Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yup his Post Game and Mid Range Game Improoved Alot in the Mid 90s though his Explosivness, Overpowering Way Play and Rebounding Decreased as he Got Older (same with Charles after 1995). He Was More Rigid and Less Explosive Then but Still Quite Effective.

I agree that Malone's explosiveness declined, but his rebounding stayed the same.

In 1998, Malone averaged 10.3 rpg, and his TRB% was 17.1%, which was almost as high as it ever was. He only topped that in 1995 with a 17.4 TRB%, 1991 with a 17.2 TRB% and tied it in 1990 with a 17.1 TRB%..

The Problem for Malone Was His Play-Off Performances. They Always Declined Heavily Compared to Charles: Who Dominated the [COLOR="DarkRed"]Mid Range and Post Region [/COLOR]With Ease and No Need of a System of Pick and Rolls.

Season:

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

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

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs: Where Malone ALWAYS Declined:[/COLOR]

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

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

Yeah, Barkley was always better in the playoffs, and it's because of what Charles said in the quote from the original post in this thread. Charles could get his shot when he wanted, while Malone did benefit from easy baskets because of Stockton and the system.

Malone was still a very good scorer, but this made it difficult for him to match his regular season play in the playoffs. He did have some good playoff runs, though. He just wasn't as dominant as Barkley.

[Callystarr]

So where is this 70% of career coming from?

Top is Charles
Bottom is Karl


85-86 (CHARLES)
36.9m 20.0p 12.8r 3.9a 1.8s 1.5b .572 .685
30.6m 14.9p 8.9r 2.9a 1.3s 0.5b .496 .481 *ROOKIE*

86-87 (CHARLES)
40.3m 23.0p 14.6r 4.9a 1.8s 1.5b .594 .761
34.8m 21.7p 10.4r 1.9a 1.3s 0.7b .512 .598

87-88 (CHARLES)
39.6m 28.3p 11.9r 3.2a 1.3s 1.3b .587 .751
39.0m 27.7p 12.0r 2.4a 1.4s 0.7b .520 .700

88-89 (KARL)
39.1m 25.8p 12.5r 4.1a 1.6s 0.8b .579 .753
39.1m 29.1p 10.7r 2.7a 1.8s 0.9b .519 .766

89-90 (TIE)
39.1m 25.2p 11.5r 3.9a 1.9s 0.6b .600 .749
38.0m 31.0p 11.1r 2.8a 1.5s 0.6b .562 .762

90-91 (KARL)
37.3m 27.6p 10.1r 4.2a 1.6s 0.5b .570 .722
40.3m 29.0p 11.8r 3.3a 1.1s 1.0b .527 .770

91-92 (KARL)
38.4m 23.1p 11.1r 4.1a 1.8s 0.6b .552 .695
37.7m 28.0p 11.2r 3.0a 1.3s 0.6b .526 .778

92-93 (TIE)
37.6m 25.6p 12.2a 5.5a 1.6s 1.0b .520 .765
37.8m 28.0p 11.2a 3.8a 1.5s 1.0b .552 .740

93-94 (KARL)
35.4m 21.6p 11.2r 4.6a 1.6s 1.0b .495 .704
40.6m 25.2p 11.5r 4.0a 1.5s 1.5b .497 .694

94-95 (KARL)
35.0m 23.0p 11.1r 4.1a 1.6s 0.7b .486 .748
38.1m 26.7p 10.6r 3.5a 1.6s 1.0b .536 .742

95-96 (KARL)
37.1m 23.2p 11.6r 3.7a 1.6s 0.8b .500 .777
38.0m 25.7p 9.8r 4.2a 1.7s 0.7b .519 .723

This doesn't even include the last 4 years where Malone continued to average in the mid to high 20's per game, and Barkely was in the the teens....Both players peak years were impressive....but I feel like Malone had 2 periods..10 years apart where he elevated his game.

The remaining 4 years left in Charles career were clearly....in Karls favor. So if we are going off of statistics, they both seemed to be very...even.

But if you go over both of their careers, it wasn't just the later half that Karl...started to really challenge him annually for #1 power forward position. Karl had more consistency and you can see his maturity in other areas of his game..ie passing...(he became a much better passer as he got older)...

[Callystarr]

85-87 H2H 5 games
Barkley 23.4p 12.2r 4.2a 1.80s 0.20b .633fg .816ft
Malone 16.2p 6.8r 1.4a 1.40s 0.60b .477fg .528ft

88-90 H2H 5 games
Barkley 23.0p 9.6r 3.6a 2.00s 0.60b .541fg .696ft
Malone 30.2p 10.0r 3.4a 1.60s 0.80b .595fg .758ft

91-92 H2H 5 games
Barkley 24.4p 11.0r 3.6a 1.20s 0.40b .512fg .739ft
Malone 29.8p 10.4r 3.8a 1.20s 1.40b .528fg .791ft


Now we all know what happens really the remainder of their career...outside of the year that Barkley went to Phoenix....

But seriously....no one can say that either dominated either...because clearly in the head to head matchup...Malone played better H2H and seasonally with the exception of Malones first 3 years in the NBA.

[Round Mound]

[B]I agree with Callystarr that Malone improoved his Post Game and Passing Later in His Career but it Was All Hard Work for Him Because he Was Less Talented than Barkley. For Barkley Post Game, Mid Range Game, Rebounding and Passing Was Natural.

*Do Barkley 1985-86 to 1995-96 Head to Head Favors Barkley (But Lets Remember Head to Head doesn`t show much either because it Doesnt tell Whoe Guarded Who).

I put the 1995-96 Season included in the Head to Head to but I myself admit tha Malone was Better in 1995-96 and Onwards (i saw it live) thats when Charles began to get back injured.

Also look at Player Comparison i Put Before from 85-86 to 1994-95...It Favors Barkley Statistically too.

HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1995: ages 22-31

[COLOR="DarkRed"]PLAYER COMPARISON 1985-95 (ages 21-31):[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"]37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)

22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)

11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)[/COLOR]
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn

[Callystarr]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]I agree with Callystarr that Malone improoved his Post Game and Passing Later in His Career but it Was All Hard Work for Him Because he Was Less Talented than Barkley. For Barkley Post Game, Mid Range Game, Rebounding and Passing Was Natural.

*Do Barkley 1985-86 to 1995-96 Head to Head Favors Barkley (But Lets Remember Head to Head doesn`t show much either because it Doesnt tell Whoe Guarded Who).

I put the 1995-96 Season included in the Head to Head to but I myself admit tha Malone was Better in 1995-96 and Onwards (i saw it live) thats when Charles began to get back injured.

Also look at Player Comparison i Put Before from 85-86 to 1994-95...It Favors Barkley Statistically too.

HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1995: ages 22-31

[COLOR="DarkRed"]PLAYER COMPARISON 1985-95 (ages 21-31):[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"]37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)

22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)

11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)[/COLOR]
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn

[Round Mound]

Nahh Barkley was Better Untill 1995 I saw It Live. Infact (for those who where there to watch it) Barkley was to Retire the 1995-96 season but Danny Ainge Convinced Him Not To. Then Malone took Over as Barkley left as 2nd or 3rd option in Houston. Where he destroyed his Knee was Constantly Overweight and he had the Similar Back Problems as Bird

[Callystarr]

I don't know what you guys are looking at, honestly Charles Barkley had the most talent, but Karl Malone proved to have longevity and consistency. Charles

If you go look at their stat lines...per season...Karl Malone has the edge...

85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Barkley (slightest edge)
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Malone
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Malone
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone


Now if you want to go on H2H each season, this is who had the better games..

85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Malone
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Barkley
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Barkley
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone

From 88-89...and on all the games were close...but clearly this was a rivalry...in which Malone was clearly the better player after the 80's....

[Shep]

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.

it doesn't matter what you are expected to do and what you are not expected to do as a team. you are expected to perform as individuals no matter who you play, and if malone hadn't performed how he did against the clippers (which was better than he performed against the blazers) the jazz would not have made it past the first round to give them a chance at getting in the conference finals.

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

the jazz lost in the wcf in 1992, they won in the wcf in 1997. there is no what ifs.

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

stockton had the better playoff in 1997, but malone also had a better playoff in 1997, by a wider margin than that of stockton.

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

i've destroyed you at your own argument

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.

thats ok. for you it seems like you rank players based on stats, mainly the scoring stat, and thats about it.

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.

there is no point talking about what might have happened if something else happened. what did happen is that utah won more games in 1997 than it did in 1998

The Sonics lost too. Bottom line.

the series against the sonics was much more competitive

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

lamar odom stepped up his play from the regular season, kobe (being the best player) should have stepped up his play, giving the lakers a better chance of winning.

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....

so 18/9/5 is his best with kobe, meanwhile he puts up 22/12/7 without him

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.

wow NOBODY did? that is alot of wrong people making rankings

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?

lebron could only beat who gets put infront of him. to lead the cavs to their first nba finals appearance in their 37 year history as a 22 year old is a remarkable achievement. they swept by the washington wizards, easily accounted for jason kidd (top 4 overall) vince carter (top 5 shooting guard) and the new jersey nets to the tune of 4-2, then got by the heavily favoured playoff experienced detroit pistons in the wcf after falling behind 0-2 without home court advantage who they went 1-3 against in the regular season. and i don't need to remind you about game 5.

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."

because you said he put up better numbers before

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.

this is just plain trash at its finest. he had lost athleticism since '05? only 2 years prior? he put up pretty much the exact same numbers on the exact same percentages IN 5 LESS MINUTES PER GAME and somehow he lost a step and wasn't the same player he once was at the ripe old age of 27 . you are getting worse by the post

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 wasn't a natural scorer, but he scored with the best players in the league. and while other scorers would get cold (not naming names ), they could not impact the game on any other level, what separated lebron was the fact that he could. and if his shot was off he was always at the top of the league at the ability to get to the line. it was lebron's 5th best year to date behind '09, '12, '10, and '11.

[Shep]

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.

lebron was top 2 infact. this "key flaw" did not affect lebron and the cavaliers from steamrolling through 99% of the competition, it only seemed to be a problem when they were up against the best team in the league with the best defense in the league, and the best player in the league, a top 3 shooting guard, and top 4 point guard.

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

kobe couldn't even match his regular season production against the second fastest paced team in the nba in the first round of the playoffs

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.

no he didn't have a good series. i'm not trying to say that at all, all i'm saying is that he was able to do other things if his shot wasn't falling.

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.

thats better than kobe failing to play like a superstar throughout the season, and a scrub throughout his 5 playoff games.

despite his sub-par finals, lebron still proved that he was top 2 overall because of what he had already achieved throughout the regular season and playoffs.

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.

so after benching 50 pounds he was no longer being pushed around

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.

63% in the playoffs 1977 is his peak? what a joke. 1971 is kareem's peak

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

on further inspection, disgusting is the most accurate word to describe kareem's rebounding.

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.

i have a large amount of games.

[ShaqAttack3234]

it doesn't matter what you are expected to do and what you are not expected to do as a team. you are expected to perform as individuals no matter who you play, and if malone hadn't performed how he did against the clippers (which was better than he performed against the blazers) the jazz would not have made it past the first round to give them a chance at getting in the conference finals.

Malone was clearly more impressive individually in the WCF and it's a joke to try to compare team success in these series, the teams are so far apart it's ridiculous.

the jazz lost in the wcf in 1992, they won in the wcf in 1997. there is no what ifs.

I don't care since Malone didn't perform better or even as well in the series to do it so this is not a valid argument for Malone's '97 run to me. Team success is what you play for, but to credit an individual for it, you have to evaluate his performance that led to the victory. Otherwise, you have to look beyond the team's best player, and in this case, Stockton was the major difference between the '92 and '97 WCF.

stockton had the better playoff in 1997, but malone also had a better playoff in 1997, by a wider margin than that of stockton.

i've destroyed you at your own argument

Not in your wildest dreams.

thats ok. for you it seems like you rank players based on stats, mainly the scoring stat, and thats about it.

A complete joke since I always describe additions to player's games and/or their maturation as a player as reasons for a particular season being their best. Unless a player's game and ability are virtually the same in multiple seasons. Then I look for a tiebreaker, either stats, team success or durability/consistency.

there is no point talking about what might have happened if something else happened. what did happen is that utah won more games in 1997 than it did in 1998

Do you have ANY ability to apply context? Yeah...2 fewer games with his second best player missing 18 more games and also becoming significantly less productive. It's just too obvious.

the series against the sonics was much more competitive

Because they were healthy.

lamar odom stepped up his play from the regular season, kobe (being the best player) should have stepped up his play, giving the lakers a better chance of winning.

Kobe stepped up as much as Odom did. Neither were noticeably better than their regular season level to me, but both did their jobs. Though Odom did step up more than Kobe the previous season in their playoff series vs Phoenix, but Kobe was still the Lakers best player in each series, by a large margin in '07.

so 18/9/5 is his best with kobe, meanwhile he puts up 22/12/7 without him

You're comparing averages over 4 game to 17 games? I'd expect Odom's numbers to rise a bit going from a clear 2nd option with Kobe to a clear 1st option without him. And maintaining averages over 4 games is much, much easier than 17 games.

wow NOBODY did? that is alot of wrong people making rankings

Nope, just one wrong person ranking players.

lebron could only beat who gets put infront of him. to lead the cavs to their first nba finals appearance in their 37 year history as a 22 year old is a remarkable achievement. they swept by the washington wizards, easily accounted for jason kidd (top 4 overall) vince carter (top 5 shooting guard) and the new jersey nets to the tune of 4-2, then got by the heavily favoured playoff experienced detroit pistons in the wcf after falling behind 0-2 without home court advantage who they went 1-3 against in the regular season. and i don't need to remind you about game 5.

The Wizards didn't have their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and the Nets big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. Plus, Lebron's job was made easier for him because Vince Carter was shut down, and New Jersey had relied heavily on his offense throughout the season and were still mediocre. Despite that, this was a 6 game series and several games were decided by other players. Pavlovic's chasedown block on Kidd late in game 1, Carter turning the ball over on the final possession of game 4 and Donyell Marshall's threes helping Cleveland pull away late in game 6 turning a 1 point game entering the 4th quarter into a blowout.

because you said he put up better numbers before

You mentioned numbers first as a case for T-Mac's '07 and even after I said T-Mac had put up better numbers I went on to state "regardless of numbers" before going into the reasons T-Mac was past his prime by '07.

this is just plain trash at its finest. he had lost athleticism since '05? only 2 years prior? he put up pretty much the exact same numbers on the exact same percentages IN 5 LESS MINUTES PER GAME and somehow he lost a step and wasn't the same player he once was at the ripe old age of 27 . you are getting worse by the post

Watch the games instead of basketball-reference. It's obvious he had lost athleticism. Most players are at or near their peak at 27, but most don't have the injury problems T-Mac did. He was coming off a season that he had missed 35 games in, and ultimately, he was never quite the same. His decline continued in '08.

He simply didn't have the first step he did in '05, and definitely wasn't as good of a finisher. I don't care if his numbers were similar, I'm going with what I saw. T-Mac was also much better in the '05 playoffs than '07.

lebron wasn't a natural scorer, but he scored with the best players in the league. and while other scorers would get cold (not naming names ), they could not impact the game on any other level, what separated lebron was the fact that he could. and if his shot was off he was always at the top of the league at the ability to get to the line. it was lebron's 5th best year to date behind '09, '12, '10, and '11.

Kobe was by far the best scorer in the league in '07, and didn't really look to score that much himself until the last couple of months or so when he scored at a historic pace at his coaches request. Prior to that, he had been focusing more on playmaking while still scoring very efficiently.

lebron was top 2 infact. this "key flaw" did not affect lebron and the cavaliers from steamrolling through 99% of the competition, it only seemed to be a problem when they were up against the best team in the league with the best defense in the league, and the best player in the league, a top 3 shooting guard, and top 4 point guard.

Steamroll the competition? They beat 1 solid team in the playoffs. That key flaw greatly affected Lebron when he faced a great team. Lebron's Cavs making the finals isn'that impressive to me since that was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent years, and most importantly, I'm looking at his level of play by itself, which didn't put him above several other players. I don't just blindly raise a player's rankings for a team accomplishment. I look at the rest of the team and with Cleveland, I saw a Cavs team whose supporting players continually stepped up in huge moments, a great rebounding team and an elite defensive team. They didn't need as much offense as other teams because they were holding opponents to such low scores.

kobe couldn't even match his regular season production against the second fastest paced team in the nba in the first round of the playoffs

His play was roughly what you'd expect.

thats better than kobe failing to play like a superstar throughout the season, and a scrub throughout his 5 playoff games.

despite his sub-par finals, lebron still proved that he was top 2 overall because of what he had already achieved throughout the regular season and playoffs.

Kobe failed to play like a superstar even in the regular season and a scrub in the playoffs? You have a ridiculous agenda. He was widely considered the best player in the game. With the exception of defense, this was a time when his entire game was really coming together. This is a top 10 player of all-time, at or near his peak.

so after benching 50 pounds he was no longer being pushed around

Whatever he did, it seemed to make a difference because he went from a player whose level of play often dropped in the playoffs early in his career to a player who raised his game in the playoffs as much as virtually any superstar from '74-'80.

63% in the playoffs 1977 is his peak? what a joke. 1971 is kareem's peak

Kareem was in a free throw slump during the playoffs, I'll judge his free throw shooting by a full season of games when he shot 71%.

You continue to set the standard for stat whores and prove your knowledge consists soley of what you read on basketball-reference. '71 is his peak? Yeah....Kareem peaked in just 2nd second season. That makes sense despite adding multiple moves such as a turnaround jumper and left-handed hook in later years as well as becoming smarter and stronger.

I can name so many examples why stats are deceptive in this case. Kareem helped a weak Laker team overachieve and get the best record in '77 and then raised his game to ridiculous heights with a playoff run far more impressive from an individual standpoint than '71.

on further inspection, disgusting is the most accurate word to describe kareem's rebounding.

Not surprising you resort to these tactics when you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.

[DatAsh]

I agree that Malone's explosiveness declined, but his rebounding stayed the same.

In 1998, Malone averaged 10.3 rpg, and his TRB% was 17.1%, which was almost as high as it ever was. He only topped that in 1995 with a 17.4 TRB%, 1991 with a 17.2 TRB% and tied it in 1990 with a 17.1 TRB%..



Yeah, Barkley was always better in the playoffs, and it's because of what Charles said in the quote from the original post in this thread. Charles could get his shot when he wanted, while Malone did benefit from easy baskets because of Stockton and the system.

To me, this is key, and it's why prime vs prime I consider Barkley to be the better scorer of the two, despite Malone's higher ppg.

[Dragonyeuw]

I don't know what you guys are looking at, honestly Charles Barkley had the most talent, but Karl Malone proved to have longevity and consistency. Charles

If you go look at their stat lines...per season...Karl Malone has the edge...

85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Barkley (slightest edge)
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Malone
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Malone
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone


Now if you want to go on H2H each season, this is who had the better games..

85-86 - Barkley
86-87 - Barkley
87-88 - Barkley
88-89 - Malone
89-90 - Malone
90-91 - Malone
91-92 - Barkley
92-93 - Barkley
93-94 - Barkley
94-95 - Malone
95-96 - Malone
96-97 - Malone
97-98 - Malone
98-99 - Malone

From 88-89...and on all the games were close...but clearly this was a rivalry...in which Malone was clearly the better player after the 80's....

You haven't brought up anything that hasn't already been acknowledged previously. General consensus is that Barkley was the more dominant player prior to 1994, a sentiment you've basically expressed with your lists above.

[Round Mound]

Its More Like This When Barkley Was Healthy. You Have to Look at Play-Off Numbers too Where Malone Declined So If You Combine All It Goes like this before Barkley left for Houston and 2nd or 3rd Option Injured and Overweight

1985-86: Barkley
1986-87: Barkley
1987-88: Barkley
1989-89 :Barkley
1989-90: Barkley
1990-91: Barkley
1991-92: Malone (Barkley Wanted Out of Sixers)
1992-93: Barkley
1993-94: Barkley
1994-95: Barkley
1995-96: Malone
1996-97: Malone
1997-98: Malone
1998-99: Malone
1999-00: Malone

Barkley is a Top 10 All Time EFF Player
Barkley is Top 10 All Time PER Season Player
Barley is a Top 9 All Time PER Play-Off Player
Barkley is a Top 5 All Time Plus/Minus Player
Barkley is a Top 4 All Time Shot Made/Missed Diferential Player
Barkley is a top 8 All Time WS Per 48 Minute Player

So Statistically Not Only is He Better than Malone But CLOSER TO A TOP 10 PLAYER OF ALL TIME

[Callystarr]

You haven't brought up anything that hasn't already been acknowledged previously. General consensus is that Barkley was the more dominant player prior to 1994, a sentiment you've basically expressed with your lists above.

No you are trying to lump 10 years together....rather than see that Barkley was better the first 3 years...and then they were about even....for the next several years and then Malone was flat out better....

[Round Mound]

From 1985 to 1995 Barkley was Better. Check Out Broken Down Stats, Raw Stats, Head to Heads from that Stretch etc he Was Better

Also Barkley Did Not Depejnd on a Pick and Roll System Designed by the Greatest Pure PG Ever to Score or Dominate.

Barkley in his Peek Was Better by Far

Malone Declined In the Play-Offs Compared to Barkley