Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Barkley could throw down in his very early days (although he never had the monster one handed overpowering dunks Malone laid down), Id say pre-1990, he could also get up and down the court and had pretty good handles, but that was before he turned in to a blob.
No question Barkley was a better athlete than Malone, if you match peak to peak. Malone played around the key, and that was it. Barkley could dribble around people and up and down the court, you really wouldnt see much of Malone doing that, even at his best.
But we are saying 1992 Barkley, if you check out his Suns clips, he is still finishing, but he often looks labored to even throw it down with two hands directly under the basket, and there isnt much of him running up and down the court. What he became is basically an undersized paint guy, and thats where his downside lies.
I agree with you on Barkley being the better player because he did everything on the floor. Barkley was able to hit the three pointer, go coast to coast, defend, and post up. Malone on the otherhand was mainly a post player or spot up shooter who rarely went from one end of the court to the other. So Barkley was definitely a better player than Malone at the power forward position.
1. Barkley was a terrible 3pt shooter. He threw it up constantly, but he has a .266 career percentage to show for it. Karl Malone has a better career percentage, but didnt lay the brick houses Barkley did.
2. Barkley could go coast to coast in his early days, but after the Sixers, you never saw much of that any more.
3. Barkley was an average defender on the best of days. Generally, he was terrible and greatly outsized. As was already pointed out, Barkley consistently gave his team a disadvantage, Malone never did that.
I didn't say he did it all himself. To repeat myself, it's pretty obvious from anyone who saw both that Barkley was the more creative scorer, able to generate his own offense in a myriad of ways. That's irrespective of the point guards he played with.
Actually, after his early years, the only thing Barkley created for himself were offensive rebound points. By '93, Barkley had lost most of his speed and athleticism and was becoming the tub of goo we all know him as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977
Except I never said that Barkley was the more dependable player. I said over a 5 year stretch from 88-93, I consider him better than Malone. I'd hardly call the teams he played on 'loaded'. He played with good talent in Phoenix with KJ and Majerle, and then on an aging Houston Rockets team with Hakeem and Drexler, both of which were past their peak( though still good players obviously). His teams certainly weren't anymore loaded than any of the other good teams back then. You want loaded from that era, try the Portland Trailblazers with Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Duckworth, Buck Williams, Danny Ainge, Cliff Robinson. That's loaded. I'd say we have different definitions of that term.
Barkley played on teams with multiple all stars, amd multiple potential hall of famers almost his whole career. Sure the Blazers were loaded, but check the 88-89 Sixers, they had 5 guys averaging over 15 pts a game.
The Jazz were always pretty much Malone and Stockton. A couple pieces like Mark Eaton or Jeff Hornacek helped out along the way, but usually the Jazz were a collection of crap, and Stockton and Malone. The 96-97 Jazz that lost the finals, had just one guy averaging over 15 pts a game, Karl Malone. Offensively, Malone put the Jazz on his back for his whole entire career. In 96-97 Malone was involved in 32.7% of the Jazz plays, and 29.4% for his career. Barkley, for his career, never ONCE surpassed Malones AVERAGE offensive involvement.
Karl Malone carried the Jazz to the finals twice, packed them right up on his back and pushed through. Everyone on the whole entire court KNEW Malone was getting the ball over 1/3 of the time, and Malone STILL scored. He led the league in free throws attempted 7 times, thats how much he was D'd up and contested.
Barkley never carried a team anywhere. Hell, he barely touched the ball more than Mike Gmiski on that 88-89 team. If Barkley wasnt such an excellent offensive rebounder, he probably would have a sub 20 pt career scoring average, thats a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977
Barkley's laziness hurt his defense more than anything( though yes, at 6"6 there's only so much you can do defensively against bigger power forwards).So his size hurt his defensive rebounding, but not his offensive? Interesting....bottomline is he was an outstanding rebounder, ( lead the league one year) in an era with standout centers and power forwards. He's not going to have a problem rebounding against the 2012 team USA.
Offensive rebounding is much more about technique and placement, while defensive rebounding is more about size and boxing out. Offensive rebounding lends itself more to craft than pure size.
I have no doubt Barkley would rebound just fine, what Im saying is that Malone is the better defensive rebounder and probably would be more valuable to an high percentage offensive team, that is frustrating streaky 3pt shooters like Anthony in to tossing 3 balls up on the defensive side.
The game against Nigeria today was an absolute joke. If the US played hard for a full game they easily could have scored over 170 points and held them to under 60.
Barkley could throw down in his very early days (although he never had the monster one handed overpowering dunks Malone laid down).
You saying Barkley never had the monster one-handed dunks is like me saying Malone never had the monster two-handed overpowering dunks. Malone usually had to take a running start( like in the videos you showed) in order to get that kind of force to the basket. Barkley was able to grab the offensive rebound, and go straight back up with two hands over bigger opponents. He was the more explosive jumper....either way in the grand scheme of this debate it's not terribly important who 'threw down' harder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
No question Barkley was a better athlete than Malone, if you match peak to peak. Malone played around the key, and that was it. Barkley could dribble around people and up and down the court, you really wouldnt see much of Malone doing that, even at his best.
You'd be hard-pressed to find any videos of Malone dribbling around people up and down the court. Barkley was fully capable of grabbing the rebound, leading the break, and either setting up a teammate or finishing the play himself. Malone did not have that aspect to his game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
What he became is basically an undersized paint guy, and thats where his downside lies.
And he was still one of the most dominant power forwards in history. His lack of height only makes it all the more impressive, while you continue to belabour that point you'd also be hardpressed to find too many players more dominant at his position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Actually, after his early years, the only thing Barkley created for himself were offensive rebound points. By '93, Barkley had lost most of his speed and athleticism and was becoming the tub of goo we all know him as.
A bit of revisionist history there. While Barkley certainly lost mobility due to age and conditioning after 93, he was still capable of creating in the post, not just off offensive rebounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Barkley played on teams with multiple all stars, amd multiple potential hall of famers almost his whole career.
At what point did he play with any hall of famer that was in their prime, while he was in his prime? Moses and a past his prime Dr. J were on the team when Barkley started his career. By the time he got into his peak years, those guys were gone. Cheeks was past his peak by 88. Fast forward to Phoenix. Kevin Johnson was one of the better point guards, Majerle was a very good but not great shooting guard( and neither are in the hall of fame). And he took that team to two wins from the NBA title. After that was when age and lack of conditioning took away some of Barkley's mobility and physical skill, but he remained a great player. Hakeem and Drexler( and the one year with Pippen in 1999) were all past their peak when Barkley played with them. Even still, they were a John Stockton bail-out 3pointer at the buzzer away from the 97 finals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Sure the Blazers were loaded, but check the 88-89 Sixers, they had 5 guys averaging over 15 pts a game.
That team was balanced, but let's look at the players after Barkley averaging 15: Mike Gminski, Ron Anderson, Hersey Hawkins, Cliff Robinson. How many of those guys are in the Hall of fame? How many all-star nods amongst that group, aside from Hawkins? And if you're trying to use that as a point of comparison to the Blazers, no way was that Sixers team anywhere near as talented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
The Jazz were always pretty much Malone and Stockton. A couple pieces like Mark Eaton or Jeff Hornacek helped out along the way, but usually the Jazz were a collection of crap, and Stockton and Malone.
Let's not forget a guy like Jeff Malone. Pretty solid complementary piece. He also played with guys like Howard Eisley, Shandon Anderson, Antoine Carr, Byron Russell. Those guys were solid role players. And in reality, with the exception of Moses when Barkley first started, he never played with anyone as good as John Stockton. And Malone had him for his entire career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Karl Malone carried the Jazz to the finals twice, packed them right up on his back and pushed through.
Malone took the Jazz to the finals twice, Barkley led Phoenix to the finals once. Both lost.....what's there to brag about either way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Barkley never carried a team anywhere.
I guess you missed the 1993 season? The people who voted him MVP certainly didn't. Two games from the NBA finals in which he was the clear, undisputed best player on the team seems like carrying pretty far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
If Barkley wasnt such an excellent offensive rebounder, he probably would have a sub 20 pt career scoring average, thats a fact.
And if Malone didn't have someone like John Stockton passing the ball, what would his scoring numbers look like? I'm not sure what your point about his offensive rebounding contributing to his scoring numbers means in all this. Every great player has a 'skill' or skills that make them stand apart and contribute to their production. Offensive rebounding was one of Barkley's, but what's your point otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Offensive rebounding is much more about technique and placement, while defensive rebounding is more about size and boxing out. Offensive rebounding lends itself more to craft than pure size.
Technique and placement factors into defensive rebounding as well. But let's go with your comment; what you're saying indirectly is Barkley, being the better offensive rebounder, was more reliant on skill(craft) while Malone, being the better defensive rebounder, relied more on size. So all things being considered, Barkley was better in the area that requires skill. I guess now would also be a good time to point out that Barkley for his career, averaged 7.7 defensive rebounds, with a career high of 9.5 defensive in 96-97. Malone averaged.....7.7 defensive rebounds with a career high of 8.9. At least the raw stats would seem to contradict your opinion that Malone was the better defensive rebounder.
Last edited by Roman77; 08-02-2012 at 08:34 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
