[QUOTE]The player with whom Charles will march lockstep into history, though, is another Dream Team mate
Printable View
[QUOTE]The player with whom Charles will march lockstep into history, though, is another Dream Team mate
Barkley was more talented than Malone but I don't think he was better unless you want to completely ignore intangibles, work-ethic, teammate, etc. If Barkley did work as hard as Malone and was as good of a teammate Malone and so on, he probably wouldn't just be better than Malone, he would probably be better than Duncan.
I'll take Malone though due to superior longevity, superior defense, and superior intangibles (much superior here).
Which I forgot to say, I find it hilarious how he forgot to add that Malone was a much better defender than he was.
He's right, but Malone had the better overall approach to the game. I don't want to say he had a "winners" mentality but...
I loved it too in that Dream Team documentary. Both of them openly feel they are better than the other, til this day. Karl Malone was like "He's a good forward, but his ass ain't better than me".
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Chuck says the only thing Karl did better than him was score...well I'd disagree with that as Barkley was a better go to guy for sure, but Charles sure as hell wasn't a better defensive player than Malone, so he's wrong when he says "the only thing he did better than me was score" either way.
So Malone had Stockton, Hornacek and a bunch of scrubs.
Barkley in Philly had Moses Malone(late 20's early 30's), Dr J(past prime), Cheeks(late 20's and early 30's), then had young Hawkins and Cliff Robinson.
Barkley in Phoenix had Kevin Johnson, Majerle, Ainge, Chambers, Manning.
Besides Stockton and Hornacek, Malone played with a lot of scrubs and was able to get to two Finals. Barkley played with more Hall of Famers and better role players, yet only managed to play in one Finals.
Malone is better.
40 year old Malone was a better defender than Barkley ever was.
Between the two of them, I think Malone could suit up today and average around 10 PPG for somebody. Dude still looks like he's in immaculate shape today.
Charles is right, Malone never reached the level Barkley was at from '88-'93.
Charles was a better scorer, passer and rebounder, plus he was more athletic and more versatile. Charles was just the better and more dominant offensive player, that's why he was double teamed so often. In fact, out of players in Barkley's era or later, the only players I can think of who were doubled teamed as much as Charles was in his prime are Shaq and Hakeem. It's always been surprising to me how dominant he was in the post with his power game at only 6'5"-6'6". He's easily among the greatest power players of all time, and played both forward positions during his career. He played small forward in '90 and '91 alongside Mike Gminski and Rick Mahorn, and later at times when he played with AC Green in Phoenix.
Malone was definitely a better defensive player than Barkley, he developed until a great post defender around '94 or so. Remember Malone shutting down Robinson in the playoffs? He also developed into a very good passer around that same time, and he improved his jump shot while also becoming more polished in the post.
I actually really like Malone's game from '94-'00, but he was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, even when he became more polished. And Charles is right that be benefited greatly from Stockton, particularly late 80's/early 90's Malone. Though the same can be said about Stockton.
Malone got a lot of easy baskets running the floor, in screen/rolls with Stockton, and early on from lob passes over the top when defenders fronted him. Even the more skilled version of Malone was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, while Barkley showed quite a bit more dominance in the playoffs. Malone had more team success, but Charles was only on 1 contending team in his prime back in '93.
Late 80's/early 90's Karl Malone was still one of the league's best players, though. His post game was effective based on his quickness and strength. He was a great power player, and he did already have a jump shot, plus no 4 ran the floor better.
There's a common misconception about Barkley that he lacked longevity, but that's not true, we can't forget that he turned 30 in the '93 season, most players start to decline a bit shortly after that. He didn't remain at his prime level consistently due to injuries, and perhaps age, but he was still the second best power forward, and easily a top 10 player in '94 and '95. And he showed dominance even before his prime started in '88. Despite being raw in his second year in '86, he already probably established himself among the top players in the league.
His conditioning is also a misconception, his weight was not really an issue after his first year or 2 until he got to Houston. And even in Houston in '97, he averaged about 19/14/5 while sharing the ball with Olajuwon and Drexler and having his offensive game limited by the system. He was averaging 20/15 the first 2 months before injuries.
Malone's longevity was just superhuman, it was really only rivaled by Kareem and Robert Parish.
This isn't to say that Barkley didn't have his flaws as well. it's common knowledge that he was not exactly fond on playing defense, and he also had a habit of holding the ball too much which often led to turnovers because he'd leave his feet for cross court passes because he had trouble seeing over the double at times. He cut down on holding the ball by the time he got to Phoenix, and also improved his jumper. Though I don't think he had the same explosiveness despite getting in the best shape of his career and still being a very good athlete.
I remmeber on the dream team documentary
Karl Malone-"CHAARRLS, yeah hes a great talent, do I think hes better than me? HELL NOO, SO LET'S DO THIS 0_0"
:oldlol:
Does KG's ring (the year he was DPOY), or Dirk's ring (only player out of the Top 2-7 PFs of recent memory to win a ring as the undisputable main guy) put them over the likes of Barkley or Malone?
Dirk is withotu a doubt the best shooter of the three.
[B]Charles is right on one part:
Anyone who watched the NBA in the 80s and early mid 90s knows Barkley was Better :confusedshrug: Nothing Knew...
Charles is wrong on part two:
Malone was not a Better Scorer he just Shot like 6-7 FGAs PG more. Charles had a Higher FG% Per Shot...Much Higher Two-Point FG (Near Shaq Level).[/B]
barkley is an overrated crybaby. top 20? :roll: maybe top 35
malone was the best power forward in nba history until tim duncan came around. barkley isn't even better than the likes of kevin garnett, bob pettit, elvin hayes, or dirk nowitzki
the battle of the ringless
how boring. :sleeping
[B]More like Charles Barkley was the Undisputed Best Powerfwer Forward Ever for 10 Years in a Row (1985-1995) Untill his Body Began to Decline in 1994-95 (1st his Back Problems then Knee Problems). :confusedshrug:
And NO :no: Malone was Never a More Dominant Offensive Force than Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region.
This is how they Both Worked...Malone Shooting More and Less Effective. Incredible Less Effective with THE GOAT CREATOR: John Stockton
[U]Season:[/U]
[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Malone shot 51.9% Tw-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG [/COLOR]
[U]Play-Offs:[/U] [COLOR="Red"]Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG [/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG[/COLOR]
BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE
Malone Needed STOCKTON To Score..NEVER IN THE LEVEL OF BARKLEY...Especially Play-Offs!!! [/B]
LOL at you discounting 3s of which Charles chucked thousands of.. while Malone didnt shoot them. What a horribly skewed comparison. :oldlol:
[QUOTE]More like Charles Barkley was the Undisputed Best Powerfwer Forward Ever for 10 Years in a Row (1985-1995) Untill his Body Began to Decline in 1994-95 (1st his Back Problems then Knee Problems).[/QUOTE]
:lol barkley was only better than malone in 1986, '87, '88, '89, '90, and '93 (6 years)
malone was better than barkley in 1991, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99
(8 years)
and then you take into consideration all the games that were missed by barkley..
[QUOTE]And NO Malone was Never a More Dominant Offensive Force than Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region.[/QUOTE]
maybe, maybe not. but there is a 3 point line in basketball, and over the combination of inside and outside games, malone wins this one.
[QUOTE]This is how they Both Worked...Malone Shooting More and Less Effective. Incredible Less Effective with THE GOAT CREATOR: John Stockton
Season:
Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg
Malone shot 51.9% Tw-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG
Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:
Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG
Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG
BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE
Malone Needed STOCKTON To Score..NEVER IN THE LEVEL OF BARKLEY...Especially Play-Offs!!! [/QUOTE]
nobody cares about 2point fg%. it wasn't malone's fault that barkley was lazy and often settled for 3 pointers that had no chance going in, so this can't be used against him.
as for playoff failings - barkley failed more times if not more than malone.
barkley's playoff failings:
1987 - lost in first round of the playoffs, barkley was the most disappointing player in the series (4.4to), almost getting outplayed by mo cheeks, and other players stepped up alot more.
maurics cheeks stepped up with 17.6ppg, 2.6rpg, 8.8apg, 1.8spg, 0.8bpg
julius erving had 18.2ppg, 5.0rpg, 3.4apg, 1.4spg, 1.2bpg
(1988 did not even make the playoffs :oldlol: )
1989 - swept in the first round :lol
barkley was 2nd most disappointing behind hersey hawkins in this series, and wasn't even his teams best player in the series, mo cheeks was.
cheeks had 17.7ppg, 3.7rpg, 13.0apg, 2.3spg, and 0.3bpg
even ron anderson stepped up his game more than barkley in this one.
1990 - barely get by the .500 cavs, then get destroyed by the bulls in the second round.
again doesn't step up to the plate like a best player on a team should. hersey hawkins steps up the most here: 23.5ppg, 3.1rpg, 3.6apg, 1.2spg, 0.7bpt
(1992 did not even make the playoffs :oldlol: )
1996 - destroyed in the first round of the playoffs
1997 - now the second best player on the team, almost gets outplayed by the third best player on the team (drexler)
1998 - loses in first round, almost outplayed by matt maloney
1999 - destroyed in the first round
[B]Who Was a Better Post Player and Inside Scorer? Barkley [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG vs [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] and [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] vs[COLOR="Red"] 46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG
[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
[COLOR="red"][I]- Malone Shot Over 50% FG ONLY TWICE in the Play-Offs.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]- For Barkley it was Rare for Him To Shoot Below 50% FG and that was when he was Injured 95 on[/COLOR].[/I]
Who was a Better Mid Range Shooter? [COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was a Better Rebounder? [COLOR="blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was a Better Creator? [COLOR="blue"] Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was a Better Passer? [COLOR="blue"] Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was the Better Ballhandler? [COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
Who had More Skills? [COLOR="blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was a Better Clutch Performer? [COLOR="blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was the Better Floor Defender and Stealer? [COLOR="blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
Who was the Better Shot Blocker? [COLOR="blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]
------------------------------------------
Malone was Only Better at FT Shooting and Longevity (which isnt a Skill)
THATS IT!!!
OH I FORGOT?
[COLOR="Navy"]STOCKTON CREATING FOR MALONE and still he Could Not Shoot 50% FG in the Play-Offs but TWICE IN HIS LIFE[/COLOR][/B]
[QUOTE=tpols]LOL at you discounting 3s of which Charles chucked thousands of.. while Malone didnt shoot them. What a horribly skewed comparison. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
[B]It shows which was a Better More Dangerous Inside and Post Scorer...BARKLEY THY NAME[/B] :sleeping
[QUOTE=AK47DR91]So Malone had Stockton, Hornacek and a bunch of scrubs.
Barkley in Philly had Moses Malone(late 20's early 30's), Dr J(past prime), Cheeks(late 20's and early 30's), then had young Hawkins and Cliff Robinson.
Barkley in Phoenix had Kevin Johnson, Majerle, Ainge, Chambers, Manning.
Besides Stockton and Hornacek, Malone played with a lot of scrubs and was able to get to two Finals. Barkley played with more Hall of Famers and better role players, yet only managed to play in one Finals.
Malone is better.[/QUOTE]
Worst analysis ever, buy a f*ckin clue retard. The fact that you think Barkley, in any way, had better teammates in Philly, IS F*CKIN DUMB AS SHIT!
Barkley had Malone for his rookie and sophomore seasons, and Dr. J for 2/3 of one more. By year 4 Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson were the #2 and 3 scorers for Philly. Fact is, Philly never built a proper team around him, and Barkley wasted much of his prime toiling with scrubs.
In Phoenix, while Barkley was on the downhill side of his prime (despite the MVP 'for past work', Magic stole his MVP in 1990 because too many media members had it in for Charles) they still made two nice runs in the playoffs. By the time CB hit Houston he was a shell.
Malone has longevity, THAT'S IT! Prime Barkley takes a shit on prime Malone.
And what is this shit about Chuck being lazy? he was the hardest working man on the floor for much of his career.
Both great. Barkley is better in my opinion. Malone has longevity over him but Barkley was more dominant. My only gripe with Charles is that he thought he was a good 3 point shooter and he proceded to shoot more of them than he should have. Used to piss me off.
Charles is right, he was better than Malone.
Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.
[QUOTE=WillyJakk]Charles is right, he was better than Malone.
Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.[/QUOTE]
Quoted myself for truth.
[QUOTE=WillyJakk]Charles is right, he was better than Malone.
Actually for a short period of time Jordan was the only player superior to Barkley.[/QUOTE]
MJ always been better.
FACT!
[QUOTE=JtotheIzzo]
And what is this shit about Chuck being lazy? he was the hardest working man on the floor for much of his career.[/QUOTE]
The fact that he was frequently out of shape or enter the season out of shape and just work his way into shape during the regular season.
The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter.
I don't know about you but I'm a big fan of consistency and Malone was spectacular at that. Comparing Malone to Barkley is almost like comparing LeBron to Wade to me with LeBron being Malone and Wade being Barkley.
Barkley wasn't much of a leader either compared to Malone. As I had stated, Malone was someone who gave you his all night in and night out, and had a contagious work-ethic. However, Barkley was someone who didn't have as strong of a work-ethic and was a pretty bad leader for the most part. He was a head case who fought his teammates in the locker-room, went out drinking all the time, was out of shape frequently, etc.
I personally want my star to be looking up upon, not down upon which is why I give Malone the edge over Barkley.
Malone wasn't more individually talented than Barkley but he was somewhat close in that area and I believe the intangibles such as leadership skills, defense, work-ethic, etc. ultimately make Malone better than Barkley.
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12][B]The fact that he was frequently out of shape or enter the season out of shape and just work his way into shape during the regular season.
The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter. [/B]
.[/QUOTE]
I just think its because Malone chokes alot.
i would worry about Barkley running out of energy before even thinking about Malone
[QUOTE=JtotheIzzo]Worst analysis ever, buy a f*ckin clue retard. The fact that you think Barkley, in any way, had better teammates in Philly, IS F*CKIN DUMB AS SHIT!
[B]Barkley had Malone for his rookie and sophomore seasons, and Dr. J for 2/3 of one more. [/B] By year 4 Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson were the #2 and 3 scorers for Philly. Fact is, Philly never built a proper team around him, and Barkley wasted much of his prime toiling with scrubs.
In Phoenix, while Barkley was on the downhill side of his prime (despite the MVP 'for past work', Magic stole his MVP in 1990 because too many media members had it in for Charles) they still made two nice runs in the playoffs. By the time CB hit Houston he was a shell.
Malone has longevity, THAT'S IT! Prime Barkley takes a shit on prime Malone.
And what is this shit about Chuck being lazy? he was the hardest working man on the floor for much of his career.[/QUOTE]
Didn't the Sixers win the championship just two years before Barkley was drafted? I believe they did. He was actually drafted into the perfect situation. Two Hall of Famers in Moses and Dr. J and a 4-time All-Star in Cheeks. Still better than any situation Malone ever had.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Charles is right, Malone never reached the level Barkley was at from '88-'93.
Charles was a better scorer, passer and rebounder, plus he was more athletic and more versatile. Charles was just the better and more dominant offensive player, that's why he was double teamed so often. In fact, out of players in Barkley's era or later, the only players I can think of who were doubled teamed as much as Charles was in his prime are Shaq and Hakeem. It's always been surprising to me how dominant he was in the post with his power game at only 6'5"-6'6". He's easily among the greatest power players of all time, and played both forward positions during his career. He played small forward in '90 and '91 alongside Mike Gminski and Rick Mahorn, and later at times when he played with AC Green in Phoenix.
Malone was definitely a better defensive player than Barkley, he developed until a great post defender around '94 or so. Remember Malone shutting down Robinson in the playoffs? He also developed into a very good passer around that same time, and he improved his jump shot while also becoming more polished in the post.
I actually really like Malone's game from '94-'00, but he was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, even when he became more polished. And Charles is right that be benefited greatly from Stockton, particularly late 80's/early 90's Malone. Though the same can be said about Stockton.
Malone got a lot of easy baskets running the floor, in screen/rolls with Stockton, and early on from lob passes over the top when defenders fronted him. Even the more skilled version of Malone was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, while Barkley showed quite a bit more dominance in the playoffs. Malone had more team success, but Charles was only on 1 contending team in his prime back in '93.
Late 80's/early 90's Karl Malone was still one of the league's best players, though. His post game was effective based on his quickness and strength. He was a great power player, and he did already have a jump shot, plus no 4 ran the floor better.
There's a common misconception about Barkley that he lacked longevity, but that's not true, we can't forget that he turned 30 in the '93 season, most players start to decline a bit shortly after that. He didn't remain at his prime level consistently due to injuries, and perhaps age, but he was still the second best power forward, and easily a top 10 player in '94 and '95. And he showed dominance even before his prime started in '88. Despite being raw in his second year in '86, he already probably established himself among the top players in the league.
His conditioning is also a misconception, his weight was not really an issue after his first year or 2 until he got to Houston. And even in Houston in '97, he averaged about 19/14/5 while sharing the ball with Olajuwon and Drexler and having his offensive game limited by the system. He was averaging 20/15 the first 2 months before injuries.
Malone's longevity was just superhuman, it was really only rivaled by Kareem and Robert Parish.
This isn't to say that Barkley didn't have his flaws as well. it's common knowledge that he was not exactly fond on playing defense, and he also had a habit of holding the ball too much which often led to turnovers because he'd leave his feet for cross court passes because he had trouble seeing over the double at times. He cut down on holding the ball by the time he got to Phoenix, and also improved his jumper. Though I don't think he had the same explosiveness despite getting in the best shape of his career and still being a very good athlete.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I am amazed at your recollection of events and the stunning objectivity you bring to them. I'd add in support of Barkley's conditioning not being a major issue how well he played in 1999 and the shape he was in to start the season. He matched or outlasted all his peers except Stockton/Malone in terms of longevity.
One of the changes I've made to my revamped list this year already is Barkley over Malone. As much as Malone's career numbers are better, I always thought Barkley was greater at his best and never believed in Malone. I may be biased, but it feels right.
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
Barkley was more dominant in the playoffs for the same reason he himself stated he was better. It's because he was much better at creating his own offense.
[QUOTE=Shep]:lol barkley was only better than malone in 1986, '87, '88, '89, '90, and '93 (6 years)
malone was better than barkley in 1991, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99
(8 years)
and then you take into consideration all the games that were missed by barkley..[/QUOTE]
I agree with almost all of your rankings, except Barkley was better than Malone in '91. Charles was the 3rd best player that year behind only Michael and Magic. He was right up there with Jordan, Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge for the scoring title the first few months and having easily his best scoring season before injuries averaging 30.8 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 59.6 FG% over his first 35 games and Philly was 21-14, they went just 2-5 between his return, and ultimately went 39-28 when he played, and just 5-10 without him showing his impact. Barkley still finished at 27.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57 FG%. Despite a mediocre cast, which Barkley was used to in his prime, they made it to the second round, and Charles had a respectable playoff run individually, while Malone was far more underwhelming in the playoffs. I've only seen 1 game from the Milwaukee series, but the entire Chicago series. Charles averaging 23.7 ppg, 11 rpg, 7 apg, 2.7 spg on 52%. Not much he could've done in the Chicago series. He averaged 25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg on 64%, but MJ was in his prime, or arguably at his peak playing nearly flawless ball, Pippen really emerged in the second half and the playoffs becoming arguably the best small forward in the game, the Bulls adjusted to the triangle and the supporting cast had become pretty solid.
But other than our disagreement on '91, you're listing Barkley as better during every other year in his prime from '88-'93 and there was not a big difference between the 2 in '94 and '95. Charles was playing better ball before his injuries averaging 24.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 52.7 FG% and Phoenix was 22-6. He was not the same after that, and really looked incapable of consistently reaching his prime level by the Houston series when Otis Thorpe often looked to be outplaying him before Thorpe's own injury. So that's why I'd probably lean towards Malone in '94. And '94 was the start of Malone being a more complete player.
Charles started the season late in '95, but worked his way back and came on strong averaging 26.1 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in the second half of the season, though injuries took their toll again by the Houston series. He was really laboring in that memorable game 7 despite a 47/12 game earlier in the postseason to close out Portland. Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]
The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I think it's because Barkley's game translated much better to the playoffs. The playoffs are often when we see playerswho put up big numbers in the regular season, but have holes in their game, or play a style that doesn't work as well in the playoffs get exposed. I can cite numerous examples. But Barkley didn't have that problem because he was just one of those dominant players.
[QUOTE]Barkley wasn't much of a leader either compared to Malone. As I had stated, Malone was someone who gave you his all night in and night out, and had a contagious work-ethic. However, Barkley was someone who didn't have as strong of a work-ethic and was a pretty bad leader for the most part. He was a head case who fought his teammates in the locker-room, went out drinking all the time, was out of shape frequently, etc. [/QUOTE]
Malone did have unbelievable work ethic, that's evidenced by his remarkable conditioning and longevity. Phil Jackson also mentioned how eager Malone was to learn the triangle. Many veterans struggle to learn the offense, but Karl was a very good fit, imo. Compare him to Payton that same year who was much younger, but lost in the offense, or other veterans like Glen Rice in 2000 who was a terrible fit and reportedly didn't care too much to learn it, and Phil also said that Mitch Richmond didn't get playing time in '02 for similar seasons.
Malone also played in an offense that takes a while to learn in Utah when Sloan ran the flex offense, and Malone was of course the perfect fit.
[QUOTE]I personally want my star to be looking up upon, not down upon which is why I give Malone the edge over Barkley.[/QUOTE]
Fair points, but I'd rather have the guy who I'm confident will show up and dominate a playoff game.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Sometimes I am amazed at your recollection of events and the stunning objectivity you bring to them. I'd add in support of Barkley's conditioning not being a major issue how well he played in 1999 and the shape he was in to start the season. He matched or outlasted all his peers except Stockton/Malone in terms of longevity.
One of the changes I've made to my revamped list this year already is Barkley over Malone. As much as Malone's career numbers are better, I always thought Barkley was greater at his best and never believed in Malone. I may be biased, but it feels right.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I appreciate it. And I always enjoy your posts as well. it's good to see posters who put a lot into their posts and love the game. I was shocked at how well Barkley played in that '99 series vs LA in particular, he was doing it a lot by backing in, but I recall a few vintage Barkley plays where he went coast to cast, just without the monster dunks. Charles averaged 23.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.8 apg, 52.6 FG% in the series. That Houston team was interesting, obviously a disappointment with Pippen not fitting in, but lost in all of that was Hakeem's comeback season after all of the injuries in '98. Despite the problems, even that old big 3 could've been dangerous. We saw how capable Barkley still could be, and Pippen was still one of the most capable all around small forwards as he showed in 2000 with Portland. It could've been an interesting series if Pippen and Olajuwon played up to their capability. Of course, Olajuwon was 36 and going up against a 27 year old Shaq.
Then again, I may be somewhat biased myself. I've been a big Barkley fan since I was a kid. As simple as it sounds, my uncle moved to Phoenix for a few years around the time Barkley got there and he talked about him quite a bit, so I ended up following his career. Malone on the other hand is a guy whose game I appreciate, but I find him to be a despicable human being. But I honestly don't think that comes into play for me when I rank him.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]
Nah, I think it's because Barkley's game translated much better to the playoffs. The playoffs are often when we see playerswho put up big numbers in the regular season, but have holes in their game, or play a style that doesn't work as well in the playoffs get exposed. I can cite numerous examples. But Barkley didn't have that problem because he was just one of those dominant players.[/quote]
It's a combination of both to be honest. I think Barkley coasting through the regular season definitely gave him extra energy and stamina to play in the playoffs and his game was a pretty good fit for the post-season as well.
Barkley had a fair amount of chokes himself though which is why I don't understand everybody constantly highlighting Malone's chokes but then completely ignoring Barkley's.
Just to cite a few examples of Barkley's post-season chokes
[QUOTE]Charles Barkley who blew two 2-0 series leads (one 3-1 lead), with seven of those fourteen games shooting under 45% from the field? The same Barkley that had four of those games also under 40% shooting, including an infamous 5 points on 0-10 shooting. He blamed it on it being an "afternoon game.." He only shot better than 50% in four of those fourteen games against the Rockets in both these series..[/QUOTE]
I tend to go back and forth on Barkley and Malone. It's hard to ignore that Malone was a top 10 player for about 15 years, but it is true that Barkley was considerably better at his best, and in terms of offensive impact I'm not sure if there are 10 guys you can point to who were better then Barkley at his very best. Excluding his tendency to sometimes shoot questionable 3s and long 2s he played offensively almost exactly how you'd want a superstar to. Scored extremely efficiently, but he usually looked to improve his team mates chances as much as anything. I think more often then not those 3s he took were to try and get the defense to run him off the line and get more looks in the paint too, but I still dont like them.
[QUOTE]Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.[/QUOTE]
Well he had a big part in them losing game 5 by a couple points. It's one of the best examples of why he struggled in the clutch so often. As the defense got tighter at the end of the game, he just couldn't get good shots or position and basically threw a couple possessions away because of it. I think the only time he scored in the final 5 minutes was on a prayer 3 pointer, despite having most of the plays run for him.
Either way though, Houston was equally, or more talented and Hakeem's Rocket teams were built perfectly to exploit a couple of the mid 90's Jazz biggest holes. A very weak center position (Though Antoine Carr was great in some respects) and Utah's poor perimeter D at the time.
[QUOTE]I agree with almost all of your rankings, except Barkley was better than Malone in '91. Charles was the 3rd best player that year behind only Michael and Magic[/QUOTE]
actually he was 9th. behind jordan, scottie pippen, magic, david robinson, john stockton, hakeem olajuwon, karl malone, and clyde drexler.
[QUOTE]He was right up there with Jordan, Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge for the scoring title the first few months and having easily his best scoring season before injuries averaging 30.8 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 59.6 FG% over his first 35 games and Philly was 21-14, they went just 2-5 between his return, and ultimately went 39-28 when he played, and just 5-10 without him showing his impact. Barkley still finished at 27.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57 FG%. Despite a mediocre cast, which Barkley was used to in his prime, they made it to the second round, and Charles had a respectable playoff run individually, while Malone was far more underwhelming in the playoffs. I've only seen 1 game from the Milwaukee series, but the entire Chicago series. Charles averaging 23.7 ppg, 11 rpg, 7 apg, 2.7 spg on 52%. Not much he could've done in the Chicago series. He averaged 25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg on 64%, but MJ was in his prime, or arguably at his peak playing nearly flawless ball, Pippen really emerged in the second half and the playoffs becoming arguably the best small forward in the game, the Bulls adjusted to the triangle and the supporting cast had become pretty solid.[/QUOTE]
although i'll admit barkley had slightly the better playoff, malone had a much better regular season, and this is the difference here.
malone averaged 29.0ppg, 11.8rpg, 3.3apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg, and 3.0topg on 53%fg on a 54 win team
barkley averaged 27.6ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.6spg, 0.5bpg, and 3.1topg on 57%fg on a 44 win team
malone deserved 1st team all-nba honors, while barkley only deserved to be named to the 3rd team.
as for an underwelming supporting cast?
hersey hawkins was the third best shotting guard in the nba only behind jordan and drexler. hawkins stepped up his level of play in the playoffs more than barkley, and averaged 20.9ppg, 5.8rpg, 3.4apg, 2.5spg, and 1.3bpg, while shooting 47% from the field and 54% from the 3 point line, and they had fine role players like gilliam, mahorn, and anderson.
[QUOTE]But other than our disagreement on '91, you're listing Barkley as better during every other year in his prime from '88-'93 and there was not a big difference between the 2 in '94 and '95. Charles was playing better ball before his injuries averaging 24.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 52.7 FG% and Phoenix was 22-6. He was not the same after that, and really looked incapable of consistently reaching his prime level by the Houston series when Otis Thorpe often looked to be outplaying him before Thorpe's own injury. So that's why I'd probably lean towards Malone in '94. And '94 was the start of Malone being a more complete player.[/QUOTE]
yeh barkley was better than malone most years of his prime because malone hadn't entered his yet.
[QUOTE]Charles started the season late in '95, but worked his way back and came on strong averaging 26.1 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in the second half of the season, though injuries took their toll again by the Houston series. He was really laboring in that memorable game 7 despite a 47/12 game earlier in the postseason to close out Portland. Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.[/QUOTE]
barkley had a better playoff than malone in '95, and it did make it close, but not close enough to combat malone's regular season domination.
at the end of the day malone and barkley were individually ranked based on what they did on the court, what isn't taken into consideration when ranking individual seasons is games played. if barkley played in as many games consistently as malone did, then he'd be alot closer in the all time rankings (which take into consideration percentage of games played). unfortunately for barkley and his teams, he was off the court alot of the time, which was obviously of no value to his teams. and finally, malone was voted as the nba's most valuabe player in a season in which wasn't one of his best 8 in the league. how many players can you say that about?
[QUOTE]actually he was 9th. behind jordan, scottie pippen, magic, david robinson, john stockton, hakeem olajuwon, karl malone, and clyde drexler.[/QUOTE]
Just laughable:wtf:
Barkley is one of the few players who when playing against prime MJ in the late 80s/early 90s, actually looked like the dominant player on the floor at times. That's how good he was in his heyday.
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]It's a combination of both to be honest. I think Barkley coasting through the regular season definitely gave him extra energy and stamina to play in the playoffs and his game was a pretty good fit for the post-season as well.[/QUOTE]
I don't necessarily disagree, but even in a season like '93 after playing for the Dream Team(which seemed to take it's toll on other players such as Pippen, Drexler and even MJ), and then a regular season where he was motivated and busted his ass after a subpar '92 season when he was lazy and unhappy, he dominated in the postseason in '93. Several of his games in that run are among the best I've seen him play such as games 2 and 5 vs the Spurs and games 5 and 7 vs Seattle.
But what seasons did you think Barkley coasted in from '88-'93 except for '92 when he didn't make the playoffs?
In Charles '90 season, which many consider his best, I wouldn't say he broke down in the playoffs. He had three 30/20 games in 10 playoff games, though I will say that he had an uneven series vs Chicago and should've capitalized on game 4 when Pippen was out attending his father's funeral and Philly had a chance to tie the series at home. The Sixers had comparable talent to the Bulls in general, much less without Pippen. Then again, Jordan at his peak playing perfect basketball made it difficult. They gave him the outside shot, and MJ burned him all series long, mostly on jumpers, but exploited his size advantage on Hawkins in the post when he felt like it as well. But Charles should've played better and some of his struggles can be attributed to his poor free throw shooting that series.
[QUOTE]Barkley had a fair amount of chokes himself though which is why I don't understand everybody constantly highlighting Malone's chokes but then completely ignoring Barkley's.[/QUOTE]
In his prime? Not really, and compare his postseason play to Malone's. It's obvious to me that they aren't comparable in that regard.
[QUOTE]Just to cite a few examples of Barkley's post-season chokes[/QUOTE]
Can't argue with the Houston series, and Phoenix did have more talent than Houston, imo. Phoenix did have their interior defense exposed big time by Hakeem and Thorpe in the '94 season, though. That was their biggest weakness, and one of the negatives of having Barkley at power forward.
But Barkley was already looking like not quite the player he had been in that '94 series, and Barkley was talking about retiring after '94 because of his back.
And I'll never forget the image of Barkley hobbling around in game 7.
Those are choke jobs, partially by the whole Suns team....except KJ who was fantastic in both series, but at least this wasn't prime '88-'93 Barkley.
[QUOTE=Shep]actually he was 9th.[/QUOTE]
Barkley was never as low as 9th any season from '87 through '95.
[QUOTE]behind jordan[/QUOTE]
Yep
[QUOTE]scottie pippen[/QUOTE]
No chance, Pippen was great in the second half and postseason, but he wasn't there yet. As much as I like Scottie, and despite it being probably his second best playoff run and a breakout year, Pippen probably wasn't top 10 yet, and certainly not better than Barkley. Though Pippen did enter the top 10 in '92 and I'd be tempted to rank him above Charles that season.
[QUOTE]magic[/QUOTE]
Correct, he was number 2 as I mentioned.
[QUOTE]david robinson[/QUOTE]
Nah, but he has a case due to his defensive impact. But his 55 win Spurs were upset by the 44 win Warriors as they neutralized Robinson's impact, and David failed to really put his stamp on the series and dominate a tiny Warrirs team who were terrible defensively. Definitely a team he should have dominated.
This selection isn't outrageous, though, so I don't have a problem with it, just definitely disagree.
[QUOTE]john stockton[/QUOTE]
Stockton was never better than Barkley in any season until he was a Rocket. John was a terrific pure point guard and an excellent sidekick/complementary player, but at his best, he was borderline top 10. Just didn't have the true MVP-caliber ability to dominate a game that a guy like Barkley did. '91 may have been his best year, though, so if I'm feeling generous, I may give him the 9th ranking that you have Barkley, purely due to KJ being injured and unable to perform up to his standard in the playoffs. The same way KJ outplaying Stockton in the playoffs sealed his spot over Stockton in my '90 rankings.
[QUOTE]hakeem olajuwon[/QUOTE]
Nah, Hakeem was typically close to Barkley from '88-'92, and passed him after, but Hakeem missed 26 games, and when he returned, he was in a reduced offensive role averaging just 18 ppg upon returning to the lineup with Kenny Smith leading them in scoring and Houston succeeding with an up tempo style, outside shooting and screen/rolls as opposed to Dream carrying them in the post. Houston went 20-7 with Dream in the reduced offensive role, and they had a winning record for once with Dream out of the lineup going 16-10. This was a down year for Hakeem. He definitely wasn't better than Barkley this season.
[QUOTE]karl malone[/QUOTE]
No as I covered before. '92 was the only year from Barkley's prime when Malone was better, and that's because Barkley was a notch below prime level that year.
[QUOTE]clyde drexler.[/QUOTE]
Not a chance. Drexler had a very nice all around game, but was a guy who benefited greatly from transition opportunities and wasn't the type of dominant half court offensive player that Barkley he was. He wasn't the same type of player who would alter a team's entire defense, cause constant doubles and impose his will on a game. Besides, Clyde had the most talented team in the league, and they were upset by the Lakers. There's a visible difference between Drexler and Barkley when watching them. Out of their entire careers, Drexler was only better than Barkley in '98.
[QUOTE]although i'll admit barkley had slightly the better playoff, malone had a much better regular season, and this is the difference here.[/QUOTE]
Nah, Barkley had the better regular season too.
[QUOTE]malone averaged 29.0ppg, 11.8rpg, 3.3apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg, and 3.0topg on 53%fg on a 54 win team
barkley averaged 27.6ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.6spg, 0.5bpg, and 3.1topg on 57%fg on a 44 win team[/QUOTE]
Barkley's team won 44 games because they were weak, they went just 5-10 without him. Charles scored almost as much on better efficiency while not being the beneficiary of Stockton's countless assists. Malone relying on easy baskets, particularly at that stage of his career is why his efficiency plummeted as usual to 42.4% in the semifinals when Portland knocked them out and 45.5% for the entire playoffs.
Barkley was also the vastly superior passer at that time.
At least Malone was arguably a top 5 player himself, but regardless of how close their rankings were, the gap in ability was still clear in '91.
[QUOTE]malone deserved 1st team all-nba honors, while barkley only deserved to be named to the 3rd team.[/QUOTE]
Nah, and if you did have a case for that statement, it'd be due to missed games, but 15 isn't enough. And 3rd team is way too low. Malone was the only forward besides Barkley who was even top 10 that year.
[QUOTE]as for an underwelming supporting cast?
hersey hawkins was the third best shotting guard in the nba only behind jordan and drexler. hawkins stepped up his level of play in the playoffs more than barkley, and averaged 20.9ppg, 5.8rpg, 3.4apg, 2.5spg, and 1.3bpg, while shooting 47% from the field and 54% from the 3 point line, and they had fine role players like gilliam, mahorn, and anderson.[/QUOTE]
Hawkins was a nice player who could certainly score, but in no way was he a top 3 shooting guard. In addition to Jordan and Drexler, Hawkins also finds himself behind Dumars, Richmond, Reggie Lewis and possibly Reggie Miller.
Gilliam was a talented post scorer, but he was a bad fit in Philly. This was because his game did not fit with Barkley's. Anderson was a nice bench scorer, and Mahorn was indeed solid. But that's not much depth, and precisely why they struggled to a 5-10 record without him
[QUOTE]yeh barkley was better than malone most years of his prime because malone hadn't entered his yet.[/QUOTE]
Fair point. :cheers: Malone's prime started unusually late, and he may be the only all-time great to peak as late as 34 years old.
[QUOTE]barkley had a better playoff than malone in '95, and it did make it close, but not close enough to combat malone's regular season domination.[/QUOTE]
No arguments here, we're on the same page.
[QUOTE]at the end of the day malone and barkley were individually ranked based on what they did on the court, what isn't taken into consideration when ranking individual seasons is games played. if barkley played in as many games consistently as malone did, then he'd be alot closer in the all time rankings (which take into consideration percentage of games played). unfortunately for barkley and his teams, he was off the court alot of the time, which was obviously of no value to his teams. and finally, malone was voted as the nba's most valuabe player in a season in which wasn't one of his best 8 in the league. how many players can you say that about?[/QUOTE]
For me it's simple, you ask me who I'm taking between '89-'93 Barkley and '94-'98 Malone, and I'm taking Barkley without thinking twice.
That is interesting that Malone was voted MVP in a season that was nowhere near his best, though part of that speaks to the lack of quality seasons in the lockout year. And while I don't care about awards given out in a 50 game season, I'd have chosen Duncan.
And I thought about it, and I agree that Malone's '99 season wasn't even one of his top 8.
I agree Barkley was better than Malone..Jeff Malone.
Barkley didnt played a lick of defense, therefore his advantage as a bit better go to guy doesnt give your team any advantage if you get outscored due to no defense :oldlol:
A lot of people miss this point for some reason, basketball isnt just about scoring (and Malone scored more as well, in Playoffs too), and Mailman was considerably better defensive player. He actually played both sides of the floor, while Charles was just coasting on D, saving all his energy for offense, and [I]still [/I]he didnt reached Karl's scoring volume.
Speaking about Playoffs, Charles had better teammates overall, and yet he had less Playoffs success than Malone. No advantage for Barkley here either.
And lets not even touch work ethics... one treats his body like a temple, and another like a bag you can throw all junk food in. :facepalm
No GM would pick Charles over Mailman, simple as that.