Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[Dragonyeuw]

Mind you, the source is out of Philadelphia which brings objectivity into the question. Having said that, after the Jordan/Magic/Bird trio, Barkley was in that next tier right underneath them. Malone, at that point in time, wasn't considered on that level.

[ThaRegul8r]

Mind you, the source is out of Philadelphia which brings objectivity into the question. Having said that, after the Jordan/Magic/Bird trio, Barkley was in that next tier right underneath them. Malone, at that point in time, wasn't considered on that level.

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

[D.J.]

Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:



No one ever said any such thing about Malone.

Exactly. Malone has the edge in longevity and was more reliable on D, but prime Barkley was better than prime Malone and it's not debatable.

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

Yep, and people were comparing Barkley to MJ/Magic/Bird as early as late '87-early '88.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Barkley was being mentioned as a peer of Bird, Magic, and Jordan while they were all playing:



No one ever said any such thing about Malone.

Exactly, the quote from Pitino really says a lot. This was Barkley just entering his prime with Bird and Magic right in their primes, near their peaks and Jordan really coming into his own.

Malone was at his absolute best as Barkley was slowing down, from about '94-'98, imo, but even then it seemed to me that Malone wasn't considered as close to second 3peat Jordan as Barkley was to prime '89-'93 Jordan. Other stars also came along and were more highly regarded such as Hakeem of course as well as David Robinson and Shaq by just his 2nd or 3rd year. Even Scottie Pippen once Jordan retired got called the best player more than I remember Malone being called the best, even as late as the '95-'96 season.

Even when Malone was voted MVP over Jordan after his shameless campaigning for the award , I don't remember people really saying he was as good.

[Round Mound]

Malone became better the 1995-96 season when Barkley was done and going to Houston as a 2nd or 3rd option. Then the 1996-97 season already with back problems he suffered a knee injury that would change his level of play the following years (never close to the same)

The 1994-95 season was underrated for Charles.

His PER was 25.2 and in the Play-Offs 26.6. Malone`s PER was 25.1 and in the Play-Offs 24.6

Lets Not Forget What Chuck Daly said about Charles in 1992. "Charles is the 2nd Best Player in the World (after MJ)"

[Shep]

Predictable, nothing but stats.

Malone took it to Buck Williams, a top post defender and a powerhouse Blazer team that was favored in the WCF and was unstoppable. Despite Portland taking Stockton out of his game whether it was Porter dismantling him at both ends or trapping the screen/rolls out high, Malone picked up the slack posting up deep at will and overpowering the Blazers inside as well as hitting his mid-range jumpers with regularity. Malone put Utah on his back and gave them a legitimate chance vs a great team despite his two best teammates being severely outplayed by Portland's back court.

That's a lot more impressive than slightly better stats(with the exception of shooting 55% in the Blazer series to 48% in the Clipper series) vs a 1st round Clipper team Utah was heavily favored over.

nothing but stats better than nothing but stats in a losing team

lol if malone hadn't of dominated like he did in the first round (in which he played alot better than in the conference finals) against the clippers, there would be no conference semifinals, let alone conference finals. malone also had the winning record of 3-2 in the first round, and a losing record of 2-4 in the conference finals and got destroyed by a team that only won 2 more games in the regular season.

He was probably a better player in '97, but it was not a better playoff run.

He got 1 round farther in '97, but look at the big difference in the WCF those years. Stockton stepped up and had a huge series vs Houston and was really their MVP of that series while Stockton came up small in '92. Meanwhile, Malone had a great series in '92, but he didn't in '97.

it was easily a better playoff run.

the big difference in the wcf? the first round was easier, but the '97 lakers were easily better than the '92 sonics, and the '97 rockets were easily better than the '92 blazers. stockton also had a better playoff run in '97, but karl malone still was the mvp of the rockets series.

But somehow the difference in Utah getting to the finals was Malone having a better playoff run in '97? Context is important.

somehow shooting a better percentage is more important than getting to your teams first finals in its 23 year history

'98 playoff run was definitely better and the regular seasons were virtually identical with a bit of an edge to '98.

malone's 1998 playoff run was only marginally better than his 1997 one. some would say its impossible to separate them. the regular season was also quite close, but this time it is relatively easy to separate them, in this case 1997 was the stronger of the two years.

Stats and record ended up virtually identical in both years while his skill set and ability were no different as far as I can see.

But, Utah's record was brought down a bit by the 18 games Stockton missed to start the season when Utah was 11-7, and his production was brought down a bit in comparison to '97 because of those first 18 games without Stockton.

With Stockton in '98, his numbers were 27.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4 apg, 2.9 TO, 53.2 FG%, 60.1 TS% and his record was 50-13, a 65 win pace.

And this was with Stockton reduced from 35 mpg in '97 to 29 mpg in '98.

he had better numbers and a better record in 1997. context is important tho. who were those victories against in 1998 without stockton?

the denver nuggets twice (who finished 11-71 on the season )
vancouver grizzlies (19-63)
dallas mavericks (20-62)
golden state warriors (19-63)
la clippers (17-65)
and toronto raptors (16-66)

so out of the 11 victories, 7 came against the absolute worst teams in the league, including 2 against the worst team in nba history. remember, context is important.

Orlando was very talented, but I'm talking about how those players played in that '96 series aside from the duo, and you're grossly overrating Anderson and Grant......top 3 and 4 at their positions?

yep, top 3 and 4 at their positions

First of all, they pretty much didn't have Grant that series so take him out of the equation.

Grant gave Orlando 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes of play in game 1 before leaving with an injury and not returning in the series. Put Jon Koncak in his final NBA season in his place because he ended up being Orlando's power forward that series.

Now we have Nick Anderson, averages of 8.3 ppg and 5.3 rpg on 9/29 shooting(31%) and 3/15 on 3s(20%) before leaving towards the end of game 3 with an injury and missing game 4 altogether. Any scrub could duplicate that given the opportunity. Of course, this was made even worse by the fact that he was matched up with Michael Jordan at both ends.

Now we have Dennis Scott, the only one of Orlando's top 3 supporting players aside from their superstar duo who were healthy, but they might as well have had anyone in his place because he averaged 7.3 ppg, 2.5 rpg and 1.3 apg on 9/34 shooting(26.5%) and 3/19 on 3s(15.8%).

Chicago's 3rd, 4th and 5th leading scorers all scored more than Orlando's 3rd scorer.

so what? chicago won by 40 points in game 1 when everyone was playing so there is no evidence that backs up the series being anything but a destroying, and in game 3 with the best player on the planet shooting 36 percent and scoring only 17 points they still won by 20 . the talent was there, they should have made it a more competitive series regardless, but they were swept. "bring on chicago" i remember hearing from the magic fans after sweeping away the 46-36 detroit pistons. so much for that.

Kobe's regular season actually had him widely regarded as the best player in the game thanks to his league-leading 31.6 ppg, carrying the Lakers to a winning record and the playoffs despite injuries to virtually every key player of a cast that was limited to begin with and showing 2 completely different approaches. First getting everyone involved while still scoring quite a bit to help a bad team masquerade as a top Western Conference team for the first half of the season then carrying the team in an individual display few have shown capable of approaching when his coach told him to late in the season including four straight 50+ games immediately after Phil told him to carry the team, a 40.4 ppg month of March and a 36.8 ppg second half. In fact, in the 17 remaining games after Phil told Kobe to carry the team, Kobe averaged 40.3 ppg.

and the lakers went 8-9 over the last 17 games. again, you are falling in love with stats, most of all points, on losing teams. lamar odom was frozen out of the lakers offense in these games, with bryant forcing up 30 shots, and odom only managing 10.

as i've already mentioned, odom showed what he was capable when bryant was absent with his 22/12/7.

19th is a bad joke, only Tim Duncan had a case. Not Lebron with that hideous jump shot.

to put kobe on the same tier as duncan is a good joke.

that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

[Shep]

The mighty Toronto Raptors? Oh, that changes everything! Kidd was playing with Vince Carter who averaged 25/6/4 in the series and Richard Jefferson who averaged 21.5 ppg in the series.

the mighty new jersey nets! won less games than the mighty toronto raptors! vince carter was no better than a top 5 shooting guard and richard jefferson was no more than a solid starter, kidd was easily the best player on that roster.

how did vince fare in the next round against cleveland while kidd was busy averaging a lazy triple double?

In all seriousness, it was a very impressive playoff run, but you're making 2 obvious problems. Both are problems you repeatedly make. One is getting caught up with the triple double statline, just look at '09 when Rajon Rondo put up virtually the same numbers in the playoffs in just his 3rd year. And another is overreacting to a small sample size of playoff games.

i don't make any problems. you, on the other hand make alot of problems, including falling inlove of shot jackers, and also putting up meaningless stats on teams going nowhere.

So you use a statline to back up your claim that I haven't watched any games?

yeh well even if you quickly glanced over a half game that season you would've noticed the numbers mcgrady was averaging which they put up when a player goes to the free throw line..obviously you haven't even glanced, let alone sit for any length of time.

The competition was horrible for a playoff run, the only real accomplishment was beating Detroit and that one miraculous game 5 gets that run grossly overrated. Lebron wasn't THAT good in '07. Being such a mediocre free throw shooter for his position and shooting disgusting percentages of 34% from 16-23 feet and 32% on 3s prevent this from even being a debate when you look at Kobe's complete skill set.

lol more pathetic statements and excuses here. the facts are that he made the nba finals, beating every other rival from the conference. shaq was also a mediocre free throw shooter and trash from outside 16 feet, does this come into play when arguing players? you are beginning to sound like your friend roundmound here. lebron shot 48%fg, 32%3p, and 70%ft, 55%ts (only 3 percentage points less than bryant).

They contributed much more. Terry was their second best scorer by a wide margin and a very good shooter who came through huge in the clutch and was a capable ball-handler for them. Chandler anchored their defense, was their best rebounder and his finishing ability allowed him to score about as much as Kidd on vastly superior efficiency.

kidd was a great 3 point shooter and great free throw shooter, could get to the basket when he wanted, great at creating fast breaks and creating points for other players, one of the best at forcing turnovers, and had amazing handles, and was a nice defender.

Kareem was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. Even in a series where his numbers were down like the finals you can see how huge of an impact the double teams he drew and his shot blocking made. Those were things Magic simply couldn't match. His lack of a real half court skill set at that point was the difference since he wouldn't show the outside shot until 2 seasons later in '84 and he wouldn't show the post game until 5 seasons later in '87. His passing and rebounding for his position were outstanding, but having Kareem as the guy they could truly rely on to create something at anytime in the half court and make a defensive impact Magic could never dream of put a significant gap between the 2 players. All of the triple doubles in the world won't change that.

magic was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. how big an impact did kareem's double teams and defensive impact have on teams before magic arrived in la? just because kareem had a hook shot, and could block a shot or two, its just simply not enough to contend with magic's all round game, which also included a nice outside shot and post game.

at rookie Magic. Where the **** do you get this shit?

nothing to laugh at here, rookie magic was easily better.

[BoutPractice]

Great thread, it's one of the most interesting comparisons you can make between players. Even with all those fact-based arguments, it's incredibly difficult to say one player is just "better" than the other. Better in what respect?

It's almost a moral/aesthetic choice, in a way - hard work VS pure genius.

[DJ Leon Smith]

Great thread, it's one of the most interesting comparisons you can make between players. Even with all those fact-based arguments, it's incredibly difficult to say one player is just "better" than the other. Better in what respect?

It's almost a moral/aesthetic choice, in a way - hard work VS pure genius.

I think Barkley vs Malone is the ultimate peak vs career choice when valuing a player - personally I think a better peak is more valuable, but some people prefer longevity/consistency. As long as you bring facts to back up your stance, it's a great discussion topic.

[ShaqAttack3234]

malone also had the winning record of 3-2 in the first round, and a losing record of 2-4 in the conference finals and got destroyed by a team that only won 2 more games in the regular season.

You're comparing his record in the 1st round vs the Clippers to his record in the WCF vs the Blazers? Talk about forgetting context with team success.

the big difference in the wcf? the first round was easier, but the '97 lakers were easily better than the '92 sonics, and the '97 rockets were easily better than the '92 blazers. stockton also had a better playoff run in '97, but karl malone still was the mvp of the rockets series.

I'm talking about the big difference between Malone and Stockton's performances in the WCF each year. Malone was dominant in the '92 WCF while Stockton played poorly, but in '97, Malone didn't have a great series while Stockton did.

And no, the '97 Rockets were not easily better than the '92 Blazers.

somehow shooting a better percentage is more important than getting to your teams first finals in its 23 year history

I'm talking about him playing much better in the '92 playoffs in general. He didn't get to the finals in '97 because he played better in the conference finals so this is a non-factor to me.

he had better numbers and a better record in 1997. context is important tho. who were those victories against in 1998 without stockton?

I'm talking about his record with Stockton in '98, that's a difference between the 2 years. '97 Malone had the luxury of Stockton for the entire season, and Stockton playing 35 mpg as opposed to 29.

so what? chicago won by 40 points in game 1 when everyone was playing so there is no evidence that backs up the series being anything but a destroying, and in game 3 with the best player on the planet shooting 36 percent and scoring only 17 points they still won by 20 . the talent was there, they should have made it a more competitive series regardless, but they were swept. "bring on chicago" i remember hearing from the magic fans after sweeping away the 46-36 detroit pistons. so much for that.

I have no doubt that Chicago wins regardless, but I'm definitely not convinced it's a sweep with a healthy Magic team. 1 game doesn't tell us much. Remember the Memorial Day Massacre to start the '85 finals? Orlando had a great chance to win game 2. It was really Jordan's play at both ends in the 3rd quarter that sparked Chicago, from what I remember.

and the lakers went 8-9 over the last 17 games. again, you are falling in love with stats, most of all points, on losing teams. lamar odom was frozen out of the lakers offense in these games, with bryant forcing up 30 shots, and odom only managing 10.

No, I'm "in love" with Kobe's skill set that year. It just separated him, he could things others couldn't dream of doing.

as i've already mentioned, odom showed what he was capable when bryant was absent with his 22/12/7.

How many games did he play without Kobe? 4? Odom can play like a star player at times, the problem throughout his career is that he's never done it with any consistency. Nobody has questioned his talent.

that apparent "broken jumpshot" didn't stop the cavs from making the nba finals for the first time in franchise history, didn't stop the cavs defeating the higher seed detroit pistons in the conference finals, didn't stop lebron scoring the cavs last 25 or so points in game 5 of those same conference finals en route to a 48 point performance (with 9 rebounds and 7 assists), didn't stop the cavs coming back from a 0-2 deficit in those conference finals to take the next 4 games while lebron averaged 31/10/9/2. what a joke to mention bryant in the same breath as lebron that particular season.

The Cavs were aided by their weak competition as well as their top 4 defense and great rebounding.

the mighty new jersey nets! won less games than the mighty toronto raptors! vince carter was no better than a top 5 shooting guard and richard jefferson was no more than a solid starter, kidd was easily the best player on that roster.

how did vince fare in the next round against cleveland while kidd was busy averaging a lazy triple double?

Carter had a miserable series vs Cleveland, but he had surpassed Kidd by that point.

yeh well even if you quickly glanced over a half game that season you would've noticed the numbers mcgrady was averaging which they put up when a player goes to the free throw line..obviously you haven't even glanced, let alone sit for any length of time.

I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care. That's because he's put up better numbers than that before, and because regardless of what numbers he put up, he had clearly lost a step since his prime. T-Mac's game in '07 was the same as it had been, except without the same first step or athletic ability and with a worse habit of settling for jump shots.

lol more pathetic statements and excuses here. the facts are that he made the nba finals, beating every other rival from the conference. shaq was also a mediocre free throw shooter and trash from outside 16 feet, does this come into play when arguing players? you are beginning to sound like your friend roundmound here. lebron shot 48%fg, 32%3p, and 70%ft, 55%ts (only 3 percentage points less than bryant).

What does Shaq have to do with it? Shaq is a 340 pound 7 footer who played inside, and nobody could stop him from getting inside. He didn't need a jumper outside of that 8-10 foot turnaround, in fact, it would have been counterproductive considering the high percentage shots he got inside.

His free throws were a legitimate weakness, though. It's more common for big men, but that's something everyone should do a lot better than Shaq, who did get downright embarrassing at the line.

And if Shaq's game didn't translate as well to the playoffs, I'd rate him lower. In fact, I do take away from his '94 season because of that.

Back to the point, Lebron is a small forward, perimeter players need an outside shot, unless we're talking about some of the 80's small forwards who played in the post most of the time.

This is because the elite defensive teams will just back off you and make you beat them from the perimeter. Look at what happened in the finals. Lebron had an unbelievably bad series shooting 35% with almost 6 turnovers per game. That was his jump shot getting exposed. I guarantee this doesn't happen with Kobe. I doubt he beats the Spurs with that team, but he plays a hell of a lot better.

When Lebron improved his shooting dramatically in '09, he took his game to another level and dominated the playoffs.

kidd was a great 3 point shooter and great free throw shooter, could get to the basket when he wanted, great at creating fast breaks and creating points for other players, one of the best at forcing turnovers, and had amazing handles, and was a nice defender.

Actually, Kidd by that point could not get the basket when he wanted, he could barely get to the basket at all. This was perhaps the biggest difference compared to his prime. This is why he barely scored. I can appreciate what he did, especially improving his 3 point shot which was essential because his scoring ended up being limited to that.

He was still an amazing passer, but I wouldn't call his handles amazing. He had a nice crossover when he was young, but that had a lot to do with his quickness. That's probably the biggest advantage guys like Nash and Paul had over Kidd, they could keep their dribble and probe, or get their shots whenever they want.

Aside from passing and 3 point shooting, he still did provide other things such as a remarkable knack for making something happen out of nothing and seeing plays that others don't, which is proof of him being arguably the smartest player of his era. And while he now lacked the quickness to guard most point guards(which was never his best attribute defensively to begin with), his size allowed him to still guard bigger players effectively, and he still rebounded very well.

magic was the best player on that 57 win team that dominated the playoffs. how big an impact did kareem's double teams and defensive impact have on teams before magic arrived in la? just because kareem had a hook shot, and could block a shot or two, its just simply not enough to contend with magic's all round game, which also included a nice outside shot and post game.

Kareem had more than enough counter moves to complement his sky hook, not that he needed many because the sky hook was unstoppable.

Kareem's game always had a big impact on his teams until he was about 40 years old.

He didn't just block a shot or 2, aside from the 3 blocks per game he averaged(good for 3rd in the league), as a 7'3" shot blocking presence, he changed many shots, that's what Magic was alluding to in the quote I posted earlier.

Just like his scoring went far beyond the 24 ppg(6th best in the league) on 58% shooting(4th best in the league), it got his teammates half court opportunities, and he also gave them the option of a high percentage shot whenever they needed it, which was essential because they couldn't run on every possession.

You keep lying about Magic having an outside shot and a post game in '82 so put your money where your mouth is.

There are plenty of Laker playoff games from '82 on lakeptic's youtube channel, and I'll tell you what, I'll reupload 2 regular season games I had on my old channel from '82, one vs Boston and another vs Chicago. There are a few more in circulation too, that's plenty of games to find examples of this imaginary outside shot and post game.

[Shep]

You're comparing his record in the 1st round vs the Clippers to his record in the WCF vs the Blazers? Talk about forgetting context with team success.

contributing to winning, compared to contributing to losing

I'm talking about the big difference between Malone and Stockton's performances in the WCF each year. Malone was dominant in the '92 WCF while Stockton played poorly, but in '97, Malone didn't have a great series while Stockton did.

i'd take malone's series in '97. i'd take less production and a western conference finals victory over more production and a comfortable 4-2 defeat. if malone's exploits had been able to get the jazz over the blazers that particular year then that playoff would likely be ranked higher than '97's.

I'm talking about him playing much better in the '92 playoffs in general. He didn't get to the finals in '97 because he played better in the conference finals so this is a non-factor to me.

he was the best player in the 1997 western conference finals. its not all about stats.

I'm talking about his record with Stockton in '98, that's a difference between the 2 years. '97 Malone had the luxury of Stockton for the entire season, and Stockton playing 35 mpg as opposed to 29.

yeh it was a nice record. but a season is 82 games, bottom line.

I have no doubt that Chicago wins regardless, but I'm definitely not convinced it's a sweep with a healthy Magic team. 1 game doesn't tell us much. Remember the Memorial Day Massacre to start the '85 finals? Orlando had a great chance to win game 2. It was really Jordan's play at both ends in the 3rd quarter that sparked Chicago, from what I remember.

the magic got swept, bottom line.

No, I'm "in love" with Kobe's skill set that year. It just separated him, he could things others couldn't dream of doing.

but the real question is: could he win more than 1 playoff game?

How many games did he play without Kobe? 4? Odom can play like a star player at times, the problem throughout his career is that he's never done it with any consistency. Nobody has questioned his talent.

yeh what a coincidence that his best stretch of 4 games came when bryant was out

The Cavs were aided by their weak competition as well as their top 4 defense and great rebounding.

the cavs made the finals, bottom line.

Carter had a miserable series vs Cleveland, but he had surpassed Kidd by that point.

I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care. That's because he's put up better numbers than that before, and because regardless of what numbers he put up, he had clearly lost a step since his prime. T-Mac's game in '07 was the same as it had been, except without the same first step or athletic ability and with a worse habit of settling for jump shots.

who cares if he put up better numbers before. it is not all about numbers. mcgrady only missed 11 games, averaged more assists than he ever had on top of 25 points and 5 rebounds, led the rockets to a 52-30 record with yao ming missing half of the regular season, and actually played good in the playoffs while yao did not show up at all.

What does Shaq have to do with it? Shaq is a 340 pound 7 footer who played inside, and nobody could stop him from getting inside. He didn't need a jumper outside of that 8-10 foot turnaround, in fact, it would have been counterproductive considering the high percentage shots he got inside.

His free throws were a legitimate weakness, though. It's more common for big men, but that's something everyone should do a lot better than Shaq, who did get downright embarrassing at the line.

And if Shaq's game didn't translate as well to the playoffs, I'd rate him lower. In fact, I do take away from his '94 season because of that.

the point is, no matter how weak you think his shot was he was still able to get his 27ppg in the regular season and 25ppg in the playoffs, which is saying something.

Back to the point, Lebron is a small forward, perimeter players need an outside shot, unless we're talking about some of the 80's small forwards who played in the post most of the time.

This is because the elite defensive teams will just back off you and make you beat them from the perimeter. Look at what happened in the finals. Lebron had an unbelievably bad series shooting 35% with almost 6 turnovers per game. That was his jump shot getting exposed. I guarantee this doesn't happen with Kobe. I doubt he beats the Spurs with that team, but he plays a hell of a lot better.

When Lebron improved his shooting dramatically in '09, he took his game to another level and dominated the playoffs.

lol more jokes. bryant does not have a good track record when it comes to finals, so take his normal production and half it automatically

and besides the field goal percent and turnovers lebron had a very good series: 22.0ppg, 7.0rpg, 6.8apg, 1.0spg, 0.5bpg. how many players have averaged 22/7/7 in the finals?

Kareem had more than enough counter moves to complement his sky hook, not that he needed many because the sky hook was unstoppable.

Kareem's game always had a big impact on his teams until he was about 40 years old.

He didn't just block a shot or 2, aside from the 3 blocks per game he averaged(good for 3rd in the league), as a 7'3" shot blocking presence, he changed many shots, that's what Magic was alluding to in the quote I posted earlier.

Just like his scoring went far beyond the 24 ppg(6th best in the league) on 58% shooting(4th best in the league), it got his teammates half court opportunities, and he also gave them the option of a high percentage shot whenever they needed it, which was essential because they couldn't run on every possession.

he also got pushed around and was bothered by the stockier bigmen, was a poor free throw shooter, feeble at transition defense or offense, and disgusting offensive and defensive rebounder.

You keep lying about Magic having an outside shot and a post game in '82 so put your money where your mouth is.

There are plenty of Laker playoff games from '82 on lakeptic's youtube channel, and I'll tell you what, I'll reupload 2 regular season games I had on my old channel from '82, one vs Boston and another vs Chicago. There are a few more in circulation too, that's plenty of games to find examples of this imaginary outside shot and post game.

no lies are told on my behalf, and i have seen more games than have been uploaded to youtube, but feel free in anycase

[Dragonyeuw]

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

Thought I saw 'Philadelphia' on the article. Oh well, in any event I think we agree on the premise of what was said.

[ThaRegul8r]

Actually, it was a Boston Globe columnist who wrote the article. But the point is that Barkley was at least being mentioned in the same breath as them, while no one ever did the same for Malone at any point in his career. You can say what you want about Malone's career in that he played longer and everything, but in their primes, Barkley was considered on a level Malone was not.

Thought I saw 'Philadelphia' on the article.

Because the article was written in Philadelphia because the Celtics were on the road playing the Sixers?



Are you really going to quibble with me about it when I posted the article in the first place? Peter May wrote it. Is he a Philadelphia writer or a New England writer?

And by focusing on that, you're completely missing the point.

[Dragonyeuw]

Because the article was written in Philadelphia because the Celtics were on the road playing the Sixers?



Are you really going to quibble with me about it when I posted the article in the first place? Peter May wrote it. Is he a Philadelphia writer or a New England writer?

And by focusing on that, you're completely missing the point.

Oh sheesh .....Who's quibbling? All I said was I saw Philadelphia on the article, and that's what prompted me to think it came from a Philadelphia source. I'm not trying to argue with you that the article actually came from a Boston writer, I'm simply explaining that based on what you originally posted, I assumed( incorrectly) that the article came from a Philadelphia writer/source/newspaper. It's not like the actual article has Peter May or Boston Globe on it, does it? Yes it does have a reference to a Bird quote and a mention of the Celtics since they were in town, but that in and of itself doesn't necessarily suggest that the article was written by someone out of Boston. Ok.... I assumed incorrectly based on what I saw, big deal.

Really, I don't give a shit where it came from, and it seems you've missed the point that we actually agree on the content of the article.

[ShaqAttack3234]

contributing to winning, compared to contributing to losing

You know damn well that it's not that simple and that there's no comparison between playing a 45-37 Clipper team you're heavily favored to beat in the 1st round with homecourt advantage and a 57-25 Blazer team that you're expected to lose against in the Western Conference Finals without homecourt advantage.

i'd take malone's series in '97. i'd take less production and a western conference finals victory over more production and a comfortable 4-2 defeat. if malone's exploits had been able to get the jazz over the blazers that particular year then that playoff would likely be ranked higher than '97's.

Less production wouldn't get him a win vs the '92 Blazers.

You can never sum up a team with 2 players, but depth isn't really an issue when comparing these teams and 3rd best players are just Jeff Hornacek, who didn't score as much , but gives you more of an all around player with more range vs Jeff Malone, who was a very good scorer who lived off his mid-range game with jumpers and off balance leaning shots, but was more one-dimensional..

1992 WCF
Malone- 28.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 3.5 TO, 0.8 bpg, 1 spg, 54.7 FG%, 62.8 TS%
Stockton- 14.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 11.2 apg, 3.3 TO, 1.3 spg, 39.7 FG%, 53.5 TS%

1997 WCF
Malone- 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.8 TO, 1.3 bpg, 1.2 spg, 44.8 FG%, 49.4 TS%
Stockton- 20.5 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 10.3 apg, 2.8 TO, 0.8 spg, 53.8 FG%, 65.1 TS%

Stats only tell you so much, but it gives you an idea of the difference. And the stats are fairly representative of the difference between Stockton's level of play in the '92 WCF vs '97. From watching both series, I can say that Stockton went from a poor series in '92 to arguably the best series of his life in '97

he was the best player in the 1997 western conference finals. its not all about stats.

After I called you out for relying on stats too heavily, you've tried doing it to me. It's just laughable.

No offense, but it seems like you do rank players based on their stats, team success and how their games hold up in the playoffs. Not that I have a problem with these being considerations, I look at these things, but it seems like those 3 things decide it for you. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten.

yeh it was a nice record. but a season is 82 games, bottom line.

His team success with context in '98 is more impressive.

He fell short by a grand total of 2 wins, and he did that with Stockton playing 6 less mpg as well as playing 18 fewer games.

It's obvious that with Stockton playing all 82, they at least get those 2 extra wins. Actually, probably more because as you pointed out, their schedule was weak in those games. Much less '98 Malone playing with the superior '97 version of Stockton who played 35 mpg. With just a healthy '98 Stockton for the first 18 games, they win 65 games minimum, imo, but likely even more.

the magic got swept, bottom line.

The Sonics lost too. Bottom line.

but the real question is: could he win more than 1 playoff game?

I'm not sure, pretty tough while facing the best Suns team of the Nash era with such a terrible team around him.

yeh what a coincidence that his best stretch of 4 games came when bryant was out

Lamar was playing great in general before Kobe's injury. He was still doing everything, he was still rebounding like a power forward as well as running the offense at times and handling the ball like a point guard, but his scoring was much better than usual. Most importantly, he was consistently aggressive attacking the basket and his outside shot was falling. Based on how people were talking, it seemed likely that he'd make his first all-star team. Lamar played 20 games before his injury, 17 of them with Kobe and he averaged 18.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.1 apg, 47.7 FG%, 58.6 TS%. So much for Kobe making Lamar worse....

the cavs made the finals, bottom line.

To credit Lebron properly, I have to evaluate the competition and Lebron's actual performance that got them there. If I didn't, well I may end up overrating Lebron by putting him ahead of Kobe for example, which NOBODY did at the time.

Getting to the finals is a team accomplishment, how much I credit an individual depends on how well he plays. Why is it that some credit the best player automatically without considering other factors that got them to the finals?

who cares if he put up better numbers before. it is not all about numbers. mcgrady only missed 11 games, averaged more assists than he ever had on top of 25 points and 5 rebounds, led the rockets to a 52-30 record with yao ming missing half of the regular season, and actually played good in the playoffs while yao did not show up at all.

I don't care about numbers in this case, it's never the primary consideration when I'm ranking players. And how can you accuse me of relying on stats after I said "I was aware of McGrady's numbers, I just don't care."

The reason I KNOW T-Mac wasn't at his '01-'05 level is that he had clearly lost a step and wasn't the same athlete, yet he didn't add anything to his game to make up for it. This made him rely more on jump shots, and not only had his jumper become flatter, but his free throws suffered as well.

When you lose something and don't add anything to make up for it, it's a fact that you're not as good as you were. It's obvious to the point where it can't be debated. Nobody can argue that he had lost athleticism since '05 and there's not a single thing anyone can name that he added to his game since that time.

the point is, no matter how weak you think his shot was he was still able to get his 27ppg in the regular season and 25ppg in the playoffs, which is saying something.

It's still a key flaw that was exposed. Lebron did other things well such as his ability to drive to the basket and his unmatched abaility to finish, and his playmaking during that run impressed me the most, but I can't look past the jump shot. It stood out to me so much watching Lebron during that playoff because it's such an essential skill for a perimeter player. For that reason, it was Lebron's worst season from '06 to present, arguably '05 to present, but that may be a stretch.

Lebron was obviously still a great player, top 5 in the league, but when we're talking about the true elite, you have to look at every aspect of their games, and flaws like this will be keys. If we were talking about players of a lower caliber then they'd all likely have key flaws and it'd be leas of an issue.

lol more jokes. bryant does not have a good track record when it comes to finals, so take his normal production and half it automatically

If we're talking about track records, then how about Kobe destroying the Spurs so many years? Including the year right after this one.

and besides the field goal percent and turnovers lebron had a very good series: 22.0ppg, 7.0rpg, 6.8apg, 1.0spg, 0.5bpg. how many players have averaged 22/7/7 in the finals?

You're really trying to twist Lebron's finals into a good series? Besides FG% and turnovers? If you're going to evaluate a series on stats, you can't leave out two horrible ones. 22 ppg isn't impressive when you shoot 35% to get it, and the assists lose a lot of impressiveness when you turn the ball over so much, especially a perimeter player.

Beyond stats, it's simple to see what happened in the series, Bowen guarded Lebron very well limiting his impact and Duncan was a key factor shutting down the paint as well as doing the job by showing on screen rolls. The Spurs game plan of backing off Lebron to make him a jump shooter and shutting down the paint. This worked to perfection because Lebron had to get to the basket to score consistently, and that all comes down to that terrible jump shot.

The result was Lebron failing to play like the superstar he was in that finals series.

he also got pushed around and was bothered by the stockier bigmen, was a poor free throw shooter, feeble at transition defense or offense, and disgusting offensive and defensive rebounder.

Kareem's strength was exploited early in his career, but not much with the Lakers from what I've seen. Especially not after the '79-'80 season when he started lifting weights for the first time.

Poor free throw shooter? I've never heard this claim about Kareem. It's ridiculous. He shot 71% that year, which is fine for a center, hell, he shot even loer at 70% in his peak season of '76-'77.

Disgusting rebounder? Also ridiculous, especially since you called him an average rebounder before, which was accurate/

no lies are told on my behalf, and i have seen more games than have been uploaded to youtube, but feel free in anycase

You collect games too? Or are you old enough to have seen the '81-'82 Lakers play? Either way, I'm always happy to share whatever games I have, though I'll have to make another account. I have 2 current accounts that haven't been deleted, which is fortunate because a lot of games are on both, unfortunately, I got a copyright strike today on my second for 1992 Bulls/Knicks game 1 which now limits my uploading limit to 15 minutes for both accounts.