View Single Post
Old 09-28-2012, 06:10 AM   #288
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 StateOfMind12
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.

If you choose Karl because of longevity, I'm fine with that. The difference is that Barkley had good longevity for an elite player since he was one for at least a decade or so, and a very normal length prime of 5-6 seasons, while Malone was just superhuman in that regard. Malone has a longevity advantage over just about anyone.

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.

Both being top 5 doesn't mean they were the same.

Malone at his best simply wasn't quite as highly regarded as Barkley. Regul8r covered this earlier in the thread.

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.

I already stated why I think Barkley was a better player than Malone. He was the better scorer, better passer and better rebounder. Just more dominant, you had to double Barkley more than you had to double Malone, and he was more likely to get his own high percentage shot whenever he wanted.

This doesn't mean Malone was some scrub, Malone was great. Nobody is disputing that, I just think Barkley was better.

As far as the Stockton comment, well, I don't think Stockton "made" Malone. Karl would have been great no matter what. But I think it's clear that both Malone and Stockton benefited from each other as much as star players can and were both in the perfect system for their talents.

I am one of those who think peak KJ, or even prime KJ was better than Stockton, but Barkley didn't play with peak KJ, and more importantly, it's clear that it didn't change Barkley as an individual player.

2 of Barkley's 3 best years were '90 and '91, and he had a solid point guard in '90(Johnny Dawkins), but his point guard in '91 was Rickey Green.

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

This is a valid point. Malone didn't need the ball to be effective. In the late 80's and early 90's, defenders would front Malone and Stockton would throw the pass over the top for an easy lay up and of course everyone knows about the screen/rolls.

But while Malone was one of the great finishers, he did get more easy baskets in the regular season than the playoffs, and there aren't as many of those baskets available in the playoffs. So there was something about Malone's game that wasn't generally as effective in the playoffs and I can't say that about Barkley.

Though I will say that regardless of Stockton, Malone got great position, especially when he was young and played more of a power game. So when he'd get that position, he didn't need a great point guard to make the pass, Malone had done most of the work in those situations and just needed a simple pass. So while some may misinterpret that as Stockton spoon-feeding Malone, it was really one of the things that would be a constant for Malone wherever he played.

And Malone did also seem to hold the ball less than Barkley when either of them were posting up.

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.

Despite being a big Barkley fan, in the interest of objectivity, I have mentioned many times that Charles had a habit of holding the ball, and it could sometimes get him into trouble. Holding the ball is something people overlook. But Dantley is an extreme example, imo. Barkley's habit wasn't that bad, and unlike Dantley, Barkley was an excellent passer.

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...

Stats are not why I'm picking Barkley, especially since Malone's stats were at least as good as I mentioned. Besides, were Dantley's scoring stats even better than MJ since MJ easily topped him in ppg?

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.

I agree, Malone was a very solid rebounder himself. I don't really think Barkley's rebounding is overrated, though. Some may rank him as a better rebounder than they should because of his size, which is irrelevant to how effective of a basketball player you are.

But one thing that makes Barkley's rebounding numbers deceptive is that he had a few seasons when he was playing more small forward, and throughout his career, it wasn't uncommon for Barkley to be in lineups where he was more of a small forward, yet he still never fell below 10 rebounds.

Charles did have some phenomenal seasons in TRB%, look at '86 when he played with Moses, '87 and his years with Houston. Amazingly, Barkley's TRB% was 2nd in the league in '97 and '99 when he was 34 and 36 and playing with Hakeem both years who was getting 9-10 rpg himself.

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.

Interesting point, I did like how Malone fit in the triangle and he barely had any time to learn it, and part of that is because of his ability to shoot jumpers, his passing and ability without the ball. That's not an easy offense to learn, Phil praised Malone's willingness to learn the offense and you know this is genuine because Phil is more than willing to call out guys who didn't learn the offense such as Glen Rice and Gary Payton.

Hell, the flex offense that Utah ran was not an offense everywhere learns either.

But I think you're selling Barkley short here. He did adjust his game in Phoenix when he had more talent around him. I noticed him shooting more jumpers and I thought he held the ball less. He didn't have trouble fitting in on those teams.

Barkley also fit in with all of that talent on the '86 Sixers, including Moses who was not only a low post player like Barkley, but as big of a black hole as you'll find.

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.

True, Malone being a much better defender is a valid argument to make for him. I do think having Barkley at power forward made it tough to have an elite defense since interior defense is so important.

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.

For an elite player who will likely be the first option on a team, this isn't as important to me as Barkley being superior at getting his own shot whenever he got the ball unless he was doubled.

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

I don't think there's much evidence to support this. He went to a Suns team that was already pretty much built in Phoenix and had great success. I think Malone is much more of a player who needs a specific situation to be at his best. As I mentioned, Barkley also fit in on the '86 Sixers, and broke out as an individual player, that team was also pretty much in place before they drafted him.

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.

Malone clearly had better teams. Karl had contending teams year after year, while Barkley didn't get one until the last year of his prime at 30 years old, and made a great run at a title that year. Of course, Barkley was on a contending team in his rookie year, but that's a different situation.

Karl's teams were a bit top heavy, but you can win that way, and some of them had some quality players after Malone/Stockton. The teams were well built in the late 90's when they had their finals teams.

But you did explain your thinking with some valid arguments, so I have to give you credit even though I still disagree.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote