View Single Post
Old 09-26-2012, 03:44 AM   #286
StateOfMind12's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,180
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234
Now, everyone has their own criteria, and that's fine, but personally, I'm going to look at which player was their best during their primes, and make a decision based on that, unless it was close enough to need a tiebreaker(which I don't think it is.) This is because looking at players prime vs prime is the most representative of who you'll see as the better player purely going after what you watched. Longevity is much harder to account for, looking at their primes, you can watch one period and easily determine who was more effective.
The thing is though is that Karl played at a high level for a very long period of time. He may not have peaked as high as Charles did but he surely sustained a heck of a lot longer than he did.

I personally think Malone and Barkley's peaks are close. I don't know why people keep acting like Barkley was clear cut better at his peak because he wasn't. Both of them were considered top 2-5 players in the league during their primes/peaks. It's not like Malone was outside of the top 5 while Barkley was in it, both of them were in it. They were viewed the same from what I see.

I can say that this version of Barkley was a better scorer than Malone ever was,
I disagree for several reasons. I'm going to guess that your argument is that Barkley didn't need a Stockton-like PG to score and excel. Truthfully, Cheeks, KJ, and all the other PGs he played with were really great PGs as well. Some would argue that KJ at his peak may have been better than Stockton at his.

The main reason why I disagree was that Karl could score within the flow of the offense better than Charles could.

As I said, I do think Barkley reminds me of Dantley a bit in a sense that he was incredibly ball-dominant and needed to be ball-dominant in order to score and score efficiently. They put up sexy numbers but it's not necessarily good for the team. I'm pretty sure you know all about Dantley and how he even though he put up sexy numbers, he wasn't really helping the team because of how long he took the score and how ball-dominant he was. I think Barkley was quite similar.

If we are just going to argue who is the better scorer based on ppg, FG%, TS%, are you also going to say that Adrian Dantley was a better scorer than Michael Jordan was? Because I think we all know the answer to that question...

Karl was also a better finisher and that's huge especially for bigs because bigs are finishers and suppose to be finishers.

a better rebounder
Barkley's rebounding is a bit overrated. If you look at Barkley's TRB% he really is not as impressive as many people think and say he is on that end. Barkley is still the better rebounder but I don't think it's some far away thing. It's not like Malone was like Sheed or something. Malone was a pretty good rebounder too.

Barkley's versatility was another bonus, not many players have been bigger threats to get their own rebounds and go coast to coast. And above anything else, Barkley just took control of games more and dominated. He was probably one of the 3 most doubled players of the last 20 or so years along with Hakeem and Shaq.

Malone did become a fantastic individual defender, and defense is a clear advantage over Chuck. It's very important at this position, but not enough to make up for the other advantages to me.
The main reason why I would go with Malone is his portability. Malone could fit in on any team as any option, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option etc. it doesn't matter. The reason why Malone was so portable was because of his versatility. Malone can do just about everything out there. He can spot-up, rebound, defend, finish, etc.

Barkley on the other hand was more limited and he can't really play defense whether he tried or not, his size really limited him. Barkley also needed more time and ball-usage in order to score and succeed offensively.

Malone's portability/his ability to fit in on just about any team and with just about every player is the main reason why I would go with him.

I think Barkley needs a specific team built around him in order to succeed.

Barkley for most of his career did play with better teammates and on better teams than Malone did. Malone played on top heavy teams. The Jazz never had too much outside of Malone and Stockton and when they finally did they ran into Michael Jordan.

Last edited by StateOfMind12 : 09-26-2012 at 03:47 AM.
StateOfMind12 is offline   Reply With Quote