View Single Post
Old 07-18-2012, 10:49 AM   #138
Decent college freshman
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,572
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

The man could score, when you have other scorers, they don't always get opportunities. I never said he was a great all around player, for example, he was just a terrible defender, and didn't do anything other than score. But if you wanted scoring, he could give you that. Cliff Robinson didn't do anything other than
lol just give up. he scored 7 points per game. nothing more needs to be said...and you are comparing him to cliff robinson? what a joke this conversation is becoming. cliff robinson was the equilivent of today's danny granger. how many small forwards could rebound better than robinson?
You're denying that Darrell Griffith could score too?
he wasn't a mid-range type scorer
I'm aware of this hypothetical lineup you created, I've seen it several times now and I'm not impressed. It doesn't look as potent as Stockton's Utah offense(well, actually Malone's Utah offense), and that wasn't a good offense. Then you go from the top ranked defense to roughly bottom 4, and I'm convinced they're not
i've seen your argument for barkley, and i'm not impressed. the opposing teams offense would be tired anyway due to having to defend so many options, directly improving the sixers defense.
Eaton was an 18 mpg player by his last season. Although Utah's success in '94 is not surprising, that's around the time we really started seeing Malone's game become complete when he was becoming an excellent passer, post defender and mid-range shooter. They also added Jeff Hornacek and Tom Chambers(though Chambers didn't give them much in the postseason).
excuses. you bring statements, i destroy them, and you proceed to make excuses. story of the thread.
at Harper being better than Drexler in '89
drexler couldn't even lead his team to a .500 record and was swept in the first round.
Terry Porter was not better than Price. He was a better defender, but Price was clearly the better passer, shooter and ball handler(how many could split traps like Price)? I liked Porter's game too. He's in my top 25 list for 1990.
porter was bigger and stronger than price, price would get walked over by most point guards in the league.
porter was the blazers second best player, the blazers ended up with the second best record in the nba, and made the nba finals. porter averaged 17.6ppg, 3.4rpg, 9.1apg, 1.9spg on 46/37/89 in the regular season and 20.6ppg, 2.9rpg, 7.4apg, 1.3spg on 46/39/84 in the playoffs. clearly better than price.
Of course, because Daugherty and Nance were healthy in the '92 seasons. Just like they were healthy in the '90 playoffs, Nance had a down series, but Daugherty was back playing at prime level.
to have a player of nance's caliber have a series like that would be quite detrimental to the teams success.
Williams was not a better player than a healthy Brad Daugherty. I didn't rank Daugherty in '90 because he didn't qualify in games played, but he was back putting up 23/10/4 on 59 FG%.
williams was better than daugherty in that particular season
Nance had a down series, but they still had Daugherty(23/10/4, 59 FG%), Price(20/3/9, 53 FG%) and Williams (19/9, 56 FG%). The Bullets didn't have that kind of talent, not even close.
they didn't have that kind of talent, but they all stepped up their games, nobody had a down series.
Barkley played well in that game, I don't care if Hawkins stepped up with a huge game. You know that a team's second best player can outplay the best player every now and then. It's not a big deal.
in a deciding game of a series to get outplayed by that much is a issue here.
Yeah and the '86 Celtics are arguably the best team ever, getting dominated by them means nothing. But if you're discrediting the Bucks with Moncrief for that, then it doesn't say as much about the feat of Barkley taking them to 7 without winning 1 of the games Moncrief played.
losing playoff games with a small sample size without one of your best players means nothing.
I wouldn't expect a player to do anything more with that roster. Certainly not contend for a title.
if thats all they can do they will be ranked accordingly
Right, because everyone who is voted finals MVP belongs in the best player discussion.
a top 8 player all time winning finals mvp will be more than likely the best player in the league.
What do I care if Magic led the league in steals? He was still a mediocre defender. Maybe if Magic had an outside shot back then, or a post game I'd consider it.
leading the league means you are the best out of every player in the league at a certain aspect of the game. this definately means alot.
I'll take the dominant post player averaging 24 ppg on 58% shooting and blocking almost 3 shots per game. The guy who was drawing double teams and could score at any point in the game.
have him. i'll take the best player in the nba. like 24ppg is such a huge number anyway its like 21ppg in today's league, and about 7 rebounds too. abdul-jabber led the lakers scoring in the finals once out of 5 games
Magic didn't even have a case for being better than Kareem until '84 when he started to show more of an outside shot, but it was still debatable. Why do you think Pat Riley waited until the '86-'87 season to make Magic the 1st option?
1982 was the first season magic was better than kareem. magic was a point guard, it is unhealthy to make a point guard your first option, especially as magic could dominate your team in a number of different ways other than scoring.
20.4 ppg is paltry? He was also averaging almost 9 boards and almost 4 assists with over 3 blocks per game.

And it's not all about stats. Kareem was clearly better than Magic for being so much better as a scorer, a guy who you have to double(unlike '82 Magic) and a real defensive presence and shot blocker(unlike Magic).
magic stepped up alot more, as did norm nixon. kareem struggled rebounding the ball, even at 7-2, and often got outmuscled down low.
at you once again comparing team success in completely different roles and situations. Serious question, have you watched any '89 and '97 Barkley games? Because if you did, you might want to use what you saw in those games to rank his best years instead of whatever criteria leads to such huge mistakes.
i don't make mistakes. and yes, i have watched alot of barkley games.
Yes he was voted MVP and DPOY, and I don't have a problem with the MVP, I might go with Bird, but Jordan has a great case, but '88 Jordan simply shouldn't have been voted DPOY. He was definitely not at his own defensive peak, and it's hard enough to justify a perimeter player getting the award.

Jordan didn't dominate more categories. He was a better scorer and defender. Bird was the better rebounder and passer.

'91 Pippen in '94= 1st round exit or lottery team.
'94 pippen in '91 = do not make finals
Pippen's 5 best seasons in order: '94, '95, '96, '92, '97
'91, '92, '96, '97, '93
The Knicks had a better regular season by 1 win. Both teams were overmatched by the Bulls. This is really pointless.
why are you still typing then
Peak '94 Pippen helped the Bulls only fall off by 2 wins after Jordan retired, helped Chicago overachieve greatly to 55-27(51-21 w/ Pippen and 44-16 w/ Pippen and Grant), took a Knick team that had challenged the Jordan Bulls to 7, the same team that was a shot away from the '94 title, were probably prevented from a finals appearance by only the horrendous Hue Hollins call.
he never shot the ball better than '91, he never played better in the playoff's than '91, and he never played better in the finals than '91
Sorry, he didn't have the luxury of playing with Magic and Worthy on a team with a very deep frontcourt and 5-6 scoring options overall.
neither did pete maravich, lets rank him as one of the best ever players based on what could have happened
So they preferred winning less?
if it meant they wouldn't have to deal with all the bullshit that he brings with him
No, his minutes dropped significantly. And as long as we're talking about Elliott without the Spurs, how about the Spurs without Elliott? They're in the semifinals with him in '93, he leaves and they lose in the 1st round with Karl Malone humiliating David Robinson, Elliott returns and they're in the conference finals with a franchise record at the time of 62 wins.
why didn't his minutes increase in detroit? surely they should have known this star player needs minutes? elliott couldn't even manage to be a top 4 player on the second worst team in the league.

without elliott the spurs won 6 more games. and robinson was the most disappointing player in the playoffs, but having the 5th best player on the second worst team in the nba wouldn't have won the spurs anymore games tho.
Shep is offline   Reply With Quote