Was Peak Charles Barkley better than Peak Karl Malone?

[Duncan21formvp]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.

[Tinseltime17]

Peak is the only thing Barkley has over Malone.

[Clippersfan86]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.

ISH favors entertaining or flashy players obviously. Lately it seems to be spreading like wildfire around here that Barkley is better than Malone despite the fact that nobody has ever really questioned that besides a few Barkley homers.

[Tinseltime17]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.

What does that have to do with peak?

[Dasher]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.

We're talking peak here, and if you use WS to determine both players peaks, though I wouldn't do this; Barkley wins.

There best PER postings are identical at 28.9.

I'd take Barkley from 89-91 over any form of Karl Malone.

[Clippersfan86]

What does that have to do with peak?

That's prime. Peak is absolute best of each player.

Peak=Barkley
Prime=Malone
All time rank=Malone

[Round Mound]

Yes by Far

No Malone wasn`t a Better Scorer than Barkley...Give Me A Break he Just Shot More...Especially Against Bad Teams

Malone Never Delivered in the Play-Offs Efficiently

[COLOR="Navy"]Malone shot 46.3% in the Play-Off s[/COLOR] for [COLOR="navy"]25 PPG[/COLOR] while [COLOR="Blue"]Charles shot 51% in thee Play-Offs[/COLOR] for [COLOR="Blue"]23 PPG[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Malone for Just 1 Bucket More for 5% Less Effectiveness[/COLOR]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-Point FGs and 2-Point FG% thats where you can check about how Efficient a Big Man is:

[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley Season: 21.6 PPG on Only 12.9 Two-Point FGs and 58.13% Two-Point FG%[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Navy"]Malone Season: 24.7 PPG on 17.5 Two-Point FGAs and only 51.9% Two-Point FG%[/COLOR]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley Play-offs: 22.5 PPG on Only 14.5 Two-Point FGAs PG and 55.13% Two-Point FG%[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Navy"]Malone Play.Offs: 24.6 PPG on 19.3 Two-Point FGAs PG and Only 46.5% Two-Point FG%[/COLOR]

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

Yes Barkley was a Better Scorer and in the Play-Offs not only did he have more 30-20 and 40-20 games and a 56 Point Game but also his Rebounding was Better at [COLOR="Blue"]12.9 RPG[/COLOR] vs [COLOR="Navy"]10.7 RPG[/COLOR]

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

Yes Barley was a Better Creator and Passer [COLOR="Blue"]3.9[/COLOR] vs [COLOR="Navy"]3.6 [/COLOR] in the Season and Play-Offs [COLOR="Blue"]3.9 [/COLOR] vs [COLOR="Navy"]3.2[/COLOR]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes he was Better [COLOR="Blue"]Stealer [/COLOR] and [COLOR="Blue"]Shot Blocker [/COLOR]aswell.

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

[COLOR="Blue"]Barkley has the Highest SPG Avg for a PF Ever....[/COLOR]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wan`t a Prime Resume and Analysis I Have that Too.

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

[COLOR="Navy"]Only thing Malone was Better than Barkley was as a Man to Man Defender Slightly (he wasn`t Tim Duncan or Garnett level) and as a FT Shooter[/COLOR]

[Clippersfan86]

I saw that coming . Round Mound literally comes to this forum purely to suck Barkley's di**.

[Round Mound]

[B]Not Only Did Barkley Outplay Karl Malone for 70% of Their Total 100% Head to Head Match Ups When HEALTHY and BOTH in Their PRIMES but he was [COLOR="Blue"]THE TOTAL BETTER PLAYER[/COLOR]

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

[COLOR="DarkRed"]PLAYER COMPARISON:[/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]

I saw that coming . Round Mound literally comes to this forum purely to suck Barkley's di**.

Nahh....I Just Have the Proof That You May Not Wan`t to See

Barkley Prime > Malone Prime
Barkley Peak > Malone Peak
Longevity? Its Not an Age or Endurance Debate but Who Was Better than Who

[oolalaa]

The fat man vs The choker.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Whoah10115]

Round Mound, I don't think it helps for you to post so many stats. Also, the font really doesn't help. It's hard to read and just too abrasive.



Now, I don't know where the idea comes from that only on this website is Barkley held in any regard over Karl Malone.


Karl Malone, peak, prime, career, whatever, is one of the greatest players ever. But at their best, Charles Barkley was the better player. I'm sure there are articles here and there and all that. But Barkley was better than any non-MJ during his prime. He was better than Isiah (who is slept on here), better than post 88 Larry (tho Bird was still incredible, especially in 89-90). Barkley was better than the raw Hakeem, who was just too raw in comparison. Barkley was playing the 3 for like 3 years.

[Round Mound]

Round Mound, I don't think it helps for you to post so many stats. Also, the font really doesn't help. It's hard to read and just too abrasive.



Now, I don't know where the idea comes from that only on this website is Barkley held in any regard over Karl Malone.


Karl Malone, peak, prime, career, whatever, is one of the greatest players ever. But at their best, Charles Barkley was the better player. I'm sure there are articles here and there and all that. But Barkley was better than any non-MJ during his prime. He was better than Isiah (who is slept on here), better than post 88 Larry (tho Bird was still incredible, especially in 89-90). Barkley was better than the raw Hakeem, who was just too raw in comparison. Barkley was playing the 3 for like 3 years.

Barkley did Outplay him for 70% of their Meetings (Got the Info) and in Both Their primes ages 22-31 or 32 before Barkley began to Get Injured... Barkley had the Better Raw Stats, Broken Down Stats, EFF, PER, WS, OWS, +/-, Shot Made Missed Diferential etc too.

Malone had the Longevity over Barkley that is Obvious but as 1 Player vs 1 Player on Who Was Better? Its No Contest. Barkley.

Barkley in the Play-Offs had More 30 and 20 and 40 and 20 Point Games than the Whole League but Shaq and somewhat Hakeem

Also, Barkley did not rely on a System Designed for him to Score like Stockton and SloanDesigned for him.

Malone shot 46% FG in the Play-Offs. Thats Very Bad a For a Big Man

Barkley, MJ and Hakeem where the 3 Best Players from 87 to 95.

[bdreason]

Yes.

[Whoah10115]

Barkley did Outplay him for 70% of their Meetings (Got the Info) and in Both Their primes ages 22-31 or 32 before Barkley began to Get Injured... Barkley had the Better Raw Stats, Broken Down Stats, EFF, PER, WS, OWS, +/-, Shot Made Missed Diferential etc too.

Malone had the Longevity over Barkley that is Obvious but as 1 Player vs 1 Player on Who Was Better? Its No Contest. Barkley.

Barkley in the Play-Offs had More 30 and 20 and 40 and 20 Point Games than the Whole League but Shaq and somewhat Hakeem

Also, Barkley did not rely on a System Designed for him to Score like Stockton and SloanDesigned for him.

Malone shot 46% FG in the Play-Offs. Thats Very Bad a For a Big Man

Barkley, MJ and Hakeem where the 3 Best Players from 87 to 95.

I obviously agreed with everything you said. But the way you laid out the stats is too long and too abrasive. And the font really doesn't help.