View Single Post
Old 06-28-2012, 02:37 AM   #32
7-time NBA All-Star
ShaqAttack3234's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,753
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Originally Posted by Shep
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..

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

I personally want my star to be looking up upon, not down upon which is why I give Malone the edge over Barkley.

Fair points, but I'd rather have the guy who I'm confident will show up and dominate a playoff game.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Last edited by ShaqAttack3234 : 06-28-2012 at 02:46 AM.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote