Karl Malone on Dan Patrick Show "Charles is the 3d Best PF, Duncan is a Center...

[QUOTE=Money 23]Malone and Barkley cancel each other out. Chuck's peak is way more impressive, legit MVP caliber in '90 and '93, all-time high level. But Malone's superior longevity and ELITE twilight cancel it out. I don't feel comfortable ranking one or the other over each other.[/QUOTE]

Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a team in mind for your project that features Barkley and a dominant defensive big?

Charles > Malone and Duncan offensively, his game had so much more variety.

[QUOTE=Sharmer]Charles > Malone and Duncan offensively, his game had so much more variety.[/QUOTE]

[B]As a Passer, Creator Offense and Rebounder Also Better:

Barkley Had 1 on 1 Skills closer to a SF
Barkley Could Drive and Spin Off the Dribble like a SF/SG
Barkley Had The Best Handles Ever for a PF
Barkley Had The Better Post Game, Only McHale Rivals his.
Barkley Could Go Coast to Coast on his Own, Dish Off or Finish His Own Break With a Dunk
Barkley Was a Better Clutch Shooter
etc

Barkley as a Total Player > Duncan & Malone[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]As a Passer, Creator Offense and Rebounder Also Better:

Barkley Had 1 on 1 Skills closer to a SF
Barkley Could Drive and Spin Off the Dribble like a SF/SG
Barkley Had The Best Handles Ever for a PF
Barkley Had The Better Post Game, Only McHale Rivals his.
Barkley Could Go Coast to Coast on his Own, Dish Off or Finish His Own Break With a Dunk
Barkley Was a Better Clutch Shooter
etc

[U]Barkley as a Total Player > Duncan & Malone[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

Disagree. Half of the game is defense, and Barkley doesn't hold a candle to Duncan on the defensive end. Difference/impact on defense > their difference on offense.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Do you have a team in mind for your project that features Barkley and a dominant defensive big?[/QUOTE]

Actually, the very first team I envisioned for this particular project was around Russell and Barkley before the finished team I have now, with Barkley being an upgrade over Tom Heinsohn, trading a power forward who was nicknamed "Tommy Gun" and "Ack-Ack" for the most efficient power forward in NBA history. Heinsohn was a defensive liability, and "Auerbach always accused him of not being in shape" (Terry Pluto, [i]Tall Tales[/i], p. 289). Russell said of Heinsohn in 1966, "He had more physical ability than any forward who ever played the game, but in my opinion he never came close to playing to his potential" ([i]Go Up For Glory[/i], p. 81).

In December of 1963, it was said that Heinsohn was "the game's greatest offensive rebounder" ([i]Christian Science Monitor[/i], Dec. 4, 1963), and Barkley has the fifth-most offensive rebounds since the NBA began recording the statistic with 4,260, with only Moses Malone (6,731), Robert Parish (4,598), Buck Williams (4,526), and Dennis Rodman (4,329) grabbing more. And of those four, only Malone (5.1) and Rodman (4.8) averaged more offensive rebounds a game than Barkley (4.0). So they'd dominate the backboards, with Russell being the GOAT defensive rebounder and Barkley being one of the GOAT offensive rebounders. "He has been called the greatest last-second offensive rebounder in NBA history because of his nose for the ball. If you need someone to get one crucial offensive rebound, Barkley is your man" (Sam Smith, [i]Chicago Tribune[/i], Jun. 7, 1993). I liked the idea of Russell getting Barkley out in the open court (or Barkley could grab the defensive rebound himself and go coast-to-coast), and I envisioned them being able to run in transition like the Showtime Lakers, but also post up in the halfcourt like the Lakers did with Kareem.

I finished Russell's J is Nashty in Miller Time first because I couldn't decide what SF I wanted to pair with Barkley (two of them had potential chemistry problems, one of whom there actually [i]was[/i] a chemistry problem), and there were a couple of directions I could go. I wanted the lead scorer with Russell to be a forward, and since I wanted it to be a transition team, that made Barkley and Erving my top choices. As I started thinking about the latter, once I decided the roles I was looking for, the team pretty much picked itself. I haven't thought of another center yet, as I still have to decide what centers are going to the other teams that won't be built around the Top 5 GOAT centers (Magic has Walton and Duncan has Robinson as he did in actuality at the beginning of his career, but I still have to decide on centers for Jordan, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron) in order to know who will be available, since I can't create teams in a vacuum and have to create each team relative to the others (e.g., whomever I pick for a certain team will be off the board and thus not available for any other team). I want the teams to be balanced, each team being capable of competing with the others.

[QUOTE=rmt]Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't make it true. The NBA and Spurs have him listed officially as a PF. And that's what he'll go down as - the GOAT PF.[/QUOTE]



This hurts the brain so much. Who is arguing that he should be considered a PF?


As far as natural position, he's a center. In any era, that's the fact. It's been discussed at length. Had Robinson retired before Duncan's rookie year, then Duncan would have been the starting center. Had the Celtics gotten him, he'd have been the starting center. Had any other team in the draft gotten the #1 pick, he'd play center. He played alongside one of the best ever and so he played PF.


I say it, because it is true. And it's only recent years that people argue it.


Someone said he's too skilled or whatever. What does it matter if he's skilled? Robinson had at least equal handles and was a much much better athlete, who played offense like a SF. So why don't we call him a PF or PF/C?

[QUOTE=eliteballer]Uhhh..he has less outside game than Hakeem DRob and Ewing[/QUOTE]


Absolutely.

And more than his teammate.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Without any fanboyism or stannery, Barkley peaked higher than Malone. In his fourth season in the league he was being spoken of in the same breath as Magic, Bird, and Jordan. No one ever did any such thing for Malone. In his sixth season in the league, Barkley received more first-place votes for MVP than anyone in the league, including a prime Magic, and including Jordan. The players themselves voted Barkley MVP, which is how it used to be determined at one point (Jordan went on record as saying Barkley was his choice for MVP, for those to whom that matters). In his ninth season in the league he won MVP outright over a prime Jordan and a prime Hakeem. And on the '92 Dream Team, "Barkley was the best player on the best team in the history of basketball," while Malone was the forgotten man. Barkley was also the better postseason performer. He did better against Jordan and the Bulls than Malone did, and Barkley faced a younger Jordan.

Malone had superior longevity and durability, which was why people started saying he was GOAT PF pre-Duncan, though Barkley had the superior peak when they were contemporaries, because Malone just kept going and going. If I'm building a team, I choose Barkley over Malone, and then I get a defensive big to cover Barkley's defensive weakness, as the whole point of building a [i]team[/i] is getting players that complement each other.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that essentially what I said, though? You just went more in depth.

[QUOTE=rmt]Disagree. Half of the game is defense, and Barkley doesn't hold a candle to Duncan on the defensive end. Difference/impact on defense > their difference on offense.[/QUOTE]

[B]Barkley wasn`t that Bad of a Defender he Was Above Average and Was The Best Floor Defender for a PF Ever Having the Highest SPG Avg for the PF Spot of All Time!

You Can Call Barkley a Lazy Defender but Bad? No Way In His Phily Days he Was Averaging Like 2 SPG and 1.4 BPG Thats Very Good for a Man His Height.

What u Call This?: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqYWjCCGRs[/url]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Was a Better Scorer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Rebounder than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was a Better Passer than Duncan Clearly

Barkley Was More Skilled than Duncan By Miles, Had the Superior:

-Post Game
-Mid Range Game & Fadeways Game
-More Difficult to Stop 1 on 1 Off the Dribble and Driving to The Basket
-And Go Coast To Coast Rivaled by No Other PF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Difference in Offensively Inside Is VERY HIGH!!!

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Navy"][U]Duncan and Barkley Inside the 3-Point Region[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[I][U]Season:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]21.6 PPG on 58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]12.9[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]20.2 PPG on 50.97%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]15.3[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

[I][U]Play-Offs:[/U][/I]

Barkley: [COLOR="Blue"]22.5 PPG on 55.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="DarkRed"]14.5[/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG.

Duncan: [COLOR="Red"]22.2 PPG on 50.47%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG Shooting...Taking [COLOR="red"]16.6 [/COLOR] Two-Point FGAs PG

* No They Are Not Close Offensively, Scoring Wise, Rebounding Wise, Passing Wise and Talent Wise... :no:

Barkley Shoots and Scores More... With An 8% FG Difference to Duncan. Thats like a Player Shooting 42% FG vs a Player Shooting 50%. In the Play-Offs The Difference is Lesser but Still The Difference is 5% FG a Player Shooting 45% FG vs a Player Shooting 50% FG.

They are Not Close Offensively :banghead:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/B]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Actually, the very first team I envisioned for this particular project was around Russell and Barkley before the finished team I have now, with Barkley being an upgrade over Tom Heinsohn, trading a power forward who was nicknamed "Tommy Gun" and "Ack-Ack" for the most efficient power forward in NBA history. Heinsohn was a defensive liability, and "Auerbach always accused him of not being in shape" (Terry Pluto, [i]Tall Tales[/i], p. 289). Russell said of Heinsohn in 1966, "He had more physical ability than any forward who ever played the game, but in my opinion he never came close to playing to his potential" ([i]Go Up For Glory[/i], p. 81).[/QUOTE]

Yes, I recall that quote from Russell; I was rather surprised, but some other accounts do back up the conditioning claims.

[QUOTE]In December of 1963, it was said that Heinsohn was "the game's greatest offensive rebounder" ([i]Christian Science Monitor[/i], Dec. 4, 1963), and Barkley has the fifth-most offensive rebounds since the NBA began recording the statistic with 4,260, with only Moses Malone (6,731), Robert Parish (4,598), Buck Williams (4,526), and Dennis Rodman (4,329) grabbing more. And of those four, only Malone (5.1) and Rodman (4.8) averaged more offensive rebounds a game than Barkley (4.0). So they'd dominate the backboards, with Russell being the GOAT defensive rebounder and Barkley being one of the GOAT offensive rebounders. "He has been called the greatest last-second offensive rebounder in NBA history because of his nose for the ball. If you need someone to get one crucial offensive rebound, Barkley is your man" (Sam Smith, [i]Chicago Tribune[/i], Jun. 7, 1993). I liked the idea of Russell getting Barkley out in the open court (or Barkley could grab the defensive rebound himself and go coast-to-coast), and I envisioned them being able to run in transition like the Showtime Lakers, but also post up in the halfcourt like the Lakers did with Kareem. [/QUOTE]

I prefer the Russ-J partnership, but Russell would complement Barkley amazingly well. There wouldn't be an issue of the lane getting clogged if Barkley wanted to work inside (since Russ didn't demand too many touches), and as you noted they'd be excellent in the open court.

[QUOTE]I finished Russell's J is Nashty in Miller Time first because I couldn't decide what SF I wanted to pair with Barkley (two of them had potential chemistry problems, one of whom there actually [i]was[/i] a chemistry problem), and there were a couple of directions I could go. I wanted the lead scorer with Russell to be a forward, and since I wanted it to be a transition team, that made Barkley and Erving my top choices. As I started thinking about the latter, once I decided the roles I was looking for, the team pretty much picked itself. I haven't thought of another center yet, as I still have to decide what centers are going to the other teams that won't be built around the Top 5 GOAT centers (Magic has Walton and Duncan has Robinson as he did in actuality at the beginning of his career, but I still have to decide on centers for Jordan, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron) in order to know who will be available, since I can't create teams in a vacuum and have to create each team relative to the others (e.g., whomever I pick for a certain team will be off the board and thus not available for any other team). I want the teams to be balanced, each team being capable of competing with the others.[/QUOTE]

How much thought have you given to pairing Barkley with Moses? The one issue with that is that would make it difficult to add a consensus top 10 player without making the team too stacked. Ewing might be a great call (I have a couple of his early 90s Knicks squads among the 10 GOAT defensive team seasons). Walton's already taken, so he's out of the question. Same with Lakers Wilt (that would also waste him, since you only want to use each top 10 guy once, and I'd imagine you want one of his Sixers campaigns; like Walton and Russ, Lakers Wilt probably works with almost anybody). Hakeem is another possibility (perhaps you'd be interested in Pippen as well, since the three of them played together in that lockout season).

[QUOTE=Money 23]Isn't that essentially what I said, though? You just went more in depth.[/QUOTE]

You didn't say anything about Barkley as a postseason performer vis-a-vis Malone, and I don't recall you saying you'd take one over the other if you were building a team.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]You didn't say anything about Barkley as a postseason performer vis-a-vis Malone, and I don't recall you saying you'd take one over the other if you were building a team.[/QUOTE]
Because I wasn't injecting who I like better. I'm talking about comparing their RESUME and entire career.

I quite clearly said Barkley had the superior peak. It's very much obvious he was the superior post season player. I didn't feel it need be mentioned.

I personally rather have Barkley, but when talking about their all-time ranking, Malone's longevity counts for something. What Chuck had in natural ability, Malone counteracted with hard work and remaining relevant for WAY longer.

[QUOTE=fpliii]I prefer the Russ-J partnership, but Russell would complement Barkley amazingly well. There wouldn't be an issue of the lane getting clogged if Barkley wanted to work inside (since Russ didn't demand too many touches), and as you noted they'd be excellent in the open court.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I like the way the team turned out and how they fit together. Before building that team I've always seen Erving paired with Magic on all-time team scenarios. If I didn't make the team I did, then Barkley would be my next choice. I still like that pairing though, and I may just finish the team as a backup team to see what it would look like. If there are multiple players pairings I like, I might just finish them out even though only one would be in the all-time league.

[QUOTE=fpliii]How much thought have you given to pairing Barkley with Moses? The one issue with that is that would make it difficult to add a consensus top 10 player without making the team too stacked.[/QUOTE]

Moses I hadn't considered, as he wasn't the defensive anchor I had in mind. He had the one year in '83 he was First Team All-Defense, but he wasn't the player I had in mind. He and peak Barkley would dominate the offensive glass though. And yeah, adding a Top 10 player to Barkley and Moses would make it too stacked for my purposes.

Moses is going to head his own team, though. I envision a 12-team league with two divisions, with team led by:
1) Russell (complete)
2) Magic (complete)
3) Duncan (starting lineup complete)
4) Kareem (3/5 of starting lineup complete)
5) Jordan
6) Wilt
7) Hakeem
8) Shaq
9) Bird
10) Kobe
11) LeBron
12) Moses

I wanted LeBron with his own team because I didn't want him paired with any of the above 10 players because it'd make the team too stacked, so then I needed one more player to make each division even.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Ewing might be a great call (I have a couple of his early 90s Knicks squads among the 10 GOAT defensive team seasons). Walton's already taken, so he's out of the question. Same with Lakers Wilt (that would also waste him, since you only want to use each top 10 guy once, and I'd imagine you want one of his Sixers campaigns; like Walton and Russ, Lakers Wilt probably works with almost anybody). Hakeem is another possibility (perhaps you'd be interested in Pippen as well, since the three of them played together in that lockout season).[/QUOTE]

Ewing's a good choice and might be available. He'd popped in my mind, but as I said, I have to decide what centers are going to the teams that aren't already built around centers that I have yet to complete.

I thought about Wilt, as if you're building a transition team (and I'd want to take advantage of Barkley's ability in transition), if Russell and Walton are already taken, then you'd want Lakers Wilt, as he anchored the '72 Lakers. But Wilt's going to be the centerpiece of the team, so I'd want '67 Wilt. Choosing him in his Lakers years would be wasting him since I want the team to be built around him, and he's going to be facing peak Russell, '00 Shaq, '77 Kareem, '77 Walton, and peak Hakeem at his position alone, without even getting into teams led by peak Jordan, '87 Magic, '86 Bird, etc. That would be handcapping him since he wasn't at his peak with the Lakers while everyone else will be.

Hakeem's a possibility, though despite the fact that they actually played together, Hakeem's team is going to run through him in the post, so I don't need Barkley, who would also work in the post as well when he's not on the break. Since I have everyone ever to choose from, there's no reason to choose players that have redundancies.