View Single Post
Old 08-04-2012, 04:45 AM   #156
Decent college freshman
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,572
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

1 series? It's the series that prevented them from getting to the finals. Due to Malone having one of the best series of his career, they had a chance to upset the favored and more talent Blazers, if Stockton had played close to his usual level, but he didn't. And to make matters worse, Porter completely outplayed him, despite not being as good of a player as Stockton in general. I expect much more from a top 10 player in the game.
lol@malone having one of the best series of his career when he had better series' in the previous 2 rounds let alone his career. in any case malone did outplay stockton in 2 of 3 series in that playoff, but he was getting outplayed by karl malone here who was the best power forward in the nba, and a top 8 player overall, he wasn't getting outplayed by maurice cheeks.
His seattle series was nothing special, imo, and you forgot to add that he shot 43% in it. Utah won that series primarily because of Karl Malone's dominance and Jeff Malone's 22 ppg on 54% didn't hurt either. The 2 Malones averaged about 52 ppg between them.
what a joke. stockton was the mvp and best player in that series.
Even for the entire run, Stockton's scoring average dropped 1 ppg from the season and assists were about the same, but his shooting % dropped from 48% to 42%, so his overall playoff numbers were worse, but that's not all you have to look at.
atleast stockton made the playoffs at all
The Jazz made the conference finals, but once again, Stockton coming up small prevented them from making that series more competitive. Granted, Malone didn't have the best series either(he had food poisoning, iirc), but Malone's improved all around game was the main reason Utah had as much success as they did.

Even for the entire playoffs, Stockton's scoring dropped a bit, assists dropped from nearly 13 per game to not even 10, and his shooting % dropped from almost 53% in the season to a little under 46%.
malone was the jazz' best player by this point. and althought stockton's numbers were down, he still contributed to a winning team and only 3 other teams made it that far. much better than putting up your normal numbers and getting swept in the first round.
This, much like '92 qualifies as a playoff failure under my definition, which is losing while playing noticeably below your usual level.
each to their own definition. playoff failure in my definition is losing in the first round while not stepping up at all, and getting outplayed by role players. i'd much rather win 2 series and then lose in the conference finals than get swept in the first round playing subpar or not make the playoffs at all.
The main reason they beat the Spurs was because Karl Malone shut down David Robinson. The Spurs had a pretty good team around Robinson, but most of them played poorly in the series too.

And that's not some incredible team on paper. Plus they had a joke of a head coach in John Lucas. They overachieved to get 55 wins primarily because David Robinson was a dominant regular season player
the jazz made the conference finals for the second time in their 20 year history and john stockton was their second best player in the regular season and playoffs. much better than getting swept in the first round.
Malone was easily Utah's best player and the MVP of the Spurs series. He once again shut down Robinson, and much like the '94 series, most of Robinson's teammates followed his lead and played like shit.

I covered his terrible WCF which alone makes it a failure, but even for the entire playoffs, Stockton's scoring dropped almost 4 ppg,his assists dropped and his FG% plummeted from almost 54% to under 46%.
malone was clearly the jazz' best player in 1996 so being mvp of a series means little. the best players on teams usually are the mvp of the playoffs except for some anomalies like hersey hawkins being the mvp for the sixers, and mo cheeks as well in separate series.
By the way, Penny was the best PG.
penny was second, behind gary payton
I don't care about his steals numbers decreasing

and a small drop in FG% is normal from the regular season to the playoffs.
so you agree it dropped
The main reason they had a chance to beat a superior opponent is because Barkley's level of play was high in general with the only blemishes being his missed FT in game 3 and the elimination game.
generally it wasn't high enough, and while others were able to step up to the occasion, barkley was not.
Nowhere near the player they needed him to be? You see how close each game was? Barkley playing like a superstar and elite player is why they had a chance to win all 3 games vs a better team.
actually mo cheeks stepping up and outplaying barkley was the reason why they had a chance.
Even if that was true(which it's not)

that would only show how remarkable of a player Barkley was in his prime to decline so much and still be that good. But '97 Barkley is nowhere near representative of how good Barkley was during his prime, so it's simply not really a factor for me when ranking him.
decline so much yet he was still better than he was the previous year, and every year bar 3 before 1993
at '07. Nash was by far the best PG and a top 3 player in the entire league behind only Kobe and Duncan. Kidd probably had his best season since '04 and was a top 4 PG behind Nash, Arenas and Baron.
nash was top 7 overall in 2007. as for kobe in the top 3? kobe wasn't even in the top 18. and after kidd and nash, the best point guards were baron davis, and tony parker.
There is no sort of argument that can be made to support this.
no argument can be made for any of your clains so far in this thread.
Barkley was voted MVP in '93
he was actually third most valuable that year
finished 2nd in '90
wasn't even top 7
I would have gone with Hakeem in '93 and Jordan in '90, though.
these are the correct choices.
Stockton's highest MVP finish was 7th in '89, he never even had the most MVP votes on his own team
he was actually third in 3 years: 1989, 1991, and 1992.
As I said, I don't really care what '97 Barkley did.

he wasn't more effective with such a limited half court skill set. He added an outside shot because it's a basic thing for a perimeter player to have, and he added a post game to became a truly great half court player and take his game to the next level. He couldn't have made the transition to 1st option in '87 and succeeded had he not added to his game.

He didn't add those things when he got old. He started adding the outside shot around '84-'85 when he was only about 24-25 and not even in his prime. He added the post game in '87 when he was only 27, an age when most players are in or near their peaks, and still have several prime years left.
magic did what his team needed him to do. in 1982 the lakers had 6 players in double digits averaging almost 110 between those guys. it would be no point in him scoring all these points, infact it would be to the detriment of the team. instead he rebounded better than he ever did in his entire career, did an outstanding job forcing turnovers (league leader in steals), shot the ball at 54%, and added 9.5 assists as a 2 guard. he did have a post game, although not as polished as it was later one in his career, but once again, he did not need this at that point as he was able to dominate, be the best player on the floor and eventually be the best in the league by the end of the playoffs.
Nobody did anything comparable to Moses in the regular season that year. I liked other player's skill sets better such as Kareem, Bird and possibly Dr. J, but I can't argue with Malone's dominance.
bird and magic had the better regular season.
I'm aware of his disappointing playoff series, but Malone ended up such a clear number 1 for the regular season, especially when nobody else really had an outstanding year by best player standards that the playoff disappointment is nowhere near enough to drop him below his number 1 spot. Particularly in a 3 game mini-series, which was an idiotic format. talk about a small sample size.
bird and magic already were better before the playoffs had started. erving was very close behind, kareem was a bit behind but then he helps the lakers dominate the playoffs, only losing 2 games in the process. this makes kareem easily better than malone. and erving gets past larry bird and makes the nba finals, making it an easy decision as to who were the best 4 players that year, infact it was closer between malone and robert parish than it was between malone and any of those 4.
It's Magic talking about the Lakers becoming his team in '87 at Pat Riley's request after having been Kareem's team for all of the years before.

You said Magic and Riley would agree with you, I proved you wrong.
his team meaning number 1 offensive option. he was the best player on that team since 1982
Actually, it wasn't. Pippen didn't become any more ball-dominant after '92. In fact, he may have been less since running the offense and facilitating was split up more. The Bulls also relied on executing the triangle offense even more with less talent in '94 which also prevented ball-dominance.
the opportunity was there to be more ball dominant if he wasn't. and he could have been much more of a scorer, especially since the number 1 scorer in the league was no longer there.
Shep is offline   Reply With Quote