mysticbb wrote:Balki-B wrote:Although Barkely and Malone are statistically in the discussion, they are also both automatically disqualified because they've never won a ring.
Swap Malone or Barkley with McHale. Do you think the Celtics would have won even one championship less with either Karl Malone or Charles Barkley instead of McHale on the team? I would argue that they would have been improved with such a move. And that's what should be evaluated when we are talking about players, not some rings someone won, because the circumstances were good for him. Brian Cardinal did not become a better player, only because he now has won a championship. Neither did Dirk Nowitzki or Jason Kidd.
Karl Malone played great basketball, had a huge impact even really late in his career. Charles Barkley was probably the best offensive power forward ever, that should count for something. Look at how they played basketball and how much of an impact the individual players had on that, not at championships won.
Imagine Nowitzki suffers more than just a minor injury to his finger in the first game of the finals last year, imagine he had suffered a broken wrist and would have been out. No championship for the Mavericks. What would be the argument here? Would Nowitzki now be a worse player? The logic behind the "ring argument" is completely absurd, given the fact that it is influenced by circumstances a lot. Putting someone like McHale ahead of Barkley or Malone, because McHale won some rings as a 2nd/3rd fiddle is just wrong.
Who is Malone running PNR with on the Celtics. Lets not ignore the fact Malone was being fed by one of the greatest point guards in league history. Are the Celtics going to run 50 PNR with Malone when they have Bird and Parish as well.
Just to note if you ask Charles Barkley he would say Kevin Mchale is better than him and Karl Malone.