Printable View
[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]
[B]Ages 23-32
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236157[/url]
So U are Saying Malone Was Better from 1996 to 2003 age 32-39 or 40? :no:
He Managed to Stay Healthier But He Wasn`t th Dominant Player He Was from 1985 to 1995 ages 22-31. Not Even Close[/B].
[B]Not Only Did Barkley Outplay Karl Malone for 70% of Their Total 100% Head to Head Match Ups When HEALTHY and BOTH in Their PRIMES but he was [COLOR="Blue"]THE TOTAL BETTER PLAYER[/COLOR]
HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1985: ages 22-31
[COLOR="DarkRed"][U]PLAYER COMPARISON:[/U][/COLOR]
[U][COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR] [/U]
[COLOR="Blue"]37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)
22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)
11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)[/COLOR]
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn
Ok what i got from that is barkley had better steals, assists, rebounds and more eff, malone scored more blocked more shots and had less turnovers all in all very close and thats with barkleys whole prime and not malones
[QUOTE=joeyjoejoe]Ok what i got from that is barkley had better steals, assists, rebounds and more eff, malone scored more blocked more shots and had less turnovers all in all very close and thats with barkleys whole prime and not malones[/QUOTE]
[B]That is including 1995-96 which is the year that Malone took Over. NEVER BEFORE.
What are you saying Kiddo...Barkley a Better FT SHooter than Malone cause of the Matchups? :no: Malone was Better FT Shooter He Worked Harder (less talent) for Those.
Ofcourse Barkley had more Turnovers...You Know He Had To CREATE for the Sixers to and WAS WAY MORE DOUBLED than Malone who did not develop a decent post game till around 1997. Unlike Malone Who Had to CREATE NOTHING for HIM OR HIS TEMATES because of a man called JOHN STOCKTON WHO RAN THE PLAY-S FOR MALONE to Score. THE GREATEST CREATOR AND PASSER EVER.
Also Barkley shot 55% FG in the 2-Point Region while Malone shot 50%. That is 5% More a Difference Between a Player Shooting 45% to 50%. Thats alot. Especially at PF.
Malone took 3-4 More Shots Per Game too while Being Less Effective too.
Do the stats from 1985-96 to 1994-95 the Season (i included the 95-96 season when Barkley was done and Malone was Better) When Barkley got Back Injured and Those Favor Barkley.
Also Head to Heads Don`t Mean Much because You Don`t Know Who Guarded Who all Time. The only thing i can say is that before 1995-96 when they Guarded Each Other Barkley Schooled him.
Barkley before Back Injured and ****ing his Knee Up in 1996-97 WAS A MUCH BETTER TOTAL PLAYER THAN MALONE. I SAW IT LIVE in the 80s and early-mid 90s
Also Look Up On What I Put in PLAYER COMPARISON ages 22-31
And that is EXCLUDING PLAY-OFF NUMBERS. PLAY-OFFS: WHERE MALONE ALWAYS DECLINED HEAVILY COMPARED TO BARKLEY[/B]
You wrote more blocks but thats not the case, can cherry pick all you want hey i can do the same imagine comparing the stats in malones prime 94-00 think we know how that would go, malones game took time to polish he worked hard on it something barkley lacked, i never brought up the h2h stats your the one posting the statsheet
[QUOTE=joeyjoejoe]You wrote more blocks but thats not the case, can cherry pick all you want hey i can do the same imagine comparing the stats in malones prime 94-00 think we know how that would go, malones game took time to polish he worked hard on it something barkley lacked, i never brought up the h2h stats your the one posting the statsheet[/QUOTE]
:no:
[B]Still you Avoid the fact Barkley outplayed him for 70% of Career While Malone Outplayed Barkley Only 30% Of It = When Charles Left to Houston as an Injured Overweight 2nd and 3rd Option,
Also You Avoid the Player Comparisson Where Clearly Barkley Was Better for 10-11 Years While Malone for the Last 5 Years of Barkley`s Houston Era. :confusedshrug: [/B]
10 or 11 years? 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90,90-91,91-92, 93-94 thats 8 years ofcourse your gonna argue but 94-95 is the last year, i disagree
[QUOTE=joeyjoejoe]10 or 11 years? 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90,90-91,91-92, 93-94 thats 8 years ofcourse your gonna argue but 94-95 is the last year, i disagree[/QUOTE]
:no:
[B]Barkley had a Higher PER in 1994-95 and ALWAYS a Higher PER in the Play-Offs...ALLWAYS.
I included 1995-96 for those head to head stats and thats the Year When Barkley began to Decline Heavily so its 1985-86 to 1995-96. So its 10 Years
For the Player Comparisson i used 1985-86 to 1994-95 if you add 1995-96 Barkley still has a Higher PER, EFF, Plus/Minus, WS, OWS and WS Per 48 Minutes. Do it Yourself and See.[/B]
Ok so were just talking h2h then well it seems they were very close in your stats , your avoiding the fact that your cherry picking years prime barkley and pre prime malone
[QUOTE=joeyjoejoe]Ok so were just talking h2h then well it seems they were very close in your stats , your avoiding the fact that your cherry picking years prime barkley and pre prime malone[/QUOTE]
[B]So You Say Malone was Better ages 33-40? Than 22-32? :no:
I Think He Just Kept a Good Level Cause of His Work Ethic Physically But He Wasn`t Better after that He Just Aged Well In a Good Level Passed His Prime...
Malone was More Scary ages 22-32 because of his Mobility and For Barkley He Was Just Insane in his Prime Years[/B]
I think he was better from about 94-00 improved his jump shot, defense, became a bettrr playmaker
[QUOTE=joeyjoejoe]I think he was better from about 94-00 improved his jump shot, defense, became a bettrr playmaker[/QUOTE]
[B]He always had a Good Jumper Even in the 80s and Early 90s: he became a Better Post Payer after 1995 and also Passer as the Years Passed ....But his Rebounding, Defense and Potence Decreased (same for Barkley).
Karl was a Work Horse...That is Why Physically He Lasted Longer in a Good Level More than Other Players.
I think Karl was a the Best "Catch" Recieve Finisher Ever though (Better than Dr J, James Worthy, Tom Chambers or Sir Charles). In his Early Days he Would Run the Court like a Wide Reciever and Stockton Would Find Him Always.
Asoume to Watch Finess and Power Working Together.
Karl was Good but he Wasn`t in the Level of Prime Barkley. From 1985 to 1995 Barkley was Better Clearly. As Barkley began to Detiriorate his Back (like Bird), Knees and Athletic Capacity...Karl Took Over as the Best PF.[/B]
His rebounds declined a bit but became a better rounded team player, there both great and close on mosts lists, i was disapointed when both lost to the bulls but atleast it was the 90's bulls hey
Malone could already shoot in the late 80's and early 90's, and he was faster, more athletic and more of a power player.
But Karl did improve that jump shot noticeably in the mid/late 90's. His range and consistency got better, and he also became a more polisher post player with that trademark step back from the post. His passing got much better too. His rebounding didn't really decline either, and his post defense clearly got better from about '94 on.
Malone peaked, imo at age 34 in '98. And even by 36 years old in 2000, he really didn't seem to have lost much ability.
I prefer the older, more well rounded and polished Malone who relied on finesse more, to the younger, more athletic Malone who overpowered players more.
[B]Yup his Post Game and Mid Range Game Improoved Alot in the Mid 90s though his Explosivness, Overpowering Way Play and Rebounding Decreased as he Got Older (same with Charles after 1995). He Was More Rigid and Less Explosive Then but Still Quite Effective.
The Problem for Malone Was His Play-Off Performances. They Always Declined Heavily Compared to Charles: Who Dominated the [U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Mid Range and Post Region [/COLOR][/U]With Ease and No Need of a System of Pick and Rolls.
Season:
Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Per Game
Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs Per Game
[U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:[/COLOR][/U]
Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs Per Game
Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs Per Game [/B]
So much mis-information about Karl Malone it's not even funny. I watched more Karl Malone games then all of you combined, and you guys that post a lot have no clue. It's appalling really, especially Round Mound of Agenda, you're a complete joke buddy.
With that said, I think it's time I retire from this board, I've read enough bullshit.
[QUOTE=Chalkmaze]So much mis-information about Karl Malone it's not even funny. I watched more Karl Malone games then all of you combined, and you guys that post a lot have no clue. It's appalling really, especially Round Mound of Agenda, you're a complete joke buddy.
With that said, I think it's time I retire from this board, I've read enough bullshit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Location: Salt Lake City, Utah[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you have no agenda either. :rolleyes:
What i dont like about Chuck's quotes is the "Malone had/ needed Stockton to score so many points"...
how do you know? we had no chance to see Malone without Stockton in his prime! i am pretty sure Malone would have scored about the same amount of points with lots of (good) PGs running the Jazz (mainly becauce Coach Sloan would drill them to do the right play). so it's right, that they had each other, but they are elite talent as PF and PG and would have gotten their numbers on other teams for sure.
[B]Sadly most kiddos here watched Malone and Barkley play from 1997 onwards when the NBA WAS MORE MARKETABLE...never when Charles was healthy from 85 to 95. I did and i can affirm even statistically that Barkley was Better than Malone.
I have no Agenda Here...I Loved Stockton to Malone was Much as Many Here But To Say Malone Was Better cause of Longevity? Give me a Break: Longevity is Not a Skill...Kobe Bryant Might Have Better Longevity Stats than Jordan was he Better? :no: .
Barkley was the More Skilled Player, The Most Difficult PF to Guard Ever!" and the Best Combination of High Scoring FG%, Monster High 2-Point FG% (like Shaq), Rebounder and Passer EVER for a PF.
Barkley with Phily was a Much Better Shot Blocker and The Best Stealing PF Ever... and More Onstoppable With the Ball in Transition (handling the ball) than ANY PF Ever.
Stats Don`t Lie...Charles is By Far The Most Underrated Superstar Ever.
Top 10 All Time In EFF
Top 10 All Time in Season PER
Top 9 All Time in Play-Off PER
Top 5 All Time in Plus/Minus (+/-)
Top 4 All Time In Shot Made/Missed Diferential
Top 8 All Time in WS Per 48 Minutes
From 1985 to 1995 Also Outplayed Malone for 70% of their Careers "Kiddos Only Remember 1997 unwards" and also WAS BIG IN THE PLAY-OFFS...UNLIKE MALONE who`s Numbers and Level of Play ALWAYS DECREASED in the Play-Offs.
Barkley HEALTHY AND PRIME is The Cream of All PFs...[/B]
[QUOTE=D.J.]Yeah, you have no agenda either. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
[B]L.A Jazz Nick Name and the Other: Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Give me a Break and People Say I Have An Agenda? ...... :rolleyes:
I Happen to Have Watched the NBA in the Late 80s and Early & Mid 90s and have seen both Malone and Barkley WHEN BOTH WHERE HEALTHY "Not Just One Healthy" (not 1996-97 unwards when Barkley was an overweight and injured man) unlike Blinded Jazz Fans Fools..
[/B]
:applause:
Better comedian and better eating hamburgers.
[QUOTE=TaLvsCuaL]Better comedian and better eating hamburgers.[/QUOTE]
[B]The Other Better? At What?
OH Yea...At Raping Little Girls and at Hunting.[/B]
[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]The Other Better? At What?
OH Yea...As a Rapist and at Hunting Wild Animals.[/B][/QUOTE]
It was just a joke, I think Barkley was more talented but Malone had a good head start in his career due to Stockton. I think that his reputation has always harmed him. Also unfortunately we tend to judge players based on their achievements, and sometimes others players that had worse luck could have done better things if they had been on the right team at the right time. Garnett for example, in my opini
[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]L.A Jazz Nick Name and the Other: Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Give me a Break and People Say I Have An Agenda? ...... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
i havent said a word about who i think was the better player. i only want to say it's unfair to their (Stockton/Malone) talent, to say they wouldnt be as good on other teams. we dont know that and will never know.
i remember Chuck saying on NBA.TV that you have to believe that you are better than all others to compete in the NBA. so it's fitting he think so about himself.
[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]The Other Better? At What?
OH Yea...At Raping Little Girls and at Hunting.[/B][/QUOTE]
and driving trucks
[IMG]http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/048/951/malone-logging_display_image.jpg?1309090783[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Yup his Post Game and Mid Range Game Improoved Alot in the Mid 90s though his Explosivness, Overpowering Way Play and Rebounding Decreased as he Got Older (same with Charles after 1995). He Was More Rigid and Less Explosive Then but Still Quite Effective.[/QUOTE]
I agree that Malone's explosiveness declined, but his rebounding stayed the same.
In 1998, Malone averaged 10.3 rpg, and his TRB% was 17.1%, which was almost as high as it ever was. He only topped that in 1995 with a 17.4 TRB%, 1991 with a 17.2 TRB% and tied it in 1990 with a 17.1 TRB%..
[QUOTE]The Problem for Malone Was His Play-Off Performances. They Always Declined Heavily Compared to Charles: Who Dominated the [U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Mid Range and Post Region [/COLOR][/U]With Ease and No Need of a System of Pick and Rolls.
Season:
Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Per Game
Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs Per Game
[U][COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:[/COLOR][/U]
Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs Per Game
Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs Per Game [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, Barkley was always better in the playoffs, and it's because of what Charles said in the quote from the original post in this thread. Charles could get his shot when he wanted, while Malone did benefit from easy baskets because of Stockton and the system.
Malone was still a very good scorer, but this made it difficult for him to match his regular season play in the playoffs. He did have some good playoff runs, though. He just wasn't as dominant as Barkley.
So where is this 70% of career coming from?
Top is Charles
Bottom is Karl
85-86 (CHARLES)
36.9m 20.0p 12.8r 3.9a 1.8s 1.5b .572 .685
30.6m 14.9p 8.9r 2.9a 1.3s 0.5b .496 .481 *ROOKIE*
86-87 (CHARLES)
40.3m 23.0p 14.6r 4.9a 1.8s 1.5b .594 .761
34.8m 21.7p 10.4r 1.9a 1.3s 0.7b .512 .598
87-88 (CHARLES)
39.6m 28.3p 11.9r 3.2a 1.3s 1.3b .587 .751
39.0m 27.7p 12.0r 2.4a 1.4s 0.7b .520 .700
88-89 (KARL)
39.1m 25.8p 12.5r 4.1a 1.6s 0.8b .579 .753
39.1m 29.1p 10.7r 2.7a 1.8s 0.9b .519 .766
89-90 (TIE)
39.1m 25.2p 11.5r 3.9a 1.9s 0.6b .600 .749
38.0m 31.0p 11.1r 2.8a 1.5s 0.6b .562 .762
90-91 (KARL)
37.3m 27.6p 10.1r 4.2a 1.6s 0.5b .570 .722
40.3m 29.0p 11.8r 3.3a 1.1s 1.0b .527 .770
91-92 (KARL)
38.4m 23.1p 11.1r 4.1a 1.8s 0.6b .552 .695
37.7m 28.0p 11.2r 3.0a 1.3s 0.6b .526 .778
92-93 (TIE)
37.6m 25.6p 12.2a 5.5a 1.6s 1.0b .520 .765
37.8m 28.0p 11.2a 3.8a 1.5s 1.0b .552 .740
93-94 (KARL)
35.4m 21.6p 11.2r 4.6a 1.6s 1.0b .495 .704
40.6m 25.2p 11.5r 4.0a 1.5s 1.5b .497 .694
94-95 (KARL)
35.0m 23.0p 11.1r 4.1a 1.6s 0.7b .486 .748
38.1m 26.7p 10.6r 3.5a 1.6s 1.0b .536 .742
95-96 (KARL)
37.1m 23.2p 11.6r 3.7a 1.6s 0.8b .500 .777
38.0m 25.7p 9.8r 4.2a 1.7s 0.7b .519 .723
This doesn't even include the last 4 years where Malone continued to average in the mid to high 20's per game, and Barkely was in the the teens....Both players peak years were impressive....but I feel like Malone had 2 periods..10 years apart where he elevated his game.
The remaining 4 years left in Charles career were clearly....in Karls favor. So if we are going off of statistics, they both seemed to be very...even.
But if you go over both of their careers, it wasn't just the later half that Karl...started to really challenge him annually for #1 power forward position. Karl had more consistency and you can see his maturity in other areas of his game..ie passing...(he became a much better passer as he got older)...
85-87 H2H 5 games
Barkley 23.4p 12.2r 4.2a 1.80s 0.20b .633fg .816ft
Malone 16.2p 6.8r 1.4a 1.40s 0.60b .477fg .528ft
88-90 H2H 5 games
Barkley 23.0p 9.6r 3.6a 2.00s 0.60b .541fg .696ft
Malone 30.2p 10.0r 3.4a 1.60s 0.80b .595fg .758ft
91-92 H2H 5 games
Barkley 24.4p 11.0r 3.6a 1.20s 0.40b .512fg .739ft
Malone 29.8p 10.4r 3.8a 1.20s 1.40b .528fg .791ft
Now we all know what happens really the remainder of their career...outside of the year that Barkley went to Phoenix....
But seriously....no one can say that either dominated either...because clearly in the head to head matchup...Malone played better H2H and seasonally with the exception of Malones first 3 years in the NBA.
[B]I agree with Callystarr that Malone improoved his Post Game and Passing Later in His Career but it Was All Hard Work for Him Because he Was Less Talented than Barkley. For Barkley Post Game, Mid Range Game, Rebounding and Passing Was Natural.
*Do Barkley 1985-86 to 1995-96 Head to Head Favors Barkley (But Lets Remember Head to Head doesn`t show much either because it Doesnt tell Whoe Guarded Who).
I put the 1995-96 Season included in the Head to Head to but I myself admit tha Malone was Better in 1995-96 and Onwards (i saw it live) thats when Charles began to get back injured.
Also look at Player Comparison i Put Before from 85-86 to 1994-95...It Favors Barkley Statistically too.
HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1995: ages 22-31
[COLOR="DarkRed"][U]PLAYER COMPARISON 1985-95 (ages 21-31):[/U][/COLOR]
[U][COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR] [/U]
[COLOR="Blue"]37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)
22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)
11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)[/COLOR]
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn
[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]I agree with Callystarr that Malone improoved his Post Game and Passing Later in His Career but it Was All Hard Work for Him Because he Was Less Talented than Barkley. For Barkley Post Game, Mid Range Game, Rebounding and Passing Was Natural.
*Do Barkley 1985-86 to 1995-96 Head to Head Favors Barkley (But Lets Remember Head to Head doesn`t show much either because it Doesnt tell Whoe Guarded Who).
I put the 1995-96 Season included in the Head to Head to but I myself admit tha Malone was Better in 1995-96 and Onwards (i saw it live) thats when Charles began to get back injured.
Also look at Player Comparison i Put Before from 85-86 to 1994-95...It Favors Barkley Statistically too.
HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1995: ages 22-31
[COLOR="DarkRed"][U]PLAYER COMPARISON 1985-95 (ages 21-31):[/U][/COLOR]
[U][COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR] [/U]
[COLOR="Blue"]37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)
22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)
11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)[/COLOR]
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn
[B]Nahh Barkley was Better Untill 1995 I saw It Live. Infact (for those who where there to watch it) Barkley was to Retire the 1995-96 season but Danny Ainge Convinced Him Not To. Then Malone took Over as Barkley left as 2nd or 3rd option in Houston. Where he destroyed his Knee was Constantly Overweight and he had the Similar Back Problems as Bird[/B]
I don't know what you guys are looking at, honestly Charles Barkley had the most talent, but Karl Malone proved to have longevity and consistency. Charles
If you go look at their stat lines...per season...Karl Malone has the edge...
85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Barkley (slightest edge)
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Malone
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Malone
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone
Now if you want to go on H2H each season, this is who had the better games..
85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Malone
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Barkley
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Barkley
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone
From 88-89...and on all the games were close...but clearly this was a rivalry...in which Malone was clearly the better player after the 80's....
[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]
it doesn't matter what you are expected to do and what you are not expected to do as a team. you are expected to perform as individuals no matter who you play, and if malone hadn't performed how he did against the clippers (which was better than he performed against the blazers) the jazz would not have made it past the first round to give them a chance at getting in the conference finals.
[QUOTE]Less production wouldn't get him a win vs the '92 Blazers.[/QUOTE]
the jazz lost in the wcf in 1992, they won in the wcf in 1997. there is no what ifs.
[QUOTE]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]
stockton had the better playoff in 1997, but malone also had a better playoff in 1997, by a wider margin than that of stockton.
[QUOTE]After I called you out for relying on stats too heavily, you've tried doing it to me. It's just laughable.[/QUOTE]
i've destroyed you at your own argument
[QUOTE]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]
thats ok. for you it seems like you rank players based on stats, mainly the scoring stat, and thats about it.
[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]
there is no point talking about what might have happened if something else happened. what did happen is that utah won more games in 1997 than it did in 1998
[QUOTE]The Sonics lost too. Bottom line.[/QUOTE]
the series against the sonics was much more competitive
[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]
lamar odom stepped up his play from the regular season, kobe (being the best player) should have stepped up his play, giving the lakers a better chance of winning.
[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]
so 18/9/5 is his best with kobe, meanwhile he puts up 22/12/7 without him :roll:
[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. [/QUOTE]
wow NOBODY did? that is alot of wrong people making rankings
[QUOTE]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]
lebron could only beat who gets put infront of him. to lead the cavs to their first nba finals appearance in their 37 year history as a 22 year old is a remarkable achievement. they swept by the washington wizards, easily accounted for jason kidd (top 4 overall) vince carter (top 5 shooting guard) and the new jersey nets to the tune of 4-2, then got by the heavily favoured playoff experienced detroit pistons in the wcf after falling behind 0-2 without home court advantage who they went 1-3 against in the regular season. and i don't need to remind you about game 5.
[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."[/QUOTE]
because you said he put up better numbers before :hammerhead:
[QUOTE]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]
this is just plain trash at its finest. he had lost athleticism since '05? only 2 years prior? he put up pretty much the exact same numbers on the exact same percentages IN 5 LESS MINUTES PER GAME and somehow he lost a step and wasn't the same player he once was at the ripe old age of 27 :roll: . you are getting worse by the post :oldlol:
[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.[/QUOTE]
lebron wasn't a natural scorer, but he scored with the best players in the league. and while other scorers would get cold (not naming names :roll: ), they could not impact the game on any other level, what separated lebron was the fact that he could. and if his shot was off he was always at the top of the league at the ability to get to the line. it was lebron's 5th best year to date behind '09, '12, '10, and '11.
[QUOTE]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]
lebron was top 2 infact. this "key flaw" did not affect lebron and the cavaliers from steamrolling through 99% of the competition, it only seemed to be a problem when they were up against the best team in the league with the best defense in the league, and the best player in the league, a top 3 shooting guard, and top 4 point guard.
[QUOTE]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]
:roll: kobe couldn't even match his regular season production against the second fastest paced team in the nba in the first round of the playoffs
[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.[/QUOTE]
no he didn't have a good series. i'm not trying to say that at all, all i'm saying is that he was able to do other things if his shot wasn't falling.
[QUOTE]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]
:lol thats better than kobe failing to play like a superstar throughout the season, and a scrub throughout his 5 playoff games.
despite his sub-par finals, lebron still proved that he was top 2 overall because of what he had already achieved throughout the regular season and playoffs.
[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.[/QUOTE]
:lol so after benching 50 pounds he was no longer being pushed around
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
63% in the playoffs :roll: 1977 is his peak? :roll: what a joke. 1971 is kareem's peak
[QUOTE]Disgusting rebounder? Also ridiculous, especially since you called him an average rebounder before, which was accurate/[/QUOTE]
on further inspection, disgusting is the most accurate word to describe kareem's rebounding.
[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.[/QUOTE]
i have a large amount of games.
[QUOTE=Shep]it doesn't matter what you are expected to do and what you are not expected to do as a team. you are expected to perform as individuals no matter who you play, and if malone hadn't performed how he did against the clippers (which was better than he performed against the blazers) the jazz would not have made it past the first round to give them a chance at getting in the conference finals.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: Malone was clearly more impressive individually in the WCF and it's a joke to try to compare team success in these series, the teams are so far apart it's ridiculous.
[QUOTE]the jazz lost in the wcf in 1992, they won in the wcf in 1997. there is no what ifs.[/QUOTE]
I don't care since Malone didn't perform better or even as well in the series to do it so this is not a valid argument for Malone's '97 run to me. Team success is what you play for, but to credit an individual for it, you have to evaluate his performance that led to the victory. Otherwise, you have to look beyond the team's best player, and in this case, Stockton was the major difference between the '92 and '97 WCF.
[QUOTE]stockton had the better playoff in 1997, but malone also had a better playoff in 1997, by a wider margin than that of stockton.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]i've destroyed you at your own argument[/QUOTE]
Not in your wildest dreams.
[QUOTE]thats ok. for you it seems like you rank players based on stats, mainly the scoring stat, and thats about it.[/QUOTE]
A complete joke since I always describe additions to player's games and/or their maturation as a player as reasons for a particular season being their best. Unless a player's game and ability are virtually the same in multiple seasons. Then I look for a tiebreaker, either stats, team success or durability/consistency.
[QUOTE]there is no point talking about what might have happened if something else happened. what did happen is that utah won more games in 1997 than it did in 1998[/QUOTE]
Do you have ANY ability to apply context? Yeah...2 fewer games with his second best player missing 18 more games and also becoming significantly less productive. It's just too obvious.
[QUOTE]the series against the sonics was much more competitive[/QUOTE]
Because they were healthy.
[QUOTE]lamar odom stepped up his play from the regular season, kobe (being the best player) should have stepped up his play, giving the lakers a better chance of winning.[/QUOTE]
Kobe stepped up as much as Odom did. Neither were noticeably better than their regular season level to me, but both did their jobs. Though Odom did step up more than Kobe the previous season in their playoff series vs Phoenix, but Kobe was still the Lakers best player in each series, by a large margin in '07.
[QUOTE]so 18/9/5 is his best with kobe, meanwhile he puts up 22/12/7 without him :roll:[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: You're comparing averages over 4 game to 17 games? I'd expect Odom's numbers to rise a bit going from a clear 2nd option with Kobe to a clear 1st option without him. And maintaining averages over 4 games is much, much easier than 17 games.
[QUOTE]wow NOBODY did? that is alot of wrong people making rankings[/QUOTE]
Nope, just one wrong person ranking players. :D
[QUOTE]lebron could only beat who gets put infront of him. to lead the cavs to their first nba finals appearance in their 37 year history as a 22 year old is a remarkable achievement. they swept by the washington wizards, easily accounted for jason kidd (top 4 overall) vince carter (top 5 shooting guard) and the new jersey nets to the tune of 4-2, then got by the heavily favoured playoff experienced detroit pistons in the wcf after falling behind 0-2 without home court advantage who they went 1-3 against in the regular season. and i don't need to remind you about game 5.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: The Wizards didn't have their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and the Nets big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. Plus, Lebron's job was made easier for him because Vince Carter was shut down, and New Jersey had relied heavily on his offense throughout the season and were still mediocre. Despite that, this was a 6 game series and several games were decided by other players. Pavlovic's chasedown block on Kidd late in game 1, Carter turning the ball over on the final possession of game 4 and Donyell Marshall's threes helping Cleveland pull away late in game 6 turning a 1 point game entering the 4th quarter into a blowout.
[QUOTE]because you said he put up better numbers before[/QUOTE]
You mentioned numbers first as a case for T-Mac's '07 and even after I said T-Mac had put up better numbers I went on to state "regardless of numbers" before going into the reasons T-Mac was past his prime by '07.
[QUOTE]this is just plain trash at its finest. he had lost athleticism since '05? only 2 years prior? he put up pretty much the exact same numbers on the exact same percentages IN 5 LESS MINUTES PER GAME and somehow he lost a step and wasn't the same player he once was at the ripe old age of 27 :roll: . you are getting worse by the post :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
Watch the games instead of basketball-reference. It's obvious he had lost athleticism. Most players are at or near their peak at 27, but most don't have the injury problems T-Mac did. He was coming off a season that he had missed 35 games in, and ultimately, he was never quite the same. His decline continued in '08.
He simply didn't have the first step he did in '05, and definitely wasn't as good of a finisher. I don't care if his numbers were similar, I'm going with what I saw. T-Mac was also much better in the '05 playoffs than '07.
[QUOTE]lebron wasn't a natural scorer, but he scored with the best players in the league. and while other scorers would get cold (not naming names :roll: ), they could not impact the game on any other level, what separated lebron was the fact that he could. and if his shot was off he was always at the top of the league at the ability to get to the line. it was lebron's 5th best year to date behind '09, '12, '10, and '11.[/QUOTE]
Kobe was by far the best scorer in the league in '07, and didn't really look to score that much himself until the last couple of months or so when he scored at a historic pace at his coaches request. Prior to that, he had been focusing more on playmaking while still scoring very efficiently.
[QUOTE]lebron was top 2 infact. this "key flaw" did not affect lebron and the cavaliers from steamrolling through 99% of the competition, it only seemed to be a problem when they were up against the best team in the league with the best defense in the league, and the best player in the league, a top 3 shooting guard, and top 4 point guard.[/QUOTE]
Steamroll the competition? They beat 1 solid team in the playoffs. That key flaw greatly affected Lebron when he faced a great team. Lebron's Cavs making the finals isn'that impressive to me since that was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent years, and most importantly, I'm looking at his level of play by itself, which didn't put him above several other players. I don't just blindly raise a player's rankings for a team accomplishment. I look at the rest of the team and with Cleveland, I saw a Cavs team whose supporting players continually stepped up in huge moments, a great rebounding team and an elite defensive team. They didn't need as much offense as other teams because they were holding opponents to such low scores.
[QUOTE]kobe couldn't even match his regular season production against the second fastest paced team in the nba in the first round of the playoffs[/QUOTE]
His play was roughly what you'd expect.
[QUOTE]thats better than kobe failing to play like a superstar throughout the season, and a scrub throughout his 5 playoff games.
despite his sub-par finals, lebron still proved that he was top 2 overall because of what he had already achieved throughout the regular season and playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Kobe failed to play like a superstar even in the regular season and a scrub in the playoffs? :roll: You have a ridiculous agenda. He was widely considered the best player in the game. With the exception of defense, this was a time when his entire game was really coming together. This is a top 10 player of all-time, at or near his peak.
[QUOTE]so after benching 50 pounds he was no longer being pushed around[/QUOTE]
Whatever he did, it seemed to make a difference because he went from a player whose level of play often dropped in the playoffs early in his career to a player who raised his game in the playoffs as much as virtually any superstar from '74-'80.
[QUOTE]63% in the playoffs 1977 is his peak? what a joke. 1971 is kareem's peak[/QUOTE]
Kareem was in a free throw slump during the playoffs, I'll judge his free throw shooting by a full season of games when he shot 71%.
You continue to set the standard for stat whores and prove your knowledge consists soley of what you read on basketball-reference. '71 is his peak? Yeah....Kareem peaked in just 2nd second season. That makes sense despite adding multiple moves such as a turnaround jumper and left-handed hook in later years as well as becoming smarter and stronger.
I can name so many examples why stats are deceptive in this case. Kareem helped a weak Laker team overachieve and get the best record in '77 and then raised his game to ridiculous heights with a playoff run far more impressive from an individual standpoint than '71.
[QUOTE]on further inspection, disgusting is the most accurate word to describe kareem's rebounding.[/QUOTE]
Not surprising you resort to these tactics when you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I agree that Malone's explosiveness declined, but his rebounding stayed the same.
In 1998, Malone averaged 10.3 rpg, and his TRB% was 17.1%, which was almost as high as it ever was. He only topped that in 1995 with a 17.4 TRB%, 1991 with a 17.2 TRB% and tied it in 1990 with a 17.1 TRB%..
Yeah, Barkley was always better in the playoffs, and it's because of what Charles said in the quote from the original post in this thread. Charles could get his shot when he wanted, while Malone did benefit from easy baskets because of Stockton and the system.
[/QUOTE]
To me, this is key, and it's why prime vs prime I consider Barkley to be the better scorer of the two, despite Malone's higher ppg.
[QUOTE=Callystarr]I don't know what you guys are looking at, honestly Charles Barkley had the most talent, but Karl Malone proved to have longevity and consistency. Charles
If you go look at their stat lines...per season...Karl Malone has the edge...
85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Barkley (slightest edge)
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Malone
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Malone
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone
Now if you want to go on H2H each season, this is who had the better games..
85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Malone
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Barkley
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Barkley
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone
From 88-89...and on all the games were close...but clearly this was a rivalry...in which Malone was clearly the better player after the 80's....[/QUOTE]
You haven't brought up anything that hasn't already been acknowledged previously. General consensus is that Barkley was the more dominant player prior to 1994, a sentiment you've basically expressed with your lists above.
[B]Its More Like This When Barkley Was Healthy. You Have to Look at Play-Off Numbers too Where Malone Declined So If You Combine All It Goes like this before Barkley left for Houston and 2nd or 3rd Option Injured and Overweight
1985-86: Barkley
1986-87: Barkley
1987-88: Barkley
1989-89 :Barkley
1989-90: Barkley
1990-91: Barkley
1991-92: Malone (Barkley Wanted Out of Sixers)
1992-93: Barkley
1993-94: Barkley
1994-95: Barkley
1995-96: Malone
1996-97: Malone
1997-98: Malone
1998-99: Malone
1999-00: Malone
Barkley is a Top 10 All Time EFF Player
Barkley is Top 10 All Time PER Season Player
Barley is a Top 9 All Time PER Play-Off Player
Barkley is a Top 5 All Time Plus/Minus Player
Barkley is a Top 4 All Time Shot Made/Missed Diferential Player
Barkley is a top 8 All Time WS Per 48 Minute Player
So Statistically Not Only is He Better than Malone But CLOSER TO A TOP 10 PLAYER OF ALL TIME[/B]
[QUOTE=Dragonyeuw]You haven't brought up anything that hasn't already been acknowledged previously. General consensus is that Barkley was the more dominant player prior to 1994, a sentiment you've basically expressed with your lists above.[/QUOTE]
No you are trying to lump 10 years together....rather than see that Barkley was better the first 3 years...and then they were about even....for the next several years and then Malone was flat out better....
[B]From 1985 to 1995 Barkley was Better. Check Out Broken Down Stats, Raw Stats, Head to Heads from that Stretch etc he Was Better
Also Barkley Did Not Depejnd on a Pick and Roll System Designed by the Greatest Pure PG Ever to Score or Dominate.
Barkley in his Peek Was Better by Far
Malone Declined In the Play-Offs Compared to Barkley[/B]