View Single Post
Old 07-19-2012, 12:34 AM   #139
7-time NBA All-Star
ShaqAttack3234's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,776
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Originally Posted by Shep
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?

I'm not saying Tripucka was a great all around player, but he could score. He averaged 23 ppg the next season in Charlotte.

he wasn't a mid-range type scorer

Adding more qualifications now that you realize Stockton had more than 2 scorers?

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.

And I've seen Stockton and I know he couldn't dominate a game like Barkley. Give Barkley Eaton to patrol the paint and I'm sure their defense is just fine.

excuses. you bring statements, i destroy them, and you proceed to make excuses. story of the thread.

The story of the thread is you making outrageous claims that are nothing short of shocking.

drexler couldn't even lead his team to a .500 record and was swept in the first round.

Drexler was the better scorer, shooter, rebounder and passer. Clyde averaged 27/8/6, 2.7 spg, 50 FG%, 80 FT%. Harper averaged 19/5/5, 2.3 spg, 51 FG%.

The Cavs had a nice regular season, and Price, Daugherty and Nance, three of the best players at their position deserve a lot of credit, but they were upset by a Bulls team that won 10 fewer games and were still largely a 1 man show. That's how far Harper got with the Cavs best player Mark Price injured.

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.

Porter was the better defender and more capable of playing like a 2 guard, but Price was the better shooter, ball handler and passer. Three things I value more in a point guard. Price averaged 19.6 ppg and 9.1 apg on 46/41/89 shooting while leading the league 2.1 made 3s per game and just 2.9 turnovers. His postseason was right there as well at 20 ppg and 8.8 apg on 53% shooting while making all 30 of his free throws. Keep in mind, he was playing on a half court team, while Porter was on an up tempo team with quite a few athletic players with size.

He led a Cavs team that dealt with some bad injuries to a winning record as well. Porter is on my list for '90, and not far below Price, but below him.

to have a player of nance's caliber have a series like that would be quite detrimental to the teams success.

They had Daugherty back on his game, Price was his usual self and Hot Rod Williams raised his game.

williams was better than daugherty in that particular season

Not any surprise considering Daugherty was affected by injuries and missed half the season.

they didn't have that kind of talent, but they all stepped up their games, nobody had a down series.

They're still not a particularly formidable team, imo.

in a deciding game of a series to get outplayed by that much is a issue here.

He won the game, who cares?

losing playoff games with a small sample size without one of your best players means nothing.

So according to you, it's a coincidence that the Bucks best player plays 3 games, the Bucks win them all, he misses 4 in the series and the Bucks lose 3 of those 4? It's a bigger sample size than the one game vs the Cavs you're talking about.

if thats all they can do they will be ranked accordingly

He swept the Bucks in the first round averaging 24/11/7, 2.7 spg, 52 FG% including a 22/13/10 and then 30/12/6/4 in a 21 blowout win to clinch the series. He also had a solid series vs the Bulls averaging 26/10/5 on 64%. They lost, but were 1 of 2 teams(along with the stacked Lakers) to win a game vs the Bulls.

a top 8 player all time winning finals mvp will be more than likely the best player in the league.

He wasn't in his prime yet, Kareem was closer to his prime(probably 1-2 years removed), and ranks higher all-time, imo.

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.

No it doesn't, steals can often come from gambling, and they don't mean you're a good defender. Magic was a pretty good help defender, but a poor individual defender. Magic wasn't contributing much defensively, especially since they had to hide him defensively.

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

Kareem's scoring likely wasn't affected by pace, he almost never ran the floor and scored in transition, he'd likely get at least as many post touches today. Magic lived in transition back then, he'd be affected more. Kareem was the Lakers half court offense. Spacing was also worse back then since 3s weren't a significant part of the game yet.

Kareem's rebounding was ok, the Lakers often let Magic get the rebound so he could start the break just like Kidd in recent years. He was averaging close to 9 per game anyway, not great, but if he was concerned about his numbers, I'm sure he could have gotten the 10 by going out his way to get an extra uncontested rebound they let Magic get.

But beyond his scoring average, he was the best post player in the league with the most unstoppable offensive weapon, the sky hook. Not that he needed them, but he also had counter moves such as the turnaround jumper, left-handed hook and a drop step. The Lakers needed that because when the game slowed down, he was the guy they'd go to, and what other Laker got double teamed consistently? Those double teams created opportunities for teammates since he was an excellent passer. And 24 ppg on 58% and 71% from the line is damn good anyway.

Aside from being their best scorer by far, he was a shot blocking center who averaged 2.7 bpg and 3.2 bpg. A 7'2" presence among the leaders in blocks makes a significant difference, especially compared to Magic's average at best defense.

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.

Magic wasn't better than Kareem until at least the '83-'84 season, and then it was debatable,

And it's fine to have your point guard as your first option if he has the skill set for it. When Pat Riley first made Magic the 1st option in the '86-'87 season, he thrived in the role because he had added a good outside shot, and a post game.

magic stepped up alot more, as did norm nixon. kareem struggled rebounding the ball, even at 7-2, and often got outmuscled down low.

Both Magic and Kareem pretty much played their games. Neither stepped up noticeably to me.

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

The 4.2 ppg increase in '94, while also not having Jordan to take pressure off of him, playing at a slower pace and making 0.9 threes per game vs 0.3 in '91 more than makes up for 52 to 49 FG%. Scoring, shooting percentage and offensive numbers in general were down significantly in '94 compared to '91.

Pippen did play very well in the '91 finals, but I'd say he was better in the '92 finals,

Of course, just a year and a half ago, you were calling '92 Pippen's peak.

You were much closer then, just like your previous ranking of 2000 Kobe at 6th rather than 2nd was far closer.

neither did pete maravich, lets rank him as one of the best ever players based on what could have happened

Pete never had any type of team success, while Daugherty led a 57 win conference finals team just the next season.

if it meant they wouldn't have to deal with all the bullshit that he brings with him

Well, Chicago sure was happy they felt that way.

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.

I don't know why his minutes decreased, or why he had a down year. Admittedly, I didn't watch the Pistons much before Grant Hill, and collecting games, I've only really gotten into the Bad Boys era from '88-'92 and some games from their run and gun era with Isiah.

I'll have to look into that season more, but I have season plenty of Elliott with San Antonio and he was a quality player.

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.

And they were out in the 1st round, Sean Elliott comes back in '95 and they not only win 62 games, but get to the conference finals.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote