View Single Post
Old 08-11-2012, 05:17 PM   #165
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 Round Mound

I would argue Barkley was Better from 85-86 to 1994-95 cause he was . Infact in 1994-95 Barkley was Still Better than Malone despite slowing down do to injuries.

I think that Barkley and Malone are debatable in '94 and '95, but Malone did surpass him a little by that point, imo. Although Barkley was clearly better from '86-'93 except for '92.

Originally Posted by D.J.
Not only did Malone's FG% drop, but he didn't not come through when his team needed him. Then again, neither did Stockton. Malone is the only superstar player I know(aside from his teammate) where in game 7s(or game 5s in the first round), he had a losing record.

While Malone deserves blame for his playoff failures, I think he's clearly been the better playoff performer than Stockton for most of their careers.

Originally Posted by Shep
malone had better series in the previous two rounds and he was 8th best in the league.

Once again, I said one of Malone's best series, not his absolute best. His '92 series vs the Clippers was not better, but I wouldn't necessarily argue with the Seattle series.

8th is way too low. He was great in all 3 rounds of the playoffs after an excellent regular season. it was Malone's best playoff run even though I think he became a better player later and peaked in '98.

actually, he was the best player on a team that made the conference finals

What a joke, especially considering how heavily you weigh the playoffs. Malone's playoff run completely destroyed Stockton's.

to me to get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs and not step up to where your team needs you to, to be in a winning position as a superstar player, and get outplayed and step up less than lesser players is a failure to me.
contending teams are contending teams because of individual performances.

Contending teams are contending teams because they have quite a few good players, and usually execute well offensively or defensively. Obviously individual performances are a part of it, you need your players to perform well to contend, but one player playing well is far from all you need to contend.

what luxury?

The luxury of being the second best player on his team.

only from 1993, so malone had been the jazz' best player for only 3 years

Nope, every year Malone had been in the league, so from '86 until Stockton retired.

penny was a superstar and only 1 spot separated these two on the official '96 rankings.

hardaway was the second best player on a team that had the second best record in the east and got swept in the conference finals.

payton was the best player on a team that had the second best record in the league and lost in the nba finals, the sonics also won 2 games against the bulls in the finals - 1 more than the three teams combined managed before seattle played them, and swept the defending 2 time champion houston rockets in the second round.

payton also was the defensive player of the year, more valuable, and led the league in steals per game, making it an easy decision.

Like I said, i don't have a problem with you taking Payton, I think it's close and apparently you do as well since you ranked them right next to each other.

Team success isn't a real issue here when deciding between these 2 players. Both had a lot of success, Seattle fared better against Chicago, but still fell in a 3-0 hole. And Orlando was facing the Bulls with basically just Shaq and Penny due to injuries and pathetic shooting by the supporting cast.

The key to Seattle sweeping Houston was their swarming defense limiting Hakeem so much, and also balance, Payton, Kemp and Schrempf all averaged 20+ on better on at least 50% in the series.

how many years a player has played doesn't come into consideration when ranking players for me. barkley decreasing his production on many different categories does matter, especially when he is losing in the first round and others around him are stepping up - guys like roy hinson, julius erving, and mo cheeks. and barkley's ranking dropped from 5th after the regular season, to 8th after the playoffs because of this.

Barkley being a 3rd year player is definitely relevant as far as I'm concerned. A 1st round series when a player is so young is not a career-altering event. Barkley's level of play was at least as high as it usually was that season and you're overrating his teammates.

kobe had a nice regular season, but he simply did not win enought to be ranked anywhere near the top of the league. he also had a trash playoff series, and was destroyed by a suns outfit who had a top 3 paced offense and was almost outplayed by lamar odom, who stepped up alot more than bryant did.

He went 42-40 with his best teammates being Lamar Odom(who missed 26 games), Luke Walton(who missed 22 games), Smush Parker and kwame brown(who missed 41 games).

He did about as well as you could expect him to. How many players even make the playoffs when those are their key players and they miss that many games?

I'd expect them to be destroyed by Phoenix, the Suns were very talented, and 1 of 3 legit championship contenders that year. Kobe didn't play like trash either, he played fine and averaged 33 ppg.

dirk's drop off in the post season wasn't enough for nash to surpass him. nowitzki was still in the top 5. also better than nash were tim duncan, lebron james, tracy mcgrady, jason kidd, and kevin garnett.

I'm fine with you ranking Dirk over Nash regardless. Duncan was clearly better of course.

Kidd over Nash in '07 is a joke, maybe if Kidd would have been 4 years younger we'd have a good debate. McGrady doesn't have much of a case by that stage in his career. Garnett has a case.

Lebron has a case as well, I can live with that, even though I really disagree. Lebron's '07 season is ridiculously overrated. His jump shot was painful to watch. Give me Nash any day.

kidd was actually top 9 in 2011. the mavs had alot of one dimentional players but kidd wasn't one of them. in the regular season he was 6th in points, fifth in rebounds, had twice the amount of assists than the next best player, first in steals, fifth in blocks, and only turned the ball over 2 times per contest in 33 minutes, and had a 3.73/1 assist to turnover ratio, which was third among all players in the regular season.

You're citing Kidd finishing 6th in scoring and 5th in rebounds and blocks on his own team as some kind of case for being the 9th best player in the NBA?

Sorry, but it's so ridiculous to put Kidd that high I don't even have to argue it. He was pretty much a role player. Role players aren't close to top 20 players, much less top 10.

Originally Posted by Shep
barkley more valuable than jordan

Just for regular season MVP. Both Jordan and Hakeem were the top 2 players in the league overall.

lol what a joke. he would've easily accepted the bigger playmaking load in 1982, but they already had one of the best point guards in the league in norm nixon there at point guard, and magic playing alongside him made him a better player.

How did Magic make Norm Nixon a better player?

another joke. what happened to this "scoring skillset" in just the next season when he dropped to 19.6ppg, which was less than his 21.6ppg in his sophmore season, and only 1 more than he averaged in 1982?

at you comparing numbers from '81 when he played 37 games. The Lakers pace had also slowed considerably so Magic couldn't live off transition points to the same extent he did in '82.

But again, it'd be much easier for you to watch the games. Magic improving so much is just too obvious to miss when you watch the games. But I'm supposed to believe that adding a good outside shot and a devastating post game doesn't make you considerably better?

thats ok, not everyone can see the truth. magic was easily the best player in the game at that point.

That's ok, not everyone has the time to get old games from '82 and watch them, but those who do know how laughable your claim is.

2,3,and 4 are correct, swap 1 and 5 and you have a nice top 5.

Absolutely no chance of this with the complete absence of an outside shot and post game.

not debatable as magic was easily better by 1982. 1981 is much more debatable as to who was the better player between the two.

'81 is debatable? Magic missed 45 games and then costs the Lakers that 3 game mini-series when he shoots 39% and airballs the potential series winning shot on a play designed for Kareem.

Kareem was still close to the top of his game then. They weren't close to the same tier.

'84 is the first year Magic has a case, this is obvious when watching the games. The most important part of ranking players.

pippen had a nice season, but it wasn't up to the standard of the previous seasons, and with the lack of scorers on that team with the absence of mj, he should have picked up the scoring slack to average atleast 25-26ppg

I already dismantled this ridiculous claim.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote