of his career
[QUOTE]Lebron has a case as well, I can live with that, even though I really disagree. Lebron's '07 season is ridiculously overrated. His jump shot was painful to watch. Give me Nash any day.[/QUOTE]
lol nobody was anywhere near duncan and lebron that year
[QUOTE]You're citing Kidd finishing 6th in scoring and 5th in rebounds and blocks on his own team as some kind of case for being the 9th best player in the NBA?[/QUOTE]
ofcourse not, this is proof of kidd contributing on alot of different levels is the reason he was the second best player on his own team.
[QUOTE]Sorry, but it's so ridiculous to put Kidd that high I don't even have to argue it. He was pretty much a role player. Role players aren't close to top 20 players, much less top 10.[/QUOTE]
he was easily the champion teams second best player in the regular season and playoffs.
[QUOTE]Just for regular season MVP. Both Jordan and Hakeem were the top 2 players in the league overall.[/QUOTE]
both olajuwon and jordan were more valuable in the regular season, and both were better overall
[QUOTE]How did Magic make Norm Nixon a better player?[/QUOTE]
easy. before magic norm nixon wasn't as good as he was after he arrived.
[QUOTE]at you comparing numbers from '81 when he played 37 games. The Lakers pace had also slowed considerably so Magic couldn't live off transition points to the same extent he did in '82.[/QUOTE]
37 games is more than enough to prove what he was capable of.
[QUOTE]But again, it'd be much easier for you to watch the games. Magic improving so much is just too obvious to miss when you watch the games. But I'm supposed to believe that adding a good outside shot and a devastating post game doesn't make you considerably better?[/QUOTE]
you obviously need to watch more games
[QUOTE]That's ok, not everyone has the time to get old games from '82 and watch them, but those who do know how laughable your claim is.[/QUOTE]
people who have watched games will agree with everything i have said, unfortunately for most, they have only had limited viewings.
[QUOTE]Absolutely no chance of this with the complete absence of an outside shot and post game.[/QUOTE]
:lol he had a solid post game by that point, and a nice shooting touch.
[QUOTE]'81 is debatable? Magic missed 45 games and then costs the Lakers that 3 game mini-series when he shoots 39% and airballs the potential series winning shot on a play designed for Kareem.

Kareem was still close to the top of his game then. They weren't close to the same tier.[/QUOTE]
magic was the lakers best player in the regular season, but his poor playoff was the cause of kareem taking the ranking ahead of him
[QUOTE]'84 is the first year Magic has a case, this is obvious when watching the games. The most important part of ranking players.[/QUOTE]
obviously you haven't watched enough games.
[QUOTE]I already dismantled this ridiculous claim.[/QUOTE]
i have demolished all of your claims

[QUOTE=Shep]the series vs the clippers was easily better, as well as the seattle series.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing that made his Clippers series more impressive,

[QUOTE]it was a nice playoff run, fourth in his career after 1998, 1997, and 1996. 1997 was malone at his peak. as for 1992 well it was just a little too stacked in the top 7 for malone to break into, regardless of how stellar his year was.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at Malone's '97 playoff run being more impressive. He shot 43.5%! That was a pretty weak playoff run for him. He didn't have a series during that run which compared to his '92 WCSF and WCF series.

I don't see the argument for '96 either.

'98 is the closest playoff run to '92.

How was '97 a better season for Malone than '98? He did everything he did in '97, except better. Ended up with the same regular season numbers despite Stockton missing 18 games and dropping from a 35 mpg player to a 29 mpg player. Utah's record also still ended up almost the same. And on top of that, Malone's '98 playoff run was much better.

[QUOTE]lol malone's playoff run didn't completely destroy stockton's, atleast nowhere near how much stockton's regular season destroyed malone's.[/QUOTE]

Yes it did, Stockton's playoff run was a disappointment as usual, Malone's was a surprise because of how good it was. Stockton was also inferior to Malone in the regular season as is usually the case with sidekicks.

[QUOTE]yeh, and role players stepping up when your superstar isn't at all is usually to the detriment of your teams success.[/QUOTE]

When did this happen?

[QUOTE]i wouldn't really call that a luxury[/QUOTE]

I would, it's a lot different being the second best player.

[QUOTE]:roll: stockton was the jazz' best player the second he was injected into the starting 5 until 1993, or 5 years.[/QUOTE]

This is completely ridiculous.

[QUOTE]team success is a issue here considering payton was the best player on his team that made the finals, where as hardaway was the second best player on his team that made the conference semifinals. seattle fell into a 3-0 hole, but won the next two games, orlando fell into a 3-0 hole, and proceeded to lose the next game and get swept. the magic average losing margin was also almost 20 points :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

A 2 man team didn't have much of a chance at beating the 72-10 Bulls. Both teams lost to Chicago so I don't see much of an issue here.

[QUOTE]and payton was the mvp of that series[/QUOTE]

Maybe, I haven't thought about it before.

[QUOTE]his teammates stepped up, barkley did not[/QUOTE]

False

[QUOTE]odom was a top 5 power forward, walton was a nice all-round player and averaged 11.4/5.0/4.3 and 39% from downtown, smush parker and andrew bynum were also nice contributers. and the lakers were 3-2 without kobe. one of those losses was also without lamar odom and odom showed superstar potential in those 4 games without kobe averaging 22/12/7.[/QUOTE]

Odom was looking like an all-star before his injury, but he was bothered by injuries, particularly a shoulder injury which prevented him from maintaining this level.

Odom was his only teammate that was a proven legitimate NBA starter, and he missed 26 games.

Walton was playing his best basketball, but was still far from anything special, and he also missed 22 games.

Smush Parker was just not very good, and Bynum was nothing special yet.Just an 8/6 center who played 22 mpg.

Really, how many games do you expect Kobe to win with that lineup? Whatever decent players he had seemed to get injured.

[QUOTE]odom stepped up alot more[/QUOTE]

Nope.

[QUOTE]:oldlol: nash had the better regular season, but kidd's performance in the playoff's is the difference between the two.[/QUOTE]

It's really a laughable comparison. Nash had one of the all-time great shooting seasons we've seen leading the league in TS% and eFG% at over 65% and over 61%, respectively, while also leading the league in assists at almost 12 per game, and scoring almost 19 ppg.

Nash was at a completely different level than Kidd by '07.

[QUOTE]by that stage of his career? :lol this was mcgrady's 4th best season of his career[/QUOTE]

:roll: You must have not followed McGrady's career. It's obvious that T-Mac's prime ended after 2005, his first season in Houston. 2007 is clearly no better than his 6th best season.

[QUOTE]lol nobody was anywhere near duncan and lebron that year[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at you ignoring Lebron's broken jump shot. Lebron was nowhere near Kobe's level in '07.

[QUOTE]ofcourse not, this is proof of kidd contributing on alot of different levels is the reason he was the second best player on his own team.[/QUOTE]

5th and 6th best in certain categories on a team is nothing notable. He was clearly behind Terry and Chandler.

[QUOTE]he was easily the champion teams second best player in the regular season and playoffs.[/QUOTE]

4th or 5th best.

[QUOTE]easy. before magic norm nixon wasn't as good as he was after he arrived.[/QUOTE]

A blatant lie. In '79, Nixon averaged the most assists he ever had as a Laker with an even 9, while also averaging 17.1 ppg, which was just 0.5 off from his career average along with easily a career high of 54.2 FG% and a career-high 2.5 spg.

it wouldn't make any sense for Nixon to benefit from playing with Magic. they played the same position and took opportunities away from each other.

And when Nixon left the Lakers, he averaged 17 ppg and a career-high 11.1 apg to finish 2nd in the league to only Magic.

[QUOTE]37 games is more than enough to prove what he was capable of.[/QUOTE]

It's not even half a season.

[QUOTE]you obviously need to watch more games[/QUOTE]

No, this is what you have to do. Once you do, you'll be able to see Magic's clear improvement and why he was considerably better from '87-'90 than ever before.

'82 magic was mostly a transition player. Absolutely no outside shot or post game to make him a consistent half court scoring threat. There's no argument for that version being better than any from '87-'91.

[QUOTE]people who have watched games will agree with everything i have said, unfortunately for most, they have only had limited viewings.[/QUOTE]

No, these statements seem to be based entirely on stats, but stats that are only used when it's convenient.

[QUOTE]:lol he had a solid post game by that point, and a nice shooting touch.[/QUOTE]

Now this is a blatant lie that proves you have not watched 1982 Laker games. Why even bother lying like this? You know that people who have watched the games will catch the lie.

[QUOTE]magic was the lakers best player in the regular season, but his poor playoff was the cause of kareem taking the ranking ahead of him[/QUOTE]

:wtf: First of all, it's arguable that not even prime Magic('87-'90) when healthy played at the level of '81 Kareem, much less second year Magic in a year ruined by injuries.

I don't bother ranking a player who doesn't play at least 42 regular season games, and no less than 50 overall games, but even so, I know that Magic was never close to the level of '81 Kareem before '87.

Kareem led LA to a 28-17 record without Magic and raised his scoring to 28.8 ppg in those games.

[QUOTE]obviously you haven't watched enough games.[/QUOTE]

Oh, the irony. :roll:

[QUOTE]i have demolished all of your claims[/QUOTE]

Must be nice living in your own fantasy world.

There's no need to get bogged in statistical year-by-year comparisons. It's tedious and unnecessary. Big picture, who was the better basketball player on his best day?

Not even close. Barkley.

[SIZE="7"]Barkley: Karl Malone is the best Power Forward in basetkball!![/SIZE]

[url]http://youtu.be/T4PjJ5Iw58o?t=2m54s[/url]

[QUOTE=Chalkmaze][SIZE="7"]Barkley: Karl Malone is the best Power Forward in basetkball!![/SIZE]

[url]http://youtu.be/T4PjJ5Iw58o?t=2m54s[/url][/QUOTE]
This was from 1989-1990.

And I loved this show, back when NBA players were regulars on late night shows. Only NBA players on shows are after the NBA Finals.

Peak value wise Barkley is right. Hell I think Barkley peak value wise is the greatest PF of all time. There hasn't been a PF like Chuck before or since. Malone was a beast though and GOAT wise I would give him an edge. Karl was more of a traditional PF type. We hadn't really seen a guy 6'9 and 265 pounds run the floor like he did and combine it with a great midrange shot. But he still kept his physicality at the same time and was a beast on the glass. He also sets the standard for great longevity at the PF spot and improving (passing, defense) as the years went on. But Chuck would have been epic at either the SF or PF spot, something Karl could NEVER do.

[B]Charles was Always Humble Regarding Who He Thinks is the Best PF Back in the Day...but he Ranks Himself as N

[U][B]Career EFF Leaders [/B][/U]

Player EFF Seasons

1 Wilt Chamberlain 41.50 14
2 Bill Russell 31.71 13
3 Oscar Robertson 31.61 14
4 Bob Pettit 31.11 11
5 Kareem Abdul-jabbar 30.93 20
6 Larry Bird 29.77 13
7 Elgin Baylor 29.74 14
8 Michael Jordan 29.19 15
9 Magic Johnson 29.10 13
[B][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"][U]10 Charles Barkley 28.16 16 [/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]
11 Jerry Lucas 28.13 11
12 LeBron James 28.01 8
13 Hakeem Olajuwon 27.17 18
14 Jerry West 27.10 14
15 David Robinson 26.98 14
[COLOR="Navy"][U][B]16 Karl Malone 26.94 19[/B][/U][/COLOR]
17 Walt Bellamy 26.29 14
18 Dave Cowens 26.23 11
19 Shaquille O'neal 26.05 19
20 Kevin Garnett 25.98 16
21 Maurice Stokes 25.75 3
22 Tim Duncan 25.68 14

[B][U]NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating[/U][/B]

NBA/ABA

Rank Player PER
1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 27.24
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.70
7. Chris Paul 25.44
8. Bob Pettit* 25.35
9. Tim Duncan 24.75
10. Neil Johnston* 24.63
[U][COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"][B]11. Charles Barkley* 24.63[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/U]
12. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
13. Magic Johnson* 24.11
[COLOR="Navy"][U][B]14. Karl Malone* 23.90 [/B][/U][/COLOR]

[B][U]NBA & ABA Career Playoff Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating[/U][/B]

NBA/ABA

Rank Player PER

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

More Fun with [B][U]Statistical +/-[/U][/B]

Posted by Neil Paine on February 27, 2009

The other day, I talked at some length about “statistical plus/minus,” which is just a regression of pure adjusted +/- on the conventional boxscore stats. In that post, I looked into the possibility of predicting the following season using a weighted average of the 3 previous seasons’ SPM scores, but I realize that I sort of skimmed over the statistical +/- metric itself — what are its strengths and weaknesses? What kind of players does it overrate and underrate?

In an effort to better understand the metric and answer these questions, I calculated the career leaders in SPM (combined NBA + ABA, minimum 15,000 career MP) through last Saturday’s games. Here’s the list:

Player Pos G Min SPM
---------------+--+----------+--------+------
michaeljordan G 1072 41013 12.85
wiltchamberlain C 1045 47859 11.59
davidrobinson C 987 34272 10.79
lebronjames F 444 18083 10.00
[B][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"][U]charlesbarkley F 1073 39330 9.03[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]
k.abdul-jabbar C 1560 57446 9.01
magicjohnson G 906 33245 8.82
larrybird F 897 34443 8.81
juliuserving F 1243 45227 8.57
shaquilleo'neal C 1089 39103 8.21
bobpettit F 792 30690 7.87
clydedrexler G 1086 37537 7.79
oscarrobertson G 1040 43886 7.75
hakeemolajuwon C 1238 44222 7.70
elginbaylor F 846 33863 7.59
[B][COLOR="Navy"][U]karlmalone F 1476 54852 7.50[/U][/COLOR][/B]
andreikirilenko F 533 16671 7.37
timduncan F 877 32481 7.30

[U][B]Shot Made & Missed Diferential Stat[/B][/U]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNib-...el_video_title[/url]

[url]http://hoopsapedia.webs.com/nbaalltimescorers.htm[/url]

[B]SHOT MADE/MISS DIFFERENTIAL STAT[/B]-
(minimum 15,000 shot attempts)

Unstoppable shot makers (+1 - infinity):

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +3,367.5
2. Shaquille O'Neal: +3,200.5
3. Wilt Chamberlain: +1,865
[COLOR="Blue"][B][U]4. Charles Barkley: +1,434[/U][/B][/COLOR]
5. Robert Parish: +1,314
6. Adrian Dantley: +1,220.5
[COLOR="Navy"][U]7. Karl Malone: +888.5[/U][/COLOR]
8. Bernard King: +562.5
9. Hakeem Olajuwon: +519.5
10. Walt Bellamy: +488
11. Walter Davis: +443.5
12. Bob Lanier: +431
13. George Gervin: +381.5
14. Alex English: +291
15. Reggie Miller: +263
16. Tim Duncan: +248
17. Dale Ellis: +230.5
18. Larry Bird: +172.5
19. Patrick Ewing: +172.5
20. Michael Jordan: +137.5
21. Kevin Garnett: +0.5

[B]BARKLEY > Malone[/B]

[IMG]http://flipthatbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mini-me-austin-powers.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]This was from 1989-1990.

And I loved this show, back when NBA players were regulars on late night shows. Only NBA players on shows are after the NBA Finals.[/QUOTE]

Yep, good times.

[QUOTE=Chalkmaze][SIZE="7"]Barkley: Karl Malone is the best Power Forward in basetkball!![/SIZE]

[url]http://youtu.be/T4PjJ5Iw58o?t=2m54s[/url][/QUOTE]

I agree, it's funny how some people want to bury the real headlines with a bunch of slanted, revisionist gobbly goop.

[QUOTE]There is nothing that made his Clippers series more impressive,[/QUOTE]
what about the fact that he played better in the clippers series? that would make the clippers series more impressive. 29.8ppg, 12.0rpg, 2.8apg, 1.2spg, 2.2bpg, 2.4topg in the clippers series vs 28.2ppg, 11.7rpg, 2.3apg, 1.0spg, 0.8bpg, 3.5topg in the blazers series. so more points, more rebounds, more assists, more steals, over twice the number of blocks, and far less turnovers.
[QUOTE]at Malone's '97 playoff run being more impressive. He shot 43.5%! That was a pretty weak playoff run for him. He didn't have a series during that run which compared to his '92 WCSF and WCF series.[/QUOTE]
:roll: he led his team to its first finals appearance in its 23 year history and you are worried about field goal percentage :roll:

he averaged 30.7ppg, 11.3rpg, 2.0apg, 1.3spg, and 1.0bpg in a 3-0 demolishing of the la clippers

28.6ppg, 12.6rpg, 2.2apg, 1.0spg, and 0.6 bpg in a 4-1 destroying of shaquille o'neal and the los angeles lakers including a 32 point, 20 rebound game in the closout game 5

23.5ppg, 11.5rpg, 3.2apg, 1.3spg, and 1.2bpg in a 6 game victory over charles barkley, and the powerful big 3 of the houston rockets, including 26.5ppg, 12.5rpg, 4.5apg, 1.5spg, and 1.5bpg in the final two victories after the series was tied at 2-2.

and 23.8ppg, 10.3rpg, 3.5apg, 1.7spg, and 0.3bpg against the unstoppable chicago bulls.
[QUOTE]I don't see the argument for '96 either.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]'98 is the closest playoff run to '92.[/QUOTE]
1998 was his best playoff run
[QUOTE]How was '97 a better season for Malone than '98? He did everything he did in '97, except better. Ended up with the same regular season numbers despite Stockton missing 18 games and dropping from a 35 mpg player to a 29 mpg player. Utah's record also still ended up almost the same. And on top of that, Malone's '98 playoff run was much better.[/QUOTE]
malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.
[QUOTE]Yes it did, Stockton's playoff run was a disappointment as usual, Malone's was a surprise because of how good it was. Stockton was also inferior to Malone in the regular season as is usually the case with sidekicks.[/QUOTE]
stockton played well in the playoffs, malone's play was a surprise because his play was much better than what he showed in the regular season. stockton was easily the jazz' best player in the regular season, best point guard in the league, and top 6 overall.
[QUOTE]When did this happen?[/QUOTE]
this happened to the philadelphia 76ers in 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991. and to the phoenix suns in 1995.
[QUOTE]I would, it's a lot different being the second best player.[/QUOTE]
alot of individual sacrifices must be made in order to have team success
[QUOTE]This is completely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
facts are ridiculous?
[QUOTE]A 2 man team didn't have much of a chance at beating the 72-10 Bulls. Both teams lost to Chicago so I don't see much of an issue here.
[/QUOTE]
what a joke here. a 2 man team who also had a top 3 shooting guard and a top 4 power forward, to go along with a top 2 center and a top 2 point guard wasn't enough to take 1 game away from chicago? not to mention dennis scott and his career year of 17.5ppg, 3.8rpg, 3.0apg, 1.1spg, and 59%ts :roll:

no issue with both teams losing to chicago? :roll: another joke. team a goes 42-40 and misses out on a playoff spot by 1 game, team b goes 2-80...who cares, there is no issue here, they both missed the playoffs! :roll: :oldlol:
[QUOTE]Maybe, I haven't thought about it before.[/QUOTE]
i have
[QUOTE]False[/QUOTE]
the actual answer is "that is correct master shep"
[QUOTE]Odom was looking like an all-star before his injury, but he was bothered by injuries, particularly a shoulder injury which prevented him from maintaining this level.

Odom was his only teammate that was a proven legitimate NBA starter, and he missed 26 games.

Walton was playing his best basketball, but was still far from anything special, and he also missed 22 games.

Smush Parker was just not very good, and Bynum was nothing special yet.Just an 8/6 center who played 22 mpg.

Really, how many games do you expect Kobe to win with that lineup? Whatever decent players he had seemed to get injured.[/QUOTE]
i didn't have any expectations on how many wins bryant would possibly end up with at the end of the regular season. odom proved to be a much better player without bryant in the lineup and who knows how he could have led them for a whole season. i don't deal with what ifs, i deal with what actually happened, and bryant season warrented him being ranked no higher than 19th
[QUOTE]Nope.[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]It's really a laughable comparison. Nash had one of the all-time great shooting seasons we've seen leading the league in TS% and eFG% at over 65% and over 61%, respectively, while also leading the league in assists at almost 12 per game, and scoring almost 19 ppg.

Nash was at a completely different level than Kidd by '07.[/QUOTE]
again, kidd's playoffs was the difference here. he averaged a triple double for 12 games. defeated the favourite toronto raptors in the first round, before succumbing to the eventual eastern conference champion cavs in the semifinals. kidd averaged 15/11/11 with 2 steals.

[QUOTE]You must have not followed McGrady's career. It's obvious that T-Mac's prime ended after 2005, his first season in Houston. 2007 is clearly no better than his 6th best season.[/QUOTE]
:roll: you must not have watched any basketball games. past his prime yet averaging 25/5/7 in the regular season and 25/6/7 in the playoffs
[QUOTE]at you ignoring Lebron's broken jump shot. Lebron was nowhere near Kobe's level in '07.[/QUOTE]
that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.
[QUOTE]5th and 6th best in certain categories on a team is nothing notable. He was clearly behind Terry and Chandler.[/QUOTE]
terry and chandler contributed nowhere near to that of kidd
[QUOTE]4th or 5th best.[/QUOTE]
1st or 2nd best
[QUOTE]A blatant lie. In '79, Nixon averaged the most assists he ever had as a Laker with an even 9, while also averaging 17.1 ppg, which was just 0.5 off from his career average along with easily a career high of 54.2 FG% and a career-high 2.5 spg.

it wouldn't make any sense for Nixon to benefit from playing with Magic. they played the same position and took opportunities away from each other.

And when Nixon left the Lakers, he averaged 17 ppg and a career-high 11.1 apg to finish 2nd in the league to only Magic.[/QUOTE]
learning and accepting and excelling in your role to a winning team is much better than throwing up meaningless stats on a losing team.
[QUOTE]It's not even half a season.[/QUOTE]
i know its not half a season, half a season would make it 41 games because a full season is 82 games.
[QUOTE]No, this is what you have to do. Once you do, you'll be able to see Magic's clear improvement and why he was considerably better from '87-'90 than ever before.[/QUOTE]
its actually what you need to do. once you do you will finally come to the realization that he was only better in 1987
[QUOTE]'82 magic was mostly a transition player. Absolutely no outside shot or post game to make him a consistent half court scoring threat. There's no argument for that version being better than any from '87-'91.
[/QUOTE]
'82 magic was the best player on a 57 win team and a team that steamrolled through the playoffs to the tune of a 4-0 sweep of the suns, 4-0 sweep of the spurs, and 4-2 demolishing of 58 win, dr j led sixers. a playoff record of 12-2. magic averaged 18.6ppg, an incredible 9.6rpg, 9.5apg, 2.7spg (led the league), and 54%fg in the regular season and 17.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 9.3apg, 2.9spg, and 53%fg in the playoffs.

there was minimal amount of players around in the early 80's who had any outside shot anyway, and magic was one of the few who had a nice shooting touch, and magic also definately had the ability to score from the post.
[QUOTE]No, these statements seem to be based entirely on stats, but stats that are only used when it's convenient. [/QUOTE]
:roll: irony at its finest
[QUOTE]Now this is a blatant lie that proves you have not watched 1982 Laker games. Why even bother lying like this? You know that people who have watched the games will catch the lie.[/QUOTE]
no lies are being told from this end. if you watched more games you would find the truth
[QUOTE]First of all, it's arguable that not even prime Magic('87-'90) when healthy played at the level of '81 Kareem, much less second year Magic in a year ruined by injuries.[/QUOTE]
:roll: comedic genius right here
[QUOTE]I don't bother ranking a player who doesn't play at least 42 regular season games, and no less than 50 overall games[/QUOTE]
usually i don't either, unless special circumstances where the player is one of the best players in the nba
[QUOTE]but even so, I know that Magic was never close to the level of '81 Kareem before '87.[/QUOTE]
magic was better than '81 kareem every year, even rookie magic johnson was better than '81 abdul-jabbar.
[QUOTE]Kareem led LA to a 28-17 record without Magic and raised his scoring to 28.8 ppg in those games.[/QUOTE]
what was the record with magic johnson tho?
[QUOTE]Oh, the irony.[/QUOTE]
more irony :roll:
[QUOTE]Must be nice living in your own fantasy world.[/QUOTE]
you'd be the most qualified to answer such questions. as for who is the best player questions, please for your own sake and credibility, let me answer it.

[QUOTE=Shep]what about the fact that he played better in the clippers series?[/QUOTE]

Predictable, nothing but stats.

Malone took it to Buck Williams, a top post defender and a powerhouse Blazer team that was favored in the WCF and was unstoppable. Despite Portland taking Stockton out of his game whether it was Porter dismantling him at both ends or trapping the screen/rolls out high, Malone picked up the slack posting up deep at will and overpowering the Blazers inside as well as hitting his mid-range jumpers with regularity. Malone put Utah on his back and gave them a legitimate chance vs a great team despite his two best teammates being severely outplayed by Portland's back court.

That's a lot more impressive than slightly better stats(with the exception of shooting 55% in the Blazer series to 48% in the Clipper series) vs a 1st round Clipper team Utah was heavily favored over.

[QUOTE]:roll: he led his team to its first finals appearance in its 23 year history and you are worried about field goal percentage :roll:[/QUOTE]

He was probably a better player in '97, but it was not a better playoff run.

He got 1 round farther in '97, but look at the big difference in the WCF those years. Stockton stepped up and had a huge series vs Houston and was really their MVP of that series while Stockton came up small in '92. Meanwhile, Malone had a great series in '92, but he didn't in '97.

But somehow the difference in Utah getting to the finals was Malone having a better playoff run in '97? :roll: Context is important.

[QUOTE]malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.[/QUOTE]

'98 playoff run was definitely better and the regular seasons were virtually identical with a bit of an edge to '98.

Stats and record ended up virtually identical in both years while his skill set and ability were no different as far as I can see.

But, Utah's record was brought down a bit by the 18 games Stockton missed to start the season when Utah was 11-7, and his production was brought down a bit in comparison to '97 because of those first 18 games without Stockton.

With Stockton in '98, his numbers were 27.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4 apg, 2.9 TO, 53.2 FG%, 60.1 TS% and his record was 50-13, a 65 win pace.

And this was with Stockton reduced from 35 mpg in '97 to 29 mpg in '98.

[QUOTE]what a joke here. a 2 man team who also had a top 3 shooting guard and a top 4 power forward, to go along with a top 2 center and a top 2 point guard wasn't enough to take 1 game away from chicago? not to mention dennis scott and his career year of 17.5ppg, 3.8rpg, 3.0apg, 1.1spg, and 59%ts :roll:[/QUOTE]

Orlando was very talented, but I'm talking about how those players played in that '96 series aside from the duo, and you're grossly overrating Anderson and Grant......top 3 and 4 at their positions? :roll:

First of all, they pretty much didn't have Grant that series so take him out of the equation.

Grant gave Orlando 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes of play in game 1 before leaving with an injury and not returning in the series. Put Jon Koncak in his final NBA season in his place because he ended up being Orlando's power forward that series.

Now we have Nick Anderson, averages of 8.3 ppg and 5.3 rpg on 9/29 shooting(31%) and 3/15 on 3s(20%) before leaving towards the end of game 3 with an injury and missing game 4 altogether. Any scrub could duplicate that given the opportunity. Of course, this was made even worse by the fact that he was matched up with Michael Jordan at both ends.

Now we have Dennis Scott, the only one of Orlando's top 3 supporting players aside from their superstar duo who were healthy, but they might as well have had anyone in his place because he averaged 7.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg and 1.3 apg on 9/34 shooting(26.5%) and 3/19 on 3s(15.8%).

Chicago's 3rd, 4th and 5th leading scorers all scored more than Orlando's 3rd scorer.

[QUOTE]i didn't have any expectations on how many wins bryant would possibly end up with at the end of the regular season. odom proved to be a much better player without bryant in the lineup and who knows how he could have led them for a whole season. i don't deal with what ifs, i deal with what actually happened, and bryant season warrented him being ranked no higher than 19th[/QUOTE]

Kobe's regular season actually had him widely regarded as the best player in the game thanks to his league-leading 31.6 ppg, carrying the Lakers to a winning record and the playoffs despite injuries to virtually every key player of a cast that was limited to begin with and showing 2 completely different approaches. First getting everyone involved while still scoring quite a bit to help a bad team masquerade as a top Western Conference team for the first half of the season then carrying the team in an individual display few have shown capable of approaching when his coach told him to late in the season including four straight 50+ games immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, a 40.4 ppg month of March and a 36.8 ppg second half. In fact, in the 17 remaining games after Phil told Kobe to carry the team, Kobe averaged 40.3 ppg.

19th is a bad joke, only Tim Duncan had a case. Not Lebron with that hideous jump shot.

[QUOTE]again, kidd's playoffs was the difference here. he averaged a triple double for 12 games. defeated the favourite toronto raptors in the first round, before succumbing to the eventual eastern conference champion cavs in the semifinals. kidd averaged 15/11/11 with 2 steals.[/QUOTE]

The mighty Toronto Raptors? Oh, that changes everything! Kidd was playing with Vince Carter who averaged 25/6/4 in the series and Richard Jefferson who averaged 21.5 ppg in the series.

In all seriousness, it was a very impressive playoff run, but you're making 2 obvious problems. Both are problems you repeatedly make. One is getting caught up with the triple double statline, just look at '09 when Rajon Rondo put up virtually the same numbers in the playoffs in just his 3rd year. And another is overreacting to a small sample size of playoff games.

[QUOTE]you must not have watched any basketball games. past his prime yet averaging 25/5/7 in the regular season and 25/6/7 in the playoffs[/QUOTE]

So you use a statline to back up your claim that I haven't watched any games? :roll:

[QUOTE]that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.[/QUOTE]

The competition was horrible for a playoff run, the only real accomplishment was beating Detroit and that one miraculous game 5 gets that run grossly overrated. Lebron wasn't THAT good in '07. Being such a mediocre free throw shooter for his position and shooting disgusting percentages of 34% from 16-23 feet and 32% on 3s prevent this from even being a debate when you look at Kobe's complete skill set.

[QUOTE]terry and chandler contributed nowhere near to that of kidd[/QUOTE]

They contributed much more. Terry was their second best scorer by a wide margin and a very good shooter who came through huge in the clutch and was a capable ball-handler for them. Chandler anchored their defense, was their best rebounder and his finishing ability allowed him to score about as much as Kidd on vastly superior efficiency.

[QUOTE]'82 magic was the best player on a 57 win team and a team that steamrolled through the playoffs to the tune of a 4-0 sweep of the suns, 4-0 sweep of the spurs, and 4-2 demolishing of 58 win, dr j led sixers. a playoff record of 12-2. magic averaged 18.6ppg, an incredible 9.6rpg, 9.5apg, 2.7spg (led the league), and 54%fg in the regular season and 17.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 9.3apg, 2.9spg, and 53%fg in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Kareem was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. Even in a series where his numbers were down like the finals you can see how huge of an impact the double teams he drew and his shot blocking made. Those were things Magic simply couldn't match. His lack of a real half court skill set at that point was the difference since he wouldn't show the outside shot until 2 seasons later in '84 and he wouldn't show the post game until 5 seasons later in '87. His passing and rebounding for his position were outstanding, but having Kareem as the guy they could truly rely on to create something at anytime in the half court and make a defensive impact Magic could never dream of put a significant gap between the 2 players. All of the triple doubles in the world won't change that.

[QUOTE]magic was better than '81 kareem every year, even rookie magic johnson was better than '81 abdul-jabbar.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at rookie Magic. Where the f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]ck do you get this sh[SIZE="2"]i[/SIZE]t?

Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:

[QUOTE][B][SIZE="5"]Sixers' star has 3 peers: Magic, Bird and Jordan[/SIZE][/B]

PHILADELPHIA

Mind you, the source is out of Philadelphia which brings objectivity into the question. Having said that, after the Jordan/Magic/Bird trio, Barkley was in that next tier [I]right[/I] underneath them. Malone, at that point in time, wasn't considered on that level.

[QUOTE=Dragonyeuw]Mind you, the source is out of Philadelphia which brings objectivity into the question. Having said that, after the Jordan/Magic/Bird trio, Barkley was in that next tier [I]right[/I] underneath them. Malone, at that point in time, wasn't considered on that level.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was a [i]Boston Globe[/i] columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:



No one ever said any such thing about Malone.[/QUOTE]


Exactly. Malone has the edge in longevity and was more reliable on D, but prime Barkley was better than prime Malone and it's not debatable.


[QUOTE]Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.[/QUOTE]


Yep, and people were comparing Barkley to MJ/Magic/Bird as early as late '87-early '88.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:



No one ever said any such thing about Malone.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, the quote from Pitino really says a lot. This was Barkley just entering his prime with Bird and Magic right in their primes, near their peaks and Jordan really coming into his own.

Malone was at his absolute best as Barkley was slowing down, from about '94-'98, imo, but even then it seemed to me that Malone wasn't considered as close to second 3peat Jordan as Barkley was to prime '89-'93 Jordan. Other stars also came along and were more highly regarded such as Hakeem of course as well as David Robinson and Shaq by just his 2nd or 3rd year. Even Scottie Pippen once Jordan retired got called the best player more than I remember Malone being called the best, even as late as the '95-'96 season.

Even when Malone was voted MVP over Jordan after his shameless campaigning for the award , I don't remember people really saying he was as good.

[B]Malone became better the 1995-96 season when Barkley was done and going to Houston as a 2nd or 3rd option. Then the 1996-97 season already with back problems he suffered a knee injury that would change his level of play the following years (never close to the same)

The 1994-95 season was underrated for Charles.

His PER was 25.2 and in the Play-Offs 26.6. Malone`s PER was 25.1 and in the Play-Offs 24.6

Lets Not Forget What Chuck Daly said about Charles in 1992. "Charles is the 2nd Best Player in the World (after MJ)"[/B]

[QUOTE]Predictable, nothing but stats.

Malone took it to Buck Williams, a top post defender and a powerhouse Blazer team that was favored in the WCF and was unstoppable. Despite Portland taking Stockton out of his game whether it was Porter dismantling him at both ends or trapping the screen/rolls out high, Malone picked up the slack posting up deep at will and overpowering the Blazers inside as well as hitting his mid-range jumpers with regularity. Malone put Utah on his back and gave them a legitimate chance vs a great team despite his two best teammates being severely outplayed by Portland's back court.

That's a lot more impressive than slightly better stats(with the exception of shooting 55% in the Blazer series to 48% in the Clipper series) vs a 1st round Clipper team Utah was heavily favored over.[/QUOTE]
nothing but stats :roll: better than nothing but stats in a losing team :roll:

lol if malone hadn't of dominated like he did in the first round (in which he played alot better than in the conference finals) against the clippers, there would be no conference semifinals, let alone conference finals. malone also had the winning record of 3-2 in the first round, and a losing record of 2-4 in the conference finals and got destroyed by a team that only won 2 more games in the regular season.
[QUOTE]He was probably a better player in '97, but it was not a better playoff run.

He got 1 round farther in '97, but look at the big difference in the WCF those years. Stockton stepped up and had a huge series vs Houston and was really their MVP of that series while Stockton came up small in '92. Meanwhile, Malone had a great series in '92, but he didn't in '97.[/QUOTE]
it was easily a better playoff run.

the big difference in the wcf? :roll: the first round was easier, but the '97 lakers were easily better than the '92 sonics, and the '97 rockets were easily better than the '92 blazers. stockton also had a better playoff run in '97, but karl malone still was the mvp of the rockets series.
[QUOTE]But somehow the difference in Utah getting to the finals was Malone having a better playoff run in '97? Context is important.[/QUOTE]
somehow shooting a better percentage is more important than getting to your teams first finals in its 23 year history :roll:
[QUOTE]'98 playoff run was definitely better and the regular seasons were virtually identical with a bit of an edge to '98.[/QUOTE]
malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.
[QUOTE]Stats and record ended up virtually identical in both years while his skill set and ability were no different as far as I can see.

But, Utah's record was brought down a bit by the 18 games Stockton missed to start the season when Utah was 11-7, and his production was brought down a bit in comparison to '97 because of those first 18 games without Stockton.

With Stockton in '98, his numbers were 27.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4 apg, 2.9 TO, 53.2 FG%, 60.1 TS% and his record was 50-13, a 65 win pace.

And this was with Stockton reduced from 35 mpg in '97 to 29 mpg in '98.[/QUOTE]
he had better numbers and a better record in 1997. context is important tho. who were those victories against in 1998 without stockton?

the denver nuggets twice (who finished 11-71 on the season :roll: )
vancouver grizzlies (19-63)
dallas mavericks (20-62)
golden state warriors (19-63)
la clippers (17-65)
and toronto raptors (16-66)

so out of the 11 victories, 7 came against the absolute worst teams in the league, including 2 against the worst team in nba history. remember, context is important.
[QUOTE]Orlando was very talented, but I'm talking about how those players played in that '96 series aside from the duo, and you're grossly overrating Anderson and Grant......top 3 and 4 at their positions? [/QUOTE]
yep, top 3 and 4 at their positions
[QUOTE]First of all, they pretty much didn't have Grant that series so take him out of the equation.

Grant gave Orlando 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes of play in game 1 before leaving with an injury and not returning in the series. Put Jon Koncak in his final NBA season in his place because he ended up being Orlando's power forward that series.

Now we have Nick Anderson, averages of 8.3 ppg and 5.3 rpg on 9/29 shooting(31%) and 3/15 on 3s(20%) before leaving towards the end of game 3 with an injury and missing game 4 altogether. Any scrub could duplicate that given the opportunity. Of course, this was made even worse by the fact that he was matched up with Michael Jordan at both ends.

Now we have Dennis Scott, the only one of Orlando's top 3 supporting players aside from their superstar duo who were healthy, but they might as well have had anyone in his place because he averaged 7.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg and 1.3 apg on 9/34 shooting(26.5%) and 3/19 on 3s(15.8%).

Chicago's 3rd, 4th and 5th leading scorers all scored more than Orlando's 3rd scorer.[/QUOTE]
so what? chicago won by 40 points in game 1 when everyone was playing so there is no evidence that backs up the series being anything but a destroying, and in game 3 with the best player on the planet shooting 36 percent and scoring only 17 points they still won by 20:roll: . the talent was there, they should have made it a more competitive series regardless, but they were swept. "bring on chicago" i remember hearing from the magic fans after sweeping away the 46-36 detroit pistons. :lol so much for that.
[QUOTE]Kobe's regular season actually had him widely regarded as the best player in the game thanks to his league-leading 31.6 ppg, carrying the Lakers to a winning record and the playoffs despite injuries to virtually every key player of a cast that was limited to begin with and showing 2 completely different approaches. First getting everyone involved while still scoring quite a bit to help a bad team masquerade as a top Western Conference team for the first half of the season then carrying the team in an individual display few have shown capable of approaching when his coach told him to late in the season including four straight 50+ games immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, a 40.4 ppg month of March and a 36.8 ppg second half. In fact, in the 17 remaining games after Phil told Kobe to carry the team, Kobe averaged 40.3 ppg.[/QUOTE]
and the lakers went 8-9 over the last 17 games. again, you are falling in love with stats, most of all points, on losing teams. lamar odom was frozen out of the lakers offense in these games, with bryant forcing up 30 shots, and odom only managing 10.

as i've already mentioned, odom showed what he was capable when bryant was absent with his 22/12/7.
[QUOTE]19th is a bad joke, only Tim Duncan had a case. Not Lebron with that hideous jump shot.[/QUOTE]
to put kobe on the same tier as duncan is a good joke.

that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

[QUOTE]The mighty Toronto Raptors? Oh, that changes everything! Kidd was playing with Vince Carter who averaged 25/6/4 in the series and Richard Jefferson who averaged 21.5 ppg in the series.[/QUOTE]
the mighty new jersey nets! won less games than the mighty toronto raptors! vince carter was no better than a top 5 shooting guard and richard jefferson was no more than a solid starter, kidd was easily the best player on that roster.

how did vince fare in the next round against cleveland while kidd was busy averaging a lazy triple double?
[QUOTE]In all seriousness, it was a very impressive playoff run, but you're making 2 obvious problems. Both are problems you repeatedly make. One is getting caught up with the triple double statline, just look at '09 when Rajon Rondo put up virtually the same numbers in the playoffs in just his 3rd year. And another is overreacting to a small sample size of playoff games.[/QUOTE]
i don't make any problems. you, on the other hand make alot of problems, including falling inlove of shot jackers, and also putting up meaningless stats on teams going nowhere.
[QUOTE]So you use a statline to back up your claim that I haven't watched any games?[/QUOTE]
yeh well even if you quickly glanced over a half game that season you would've noticed the numbers mcgrady was averaging which they put up when a player goes to the free throw line..obviously you haven't even glanced, let alone sit for any length of time.
[QUOTE]The competition was horrible for a playoff run, the only real accomplishment was beating Detroit and that one miraculous game 5 gets that run grossly overrated. Lebron wasn't THAT good in '07. Being such a mediocre free throw shooter for his position and shooting disgusting percentages of 34% from 16-23 feet and 32% on 3s prevent this from even being a debate when you look at Kobe's complete skill set.[/QUOTE]
lol more pathetic statements and excuses here. the facts are that he made the nba finals, beating every other rival from the conference. shaq was also a mediocre free throw shooter and trash from outside 16 feet, does this come into play when arguing players? you are beginning to sound like your friend roundmound here. lebron shot 48%fg, 32%3p, and 70%ft, 55%ts (only 3 percentage points less than bryant).
[QUOTE]They contributed much more. Terry was their second best scorer by a wide margin and a very good shooter who came through huge in the clutch and was a capable ball-handler for them. Chandler anchored their defense, was their best rebounder and his finishing ability allowed him to score about as much as Kidd on vastly superior efficiency.[/QUOTE]
kidd was a great 3 point shooter and great free throw shooter, could get to the basket when he wanted, great at creating fast breaks and creating points for other players, one of the best at forcing turnovers, and had amazing handles, and was a nice defender.
[QUOTE]Kareem was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. Even in a series where his numbers were down like the finals you can see how huge of an impact the double teams he drew and his shot blocking made. Those were things Magic simply couldn't match. His lack of a real half court skill set at that point was the difference since he wouldn't show the outside shot until 2 seasons later in '84 and he wouldn't show the post game until 5 seasons later in '87. His passing and rebounding for his position were outstanding, but having Kareem as the guy they could truly rely on to create something at anytime in the half court and make a defensive impact Magic could never dream of put a significant gap between the 2 players. All of the triple doubles in the world won't change that.[/QUOTE]
magic was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. how big an impact did kareem's double teams and defensive impact have on teams before magic arrived in la? just because kareem had a hook shot, and could block a shot or two, its just simply not enough to contend with magic's all round game, which also included a nice outside shot and post game.
[QUOTE]at rookie Magic. Where the **** do you get this shit?[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug: nothing to laugh at here, rookie magic was easily better.

Great thread, it's one of the most interesting comparisons you can make between players. Even with all those fact-based arguments, it's incredibly difficult to say one player is just "better" than the other. Better in what respect?

It's almost a moral/aesthetic choice, in a way - hard work VS pure genius.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]Great thread, it's one of the most interesting comparisons you can make between players. Even with all those fact-based arguments, it's incredibly difficult to say one player is just "better" than the other. Better in what respect?

It's almost a moral/aesthetic choice, in a way - hard work VS pure genius.[/QUOTE]

I think Barkley vs Malone is the ultimate peak vs career choice when valuing a player - personally I think a better peak is more valuable, but some people prefer longevity/consistency. As long as you bring facts to back up your stance, it's a great discussion topic.

[QUOTE=Shep]malone also had the winning record of 3-2 in the first round, and a losing record of 2-4 in the conference finals and got destroyed by a team that only won 2 more games in the regular season.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: You're comparing his record in the 1st round vs the Clippers to his record in the WCF vs the Blazers? Talk about forgetting context with team success.

[QUOTE]the big difference in the wcf? :roll: the first round was easier, but the '97 lakers were easily better than the '92 sonics, and the '97 rockets were easily better than the '92 blazers. stockton also had a better playoff run in '97, but karl malone still was the mvp of the rockets series.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about the big difference between Malone and Stockton's performances in the WCF each year. Malone was dominant in the '92 WCF while Stockton played poorly, but in '97, Malone didn't have a great series while Stockton did.

And no, the '97 Rockets were not easily better than the '92 Blazers.

[QUOTE]somehow shooting a better percentage is more important than getting to your teams first finals in its 23 year history :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about him playing much better in the '92 playoffs in general. He didn't get to the finals in '97 because he played better in the conference finals so this is a non-factor to me.

[QUOTE]he had better numbers and a better record in 1997. context is important tho. who were those victories against in 1998 without stockton?[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about his record with Stockton in '98, that's a difference between the 2 years. '97 Malone had the luxury of Stockton for the entire season, and Stockton playing 35 mpg as opposed to 29.

[QUOTE]so what? chicago won by 40 points in game 1 when everyone was playing so there is no evidence that backs up the series being anything but a destroying, and in game 3 with the best player on the planet shooting 36 percent and scoring only 17 points they still won by 20:roll: . the talent was there, they should have made it a more competitive series regardless, but they were swept. "bring on chicago" i remember hearing from the magic fans after sweeping away the 46-36 detroit pistons. :lol so much for that.[/QUOTE]

I have no doubt that Chicago wins regardless, but I'm definitely not convinced it's a sweep with a healthy Magic team. 1 game doesn't tell us much. Remember the Memorial Day Massacre to start the '85 finals? Orlando had a great chance to win game 2. It was really Jordan's play at both ends in the 3rd quarter that sparked Chicago, from what I remember.

[QUOTE]and the lakers went 8-9 over the last 17 games. again, you are falling in love with stats, most of all points, on losing teams. lamar odom was frozen out of the lakers offense in these games, with bryant forcing up 30 shots, and odom only managing 10.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm "in love" with Kobe's skill set that year. It just separated him, he could things others couldn't dream of doing.

[QUOTE]as i've already mentioned, odom showed what he was capable when bryant was absent with his 22/12/7.[/QUOTE]

How many games did he play without Kobe? 4? Odom can play like a star player at times, the problem throughout his career is that he's never done it with any consistency. Nobody has questioned his talent.

[QUOTE]that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.[/QUOTE]

The Cavs were aided by their weak competition as well as their top 4 defense and great rebounding.

[QUOTE]the mighty new jersey nets! won less games than the mighty toronto raptors! vince carter was no better than a top 5 shooting guard and richard jefferson was no more than a solid starter, kidd was easily the best player on that roster.

how did vince fare in the next round against cleveland while kidd was busy averaging a lazy triple double?[/QUOTE]

Carter had a miserable series vs Cleveland, but he had surpassed Kidd by that point.

[QUOTE]yeh well even if you quickly glanced over a half game that season you would've noticed the numbers mcgrady was averaging which they put up when a player goes to the free throw line..obviously you haven't even glanced, let alone sit for any length of time.[/QUOTE]

I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care. That's because he's put up better numbers than that before, and because regardless of what numbers he put up, he had clearly lost a step since his prime. T-Mac's game in '07 was the same as it had been, except without the same first step or athletic ability and with a worse habit of settling for jump shots.

[QUOTE]lol more pathetic statements and excuses here. the facts are that he made the nba finals, beating every other rival from the conference. shaq was also a mediocre free throw shooter and trash from outside 16 feet, does this come into play when arguing players? you are beginning to sound like your friend roundmound here. lebron shot 48%fg, 32%3p, and 70%ft, 55%ts (only 3 percentage points less than bryant).[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: What does Shaq have to do with it? Shaq is a 340 pound 7 footer who played inside, and nobody could stop him from getting inside. He didn't need a jumper outside of that 8-10 foot turnaround, in fact, it would have been counterproductive considering the high percentage shots he got inside.

His free throws were a legitimate weakness, though. It's more common for big men, but that's something everyone should do a lot better than Shaq, who did get downright embarrassing at the line.

And if Shaq's game didn't translate as well to the playoffs, I'd rate him lower. In fact, I do take away from his '94 season because of that.

Back to the point, Lebron is a small forward, perimeter players need an outside shot, unless we're talking about some of the 80's small forwards who played in the post most of the time.

This is because the elite defensive teams will just back off you and make you beat them from the perimeter. Look at what happened in the finals. Lebron had an unbelievably bad series shooting 35% with almost 6 turnovers per game. That was his jump shot getting exposed. I guarantee this doesn't happen with Kobe. I doubt he beats the Spurs with that team, but he plays a hell of a lot better.

When Lebron improved his shooting dramatically in '09, he took his game to another level and dominated the playoffs.

[QUOTE]kidd was a great 3 point shooter and great free throw shooter, could get to the basket when he wanted, great at creating fast breaks and creating points for other players, one of the best at forcing turnovers, and had amazing handles, and was a nice defender.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Kidd by that point could not get the basket when he wanted, he could barely get to the basket at all. This was perhaps the biggest difference compared to his prime. This is why he barely scored. I can appreciate what he did, especially improving his 3 point shot which was essential because his scoring ended up being limited to that.

He was still an amazing passer, but I wouldn't call his handles amazing. He had a nice crossover when he was young, but that had a lot to do with his quickness. That's probably the biggest advantage guys like Nash and Paul had over Kidd, they could keep their dribble and probe, or get their shots whenever they want.

Aside from passing and 3 point shooting, he still did provide other things such as a remarkable knack for making something happen out of nothing and seeing plays that others don't, which is proof of him being arguably the smartest player of his era. And while he now lacked the quickness to guard most point guards(which was never his best attribute defensively to begin with), his size allowed him to still guard bigger players effectively, and he still rebounded very well.

[QUOTE]magic was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. how big an impact did kareem's double teams and defensive impact have on teams before magic arrived in la? just because kareem had a hook shot, and could block a shot or two, its just simply not enough to contend with magic's all round game, which also included a nice outside shot and post game.[/QUOTE]

Kareem had more than enough counter moves to complement his sky hook, not that he needed many because the sky hook was unstoppable.

Kareem's game always had a big impact on his teams until he was about 40 years old.

He didn't just block a shot or 2, aside from the 3 blocks per game he averaged(good for 3rd in the league), as a 7'3" shot blocking presence, he changed many shots, that's what Magic was alluding to in the quote I posted earlier.

Just like his scoring went far beyond the 24 ppg(6th best in the league) on 58% shooting(4th best in the league), it got his teammates half court opportunities, and he also gave them the option of a high percentage shot whenever they needed it, which was essential because they couldn't run on every possession.

You keep lying about Magic having an outside shot and a post game in '82 so put your money where your mouth is.

There are plenty of Laker playoff games from '82 on lakeptic's youtube channel, and I'll tell you what, I'll reupload 2 regular season games I had on my old channel from '82, one vs Boston and another vs Chicago. There are a few more in circulation too, that's plenty of games to find examples of this imaginary outside shot and post game.

[QUOTE]You're comparing his record in the 1st round vs the Clippers to his record in the WCF vs the Blazers? Talk about forgetting context with team success.[/QUOTE]
contributing to winning, compared to contributing to losing
[QUOTE]I'm talking about the big difference between Malone and Stockton's performances in the WCF each year. Malone was dominant in the '92 WCF while Stockton played poorly, but in '97, Malone didn't have a great series while Stockton did.[/QUOTE]
i'd take malone's series in '97. i'd take less production and a western conference finals victory over more production and a comfortable 4-2 defeat. if malone's exploits had been able to get the jazz over the blazers that particular year then that playoff would likely be ranked higher than '97's.
[QUOTE]I'm talking about him playing much better in the '92 playoffs in general. He didn't get to the finals in '97 because he played better in the conference finals so this is a non-factor to me.[/QUOTE]
he was the best player in the 1997 western conference finals. its not all about stats.
[QUOTE]I'm talking about his record with Stockton in '98, that's a difference between the 2 years. '97 Malone had the luxury of Stockton for the entire season, and Stockton playing 35 mpg as opposed to 29.[/QUOTE]
yeh it was a nice record. but a season is 82 games, bottom line.
[QUOTE]I have no doubt that Chicago wins regardless, but I'm definitely not convinced it's a sweep with a healthy Magic team. 1 game doesn't tell us much. Remember the Memorial Day Massacre to start the '85 finals? Orlando had a great chance to win game 2. It was really Jordan's play at both ends in the 3rd quarter that sparked Chicago, from what I remember. [/QUOTE]
the magic got swept, bottom line.
[QUOTE]No, I'm "in love" with Kobe's skill set that year. It just separated him, he could things others couldn't dream of doing.[/QUOTE]
but the real question is: could he win more than 1 playoff game?
[QUOTE]How many games did he play without Kobe? 4? Odom can play like a star player at times, the problem throughout his career is that he's never done it with any consistency. Nobody has questioned his talent.[/QUOTE]
yeh what a coincidence that his best stretch of 4 games came when bryant was out :lol
[QUOTE]The Cavs were aided by their weak competition as well as their top 4 defense and great rebounding.[/QUOTE]
the cavs made the finals, bottom line.
[QUOTE]Carter had a miserable series vs Cleveland, but he had surpassed Kidd by that point.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care. That's because he's put up better numbers than that before, and because regardless of what numbers he put up, he had clearly lost a step since his prime. T-Mac's game in '07 was the same as it had been, except without the same first step or athletic ability and with a worse habit of settling for jump shots.[/QUOTE]
who cares if he put up better numbers before. it is not all about numbers. mcgrady only missed 11 games, averaged more assists than he ever had on top of 25 points and 5 rebounds, led the rockets to a 52-30 record with yao ming missing half of the regular season, and actually played good in the playoffs while yao did not show up at all.
[QUOTE]What does Shaq have to do with it? Shaq is a 340 pound 7 footer who played inside, and nobody could stop him from getting inside. He didn't need a jumper outside of that 8-10 foot turnaround, in fact, it would have been counterproductive considering the high percentage shots he got inside.

His free throws were a legitimate weakness, though. It's more common for big men, but that's something everyone should do a lot better than Shaq, who did get downright embarrassing at the line.

And if Shaq's game didn't translate as well to the playoffs, I'd rate him lower. In fact, I do take away from his '94 season because of that.[/QUOTE]
the point is, no matter how weak you think his shot was he was still able to get his 27ppg in the regular season and 25ppg in the playoffs, which is saying something.
[QUOTE]Back to the point, Lebron is a small forward, perimeter players need an outside shot, unless we're talking about some of the 80's small forwards who played in the post most of the time.

This is because the elite defensive teams will just back off you and make you beat them from the perimeter. Look at what happened in the finals. Lebron had an unbelievably bad series shooting 35% with almost 6 turnovers per game. That was his jump shot getting exposed. I guarantee this doesn't happen with Kobe. I doubt he beats the Spurs with that team, but he plays a hell of a lot better.

When Lebron improved his shooting dramatically in '09, he took his game to another level and dominated the playoffs. [/QUOTE]
lol more jokes. bryant does not have a good track record when it comes to finals, so take his normal production and half it automatically :roll:

and besides the field goal percent and turnovers lebron had a very good series: 22.0ppg, 7.0rpg, 6.8apg, 1.0spg, 0.5bpg. how many players have averaged 22/7/7 in the finals?
[QUOTE]Kareem had more than enough counter moves to complement his sky hook, not that he needed many because the sky hook was unstoppable.

Kareem's game always had a big impact on his teams until he was about 40 years old.

He didn't just block a shot or 2, aside from the 3 blocks per game he averaged(good for 3rd in the league), as a 7'3" shot blocking presence, he changed many shots, that's what Magic was alluding to in the quote I posted earlier.

Just like his scoring went far beyond the 24 ppg(6th best in the league) on 58% shooting(4th best in the league), it got his teammates half court opportunities, and he also gave them the option of a high percentage shot whenever they needed it, which was essential because they couldn't run on every possession.[/QUOTE]
he also got pushed around and was bothered by the stockier bigmen, was a poor free throw shooter, feeble at transition defense or offense, and disgusting offensive and defensive rebounder.
[QUOTE]You keep lying about Magic having an outside shot and a post game in '82 so put your money where your mouth is.

There are plenty of Laker playoff games from '82 on lakeptic's youtube channel, and I'll tell you what, I'll reupload 2 regular season games I had on my old channel from '82, one vs Boston and another vs Chicago. There are a few more in circulation too, that's plenty of games to find examples of this imaginary outside shot and post game.[/QUOTE]
no lies are told on my behalf, and i have seen more games than have been uploaded to youtube, but feel free in anycase :D

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Actually, it was a [i]Boston Globe[/i] columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.[/QUOTE]

Thought I saw 'Philadelphia' on the article. Oh well, in any event I think we agree on the premise of what was said.

[QUOTE=Dragonyeuw][QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.[/QUOTE]

Thought I saw 'Philadelphia' on the article.[/QUOTE]

Because the article was written in Philadelphia because the Celtics were on the road playing the Sixers?

:confusedshrug:

Are you really going to quibble with me about it when I [B]posted[/B] the article in the first place? :facepalm [B]Peter May[/B] wrote it. Is he a Philadelphia writer or a New England writer?

And by focusing on that, you're completely missing the point.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Because the article was written in Philadelphia because the Celtics were on the road playing the Sixers?

:confusedshrug:

Are you really going to quibble with me about it when I [B]posted[/B] the article in the first place? :facepalm [B]Peter May[/B] wrote it. Is he a Philadelphia writer or a New England writer?

And by focusing on that, you're completely missing the point.[/QUOTE]

Oh sheesh :facepalm .....Who's quibbling? All I said was I saw [B]Philadelphia[/B] on the article, and that's what prompted me to think it came from a Philadelphia source. I'm not trying to argue with you that the article actually came from a Boston writer, I'm simply explaining that based on what you originally posted, I assumed( incorrectly) that the article came from a Philadelphia writer/source/newspaper. It's not like the actual article has [I]Peter May[/I] or [I]Boston Globe [/I]on it, does it? Yes it does have a reference to a Bird quote and a mention of the Celtics since they were in town, but that in and of itself doesn't necessarily suggest that the article was written by someone out of Boston. Ok.... I assumed incorrectly based on what I saw, big deal.

Really, I don't give a shit where it came from, and it seems [U]you've[/U] missed the point that we actually agree on the content of the article.

[QUOTE=Shep]contributing to winning, compared to contributing to losing[/QUOTE]

You know damn well that it's not that simple and that there's no comparison between playing a 45-37 Clipper team you're heavily favored to beat in the 1st round with homecourt advantage and a 57-25 Blazer team that you're expected to lose against in the Western Conference Finals without homecourt advantage.

[QUOTE]i'd take malone's series in '97. i'd take less production and a western conference finals victory over more production and a comfortable 4-2 defeat. if malone's exploits had been able to get the jazz over the blazers that particular year then that playoff would likely be ranked higher than '97's.[/QUOTE]

Less production wouldn't get him a win vs the '92 Blazers.

You can never sum up a team with 2 players, but depth isn't really an issue when comparing these teams and 3rd best players are just Jeff Hornacek, who didn't score as much , but gives you more of an all around player with more range vs Jeff Malone, who was a very good scorer who lived off his mid-range game with jumpers and off balance leaning shots, but was more one-dimensional..

1992 WCF
Malone- 28.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 3.5 TO, 0.8 bpg, 1 spg, 54.7 FG%, 62.8 TS%
Stockton- 14.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 11.2 apg, 3.3 TO, 1.3 spg, 39.7 FG%, 53.5 TS%

1997 WCF
Malone- 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.8 TO, 1.3 bpg, 1.2 spg, 44.8 FG%, 49.4 TS%
Stockton- 20.5 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 10.3 apg, 2.8 TO, 0.8 spg, 53.8 FG%, 65.1 TS%

Stats only tell you so much, but it gives you an idea of the difference. And the stats are fairly representative of the difference between Stockton's level of play in the '92 WCF vs '97. From watching both series, I can say that Stockton went from a poor series in '92 to arguably the best series of his life in '97

[QUOTE]he was the best player in the 1997 western conference finals. its not all about stats.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: After I called you out for relying on stats too heavily, you've tried doing it to me. It's just laughable.

No offense, but it seems like you do rank players based on their stats, team success and how their games hold up in the playoffs. Not that I have a problem with these being considerations, I look at these things, but it seems like those 3 things decide it for you. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten.

[QUOTE]yeh it was a nice record. but a season is 82 games, bottom line.[/QUOTE]

His team success with context in '98 is more impressive.

He fell short by a grand total of 2 wins, and he did that with Stockton playing 6 less mpg as well as playing 18 fewer games.

It's obvious that with Stockton playing all 82, they at least get those 2 extra wins. Actually, probably more because as you pointed out, their schedule was weak in those games. Much less '98 Malone playing with the superior '97 version of Stockton who played 35 mpg. With just a healthy '98 Stockton for the first 18 games, they win 65 games minimum, imo, but likely even more.

[QUOTE]the magic got swept, bottom line.[/QUOTE]

The Sonics lost too. Bottom line.

[QUOTE]but the real question is: could he win more than 1 playoff game?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure, pretty tough while facing the best Suns team of the Nash era with such a terrible team around him.

[QUOTE]yeh what a coincidence that his best stretch of 4 games came when bryant was out :lol[/QUOTE]

Lamar was playing great in general before Kobe's injury. He was still doing everything, he was still rebounding like a power forward as well as running the offense at times and handling the ball like a point guard, but his scoring was much better than usual. Most importantly, he was consistently aggressive attacking the basket and his outside shot was falling. Based on how people were talking, it seemed likely that he'd make his first all-star team. Lamar played 20 games before his injury, 17 of them with Kobe and he averaged 18.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.1 apg, 47.7 FG%, 58.6 TS%. So much for Kobe making Lamar worse....

[QUOTE]the cavs made the finals, bottom line.[/QUOTE]

To credit Lebron properly, I have to evaluate the competition and Lebron's actual performance that got them there. If I didn't, well I may end up overrating Lebron by putting him ahead of Kobe for example, which NOBODY did at the time.

Getting to the finals is a team accomplishment, how much I credit an individual depends on how well he plays. Why is it that some credit the best player automatically without considering other factors that got them to the finals?

[QUOTE]who cares if he put up better numbers before. it is not all about numbers. mcgrady only missed 11 games, averaged more assists than he ever had on top of 25 points and 5 rebounds, led the rockets to a 52-30 record with yao ming missing half of the regular season, and actually played good in the playoffs while yao did not show up at all.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about numbers in this case, it's never the primary consideration when I'm ranking players. And how can you accuse me of relying on stats after I said "I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care."

The reason I KNOW T-Mac wasn't at his '01-'05 level is that he had clearly lost a step and wasn't the same athlete, yet he didn't add anything to his game to make up for it. This made him rely more on jump shots, and not only had his jumper become flatter, but his free throws suffered as well.

When you lose something and don't add anything to make up for it, it's a fact that you're not as good as you were. It's obvious to the point where it can't be debated. Nobody can argue that he had lost athleticism since '05 and there's not a single thing anyone can name that he added to his game since that time.



[QUOTE]the point is, no matter how weak you think his shot was he was still able to get his 27ppg in the regular season and 25ppg in the playoffs, which is saying something.[/QUOTE]

It's still a key flaw that was exposed. Lebron did other things well such as his ability to drive to the basket and his unmatched abaility to finish, and his playmaking during that run impressed me the most, but I can't look past the jump shot. It stood out to me so much watching Lebron during that playoff because it's such an essential skill for a perimeter player. For that reason, it was Lebron's worst season from '06 to present, arguably '05 to present, but that may be a stretch.

Lebron was obviously still a great player, top 5 in the league, but when we're talking about the true elite, you have to look at every aspect of their games, and flaws like this will be keys. If we were talking about players of a lower caliber then they'd all likely have key flaws and it'd be leas of an issue.

[QUOTE]lol more jokes. bryant does not have a good track record when it comes to finals, so take his normal production and half it automatically :roll:[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: If we're talking about track records, then how about Kobe destroying the Spurs so many years? Including the year right after this one.

[QUOTE]and besides the field goal percent and turnovers lebron had a very good series: 22.0ppg, 7.0rpg, 6.8apg, 1.0spg, 0.5bpg. how many players have averaged 22/7/7 in the finals?[/QUOTE]

You're really trying to twist Lebron's finals into a good series? Besides FG% and turnovers? If you're going to evaluate a series on stats, you can't leave out two horrible ones. 22 ppg isn't impressive when you shoot 35% to get it, and the assists lose a lot of impressiveness when you turn the ball over so much, especially a perimeter player.

Beyond stats, it's simple to see what happened in the series, Bowen guarded Lebron very well limiting his impact and Duncan was a key factor shutting down the paint as well as doing the job by showing on screen rolls. The Spurs game plan of backing off Lebron to make him a jump shooter and shutting down the paint. This worked to perfection because Lebron had to get to the basket to score consistently, and that all comes down to that terrible jump shot.

The result was Lebron failing to play like the superstar he was in that finals series.

[QUOTE]he also got pushed around and was bothered by the stockier bigmen, was a poor free throw shooter, feeble at transition defense or offense, and disgusting offensive and defensive rebounder.[/QUOTE]

Kareem's strength was exploited early in his career, but not much with the Lakers from what I've seen. Especially not after the '79-'80 season when he started lifting weights for the first time.

Poor free throw shooter? I've never heard this claim about Kareem. It's ridiculous. He shot 71% that year, which is fine for a center, hell, he shot even loer at 70% in his peak season of '76-'77.

Disgusting rebounder? Also ridiculous, especially since you called him an average rebounder before, which was accurate/

[QUOTE]no lies are told on my behalf, and i have seen more games than have been uploaded to youtube, but feel free in anycase :D[/QUOTE]

You collect games too? Or are you old enough to have seen the '81-'82 Lakers play? Either way, I'm always happy to share whatever games I have, though I'll have to make another account. I have 2 current accounts that haven't been deleted, which is fortunate because a lot of games are on both, unfortunately, I got a copyright strike today on my second for 1992 Bulls/Knicks game 1 which now limits my uploading limit to 15 minutes for both accounts. :banghead:

[QUOTE=Shep]karl malone vs charles barkley head to head in the regular season:

malone: 23.7ppg, 10.1rpg 3.2apg, 1.3spg, 0.8bpg, 3.0topg, 52%fg
barkley: 18.4ppg, 10.1rpg, 3.8apg, 1.4spg, 0.5bpg, 3.2topg, 47%fg

malone: 23 wins
barkley: 16 wins

karl malone vs charles barkley head to head in the playoffs:

malone: 24.3ppg, 11.7rpg, 2.2apg, 1.4spg, 1.3bpg, 2.9topg, 44%fg
barkley: 13.3ppg, 8.7rpg, 2.7apg, 1.0spg, 0.3bpg, 2.3topg, 45%fg

malone: 6 wins
barkley: 4 wins[/QUOTE]

This is what matters, when the two meet head to head....and looks like Malone has a pretty safe lead..

[QUOTE=Callystarr]This is what matters, when the two meet head to head....and looks like Malone has a pretty safe lead..[/QUOTE]

:no: :facepalm

[B]Do The Stats When Barkley was Still with the Suns from 1985-86 to 1994-95 and Barkley Out Plays Malone. Even tight till 1995-96.

It Wasn`t thill the 1995-96 that Malone Outplayed Barkley in Their Last Meetings When Barkley Left to Houston as 2nd or 3rd Option

So for [COLOR="Blue"]70%[/COLOR] of Their Meetings...Barkley Outplays Malone

For [COLOR="Red"]30%[/COLOR] of Their Last Meetings Malone Outplays Barkley.

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157[/url]

In General Barkley was Better than Malone from 1985 to 1995:

Head to Head: from 85-95
Higher PER Top 9 and 10 All Time
Higher EFF Top 10 All Time
Higher Plus/Minus (+/-) Top 5 All Time
Higher WS
Highe OWS
Higher WS Per 48 Minutes (Top 8 All Time) etc

Its Very Simple:

- For Kiddos that Saw the NBA from 1996 on...Malone > Barkley
- For Elderes Who Saw Them Play in Their Primes...Barkley > Malone[/B]

Watch out ya gonna get the but barkley was a role player after his injury lecture lol

Geez your quick, id like to see their h2h stats from 85-86 to 95-96 even though thats not malones prime (94-95 to 00-01)

[QUOTE=Callystarr]This is what matters, when the two meet head to head....and looks like Malone has a pretty safe lead..[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Head to head stats are what matter? You really think a few games a year matter more than an entire 82 game season?

That doesn't make any sense...at all. All head to head stats show is how players MAY have matched up individually. It tells you more about match ups, not who was better. A player may struggle more against a role player than a superstar because that particular role player may be more suited to guard that player than the superstar.

But beyond that, it tells you more about how a player fares against a team because we can't forget that players are usually doubled, particularly Barkley who was arguably one of the 3 most double teamed players of the past 20-25 years along with Hakeem and Shaq.

Beyond that, nobody should EVER use head to head stats to try to prove anything unless they've seen EVERY one of those games because unless you do, you do not know how often these players guarded each other. Just because 2 stars are listed at the same position, does not mean they were the primary defenders against each other at all times. I remember entire games when Barkley and Malone weren't the primary defenders on each other.

And the bottom line is how a player fares against the entire league on average is how they should be judged, not how they fare against 1 player.



[QUOTE=joeyjoejoe]Geez your quick, id like to see their h2h stats from 85-86 to 95-96 even though thats not malones prime (94-95 to 00-01)[/QUOTE]

You could argue that Malone's prime started in the late 80's or early 90's. You could argue it lasted until 2000, imo, but I think 2001 is pushing it.

Malone was definitely in his prime by '94, he had become the excellent post defender, a great passer, a consistent shooter and he basically had the same post game as he did when Utah went to back to back finals.

But Barkley's prime obviously wasn't that whole stretch from '86-'96 either. It was probably from '88-'93, maybe it started in '89, but I usually say '88.He was arguably as good as he ever was in '93, but that also happened to be his last prime season.