I hate the disparaging of Karl Malone who is consensus top 15...

[dankok8]

It could've been, but it wasn't. Some people make the case that 93 was Hakeem's best year and it should have been his MVP, but MJ was the consensus 3rd. But at the time (and I remember, I'm not just making this up) it was generally expected that Chuck would win, and he went on to do so, as expected - by a large margin.

It still doesn't prove that Jordan wasn't snubbed. MJ had a better statistical year than in 1992 and the team had a worse record because they were cruising. That is voter fatigue if I've ever seen it. Jordan was the best player in the league in the regular season.

Were Malone's post season numbers lower than his regular season more often than not? YES. Are his career post season numbers lower than his career regular season numbers? YES.

Were Barkley's post season numbers higher than his regular season more often than not? YES. Are his career post season numbers higher than his career regular season numbers? YES.

Even if I concede this point (Malone marginally declined, Barkley marginally increased) it's still how they played in comparison to each other that matters. Barkley was more efficient but on much lower volume and Malone was much better defensively.

I don't penalize Malone for his longevity, it was incredible and deserves to be recognized... I just say that it's all he has on Barkley.

Malone literally had a prime twice as long.

You didn't read my post - from the time both players were good (i.e. all-stars) until Chuck left the Suns, that's 10 years, Chuck did have better stats than Malone in their head to head games.

Malone: 24.8/9.5/2.7/51.0% avg. Game Score = 17.9
Barkley: 22.8/10.1/4.0/51.1% avg. Game Score = 18.9.

My EDIT admits that Malone was actually already beating Barkley in 95-96, and if you remove that season from the equation, so over 9-year period, the numbers become heavily in favor of Barkley.

From 96 onwards Malone beat Barkley pretty much every time. But I acknowledge Malone's longevity is incredible. Barkley cannot compete in this regard.

You took these numbers from an old Round Mound post in the other thread... He included 1987 for Malone which is before he made his first all-star game and wasn't in his prime. Barkley admittedly also outplayed Malone in 1988. From 1989 though it was Malone who came out ahead in like every season until the end of their careers except 1994.

I don't know why you protested my data from 1989-1993. It's a five year span where peak Barkley got outplayed by Malone.

I watched a game on YouTube a little while back, I forget which one, but in it Barkley went 1 for 5 on 3pt shots. Sounds crap... until you watch the game. He was 1 for 2 in general play, but he missed two half court heaves at the end of the 2nd and 3rd periods, and a last second rushed attempt on the last play of the first. My point is, stats don't tell the whole picture. Barkley wasn't concerned about how the stats looked, he was just the go to guy whose responsibility it was to take those shots. It's anecdotal I know, and I don't dispute he took too many 3's, but I'm saying that people read more than they should into Barkley's 3pt stats. And despite these 3's he still led the league in TS% and eFG% for a number of seasons.

That's one game... Barkley took more than 2,000 3pt shots in his career and shot them at 26%... That's just terrible.

In regards to defense, obviously Malone was the better defender, which is based purely on work ethic, not defensive ability. However, early on in his career, and when he was in Phoenix Chuck played D quite well. He also payed D with much more intensity in playoffs. Not going to argue that he was better than Malone, but he was no James Harden as people would have you believe.

Work ethic still counts. It doesn't matter if Barkley could play defense. Malone was the better defensive player and it's not close. I will add that Barkley is just 6'5'' barefoot about same height as Kobe and MJ so he didn't have the size to bother most PF's or protect the rim whereas Karl could. So Malone was more physically gifted on the defensive end as well.

Don't be ridiculous... Barkley had great team mates that were past their prime, when Barkley himself was not in his prime. Malone had an All-NBA point guard whose job it was to feed Malone the ball for his entire career.

The Stockton argument is overblown. Karl Malone had two MVP caliber seasons in 1998 and 1999 when Stockton was a role player.

Also, you're being a bit disingenuous saying Malone handily outplayed Barkley in 98. I know you want to get a +1 in the Malone column and a -1 in the Barkley column, but Barkley was obviously playing injured, and hardly played at all. He didn't start in any games, played just 9 mins in game 4 and didn't play at all in game 5. They probably only shared the court for about 75 out of Malone's 199 mins in the series. Furthermore, I'm not even sure he did outplay Chuck at all.

Houston won 2 of those first 3 games and were leading by double figures before Barkley left the court in the first half of game 4. They then got spanked for the rest of that game and in game 5, when Chuck wasn't there any more. So with Barkley they looked set for a 3-1 win, but then he left and they end up losing 2-3

Coincidence? Maybe.

But I do know that Chuck's ORtg and DRtg were both better than Malone's for those 3 and a bit games, and Malone's FG%, ORtg and DRtg improved enormously in Chuck's absence. Per 36 mins, while Chuck was in the series, Malone put up ~20/10/1 on ~.400FG% compared to Barkley's 15/9/2 on .522FG%. (the ~ is because I'm speculating a bit about what Malone did in Q1 of game 4, but it wouldn't have been much because the Rockets were up 21-10). Once Barkley was out of the series Malone put up ~30/13/2 per 36 mins, on ~.540FG%. Based on these numbers, it's not much of a stretch IMO to assume that Malone's stats while Barkley was on court were probably no better than Barkley's, and with a much lower FG%

So there's anecdotal evidence that perhaps Malone didn't 'handily outplay' Barkley at all. Rather the truth might be that even injured, old, way past his prime Barkley was still a Malone stopper.

Barkley wasn't outplaying Malone at this point. Being injured is not an excuse and being old certainly isn't when Malone and Barkley are the same age.

No he didn't. At least not in a team sense. He had more individual accolades because he was good for longer.

Malone made more finals and conference finals appearances in his career. In another thread it was correctly pointed out the Jazz teams in the late 90's didn't have good talent. They beat far more talented Lakers and Rockets teams.

[dankok8]

Well, Chuck was riddled with injuries at this point. But he was still great if you care to look closer. He averaged 21/15/5 for the first two months of 96-97, before injuries began to take their toll. And he went 22/13/5 in the last 3 weeks, once he started to get right. But in the middle, while he was struggling with pelvis and ankle injuries, he went 15/11/4 for a couple of months. Yes, he was injured a lot and again, no one debates that Malone was great for longer, but Chuck was certainly not hot garbage. He was still the one of the best rebounders and the best passing forward in the game when not hampered by injury.

He was hot garbage relative to Malone who an MVP-caliber player.

The case for Malone is he was good for longer and he had a better work ethic. THAT'S IT. He was great. No one disputes that. But he was not as good as Barkley. I seriously can't see how you could possibly deny this based on the evidence I have presented. You obviously just don't want it to be so.

By clearly better, I mean that Barkley beat out Malone in every stat except PPG. You made the claim about how good Malone was based solely on a stats argument. I'm saying that any which way you look at it, Barkley's stats beat Malone's stats.

Barkley wasn't better than Malone. That would require him being a much better offensive player (because gap on defense is large!) which he wasn't. Even in the years 1989-1993 which was Barkley's absolute 5-year peak his offense wasn't better than Malone's.

Basic Stats

Barkley 1989-1993: 25.4 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 4.3 apg on 56.3% shooting and 3.1 topg in 38.3 mpg
Malone 1989-1993: 28.8 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 3.1 apg on 53.7% shooting and 3.2 topg in 38.6 mpg

Advanced Stats


Barkley 1989-1993: 26.6 PER, 16.9 %TRB, 73.8 WS, 0.245 WS/48
Malone 1989-1993: 25.6 PER, 16.6 %TRB, 77.1 WS, 0.236 WS/48

Those numbers are as close to a wash as you can get. If you said they are about the same offensively I would agree.

You can make the argument that Barkley could score more points while keeping the same efficiency but you simply don't know. I can also make the argument that if Malone took 3 fewer shots each game his efficiency would be considerably higher.

Yes, but Barkley's ORtg was always the best on his team, and WAY superior to Malone's. And Barkley's DRtg was the best on his team many more times than Malone's was the best on the Jazz. And Barkley's Net Rtg was obviously better

Lineup stats... Since Mark Eaton left, Malone was the defensive anchor of the Jazz. In the late 90's he was elite on defense. Not even very good but ELITE. He made two 1st Team All-Defense. The gap between them on that end is astronomical.

No particular season. Just pick Malone's best, and pick Barkley's best. I don't care if its best season, best 5 seasons, best 10 seasons or career. Barkley stats were better.

I just compared Barkley's five peak seasons and compared them directly to Malone. No edge...

Comparable in what sense, exactly? Malone vs Barkley's scoring ability is one of those things where I think one had to really see them at their respective peaks to appreciate the ways in which they scored. Malone's only 'edge' is in PPG, but that's without the context of looking at how many shots they took or the number of offensive options around them. Points per shot, FTA:FGA ratio, TS, field goal %, and most other offensive metrics favor Barkley. This is in addition to simply watching them play and seeing that Barkley simply had a more varied offensive arsenal.

Per possession and efficiency stats should always favor the guy shooting less if the two men are similarly great offensive players. By your logic I could say 2013 Lebron was a better scorer than MJ. He scored 5 ppg less but on 5% higher efficiency than 1993 Jordan, about the same gap between Barkley and Malone in 1990.

There is a world of difference between a guy scoring 31 ppg and a guy scoring 25 ppg... Mind you the 31 ppg guy was still shooting >56% from the floor so he was hardly a bricklayer.

You mention scoring skill sets. Barkley was better with his back to the basket. Both were beasts in the open floor and in face-up situations. Malone shot way better from the block and the midrange though. And Malone's shot selection was better. He knew his game and played within it more than Barkley did.

If you wanna argue raw talent that Barkley was a better prospect I can concede that but it's meaningless. It's about the results on the floor.



And you guys speak about work ethic and career longevity as if they don't matter.

[AussieSteve]

It still doesn't prove that Jordan wasn't snubbed. MJ had a better statistical year than in 1992 and the team had a worse record because they were cruising. That is voter fatigue if I've ever seen it. Jordan was the best player in the league in the regular season.

My point is that no one is saying Barkley shouldn't have got the 93 MVP, it was assumed he would get it before he did, because he deserved it. Whereas Malone's are both looked upon questionably.

And don't tell me that Malone deserved the 98 MVP. Jordan carried the Bulls to the best record in the league (equal with the Jazz), with Pippen missing half the season and Longley missing 30 odd games. He also won 5 times as many fist place votes as Malone.

You took these numbers from an old Round Mound post in the other thread... He included 1987 for Malone which is before he made his first all-star game and wasn't in his prime. Barkley admittedly also outplayed Malone in 1988. From 1989 though it was Malone who came out ahead in like every season until the end of their careers except 1994.

I don't know why you protested my data from 1989-1993. It's a five year span where peak Barkley got outplayed by Malone.

I didn't get them from Round Mound. I sourced them myself. And I ignored the 89-93 stuff because its cherry picking data. I could easily point out that in 92-93 and 93-94, Barkley beat Malone 5 games in a row. Same for 86-87 and 87-88. Its irrelevant. If we take a 9 year period from 86-87 to 94-95, Barkley craps all over Malone, because when they were both at their best, Barkley was better. Here are the stats

Barkley: 24.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.6 bpg, .529 fg%, .54 FTA/FGA, 20.5 GmSc
Malone: 24.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.8 bpg, .514 fg%, .48 FTA/FGA, 18.4 GmSc

In 95-96, Malone won the head to head 3-1, and after that Malone beat Barkley regularly, because Barkley aged poorly... like many other players, who are not criticized anywhere near as much as Barkley is btw.

Barkley was a GOAT level player for a decade. Malone was never a GOAT level player, but he was a great player for nearly 2 decades. As I have said, longevity is ALL Malone has on Barkley.

He get's top 20 GOAT kudos BECAUSE of his insane longevity. Barkley gets top 20 GOAT kudos, DESPITE his lack of longevity, because he was THAT good.

[Round Mound]

Barkley vs Malone Inside The 3-Pointline Scoring Efficiency:

Season Career:

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on [COLOR="Blue"]12.9[/COLOR]...Two Point FGAs PG

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.7 PPG on [COLOR="Red"]17.5[/COLOR]...Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs Career: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on [COLOR="Blue"]14.5[/COLOR] ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on [COLOR="Red"]19.3[/COLOR]...Two-Point FGAs PG

BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

[ArbitraryWater]

It still doesn't prove that Jordan wasn't snubbed. MJ had a better statistical year than in 1992 and the team had a worse record because they were cruising. That is voter fatigue if I've ever seen it. Jordan was the best player in the league in the regular season.

Thats more bullshit coming from you, the talk of the time was MJ reverting back to his chuck happy days, suddenly back at 26 (!) FGA, moving away from the established team game..

[dankok8]

My point is that no one is saying Barkley shouldn't have got the 93 MVP, it was assumed he would get it before he did, because he deserved it. Whereas Malone's are both looked upon questionably.

And don't tell me that Malone deserved the 98 MVP. Jordan carried the Bulls to the best record in the league (equal with the Jazz), with Pippen missing half the season and Longley missing 30 odd games. He also won 5 times as many fist place votes as Malone.

Karl Malone had better stats than MJ in 1998 pretty much across the board. Much higher efficiency, higher assists, and better defensively...

Pippen missing games is easily balanced by Stockton's decline who just became a role player in 1998. Utah was literally Karl Malone and plenty of guys who can play but aren't even close to stars. He was by far the best scorer, rebounder, and defender on the team.

I didn't get them from Round Mound. I sourced them myself. And I ignored the 89-93 stuff because its cherry picking data. I could easily point out that in 92-93 and 93-94, Barkley beat Malone 5 games in a row. Same for 86-87 and 87-88. Its irrelevant. If we take a 9 year period from 86-87 to 94-95, Barkley craps all over Malone, because when they were both at their best, Barkley was better. Here are the stats

Barkley: 24.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.6 bpg, .529 fg%, .54 FTA/FGA, 20.5 GmSc
Malone: 24.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.8 bpg, .514 fg%, .48 FTA/FGA, 18.4 GmSc

In 95-96, Malone won the head to head 3-1, and after that Malone beat Barkley regularly, because Barkley aged poorly... like many other players, who are not criticized anywhere near as much as Barkley is btw.

Barkley was a GOAT level player for a decade. Malone was never a GOAT level player, but he was a great player for nearly 2 decades. As I have said, longevity is ALL Malone has on Barkley.

He get's top 20 GOAT kudos BECAUSE of his insane longevity. Barkley gets top 20 GOAT kudos, DESPITE his lack of longevity, because he was THAT good.

Karl surely wasn't at his best in 1987 when he didn't even make the all-star game. Or in 1988... Yet still despite picking a ridiculous set of data Barkley still doesn't pull ahead noticeably. Less than 1 rebound per game and 1.5% in efficiency... And you said he "craps on Malone".... LOL

Barkley a GOAT-level player? How can a guy with no mindset, not work ethic, and who only plays one side of the floor (self-admitted!) be a GOAT level player? Give me a break...

Barkley vs Malone Inside The 3-Pointline Scoring Efficiency:

Season Career:

Barkley shot 58.13% Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on 12.9...Two Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 51.9% Two-Point FG at 24.7 PPG on 17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG

Play-Offs Career: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:

Barkley shot 55.13% FG at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG

Malone shot 46.6% Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG

BARKLEY WAS SHAQ-LIKE INSIDE THE 3-POINT LINE

Another excuse for dumbass Barkley taking stupid shots from 3pt land.

Again I have no problem if you say Barkley is the BETTER TALENT. However, he wasn't the better player.

Thats more bullshit coming from you, the talk of the time was MJ reverting back to his chuck happy days, suddenly back at 26 (!) FGA, moving away from the established team game..

MJ scored 7 ppg more than Barkley on just 3% lower TS... MJ was also an infinitely better defender at his position. LOL at calling MJ a chucker!

Chuck won the 1993 MVP because of voter fatigue towards Jordan and because he had the storyline. He joined a new team and improved them although it's worth noting that the Suns won 53 games the year prior to Chuck's arrival so they weren't chopped liver either.

[Round Mound]

Barkley took threes for fun mostly but inside the 3-pointline he used to get bored dominating the paint and the in between mid range and post game. Chuck owned Malone from 85 to 95 and its not even close. Malone however was probably the best catch and finish player while playing in a system designed by Stockton and Sloan and ofcourse more durable. He was more durable and a better ft shooter than Barkley. Thats about it.

[dankok8]

How about this tidbit of info?

Out of all the teams Barkley was the best player on which are 1987-1992 Philly and 1993-1996 Phoenix (10 total seasons), his team only made it past the second round once and that was the finals run in 1993. They were contenders in 1994 and 1995 but they choked badly to the Rockets both years with Barkley under-performing. He missed the playoffs in 1988 and 1992.

Meanwhile Malone as the best player on the Jazz made two NBA finals and five conference finals and never once missed the playoffs. Unless you're gonna start convincing me that Malone played on stacked teams in the 90's, something is amiss here!


Barkley is also one of the worst big game players ever. Apart from his big Game 7 against Seattle in 1993 (monster effort... kudos!) he mostly played bad in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's in his career. Even in the 1993 finals he had three bad shooting games but this never gets talked about.

[Round Mound]

ALL BROKEN DOWN STATS & METRICS show Barkley as better than Stockton-To-Malone.

[Dragonyeuw]

Per possession and efficiency stats should always favor the guy shooting less if the two men are similarly great offensive players. By your logic I could say 2013 Lebron was a better scorer than MJ. He scored 5 ppg less but on 5% higher efficiency than 1993 Jordan, about the same gap between Barkley and Malone in 1990.

There is a world of difference between a guy scoring 31 ppg and a guy scoring 25 ppg... Mind you the 31 ppg guy was still shooting >56% from the floor so he was hardly a bricklayer.

You mention scoring skill sets. Barkley was better with his back to the basket. Both were beasts in the open floor and in face-up situations. Malone shot way better from the block and the midrange though. And Malone's shot selection was better. He knew his game and played within it more than Barkley did.

If you wanna argue raw talent that Barkley was a better prospect I can concede that but it's meaningless. It's about the results on the floor.



And you guys speak about work ethic and career longevity as if they don't matter.

You think Barkley didnt know his game? He played within it more than Barkley did? In other words, his offensive game was more limited. Easy to play within your offensive abilities when you have less of them in this comparison.

All the back and forth on stats going through this thread, Malones results on the floor werent decidedly better than Barkleys in their primes. Several metrics have Barkley ahead in various categories. Does Malone win the work ethic/longevity argument? Of course, at no point have I said otherwise so Im not sure why your reply to me makes mention of those intangibles.

[AussieSteve]

Barkley a GOAT-level player? How can a guy with no mindset, not work ethic, and who only plays one side of the floor (self-admitted!) be a GOAT level player? Give me a break...

All I'm saying is that at his peak, he was right there with Magic and Jordan. People could and did make a solid case for him being the best player in the league, over Magic and MJ. He beat prime MJ out for MVP twice and beat Magic - in Magic's best season! This is not hyperbole, its the facts. Malone was not ever at this level.

Chuck won the 1993 MVP because of voter fatigue towards Jordan and because he had the storyline. He joined a new team and improved them although it's worth noting that the Suns won 53 games the year prior to Chuck's arrival so they weren't chopped liver either.

Worth noting that the Suns were largely injury free in winning 53 games in 91-92. In 92-93 their best player after Chuck, Kevin Johnson, missed nearly half the season through injury, as did Richard Dumas, and Barkley still led them to the leagues best record, 9 games better than their previous year. And it wasn't like Barkley was just inserted into the team. They did lose an All-Star in Jeff Hornacek, so it wasn't the same team plus Barkley. Also note that the Suns were 61-15 with Chuck and 1-5 without him that season. So the the injury free Suns were a .646 team in 91-92, but the same team, minus an All-Star and with significant injury problems, but with Chuck was a .803 team.

[AussieSteve]

Barkley is also one of the worst big game players ever. Apart from his big Game 7 against Seattle in 1993 (monster effort... kudos!) he mostly played bad in Game 7's and decisive Game 5's in his career. Even in the 1993 finals he had three bad shooting games but this never gets talked about.

Here's a response to this nonsense, from http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...&postcount=943

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] ... To me Charles was the only one capable of getting near Michael

[Pointguard]

All I'm saying is that at his peak, he was right there with Magic and Jordan. People could and did make a solid case for him being the best player in the league, over Magic and MJ. He beat prime MJ out for MVP twice and beat Magic - in Magic's best season! This is not hyperbole, its the facts. Malone was not ever at this level.

Ok, its getting a bit too far now. Barkley could visit Magic's level, he never could stay like family. While he could reach that level, I do agree, but never for any sustained time. Weeks at a time at most. Magic was maybe the smartest player ever. Barkley had frequent bonehead moments. Magic was the best at being efficient and aggressive and switching between the two. Barkley biggest criticism is that he was pretty much lost on when to turn it on. It was an automatic with Magic and Jordan. They knew how to win, automatically/subconsciously. Barkley could barely tune into it. And '90 wasn't one of Magic's best years. It was more likely his sixth best year.

This is one of the few guys that MJ said Barkley doesn't want to win. As a competitor he wasn't in their league. As a player, yes, he was stronger and could be harder to contain. But those moments were far and few in between.

[AussieSteve]

Ok, its getting a bit too far now. Barkley could visit Magic's level, he never could stay like family. While he could reach that level, I do agree, but never for any sustained time. Weeks at a time at most. Magic was maybe the smartest player ever. Barkley had frequent bonehead moments. Magic was the best at being efficient and aggressive and switching between the two. Barkley biggest criticism is that he was pretty much lost on when to turn it on. It was an automatic with Magic and Jordan. They knew how to win, automatically/subconsciously. Barkley could barely tune into it. And '90 wasn't one of Magic's best years. It was more likely his sixth best year.

This is one of the few guys that MJ said Barkley doesn't want to win. As a competitor he wasn't in their league. As a player, yes, he was stronger and could be harder to contain. But those moments were far and few in between.

I would never say that Chuck was as good as Magic or MJ. I'm just trying to emphasize how good he was at his best... and he was right on there with them.

And in saying that 1989-90 was Magic's best season, I was just going off advanced metrics and the number of wins the Lakers had. By BPM, WS and VORP it was his best season, by PER it was his 3rd best. He also added the 3 pointer to his arsenal that year, which made him a greater offensive threat than previous years. Also the Lakers had the 2nd best reg. season record of Magic's career, in Magic's first season w/o Kareem.

[Round Mound]

Barkley statistically is easily a top 10 player of all time