#23 Highest Peak of All Time (Barkley '93 wins)

[bastillon]

*Karl and Barkley are right on the horizon for me. I probably tend to lean towards Karl slightly more, because I do think he gives a significant defensive presence at the big man slots which is important to me. But I was more of a Barkley fan, thought Barkley was better at the time, and he was certainly more dynamic and fun to watch, so it's close. Again the decision that I need to make is how much to put into the available impact stats we have on Barkley, which don't paint him in as dominant of a light impact-wise as his numbers would have suggested. And on Karl's side I have to decide how much the playoff drop in scoring efficiency bothers me, how much I think was a function of how his team was built, and whether he contributed in enough other ways that he could still be big despite the scoring drop.

I'll just re-post some of the stuff on Malones and Barkley:

I feel pretty strongly about voting peak Ewing over peak Moses in this project (leaning towards '93 Ewing btw unless someone can convince me the '90 version was as impactful defensively). I'd prefer to build around Ewing, where you set your defense up pretty well and also get solid offense, vs Moses having more offense but a shaky defensive record. While Ewing having an uglier offensive skillset than his numbers worries me, Moses' offensive game isn't exactly pretty either, so it's hard to knock him for it. I think Moses is better offensively just... not by enough of a margin

Btw I dug up a post from last year when I looked at the DRB ranks of Moses' teams, because I was thinking heavily at the time about how big men who excel at getting offensive rebounds more than defensive ones, may be using their high skill of "tracking" the ball on the glass on the defensive end, thus chasing after rebounds instead of boxing out. Moses of course has one of the highest ORB to DRB ratios of all players in history, such as in 1982 having 47% of his rebounds on the offensive glass, 53% DRB. A guy I compared him to as on the opposite end of ORB/DRB ratio, Dirk, had 10% of his rebounds offensive in 2011, 90% defensive, and his team managed to have a lot of good defensive rebounding years. Here are Moses' team rebounding stats:

Moses
Rockets 77 - 5th
Rockets 78 - 15/22
Rockets 79 - 9/22
Rockets - 80 - 21/22
Rockets 81 - 11/23
Rockets 82 - 17/23
Sixers 83 - 13/23
Sixers 84 - 18/23
Sixers 85 - 15/23
Sixers 86 - 17/23 - This is a Barkley/Moses frontcourt year. WTF?
Bullets 87 - 22/23
Bullets 88 - 21/23
Hawks 89 - 22/25
Hawks 90 - 26/27
Hawks 91 - 7/27
Bucks 92 - 23/27

That's rough. I also looked at what happened to the team's after his moves - Rockets move from 17th in DRB in 82 to 18th in 83, Sixers move from 22nd DRB in 82 to 13th DRB in 83. So that's not a bad impact, though he was also replacing Daryl Dawkins, who has probably the worst size of human being to rebounding ratio ever. The Sixers are 17th in both 86 and 87, the Bullets are 20th in 86 and 22nd in 87. The Hawks go from 13th in 88 to 22nd in 89, the Bullets go from 21st in 88 to 12th in 89. The Hawks go from 7th in 91 to 8th in 92, the Bucks go from 21st in 91 to 23rd in 92. So the overall changing from team to team doesn't support Moses being an impact defensive rebounder.

Against Barkley, or the way he was utilized?

You see, I know that players are the ones playing the games, but we can't act as if coaching/coaching strategy/systems don't exist. They do, and they matter.

See, the issue is that you are implying the coaches would have just used Barkley wrong, while I say that the coaches used Barkley in order to achieve maximum team success. A player like Barkley, with his skillset and height, makes it really difficult to find fitting teammates to build a really, really good team. You need an incredible skilled big who can defend not only in the post, but is also capable of stepping out to compensate for Barkley's mistakes. Now what? The 76ers did not fall apart without Barkley, neither in 1987 nor in 1991. And when we look at the 1993 76ers, we see that they played -2.38 SRS ball for the first 40 games, just to collapse with internal trouble, coaching changes, etc. to -7.98 SRS for the last 42 games. Now, coaching matters, no doubt about that, but do you really think it would have been easy to just use different offensive and defensive schemes for the coaches in order to make a better team? Or isn't it the case that Barkley himself was the cause for the coaches to put him into that post position, because it would have been worse, if Barkley played a different position?

I see a similar thing with Moses Malone. Imagine Erving wouldn't have had the versatility to play differently with less touches, how would that have effected the 1983 76ers? The team had to change in order to accommodate Moses Malone. That's why we haven't seen such big impact by Moses Malone despite his massive numbers. When the clearly less productive Erving in 1983 was missing, the team lost a lot of it strength. As for 1983, I can see a couple of players replacing Moses Malone and the 76ers wouldn't lose much of their strength, while it would be tougher to replace Erving. If we would have the 1983 pbp data, I wouldn't be surprised, if we find that Erving was some sort of +6 to +7 player per 100 possessions, while Moses Malone was rather a +3 to +4 player. Obviously, it is important to have production and efficiency for a team, and Moses Malone was able to provide a lot of that production. I have him with +7.01 SPM during the playoffs, which is most certainly an impressive value. But that is hardly a value others, not selected players haven't achieved, while we actually saw a bigger impact by them.

I think in 1983 we just see a 76ers team, which is a good fit for Moses Malone, because they are unselfish with high basketball IQ, a team with Erving as their most impactful player. Moses Malone could play to his strength and was able to collect the boxscore numbers. And I agree with Doc MJ's assessement as well, we don't hear people raving about Malone's skillset, transcendent abilities, high basketball IQ, great decision making, whatsoever, people liking Moses Malone most times bring up raw ppg and rpg numbers, that is all. That he turned it over quite often even though he didn't pass often, is somewhat ignored, that Malone had limitations defensively seems to be ignored (heck, there were some people recently claiming he was a defensive anchor, which means they really had no clue how Malone even played). I don't think that Moses Malone had a great peak in the context of a 5on5 game, were his skill level and playing abilities would have allowed to build a great team with a great variety of teammates.

I see Malone and Barkley as players, who were able to produce and be efficient, which means they had for sure positive impact on the game, but even if we want to assume that their teammates for a big part were just not good enough, we have seen other players pushing similar weak casts to much more than those two players. And some of those players are still not voted in.

I actually tend to lean towards mysticbb's stance regarding Barkley, to be honest. Big box score numbers...but production like that is really not that useful when it's not leading to impact. The whole point is to make your team better.

I mean, yeah, but why is this always on the player? You can be a great player and be used incorrectly in the team context or not be in the ideal team environment (as a Heat fan, I would think that LBJ didn't forget how to play basketball on the offensive end between 2010 when he "impacted" his teams and when he joined the squad). Do the words "Jim Lyham" and "offensive genius"/expert" occupy the same sentence when you type your posts?

Ok but we have multiple instances of Barkley with a strong supporting cast, and not doing THAT great with them. I mean, when a player has different, but talented, supporting casts throughout his career, and the result isn't anything super amazing (or at least, isn't any better than what we've seen from other players, like Dirk or Nash), why does he HAVE to be voted soon?

Let's look at the offenses he's been a part of throughout his career, starting in 86 (when he became a 20+ ppg player):

86: +1.4
87: +0.0
88: +0.8
89: +5.2
90: +5.4
91: +0.0
92: +0.1
93: +5.3
94: +5.4
95: +6.2
96: +2.7
97: +2.1
98: +2.7
99: +3.2

So let's analyze some of these teams. From 86-88, he's a part of very average offenses, despite playing with still very productive versions of Moses, Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, and a plethora of double-digit scorers. The offenses are pretty elite in 89 and 90 finally, but again, he has quite a few very good scorers on his team. Impressive stuff, but nothing that some of the other players haven't done to a greater degree. The offenses once again become quite mediocre in 91 and 92...he does miss 15 games in 91, and using ElGee's SIO, we see that the Sixers were -1.2 without him, and +0.0 with him.

It's during 93-95 when his team offenses once again explode to elite levels, while playing next to KJ, who was injury-prone during this time.

KJ misses 33 games in 93, and the Suns were +4.5 without him, and +8.2 with him (+3.7). Also keep in mind that they had Dan Majerle on the team as well.

Both Barkley and KJ miss a bunch of games in 94, much of the same ones. The Suns played with KJ and without Barkley in 4 games (so very small sample size). In those games, the Suns had a 113.4 ORating vs an average 107.6 DRating (+5.8)...technically better than with Barkley. Like I said, very small sample size, and that wouldn't have held up for a whole season, but those Suns were clearly more than just Barkley, and they could sustain elite offense without him...kind of like they did with a healthy KJ in 97.

In 95, the Suns played 8 games with KJ and without Barkley, and in those games, they had a 110.2 ORating vs an average DRating of 107.9 (+2.3). Again, a very talented supporting cast that could certainly play strong offense with Barkley on the bench.

Personally, Barkley to me is someone whose box score stats overrate how good he was...he played with different supporting casts that were all quite strong, and the offenses were never truly historic (at least in the regular season, haven't checked the playoffs), like we've seen with players like Dirk or Nash, who aren't as impressive by the box score.

I think at some point, when a player is playing with different talent and the results just aren't at the level that's expected, it's time to start looking at the player (Barkley has poor portability imo) and to stop assuming that the coaches or the teammates just don't allow him to play an ideal role.

To be clear, Barkley did lead some really strong offenses, but at this level of peaks, Dirk and Nash have led stronger offenses on a routine basis. Furthermore, this doesn't even get into the fact that Barkley was worse as a defensive piece than either of them.

I see some of Barkley's awesome offense but poor defense arguments to be similar to some of Nash's. However, this issue at the 4 is very large when compared to the defense that is needed by the pg. PG's effect on the defense has been shown to be small when compared to that of the front-court.

And that's where the issue with Barkley basically comes from. His weak defense while occupying the inside position makes it tough to find the fitting frontcourt partners for him. Essentially, you need a bigger guy who can defend, but is still skilled enough to step out of the zone and make things happen. Ilgauskas would have been a pretty good complementary player next to Barkley, but those kind of players just aren't available that often.
It is a limitation and a clear problem, which is why it shouldn't be such a big surprise to not see as big of a difference between Barkley in and Barkley out. But it seems as if that kind of reasoning is offensive to some people and thus it should be ignored specifically for Barkley.

That obviously doesn't mean that Barkley sucks, especially under the light that we expect an average player to have 0 as in/out or on/off, in order to have someone "sucking" we would need to see a huge negative value. But that seems to be not that easy to grasp for some people around here.

I think the issue in this discussion is related to the same issue in Iverson discussion, while it is not the same group of people, there are still some people giving Iverson more credit, because he is smaller than an average player (even guard). As if being small and accumulate stats is making the stats more valuable. The same thing I see with Barkley, were his build is actually used to prop him up, making it seem as if a rebound by a 6'6'' PF would be worth more than the rebound by a 6'10'' PF. It is not, and while the 6'10'' can take rebounds away from his teammates, a 6'6'' can do the same. Matter of fact is that some of Barkley's production and efficiency advantage over his replacement players was compensated by the 76ers, that puts his numbers into a context. It is essentially similar to Moses Malone or Kevin Love today, and be assured, if Kevin Love would have played on the Spurs in 2012, while Spurs then would go on to win the championship, we would see a myriad of people pushing Love 2012 for a much higher peak level than he really had. In the end, Love could be the same +3.5 player he was last season, but people would likely be convinced that Love was the most valuable player in 2012, because of ppg and rpg.

Moses, Barkley - I'd like some evidence that they had all time high impact on their teams. both were poor defenders (major flaw for bigs) and greatest offensive rebounders ever while offensive rebounding is probably the least important stat of all (the weakest correlation to scoring margin). I loved Mufasa's breakdown of Moses rebounding, how little he impacted his team's DRB%. why didn't Moses and Barkley run through the league in 1986 ? both were really in their physical primes. they were overrated, that's why. why else would they post 16/23 DRB% as a team if Moses and Barkley were such great rebounders ? IMO Dr J was just as impactful or even moreso in 1983, the same case can be made for 90s KJ (people constantly overlook how good he was in the postseason, he had several explosions in the postseason).

Malone - also overrated to some extent by his raw boxscore stats. particularly because of his scoring. his ppg numbers REALLLYYYY overstated how good he was as a scorer. he had like couple reliable moves, his jumpshot was pretty good (though inconsistent at times) and he could draw tons of FTs and pass very well. but his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking and this is why he regressed so often in the playoffs (that + John Stockton taking a lesser role resulting in Malone carrying too much). his consistently lower playoff scoring averages and efficiency were somewhat similar to D-Rob. he's another guy whose scoring numbers overstated his abilities and that was exposed in the playoffs. IMO Kevin McHale was a better scorer in terms of abilities than Karl Malone, D-Rob OR Moses. I don't like fundamentally flawed players.

Dirk is a guy whose scoring skills are far better than his ppg averages and that is why his offensive impact is so incredibly big. I just don't see any of the guys previously mentioned carrying so much of a load on that offensively depleted team (11 Mavs). this is also why Dirk improved in the playoffs consistently and delivered when he was asked to do more and more. Malones or D-Rob simply can't do that.

Dirk is better than several players already in and I actually think he's close to KG/Walton/Dr J ballpark.

I actually think Moses is a solid post defender. He had the strength to keep guys away from getting good position, this really bothered KAJ at times, and in general doesn't give up anything too easy one on one.

But why was he a bad defender?

- Moses was relentless on the offensive boards, which sounds like a good thing, but at a certain point, this also kept him from getting back on defense. This is something that's pretty clear to me after watching his games.
- He was consistently the most turnover prone center in NBA history. He had 8 (!) NBA seasons where he averaged more than 3.5 TO/game (by far more than any other C). Sometimes these were turnovers which don't hurt you defensively (like offensive fouls) but a lot of times it was him forcing plays which ended up creating very easy fast break points for the opponent. He also did not handle double teams well, forced a lot of bad shots which again resulted in leak outs for the opponent. So his offensive game fundamentally hurts his teams on defense.
- He doesn't protect the basket well, his team defense can be lackadaisical (possibly tied to the enormous amount of energy he spent on the offensive boards) and he doesn't cover for his teammates like a good defensive center should. The Sixers overcame this because of how dominant the defensive combination of Dr. J, Cheeks and Toney/Jones was (those guys were on some GOAT level **** with their defensive activity on the perimeter).

With all these factors combined, I'm trying to figure out if team defense wise he's at the level of a liability or if he's just mediocre.

And count me as someone who doesn't think it's at all obvious who the best player on the '83 Sixers was, which doesn't say a lot of good about Moses considering Doc was past his prime by then. People need to really get over Moses' raw stats because you're never going to assess him as a player properly if you let yourself get enamored with them (we saw this with Wilt in the past here). He's a flawed player on both sides of the ball whose game produces better numbers than it does impact.

Here is what I responded to:

I'd love to bring Karl Malone into the discussion as well, as I tried to do a thread or two ago, but I'm still not in a position to do it myself and so far no one else has picked up the gauntlet except for ElGee briefly. Barkley at least generated some conversation last thread, but so far nothing on Karl Malone

Malone - also overrated to some extent by his raw boxscore stats. particularly because of his scoring. his ppg numbers REALLLYYYY overstated how good he was as a scorer. he had like couple reliable moves, his jumpshot was pretty good (though inconsistent at times) and he could draw tons of FTs and pass very well. but his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking and this is why he regressed so often in the playoffs (that + John Stockton taking a lesser role resulting in Malone carrying too much). his consistently lower playoff scoring averages and efficiency were somewhat similar to D-Rob. he's another guy whose scoring numbers overstated his abilities and that was exposed in the playoffs. IMO Kevin McHale was a better scorer in terms of abilities than Karl Malone, D-Rob OR Moses. I don't like fundamentally flawed players.

Bastillon says "his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking." Now, if you think of Malone as having the historical level stats I posted, then it seems my point reinforces bastillon's. I was assuming (falsely?) that the PS numbers were being referenced, or at least were part of the reference, since this is all I heard about re: Malone's scoring these days. (This is why I say he was actually understated.) I cited the RS numbers to give people context for the PS numbers -- I definitely should have been clearer there. Let me expound.

What I'm saying is that this is not a 25 ppg 55% TS guy taking a dip bc of this skillset down to 20/50% without any team changes. Instead, the RS numbers need to be remembered in interpreting what happened to Utah in the PS. This is a 27 ppg/58% guy changing to 27 ppg/53%...but there are also circumstantial changes to consider.

I've written about the change in role in the PS, largely IMO bc Stockton was incapable of certain things for the heart of Malone's career. The rest of the team's turnovers plummet http://www.backpicks.com/2012/02/29/was ... -pressure/ (an indication they are "doing" less), for example, as Malone does more. (I'd call it unipolar, but I have a lot of respect for the Jazz offensive sets.) As a result, we see Malone in more iso situations, absolutely.

With jordan, Shaq and Hakeem as the only other better statistical PS scorers of the period (or perhaps Reggie Miller?)...

I've written about this before... http://www.backpicks.com/2012/02/07/joh ... -failures/ Most players will drop no more than 1.5% in TS% more than we "expect" in the PS based on their opponent strength. Malone drops more than any other notable star since the merger, at 3.9%.

You know who else has an enormous drop? His teammate, Stockton (-3.4%). Chicken, meet egg. But if you believe that Stockton was helping Malone get better shots, only Stockton's own game limits the pressure he can put on a PS defense, then that shifts some of the role to Malone (which bastillon was saying). That we still see 27 ppg scoring and excellent offensive results (remember Malone was a fantastic passer) means it doesn't make much sense to say his scoring was "REALLLYYYY overstated."

The 94 Jazz had "second options" of Horny and Stock...but really Stock was a PG who wasn't going to take over the game scoring and he didn't have the same scoring threat we see today from guys like Paul or Nash (heck it wasn't close to the same as Penny.) Horny was a spacer/shooter, and a good one, and his arrival boosted the Jazz offense. So what you get is:

94 Malone 27 ppg 53% TS (Hornacek 15 ppg/59%, Stockton 14/52%)
95 Malone 30 ppg 55% TS (Hornacek 12/60%, Stockton 18/55%)
96 Malone 27 ppg 50% TS (Hornacek 18/65%, Stockton 12/60%)
97 Malone 26 ppg 50% TS (Hornacek 15/57%, Stockton 16/63%)
98 Malone 26 ppg 53% TS (Hornacek 11/53%, Stockton 11/57%)

Malone's A 27 ppg, 53% TSer who was carrying an enormous load. The Jazz postseason offenses in those years were:

Utah PS offenses
94 +4.5
95 +8.5
96 +6.7
97 +6.5
98 +0.1 (and that was +4.3 in the WC PS before the debacle in Chi)

So you're left with a scorer, who is the primary scorer, who is scoring at a rate that only the all-time best eclipse, and his team's ORtg changes correlate strongly (0.77 from 92-98) with his individual ORtg changes. Here are the players I consider to be better offensive post players and their PS numbers*:

Hakeem (93-95): 27/57%
Shaq (00-02): 30/56%
Kareem (77-80): 32/62%
Dirk (09-11): 27/62%
Barkley (89-93): 26/58%

And here's the crux of the point: If Malone could maintain his volume/efficiency (27/58%) despite the changes in what his teammates were doing in playoff series...he'd actually be raising his game significantly. Significantly! Heck, 27/56% would be raising his game a lot because that would simply be the "expected" TS% against those defenses. This is, in a statistical sense, what Hakeem did (and why he was voted in at No. 5). If Malone was doing this, he'd quite likely have multiple championship rings and we'd have voted him in a long time ago.

So I guess bastillon put me in an"overrated/underrated" subjective booth. If you think of Malone as a 30/60% guy, then that does really overstate him as an iso scorer. If you think of him as a 27/53% guy on a good team (or for some, a really good team), that understates him as a scorer. Who cares about the semantics here though, when the important point is that Malone is an excellent scorer who is just a cut below the all-timers.

*Malone 92-98 is 27/53% (103.9 opp DRtg). He's +1.6% aTS% gainst his opponent's, and when we incorporate how good of a passer he was, there just simply aren't any bigs left who are better offensively. Other bigs in their prime as PS scorers:

Duncan 23/55% v 103.7 DRtg teams
Moses 23/55% v 103.2 DRtg teams
Ewing 23/55% v 105.1 DRtg teams
Robinson 23/55% v 106.5 DRtg teams

This would me my assessment of Malone's scoring, I don't think "scoring without Stockton" is as much of an issue as other things...

- Amazing at getting the ball in traffic and either finishing or drawing fouls due to his strength. He had some of the best hands ever, doesn't matter who is throwing him the ball or what system he is in, he will always find a way to score off other players unless he plays on a team with literally zero ball movement.
- His ability to go to the right spots on the floor is a SKILL. The problem is, that sort of scoring can't be relied upon against a good set defense trying to make a stop. It's a good way to tack on the points when the defense lets up or makes mistakes however.
- In an iso situation, pretty much the only shot prime Malone was shooting was a 12-15 foot fallaway over a defender. He could mix it up over the course of a game, give you a little jump hook sometimes, face you up and drive, but 9 times out of 10, if you give him the ball and get out of his way, it's going to be that fallaway. I hate that shot, well not the shot itself but how many times he shot it. That sort of somewhat one dimensional iso-scoring is the reason he couldn't come through as a scorer in the playoffs at the rate you'd expect from someone with his averages. It's why when his jumper is on, he'll look unstoppable, shoot like 15/26 in one game but be 9/24 and 6/19 in the next two while taking the exact same shots. His consistency as an iso-scorer is just not where you'd like it to be.
- Stockton was responsible for a large number of late 80s/early 90s Malone's points. When people exagerrate and say Stockton spoon fed Malone, this is the version they are referring to. Malone became less and less dependent on Stockton as the years rolled by.
- As the 90s went on, his game progressed to being more finesse based (he could still make midrange shots when he was young, but didn't shoot them as often as later on), he also became a better one on one scorer (but again...I hate that fallaway) and with added experience he of course read defenses better and became a really good passer as well (over the shoulder no look pass being his trademark, great and hitting cutters and outlet passing).
- His conditioning was epic, he was probably the best forward ever at beating his man down the floor for an easy fastbreak basket. This again, is something teams can cut down when they adjust for it in the playoffs.
- PnR beast, in his younger days he attacked more off the PnR, in the MVP years he popped for the jumper.
- In general he got more easy baskets than any 25+ ppg guy I've consistently seen. Combination of playing with the best PG at delivering the ball, the offensive system Utah ran which creates lots of easy baskets off cuts and backscreens and to Malone's credit, him having a scorer's nose for where to be on the floor. Those easy baskets aren't quite as readily avaliable in the playoffs with better defensive teams so that contributes to decline in his playoff scoring as well.

This is why I don't see Malone's drop off in the playoffs as "choking", but as a drop off that can be naturally expected from him given his skills as a scorer. He was better at scoring on paper than a guy like Duncan...but he was better at things that are more likely to be taken away in the playoffs. That is why he's overrated as a scorer.

Another quick visual anecdote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsuLF0DqzU[/youtube]

Great performance but this shows exactly what people already criticize about Malone's game. Too many jumpers! In a game he was "on", he's going to look amazing, but he didn't mix it up in these years, his iso-scoring is too dependent on them. The thing that bothers me is that I believe he had the talent and body to score in so many more different ways, but he just fell in love with that jumper. It's a non-attacking shot which bails out defenses, it kept him from utilizing all of his skills, it was an inefficient shot against playoff defenses in isolation and it's why he couldn't pace his scoring like truly great scorers who know they can get theirs in a variety of ways whenever they want at any point of the game.

I already know Karl can shoot a jumper for me on command, but your jumper can't be on every game (especially if you're not a pure shooter) so what then can Malone do for me when I need him to score on isos? It's not an efficient shot in isos especially when it's your only real "go to" move. In the game before that one he shot 6/21, in the game after he shot 7/21. Too many jumpers and the result is very erratic iso-scoring where he looks like a world beater one night and hopeless the next night.

[colts18]

I'd like to hear the argument of CP3 ahead of Malone? Malone led his team to the finals and almost beat MJ. The supporting cast Malone had was worse than CP3's and Malone's game 5 and 6 performances were ridiculously good. If Stockton makes that shot, I think Utah wins in 7.

[C-izMe]

I'd like to hear the argument of CP3 ahead of Malone? Malone led his team to the finals and almost beat MJ. The supporting cast Malone had was worse than CP3's and Malone's game 5 and 6 performances were ridiculously good. If Stockton makes that shot, I think Utah wins in 7.

Wait a second... You'll rather have David West and Tyson Chandler than John "f**king" Stockton and Jeff "the-first-Manu" Hornacek? His supporting cast was better by some distance.

[colts18]

After Hornacek and Stockton, the Jazz literally had nothing but scrubs. Stockton was older and banged up at that point so he wasn't effective vs. the Bulls. Of course Hornacek also sucked vs. the Bulls though that might be due to MJ. The rest of the Jazz couldn't do anything to help Malone. Don't forget about Peja and Mo Peterson who were solid offensive options that spread the floor for CP3.

[C-izMe]

After Hornacek and Stockton, the Jazz literally had nothing but scrubs. Stockton was older and banged up at that point so he wasn't effective vs. the Bulls. Of course Hornacek also sucked vs. the Bulls though that might be due to MJ. The rest of the Jazz couldn't do anything to help Malone. Don't forget about Peja and Mo Peterson who were solid offensive options that spread the floor for CP3.

All they could do was shoot. That doesn't make you better than Ostertag for example. Just two different types of one skill players. Calling them solid offensive options is laughable considering both are out of the peace only a few years after (and that 09 was the last time either of them saw the court much).

[tsherkin]

Wait a second... You'll rather have David West and Tyson Chandler than John "f**king" Stockton and Jeff "the-first-Manu" Hornacek? His supporting cast was better by some distance.

And why are you equating the taller, more athletic and more dynamic off-the-dribble Manu to Jeff Hornacek, exactly?

[Dr Positivity]

Vote 93 Barkley

I definitely like Barkley over Moses. Barkley seems like clearly the better offensive player to me as a scorer, passer, etc., one of the true offensive giants. Moses has great offense for a C but he's no Barkley IMO. Defensively Moses looks a little better, but when positional weighting is put in (Barkley can be put beside a defensive center, harder to find a defensive PF) the gap doesn't seem massive to me. Enough that I'll side with the scarier offensive force

Barkley over Karl because I don't trust playoffs Karl

Barkley v Tmac is then my choice. Tmac is hard for me, I'm not sure about his attitude and I'm not sure about his short playoff run when compared to an extended PS with huge moments like Barkley's. I think I'll side with the older, playoff proven Barkley here

[C-izMe]

Wait a second... You'll rather have David West and Tyson Chandler than John "f**king" Stockton and Jeff "the-first-Manu" Hornacek? His supporting cast was better by some distance.

And why are you equating the taller, more athletic and more dynamic off-the-dribble Manu to Jeff Hornacek, exactly?

I was saying he's the same type of player. He's not as good but he's a slightly worse at everything version of Manu.

[tsherkin]

I was saying he's the same type of player. He's not as good but he's a slightly worse at everything version of Manu.

I don't see that at all. Bum knee dude who was never terrifically athletic in the first place, shorter, way less dynamic at dribble penetration. That was half of the problem the Jazz had with Chicago, they didn't enjoy any kind of serious on-ball attack threat or perimeter athleticism. They didn't play with anything like the same kind of frenetic energy.

[C-izMe]

I was saying he's the same type of player. He's not as good but he's a slightly worse at everything version of Manu.

I don't see that at all. Bum knee dude who was never terrifically athletic in the first place, shorter, way less dynamic at dribble penetration. That was half of the problem the Jazz had with Chicago, they didn't enjoy any kind of serious on-ball attack threat or perimeter athleticism. They didn't play with anything like the same kind of frenetic energy.

Hornacek could get to the rim pretty well. Again not as good as Manu but still good he's good enough.

[colts18]

Don't forget that David West was an all-star player.

[tsherkin]

Hornacek could get to the rim pretty well. Again not as good as Manu but still good he's good enough.

He was a very good player, but he didn't look anything at all like Manu on the court.

[C-izMe]

Don't forget that David West was an all-star player.

It's a meaningless accolade IMO.

Hornacek could get to the rim pretty well. Again not as good as Manu but still good he's good enough.

He was a very good player, but he didn't look anything at all like Manu on the court.

A great passer with crafty handles and a tendency for making crafty moves at any chance he got. Very Manu like IMO.

[tsherkin]

A great passer with crafty handles and a tendency for making crafty moves at any chance he got. Very Manu like IMO.

Not stylistically. He was an impact player, no question, but he's only superficially similar to Ginobili. Again, lacks the size, lacks the athleticism, lacked the kind of frenetic energy, not as dynamic off of the dribble (in part because of the difference in size and athleticism)... Hornacek was a very good player. He was more measured in his approach, though, and a more dangerous scoring threat while he was on the floor, and is a better defensive presence as well. There's more total impact from Ginobili and significant differences in their approach to the game, it's a weak comparison.

[bastillon]

A great passer with crafty handles and a tendency for making crafty moves at any chance he got. Very Manu like IMO.

Not stylistically. He was an impact player, no question, but he's only superficially similar to Ginobili. Again, lacks the size, lacks the athleticism, lacked the kind of frenetic energy, not as dynamic off of the dribble (in part because of the difference in size and athleticism)... Hornacek was a very good player. He was more measured in his approach, though, and a more dangerous scoring threat while he was on the floor, and is a better defensive presence as well. There's more total impact from Ginobili and significant differences in their approach to the game, it's a weak comparison.

you're saying Hornacek was a better DEFENSIVE presence ? I hope that's just some typo. anyway this comparison is flawed on every level. Hornacek didn't have borderline superstar impact like Ginobili had. Hornacek was an off ball perimeter shooter/passer, Ginobili is a huge threat off the dribble. different impact, different style. Hornacek is more like homeless version of Larry Bird playing combo guard. Ginobili is just a different type of player.

Vote 93 Barkley

I definitely like Barkley over Moses. Barkley seems like clearly the better offensive player to me as a scorer, passer, etc., one of the true offensive giants. Moses has great offense for a C but he's no Barkley IMO. Defensively Moses looks a little better, but when positional weighting is put in (Barkley can be put beside a defensive center, harder to find a defensive PF) the gap doesn't seem massive to me. Enough that I'll side with the scarier offensive force

Barkley over Karl because I don't trust playoffs Karl

not sure if you read the comments about Barkley I re-posted. to me there's a pretty huge gap between Moses and Barkley on defense. Moses can actually be a good HCO defender/part of a good defensive team. Barkley just suck defensively, period. check out some of the averages of opposing PFs against Barkley. look at the 93 postseason of Kemp for a good measure:

14.8 ppg 52% FG vs Karl Malone in the 1st round
13.6 ppg 42% FG vs Hakeem in the 2nd round
20.6 ppg 59% FG vs Barkley in the WCFs

and it's not just Kemp either. everyone defended by Barkley posted monster stats, far better than vs anyone else in that postseason. Divac posted 18 ppg 5.6 apg in the 1st rd, Carr/Cummings combined together for 19.2 ppg at 54% FG in 36 mpg, Grant didn't have a great offensive series but he wasn't involved in the offense since MJ was rocking 40 ppg. Barkley is a huge liability on defense to me. especially in the playoffs when the game moves closer to the basket and protecting the paint becomes more important.

I'd like to see Philly's ORTG/DRTG for 83 RS + PS excluding the games when they were coasting late in the season. their SRS was about 9 so I expect them to be about top3 offense and top3 defense at the same time. I think Moses also improved his game in the playoffs (mystic said he was a +5 boxscore player in the RS but +7 in the PS). I see Moses 83 as clearly more impactful than Barkley's 93. that 1-6 record without Barkley means nothing to me. we've seen Suns playing years at about 6 SRS before Barkley joined that team. they were absolutely stacked.

I know Barkley was an offensive savant but was his offensive impact as good as his boxscore stats suggested ? it wasn't until he was paired with KJ that his offenses started to look like juggernauts...except that KJ was already leading elite offenses in the late 80s/early 90s without Barkley to begin with. Barkley's boxscore stats is really the only thing going for him. we've seen him miss extended period of time in 87 and 91 and it wasn't anything close to what you'd expect.

to me this is more about Moses vs Karl Malone than it is about Barkley vs either of them. I see Malones being a notch above Barkley. Karl Malone is indeed somewhat suspect playoff performer. ElGee defended him well but I can't get myself wrapped around one thing, his ORTG in 96-98 playoffs was 105. it only went down after that. I just don't see Malone as an efficient playoff performer in that timespan. I said this already to fatal, I think mid 90s Karl Malone was more aggressive, more likely to go to the basket instead of settling for jumpshots, he posted far more efficient postseasons in 92-95 and he was also at the age when most superstars have their best seasons. I don't see how he's more "polished" in the late 90s unless you're talking about shooting more jumpshots.

defensively Karl Malone is a huge upgrade over both Moses and Barkley. Moses is not that bad as a defender per se, he won't let his opponent score a bunch of pts against him and was even a good post defender against Kareem (imagine Barkley in that role, trying to contain a Dirk, doesn't pass the laugh test). but Moses style of play on offense was very bad for defense. as fatal pointed out - consistently the most turnover prone NBA C in the history, relentless on the ORB which took away his transition D. his impact on defensive rebounding is suspect to me as well but there's no question he was a very impactful rebounder in 83 as UAF was arguing in his defense. but Karl Malone has all of this and then some. his offense is more conductive to playing good defense. his defense itself is better than Moses as well. he's not just a good post defender, he's a borderline alltimer. what he did to D-Rob in 94/96/98, to Duncan in 04, to Shaq in the late 90s, he was a guy who could defend any elite post player in history. even though Malone lacks some impact in help-D to be a truly great all around defender, he's being compared to two guys whose help-D was poor at best.

offensively Malone does look worse in the playoffs but in his defense you have to consider Jazz team structure (ElGee's post I re-posted) which led to Malone taking on a very big offensive load, as well as his playoff opposition. in his prime in 92-98 Malone was consistently playing against top post defenders in history. he faced Hakeem 4 times, Shaq 2 times, Duncan once, D-Rob 3 times, Kemp 3 times, PTB frontlines with Buck Williams/Cliff Robinson like 2-3 times as well... that's some hard opposition to play against. I'm not that surprised his offensive numbers dropped in the PS.

his team offenses were elite in the playoffs though I'm reluctant to give Malone credit over Stock/Hornacek because it wasn't after Hornacek's addition that they started playing elite offense (they were kind of putrid before that) and Stockton's floor generalship was still a very valuable asset, even if his shot creation abilities were much-diminished come playoff time, let's not forget Utah struggled without Stockton on offense early in 98. but still, if Malone + some fitting pieces + role players gave you such great effects offensively, he deserves some credit as the #1 guy on the team.

I disagree with colts assessment of Malone's cast in his finals runs as bunch of scrubs. you need to understand the value of defensive role players and spot up shooters. this is the issue I've been discussing with mystic in this particular thread. Malone's teammates weren't big scorers but they had great off ball impact with spacing effect. they were also relentless on defense. some of his centers might seem like scrubs if you look at their raw numbers but they were also some of the best role players in the league. Ostertag in particular was a great post defender (check out him and Malone playing vs late 90s Shaq) and he was also putting up insane blk% numbers. you also have to consider how much those non-scorers benefited from Jazz offensive system. you didn't have to be a great isolation player because it was all about their off ball movement and screens.

[tsherkin]

you're saying Hornacek was a better DEFENSIVE presence ? I hope that's just some typo.

Hmmm, upon edit, it appears some sloppy grammar set that up.

No bast, I was not saying Hornacek > Manu on D.

I think Hornacek was inferior at almost everything but set shooting, personally. PG duties, too, he had some fine seasons there to open his career. But in general, Manu was more dynamic on either end, we agree.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[ardee]

Vote: 1993 Charles Barkley

It was between '93 Barkley and '81/'82/'83 Moses here.

Personally, I choose '93 Barkley as his peak because that was the one year he wasn't terrible on defense. In fact, he had a pretty impressive 4.8 DWS. I'm the last person to use a stat like win shares, but I think it's a decent indication that he was contributing at least somewhat on that end. He had the highest DRB% of his prime as well.

More importantly, the Suns were a pretty amazing 61-15 when he was playing, and just 1-5 without him. 6 games is a small sample size, but it's definitely an indicator of the value he was adding. To anyone who laughs off this argument, do you really think that if he missed, say, 25 games, the Suns would do exponentially better without him then they did, given more games to adjust?

His supporting cast gets a bit overrated. No one averaged more then 6 rpg, and besides KJ, who missed 33 games, no one averaged over 4 apg. The next best three players, Marjele, Ainge and Chambers, were esentially scorers. Yes, Marjele and Ainge were great three-point shooters, but he didn't have any great all-around team-mates, like Moses' Doc or Malone's Stockton.

The clincher is obviously the Playoffs. It was arguably a top 8 Playoff performance without winning the chip. He was at his best when it mattered most: from game 5 of the Sonics series to game 4 of the Chicago series, he averaged 31-15-5 on 60% TS.... Those are peak Shaq numbers!

In game 7 of the Sonics series, he sprung for 44/24 on 12/20 shooting (19/22 from the line!!), and the rest of the Suns went 18-52 from the field! That's a certified legendary performance, and I don't think he gets half the credit he deserves. The modern equivalent would be the Spurs-Thunder series going 7, Harden and Westbrook disappearing in the final game (say a signature 8/23 game from WB with a bunch of turnovers, and a 2/10 game from Harden), and Durant erupting for 50 on 18/27 shooting.

Pretty confident about this vote, Barkley was a monster that year, and the only reason he didn't win was because he ran into the biggest monster of them all.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Those are some great point ardee, but I would point out that the Suns were 53-29 (5.69 SRS), #5 ORtg, #8 DRtg before in 1992 before Barkley. That Suns team was already a contender in the West. In 1993 with Chuck, their SRS moved a little to 6.27, their offense jumped to #1, but their defense stay around the same at #9.

I think people are overlooking Mose's defense in 1983 which was All-D 1st team. He was a much better defender than Barkley ever was.

I would also point out that while Barkley had a great PS run, Moses had a GOAT caliber PS run. And in the Finals he was completely dominant against KAJ.

[MisterWestside]

Vote: 1993 Charles Barkley

It was between '93 Barkley and '81/'82/'83 Moses here.

Personally, I choose '93 Barkley as his peak because that was the one year he wasn't terrible on defense. In fact, he had a pretty impressive 4.8 DWS. I'm the last person to use a stat like win shares, but I think it's a decent indication that he was contributing at least somewhat on that end. He had the highest DRB% of his prime as well.

More importantly, the Suns were a pretty amazing 61-15 when he was playing, and just 1-5 without him. 6 games is a small sample size, but it's definitely an indicator of the value he was adding. To anyone who laughs off this argument, do you really think that if he missed, say, 25 games, the Suns would do exponentially better without him then they did, given more games to adjust?

His supporting cast gets a bit overrated. No one averaged more then 6 rpg, and besides KJ, who missed 33 games, no one averaged over 4 apg. The next best three players, Marjele, Ainge and Chambers, were esentially scorers. Yes, Marjele and Ainge were great three-point shooters, but he didn't have any great all-around team-mates, like Moses' Doc or Malone's Stockton.

The clincher is obviously the Playoffs. It was arguably a top 8 Playoff performance without winning the chip. He was at his best when it mattered most: from game 5 of the Sonics series to game 4 of the Chicago series, he averaged 31-15-5 on 60% TS.... Those are peak Shaq numbers!

In game 7 of the Sonics series, he sprung for 44/24 on 12/20 shooting (19/22 from the line!!), and the rest of the Suns went 18-52 from the field! That's a certified legendary performance, and I don't think he gets half the credit he deserves. The modern equivalent would be the Spurs-Thunder series going 7, Harden and Westbrook disappearing in the final game (say a signature 8/23 game from WB with a bunch of turnovers, and a 2/10 game from Harden), and Durant erupting for 50 on 18/27 shooting.

Pretty confident about this vote, Barkley was a monster that year, and the only reason he didn't win was because he ran into the biggest monster of them all.

But, but, it's "hard" to find players to play with Barkley's skillset! (Put him in today's game and let's see posters say that. He'd fit right in, with unconventional lineups and long, athletic bigs even if they're not necessarily "skilled".)

Nice post ardee. I think it's a toss-up between Moses/Barkley but then again one of them should've been voted in already.

[bastillon]

I'm suprised to see Barkley go this high. I think he's been shown by mystic as very high negative defensive player. he was getting bullied by his opp in the 93 playoff run. people need to stop looking at his impressive boxscore stats and focus on his impact. Suns were absolutely stacked, they regularly posted 5-7 SRS in 89-92 before Barkley joined them. his offensive production while might seem all-time impressive, didn't exactly produce that kind of results on a team level. still a very impactful offensive player, just not as good as his stats suggested (see quoted therealbigthree post on page 2). defensively though, I see him as a huge negative. big enough almost to make up for his great offense. as a result Barkley's impact seems weak. I'll be interested if someone does in/outs on Barkley with ORTG/DRTG splits (controlled for teammates ofc). I think they'll back up my words.

I like Moses more and more. I don't think he was ever that impactful as he was in 83 but he really did seem like a very valuable player that year. not sure how strong the Sixers really were without him, this was a team that had been a championship contender for 3 years before but they were never head and shoulders above the rest. if you look at the strength of that 83 Sixers team it's almost unparalleled. they dismantled their playoff opposition. their SRS must've been some crazy +11 in the postseason (+6.6 MOV vs +3, +4.5, +5). they continued their RS dominance which slowed down after securing comfortably a top seed in their conference. plus what works in Moses favor greatly is how he contained red-hot Kareem in the finals (his scoring pre finals was some crazy 30 ppg average, dropped off to 23 ppg).

where do people see Kevin McHale ? I feel like he's in this ballpark at his peak. this was a guy who upped his volume and efficiency in the playoffs to some crazy levels. his ORTG is absolutely amazing. he wasn't a passer but at least didn't turn the ball over. more of a finisher than a guy who you can run offense through but still amazing offensive player all things considered. very hard to gameplan for because of his versatility as a scorer. his scoring skills were better than Barkley, Moses, Mailman, Ewing, Duncan... 1 vs 1 probably one of the 4 toughest players to stop on the block (Shaq, Dream, Kareem, McHale). his defense is very good and very versatile which makes it silly-easy to find fitting pieces around him. he can defend pretty much anyone from 3 to 5 except for couple outliers like LeBron or Shaq. defensive versatility, scoring versatility, insane playoff efficiency (check out those ORTGs, he AVERAGED a 122 ORTG for his playoff career), shotblocking guy. rebounding is an issue for him definitely though.

some peak stats:
86 PS - 25/9/3 @ 64% TS & 123 ORTG
88 PS - 25/8/2 @ 67% TS & 129 ORTG

some of his monster playoff series:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... inals.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 7_ECS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 8_ECF.html

that last one was played with injured Bird struggling mightily and you can see how easily McHale picks up the slack offensively - he goes for 27 ppg @ 56% FG + 3.2 apg with less than 2 tov. this isn't a guy who was a challenged passer like Moses (nor was he a high tov player). his role was not to be much of a passer but he had some passing skills imo.

I'm hoping fatal9 can make some post about McHale (your 2nd most favorite player behind Bird?).