Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2012, 02:57 AM   #31
eliteballer
NBA rookie of the year
 
eliteballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,522
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Barkley was more dominant in the playoffs for the same reason he himself stated he was better. It's because he was much better at creating his own offense.
eliteballer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:37 AM   #32
ShaqAttack3234
7-time NBA All-Star
 
ShaqAttack3234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,992
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shep
barkley was only better than malone in 1986, '87, '88, '89, '90, and '93 (6 years)
malone was better than barkley in 1991, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99
(8 years)
and then you take into consideration all the games that were missed by barkley..

I agree with almost all of your rankings, except Barkley was better than Malone in '91. Charles was the 3rd best player that year behind only Michael and Magic. He was right up there with Jordan, Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge for the scoring title the first few months and having easily his best scoring season before injuries averaging 30.8 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 59.6 FG% over his first 35 games and Philly was 21-14, they went just 2-5 between his return, and ultimately went 39-28 when he played, and just 5-10 without him showing his impact. Barkley still finished at 27.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57 FG%. Despite a mediocre cast, which Barkley was used to in his prime, they made it to the second round, and Charles had a respectable playoff run individually, while Malone was far more underwhelming in the playoffs. I've only seen 1 game from the Milwaukee series, but the entire Chicago series. Charles averaging 23.7 ppg, 11 rpg, 7 apg, 2.7 spg on 52%. Not much he could've done in the Chicago series. He averaged 25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg on 64%, but MJ was in his prime, or arguably at his peak playing nearly flawless ball, Pippen really emerged in the second half and the playoffs becoming arguably the best small forward in the game, the Bulls adjusted to the triangle and the supporting cast had become pretty solid.

But other than our disagreement on '91, you're listing Barkley as better during every other year in his prime from '88-'93 and there was not a big difference between the 2 in '94 and '95. Charles was playing better ball before his injuries averaging 24.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 52.7 FG% and Phoenix was 22-6. He was not the same after that, and really looked incapable of consistently reaching his prime level by the Houston series when Otis Thorpe often looked to be outplaying him before Thorpe's own injury. So that's why I'd probably lean towards Malone in '94. And '94 was the start of Malone being a more complete player.

Charles started the season late in '95, but worked his way back and came on strong averaging 26.1 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in the second half of the season, though injuries took their toll again by the Houston series. He was really laboring in that memorable game 7 despite a 47/12 game earlier in the postseason to close out Portland. Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StateOfMind12
The biggest reason why Barkley was a better playoff performer than Malone was because he would conserve his energy in the regular season and save it all for the post-season whereas Malone was somebody that gave you his all out night in and night out regular season or post-season, didn't matter.


Nah, I think it's because Barkley's game translated much better to the playoffs. The playoffs are often when we see playerswho put up big numbers in the regular season, but have holes in their game, or play a style that doesn't work as well in the playoffs get exposed. I can cite numerous examples. But Barkley didn't have that problem because he was just one of those dominant players.

Quote:
Barkley wasn't much of a leader either compared to Malone. As I had stated, Malone was someone who gave you his all night in and night out, and had a contagious work-ethic. However, Barkley was someone who didn't have as strong of a work-ethic and was a pretty bad leader for the most part. He was a head case who fought his teammates in the locker-room, went out drinking all the time, was out of shape frequently, etc.

Malone did have unbelievable work ethic, that's evidenced by his remarkable conditioning and longevity. Phil Jackson also mentioned how eager Malone was to learn the triangle. Many veterans struggle to learn the offense, but Karl was a very good fit, imo. Compare him to Payton that same year who was much younger, but lost in the offense, or other veterans like Glen Rice in 2000 who was a terrible fit and reportedly didn't care too much to learn it, and Phil also said that Mitch Richmond didn't get playing time in '02 for similar seasons.

Malone also played in an offense that takes a while to learn in Utah when Sloan ran the flex offense, and Malone was of course the perfect fit.

Quote:
I personally want my star to be looking up upon, not down upon which is why I give Malone the edge over Barkley.

Fair points, but I'd rather have the guy who I'm confident will show up and dominate a playoff game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.O.A.T
Sometimes I am amazed at your recollection of events and the stunning objectivity you bring to them. I'd add in support of Barkley's conditioning not being a major issue how well he played in 1999 and the shape he was in to start the season. He matched or outlasted all his peers except Stockton/Malone in terms of longevity.

One of the changes I've made to my revamped list this year already is Barkley over Malone. As much as Malone's career numbers are better, I always thought Barkley was greater at his best and never believed in Malone. I may be biased, but it feels right.

Thanks, I appreciate it. And I always enjoy your posts as well. it's good to see posters who put a lot into their posts and love the game. I was shocked at how well Barkley played in that '99 series vs LA in particular, he was doing it a lot by backing in, but I recall a few vintage Barkley plays where he went coast to cast, just without the monster dunks. Charles averaged 23.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.8 apg, 52.6 FG% in the series. That Houston team was interesting, obviously a disappointment with Pippen not fitting in, but lost in all of that was Hakeem's comeback season after all of the injuries in '98. Despite the problems, even that old big 3 could've been dangerous. We saw how capable Barkley still could be, and Pippen was still one of the most capable all around small forwards as he showed in 2000 with Portland. It could've been an interesting series if Pippen and Olajuwon played up to their capability. Of course, Olajuwon was 36 and going up against a 27 year old Shaq.

Then again, I may be somewhat biased myself. I've been a big Barkley fan since I was a kid. As simple as it sounds, my uncle moved to Phoenix for a few years around the time Barkley got there and he talked about him quite a bit, so I ended up following his career. Malone on the other hand is a guy whose game I appreciate, but I find him to be a despicable human being. But I honestly don't think that comes into play for me when I rank him.

Last edited by ShaqAttack3234 : 06-28-2012 at 03:46 AM.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:04 AM   #33
StateOfMind12
Banned
 
StateOfMind12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,837
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234

Nah, I think it's because Barkley's game translated much better to the playoffs. The playoffs are often when we see playerswho put up big numbers in the regular season, but have holes in their game, or play a style that doesn't work as well in the playoffs get exposed. I can cite numerous examples. But Barkley didn't have that problem because he was just one of those dominant players.
It's a combination of both to be honest. I think Barkley coasting through the regular season definitely gave him extra energy and stamina to play in the playoffs and his game was a pretty good fit for the post-season as well.

Barkley had a fair amount of chokes himself though which is why I don't understand everybody constantly highlighting Malone's chokes but then completely ignoring Barkley's.

Just to cite a few examples of Barkley's post-season chokes

Quote:
Charles Barkley who blew two 2-0 series leads (one 3-1 lead), with seven of those fourteen games shooting under 45% from the field? The same Barkley that had four of those games also under 40% shooting, including an infamous 5 points on 0-10 shooting. He blamed it on it being an "afternoon game.." He only shot better than 50% in four of those fourteen games against the Rockets in both these series..
StateOfMind12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:25 AM   #34
magnax1
Not a mormon
 
magnax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: "Nothing wrong with Mao"-Moe
Posts: 19,987
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

I tend to go back and forth on Barkley and Malone. It's hard to ignore that Malone was a top 10 player for about 15 years, but it is true that Barkley was considerably better at his best, and in terms of offensive impact I'm not sure if there are 10 guys you can point to who were better then Barkley at his very best. Excluding his tendency to sometimes shoot questionable 3s and long 2s he played offensively almost exactly how you'd want a superstar to. Scored extremely efficiently, but he usually looked to improve his team mates chances as much as anything. I think more often then not those 3s he took were to try and get the defense to run him off the line and get more looks in the paint too, but I still dont like them.

Quote:
Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.
Well he had a big part in them losing game 5 by a couple points. It's one of the best examples of why he struggled in the clutch so often. As the defense got tighter at the end of the game, he just couldn't get good shots or position and basically threw a couple possessions away because of it. I think the only time he scored in the final 5 minutes was on a prayer 3 pointer, despite having most of the plays run for him.
Either way though, Houston was equally, or more talented and Hakeem's Rocket teams were built perfectly to exploit a couple of the mid 90's Jazz biggest holes. A very weak center position (Though Antoine Carr was great in some respects) and Utah's poor perimeter D at the time.
magnax1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:41 AM   #35
Shep
Decent college freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,585
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
I agree with almost all of your rankings, except Barkley was better than Malone in '91. Charles was the 3rd best player that year behind only Michael and Magic
actually he was 9th. behind jordan, scottie pippen, magic, david robinson, john stockton, hakeem olajuwon, karl malone, and clyde drexler.
Quote:
He was right up there with Jordan, Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge for the scoring title the first few months and having easily his best scoring season before injuries averaging 30.8 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 59.6 FG% over his first 35 games and Philly was 21-14, they went just 2-5 between his return, and ultimately went 39-28 when he played, and just 5-10 without him showing his impact. Barkley still finished at 27.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57 FG%. Despite a mediocre cast, which Barkley was used to in his prime, they made it to the second round, and Charles had a respectable playoff run individually, while Malone was far more underwhelming in the playoffs. I've only seen 1 game from the Milwaukee series, but the entire Chicago series. Charles averaging 23.7 ppg, 11 rpg, 7 apg, 2.7 spg on 52%. Not much he could've done in the Chicago series. He averaged 25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg on 64%, but MJ was in his prime, or arguably at his peak playing nearly flawless ball, Pippen really emerged in the second half and the playoffs becoming arguably the best small forward in the game, the Bulls adjusted to the triangle and the supporting cast had become pretty solid.
although i'll admit barkley had slightly the better playoff, malone had a much better regular season, and this is the difference here.

malone averaged 29.0ppg, 11.8rpg, 3.3apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg, and 3.0topg on 53%fg on a 54 win team
barkley averaged 27.6ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.6spg, 0.5bpg, and 3.1topg on 57%fg on a 44 win team

malone deserved 1st team all-nba honors, while barkley only deserved to be named to the 3rd team.

as for an underwelming supporting cast?
hersey hawkins was the third best shotting guard in the nba only behind jordan and drexler. hawkins stepped up his level of play in the playoffs more than barkley, and averaged 20.9ppg, 5.8rpg, 3.4apg, 2.5spg, and 1.3bpg, while shooting 47% from the field and 54% from the 3 point line, and they had fine role players like gilliam, mahorn, and anderson.
Quote:
But other than our disagreement on '91, you're listing Barkley as better during every other year in his prime from '88-'93 and there was not a big difference between the 2 in '94 and '95. Charles was playing better ball before his injuries averaging 24.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 52.7 FG% and Phoenix was 22-6. He was not the same after that, and really looked incapable of consistently reaching his prime level by the Houston series when Otis Thorpe often looked to be outplaying him before Thorpe's own injury. So that's why I'd probably lean towards Malone in '94. And '94 was the start of Malone being a more complete player.
yeh barkley was better than malone most years of his prime because malone hadn't entered his yet.
Quote:
Charles started the season late in '95, but worked his way back and came on strong averaging 26.1 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in the second half of the season, though injuries took their toll again by the Houston series. He was really laboring in that memorable game 7 despite a 47/12 game earlier in the postseason to close out Portland. Though '95 was one of the rare times Malone didn't disappoint me in the playoffs despite the first round loss. As funny as it sounds, Hakeem's 47 win Rockets were better and more talented than Malone's 60 win Jazz, particularly with a rejuvenated Clyde Drexler having three 30+ games in the 5 game series including 41/9/6 in the same game Hakeem dropped 40 in.
barkley had a better playoff than malone in '95, and it did make it close, but not close enough to combat malone's regular season domination.

at the end of the day malone and barkley were individually ranked based on what they did on the court, what isn't taken into consideration when ranking individual seasons is games played. if barkley played in as many games consistently as malone did, then he'd be alot closer in the all time rankings (which take into consideration percentage of games played). unfortunately for barkley and his teams, he was off the court alot of the time, which was obviously of no value to his teams. and finally, malone was voted as the nba's most valuabe player in a season in which wasn't one of his best 8 in the league. how many players can you say that about?
Shep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 05:09 AM   #36
eliteballer
NBA rookie of the year
 
eliteballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,522
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
actually he was 9th. behind jordan, scottie pippen, magic, david robinson, john stockton, hakeem olajuwon, karl malone, and clyde drexler.

Just laughable
eliteballer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 05:13 AM   #37
Dragonyeuw
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,916
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Barkley is one of the few players who when playing against prime MJ in the late 80s/early 90s, actually looked like the dominant player on the floor at times. That's how good he was in his heyday.
Dragonyeuw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 06:13 AM   #38
ShaqAttack3234
7-time NBA All-Star
 
ShaqAttack3234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,992
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
Originally Posted by StateOfMind12
It's a combination of both to be honest. I think Barkley coasting through the regular season definitely gave him extra energy and stamina to play in the playoffs and his game was a pretty good fit for the post-season as well.


I don't necessarily disagree, but even in a season like '93 after playing for the Dream Team(which seemed to take it's toll on other players such as Pippen, Drexler and even MJ), and then a regular season where he was motivated and busted his ass after a subpar '92 season when he was lazy and unhappy, he dominated in the postseason in '93. Several of his games in that run are among the best I've seen him play such as games 2 and 5 vs the Spurs and games 5 and 7 vs Seattle.

But what seasons did you think Barkley coasted in from '88-'93 except for '92 when he didn't make the playoffs?

In Charles '90 season, which many consider his best, I wouldn't say he broke down in the playoffs. He had three 30/20 games in 10 playoff games, though I will say that he had an uneven series vs Chicago and should've capitalized on game 4 when Pippen was out attending his father's funeral and Philly had a chance to tie the series at home. The Sixers had comparable talent to the Bulls in general, much less without Pippen. Then again, Jordan at his peak playing perfect basketball made it difficult. They gave him the outside shot, and MJ burned him all series long, mostly on jumpers, but exploited his size advantage on Hawkins in the post when he felt like it as well. But Charles should've played better and some of his struggles can be attributed to his poor free throw shooting that series.


Quote:
Barkley had a fair amount of chokes himself though which is why I don't understand everybody constantly highlighting Malone's chokes but then completely ignoring Barkley's.


In his prime? Not really, and compare his postseason play to Malone's. It's obvious to me that they aren't comparable in that regard.

Quote:
Just to cite a few examples of Barkley's post-season chokes

Can't argue with the Houston series, and Phoenix did have more talent than Houston, imo. Phoenix did have their interior defense exposed big time by Hakeem and Thorpe in the '94 season, though. That was their biggest weakness, and one of the negatives of having Barkley at power forward.

But Barkley was already looking like not quite the player he had been in that '94 series, and Barkley was talking about retiring after '94 because of his back.

And I'll never forget the image of Barkley hobbling around in game 7.

Those are choke jobs, partially by the whole Suns team....except KJ who was fantastic in both series, but at least this wasn't prime '88-'93 Barkley.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shep
actually he was 9th.

Barkley was never as low as 9th any season from '87 through '95.

Quote:
behind jordan

Yep

Quote:
scottie pippen

No chance, Pippen was great in the second half and postseason, but he wasn't there yet. As much as I like Scottie, and despite it being probably his second best playoff run and a breakout year, Pippen probably wasn't top 10 yet, and certainly not better than Barkley. Though Pippen did enter the top 10 in '92 and I'd be tempted to rank him above Charles that season.

Quote:
magic

Correct, he was number 2 as I mentioned.

Quote:
david robinson

Nah, but he has a case due to his defensive impact. But his 55 win Spurs were upset by the 44 win Warriors as they neutralized Robinson's impact, and David failed to really put his stamp on the series and dominate a tiny Warrirs team who were terrible defensively. Definitely a team he should have dominated.

This selection isn't outrageous, though, so I don't have a problem with it, just definitely disagree.

Quote:
john stockton

Stockton was never better than Barkley in any season until he was a Rocket. John was a terrific pure point guard and an excellent sidekick/complementary player, but at his best, he was borderline top 10. Just didn't have the true MVP-caliber ability to dominate a game that a guy like Barkley did. '91 may have been his best year, though, so if I'm feeling generous, I may give him the 9th ranking that you have Barkley, purely due to KJ being injured and unable to perform up to his standard in the playoffs. The same way KJ outplaying Stockton in the playoffs sealed his spot over Stockton in my '90 rankings.

Quote:
hakeem olajuwon

Nah, Hakeem was typically close to Barkley from '88-'92, and passed him after, but Hakeem missed 26 games, and when he returned, he was in a reduced offensive role averaging just 18 ppg upon returning to the lineup with Kenny Smith leading them in scoring and Houston succeeding with an up tempo style, outside shooting and screen/rolls as opposed to Dream carrying them in the post. Houston went 20-7 with Dream in the reduced offensive role, and they had a winning record for once with Dream out of the lineup going 16-10. This was a down year for Hakeem. He definitely wasn't better than Barkley this season.

Quote:
karl malone

No as I covered before. '92 was the only year from Barkley's prime when Malone was better, and that's because Barkley was a notch below prime level that year.

Quote:
clyde drexler.

Not a chance. Drexler had a very nice all around game, but was a guy who benefited greatly from transition opportunities and wasn't the type of dominant half court offensive player that Barkley he was. He wasn't the same type of player who would alter a team's entire defense, cause constant doubles and impose his will on a game. Besides, Clyde had the most talented team in the league, and they were upset by the Lakers. There's a visible difference between Drexler and Barkley when watching them. Out of their entire careers, Drexler was only better than Barkley in '98.

Quote:
although i'll admit barkley had slightly the better playoff, malone had a much better regular season, and this is the difference here.

Nah, Barkley had the better regular season too.

Quote:
malone averaged 29.0ppg, 11.8rpg, 3.3apg, 1.1spg, 1.0bpg, and 3.0topg on 53%fg on a 54 win team
barkley averaged 27.6ppg, 10.1rpg, 4.2apg, 1.6spg, 0.5bpg, and 3.1topg on 57%fg on a 44 win team

Barkley's team won 44 games because they were weak, they went just 5-10 without him. Charles scored almost as much on better efficiency while not being the beneficiary of Stockton's countless assists. Malone relying on easy baskets, particularly at that stage of his career is why his efficiency plummeted as usual to 42.4% in the semifinals when Portland knocked them out and 45.5% for the entire playoffs.

Barkley was also the vastly superior passer at that time.

At least Malone was arguably a top 5 player himself, but regardless of how close their rankings were, the gap in ability was still clear in '91.

Quote:
malone deserved 1st team all-nba honors, while barkley only deserved to be named to the 3rd team.

Nah, and if you did have a case for that statement, it'd be due to missed games, but 15 isn't enough. And 3rd team is way too low. Malone was the only forward besides Barkley who was even top 10 that year.

Quote:
as for an underwelming supporting cast?
hersey hawkins was the third best shotting guard in the nba only behind jordan and drexler. hawkins stepped up his level of play in the playoffs more than barkley, and averaged 20.9ppg, 5.8rpg, 3.4apg, 2.5spg, and 1.3bpg, while shooting 47% from the field and 54% from the 3 point line, and they had fine role players like gilliam, mahorn, and anderson.

Hawkins was a nice player who could certainly score, but in no way was he a top 3 shooting guard. In addition to Jordan and Drexler, Hawkins also finds himself behind Dumars, Richmond, Reggie Lewis and possibly Reggie Miller.

Gilliam was a talented post scorer, but he was a bad fit in Philly. This was because his game did not fit with Barkley's. Anderson was a nice bench scorer, and Mahorn was indeed solid. But that's not much depth, and precisely why they struggled to a 5-10 record without him

Quote:
yeh barkley was better than malone most years of his prime because malone hadn't entered his yet.


Fair point. Malone's prime started unusually late, and he may be the only all-time great to peak as late as 34 years old.

Quote:
barkley had a better playoff than malone in '95, and it did make it close, but not close enough to combat malone's regular season domination.

No arguments here, we're on the same page.

Quote:
at the end of the day malone and barkley were individually ranked based on what they did on the court, what isn't taken into consideration when ranking individual seasons is games played. if barkley played in as many games consistently as malone did, then he'd be alot closer in the all time rankings (which take into consideration percentage of games played). unfortunately for barkley and his teams, he was off the court alot of the time, which was obviously of no value to his teams. and finally, malone was voted as the nba's most valuabe player in a season in which wasn't one of his best 8 in the league. how many players can you say that about?

For me it's simple, you ask me who I'm taking between '89-'93 Barkley and '94-'98 Malone, and I'm taking Barkley without thinking twice.

That is interesting that Malone was voted MVP in a season that was nowhere near his best, though part of that speaks to the lack of quality seasons in the lockout year. And while I don't care about awards given out in a 50 game season, I'd have chosen Duncan.

And I thought about it, and I agree that Malone's '99 season wasn't even one of his top 8.
ShaqAttack3234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:48 AM   #39
senelcoolidge
College star
 
senelcoolidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: At home
Posts: 4,052
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

I agree Barkley was better than Malone..Jeff Malone.
senelcoolidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 10:12 AM   #40
Harison
The Awakening
 
Harison's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,434
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Barkley didnt played a lick of defense, therefore his advantage as a bit better go to guy doesnt give your team any advantage if you get outscored due to no defense

A lot of people miss this point for some reason, basketball isnt just about scoring (and Malone scored more as well, in Playoffs too), and Mailman was considerably better defensive player. He actually played both sides of the floor, while Charles was just coasting on D, saving all his energy for offense, and still he didnt reached Karl's scoring volume.

Speaking about Playoffs, Charles had better teammates overall, and yet he had less Playoffs success than Malone. No advantage for Barkley here either.

And lets not even touch work ethics... one treats his body like a temple, and another like a bag you can throw all junk food in.

No GM would pick Charles over Mailman, simple as that.
Harison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 10:46 AM   #41
2LeTTeRS
Retired Bloggissist
 
2LeTTeRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: www.twitter.com/EsquireSports
Posts: 6,684
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47DR91
Didn't the Sixers win the championship just two years before Barkley was drafted? I believe they did. He was actually drafted into the perfect situation. Two Hall of Famers in Moses and Dr. J and a 4-time All-Star in Cheeks. Still better than any situation Malone ever had.


Do you mean a better situation for getting #s or better for winning? Barkley's situation was definitely better for winning, but nowhere near as good to amass stats.
2LeTTeRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:05 PM   #42
JtotheIzzo
Admlnlstrator
 
JtotheIzzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wolviapolis
Posts: 14,192
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harison

Speaking about Playoffs, Charles had better teammates overall, and yet he had less Playoffs success than Malone. No advantage for Barkley here either.


why do people keep spewing this BS, Barkley's prime in Philly he had NO ONE, having Malone in years 1 & 2 and an old broke Dr. J for 2/3 of a season after is not great teammates. Unless you think Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson are stars, because they were the #2 and #3 scorers on Barkley led teams.

Malone played with a top 5 PG of all time for his entire prime, Barkley had Hersey Hawkins. The f*ck out with this nonsense.
JtotheIzzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:28 PM   #43
NugzHeat3
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,277
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnax1
I tend to go back and forth on Barkley and Malone. It's hard to ignore that Malone was a top 10 player for about 15 years, but it is true that Barkley was considerably better at his best, and in terms of offensive impact I'm not sure if there are 10 guys you can point to who were better then Barkley at his very best. Excluding his tendency to sometimes shoot questionable 3s and long 2s he played offensively almost exactly how you'd want a superstar to. Scored extremely efficiently, but he usually looked to improve his team mates chances as much as anything. I think more often then not those 3s he took were to try and get the defense to run him off the line and get more looks in the paint too, but I still dont like them.


Well he had a big part in them losing game 5 by a couple points. It's one of the best examples of why he struggled in the clutch so often. As the defense got tighter at the end of the game, he just couldn't get good shots or position and basically threw a couple possessions away because of it. I think the only time he scored in the final 5 minutes was on a prayer 3 pointer, despite having most of the plays run for him.
Either way though, Houston was equally, or more talented and Hakeem's Rocket teams were built perfectly to exploit a couple of the mid 90's Jazz biggest holes. A very weak center position (Though Antoine Carr was great in some respects) and Utah's poor perimeter D at the time.
I agree with your initial point but disagree with the bolded. I don't think he did.

The Jazz built a 82-75 lead with about 5 min to go in the quarter. After they did that, they tried running the clock down which ultimately led to the demise. Malone was getting double teamed in the post and if you get double teamed, you make the right play and the right play was hitting the open shooter and Malone just did exactly that. The guy they were helping off of, David Benoit, couldn't nail the threes. Malone was forced to take a couple of shots with the clock running down. That was bad strategy on their behalf since it was too early to play the clock game.

You can see the Desert News blames the loss on the lack of 3 pt shooting down the stretch as well.
Quote:
If you thought the Rockets' defensive scheme down the stretch looked familiar, you were right.
It was the same thing we've seen all season - double-team on Karl Malone, man-to-man coverage on everyone else except David Benoit, who was virtually ignored. That's why Benoit had a chance to shoot three open threes in the fourth quarter. If he'd made one of those, there's a good chance it would have been the Rockets committing desperation fouls in the final couple of minutes, instead of the Jazz.No one came right out and criticized Benoit afterward, but there were some comments that seemed to come close.
"We had some opportunities in the fourth quarter; we just didn't make baskets," said Jazz coach Jerry Sloan.
"To their (the Rockets) credit, they hit most of their outside shots," said Jazz guard Jeff Hornacek.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/4...OT.html?pg=all

Also, the Jazz were also very well built to exploit Houston's biggest holes BTW. That team was awful at guarding elite PGs yet Stockton didn't have as great of a series as he should've and they traded away Otis Thorpe and Carl Herrera was injured so they had no PF. Malone was guarded by Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown and Charles Jones for the most part and that's a major edge for anybody and it's not surprising he was able to have a dominant series getting to the foul line and forcing double teams. Horry didn't switch to the 4 until the PHX series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234
Charles is right, Malone never reached the level Barkley was at from '88-'93.

Charles was a better scorer, passer and rebounder, plus he was more athletic and more versatile. Charles was just the better and more dominant offensive player, that's why he was double teamed so often. In fact, out of players in Barkley's era or later, the only players I can think of who were doubled teamed as much as Charles was in his prime are Shaq and Hakeem. It's always been surprising to me how dominant he was in the post with his power game at only 6'5"-6'6". He's easily among the greatest power players of all time, and played both forward positions during his career. He played small forward in '90 and '91 alongside Mike Gminski and Rick Mahorn, and later at times when he played with AC Green in Phoenix.

Malone was definitely a better defensive player than Barkley, he developed until a great post defender around '94 or so. Remember Malone shutting down Robinson in the playoffs? He also developed into a very good passer around that same time, and he improved his jump shot while also becoming more polished in the post.

I actually really like Malone's game from '94-'00, but he was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, even when he became more polished. And Charles is right that be benefited greatly from Stockton, particularly late 80's/early 90's Malone. Though the same can be said about Stockton.

Malone got a lot of easy baskets running the floor, in screen/rolls with Stockton, and early on from lob passes over the top when defenders fronted him. Even the more skilled version of Malone was usually a disappointment in the playoffs, while Barkley showed quite a bit more dominance in the playoffs. Malone had more team success, but Charles was only on 1 contending team in his prime back in '93.

Late 80's/early 90's Karl Malone was still one of the league's best players, though. His post game was effective based on his quickness and strength. He was a great power player, and he did already have a jump shot, plus no 4 ran the floor better.

There's a common misconception about Barkley that he lacked longevity, but that's not true, we can't forget that he turned 30 in the '93 season, most players start to decline a bit shortly after that. He didn't remain at his prime level consistently due to injuries, and perhaps age, but he was still the second best power forward, and easily a top 10 player in '94 and '95. And he showed dominance even before his prime started in '88. Despite being raw in his second year in '86, he already probably established himself among the top players in the league.

His conditioning is also a misconception, his weight was not really an issue after his first year or 2 until he got to Houston. And even in Houston in '97, he averaged about 19/14/5 while sharing the ball with Olajuwon and Drexler and having his offensive game limited by the system. He was averaging 20/15 the first 2 months before injuries.

Malone's longevity was just superhuman, it was really only rivaled by Kareem and Robert Parish.

This isn't to say that Barkley didn't have his flaws as well. it's common knowledge that he was not exactly fond on playing defense, and he also had a habit of holding the ball too much which often led to turnovers because he'd leave his feet for cross court passes because he had trouble seeing over the double at times. He cut down on holding the ball by the time he got to Phoenix, and also improved his jumper. Though I don't think he had the same explosiveness despite getting in the best shape of his career and still being a very good athlete.
Great post. I agree on all counts. Barkley definitely had a better prime. I don't think he really cut down on holding the ball in PHX though. If anything, I'd say he increased it since he'd isolate a lot operating in the triple threat, holding the ball and often forcing longer, tougher jumpshots and he'd often look to exploit the illegal defense rule as well.
NugzHeat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 01:43 PM   #44
DCL
NBA rookie of the year
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,334
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

chuck had the all-around game that the mailman never had.

they were both strong but both really played differently.

as heavy as chuck was, he had guard skills/ but he hung with all the bigs as well and often even destroyed them completely.

karl had more overall points, but he wasn't as skilled as chuck in creative scoring. with chuck, you can give him the ball at the top of the key and then clear the *** out. no pick and roll bullsht needed.
DCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:25 PM   #45
magnax1
Not a mormon
 
magnax1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: "Nothing wrong with Mao"-Moe
Posts: 19,987
Default Re: Barkley: I'm better than Malone

Quote:
I agree with your initial point but disagree with the bolded. I don't think he did.

The Jazz built a 82-75 lead with about 5 min to go in the quarter. After they did that, they tried running the clock down which ultimately led to the demise. Malone was getting double teamed in the post and if you get double teamed, you make the right play and the right play was hitting the open shooter and Malone just did exactly that. The guy they were helping off of, David Benoit, couldn't nail the threes. Malone was forced to take a couple of shots with the clock running down. That was bad strategy on their behalf since it was too early to play the clock game.
It's very true that Benoit had an awful end to that game, but Malone had just as big of a part. I think I actually broke the last couple minutes of the game down for you once, and I'd do it again, but it seems the channel on youtube that had the game in its entirety has been taken down. The general problem wasn't that they were playing the clock. They actually continued to run their normal plays most of the time, but Malone almost always got into position with little time left on the clock, or just didn't get in a position where he could get the ball in the first place. Sloan after a while actually started to run some plays for Antoine Carr after a bit IIRC, and had better success, but switched back for whatever reason. So a lot of the shots off double teams players were getting were with very little time left on the clock, and they were doubling Malone farther out then they should have been which made it easy to play defense out of those doubles. Either way, Benoit had a couple open shots he should have hit though.

Quote:
Also, the Jazz were also very well built to exploit Houston's biggest holes BTW. That team was awful at guarding elite PGs yet Stockton didn't have as great of a series as he should've and they traded away Otis Thorpe and Carl Herrera was injured so they had no PF. Malone was guarded by Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown and Charles Jones for the most part and that's a major edge for anybody and it's not surprising he was able to have a dominant series getting to the foul line and forcing double teams. Horry didn't switch to the 4 until the PHX series.
Malone really didn't dominate the series. He was good no doubt, but dominant is a huge exaggeration. Either way, it just wasn't as big of an edge as having to double Hakeem every time down the floor because their Front court was built of two 6'8 players, or Drexler having like a 5 inch height and 30 inch vertical leap advantage on Hornacek lol. Carr was actually a good defender in the post, especially in some matchups (he did a fantastic job on Shaq) but it was still an awful matchup problem since Hakeem just shot right over the top of him.
Stockton had a good series excluding the last game. He had two 25+ point games and averaged 18 ppg for the whole series on a good shooting %. However he was not going to dominate a team offensively by 95 in almost any matchup, because he had lost quite a bit of his ability to get inside, which is where he was capable of doing damage in terms of scoring. Houston just played way off him to make sure he couldn't do that, and let him shoot 3s and long 2s, which he tended only to do as a last resort.

Last edited by magnax1 : 06-28-2012 at 04:27 PM.
magnax1 is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy