RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #21 (Charles Barkley)

[trex_8063]

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. ????

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Joao Saraiva]

Well I'll have to write a bit about mr. Snake. I'll do it tomorrow.

Then I'm on to Curry and John Stockton.

[Doctor MJ]

So I find myself feeling like making an impassioned plea for Steph Curry over Kevin Durant, but I'm honestly not sure what to say that would resonate with people.

I'd just really like to have that conversation come to the forefront because a debate between guys we just saw play together and split up seems like it should be a big deal in everyone's mind.

While I intend to vote for Curry next, if Barkley wins, I'll honestly just chuckle and move on. Yet despite the fact that I'd expect to vote Durant before Barkley, I have some emotional need for others to think Curry > Durant. (Please read that last bit with whatever color font means self-depreciating humor.)

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

Based on the voting so far. Most don't see it this way. Very well, where would you take this conversation next?

[Joao Saraiva]

So I find myself feeling like making an impassioned plea for Steph Curry over Kevin Durant, but I'm honestly not sure what to say that would resonate with people.

I'd just really like to have that conversation come to the forefront because a debate between guys we just saw play together and split up seems like it should be a big deal in everyone's mind.

While I intend to vote for Curry next, if Barkley wins, I'll honestly just chuckle and move on. Yet despite the fact that I'd expect to vote Durant before Barkley, I have some emotional need for others to think Curry > Durant. (Please read that last bit with whatever color font means self-depreciating humor.)

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

Based on the voting so far. Most don't see it this way. Very well, where would you take this conversation next?

I'd like to counter with:
1. KD is also a tremendous shooter. And he's very tall and long, so he gets his shot over someone and in difficult situations with more ease than Steph.

2. KD is a much better defender than Steph.

3. KD was more consistent with the Warriors in the playoffs than Curry was, while both were on the same team.

4. KD has better longevity.

5. KD has the edge in accodales.

While I find your reasons good enough to place Curry here (he's getting my 2nd vote) I think KD has a great case too, and I believe he falls into my criteria better than Steph.

EDIT: I'd also like to say +/- is tricky. While KD was on the bench, the Warriors could run lines with Iguodala and Green at the forwards... once you take Curry out, the coming in PG is definitely not at the level of the forwards who were playing without KD on the court.

[eminence]

So I find myself feeling like making an impassioned plea for Steph Curry over Kevin Durant, but I'm honestly not sure what to say that would resonate with people.

I'd just really like to have that conversation come to the forefront because a debate between guys we just saw play together and split up seems like it should be a big deal in everyone's mind.

While I intend to vote for Curry next, if Barkley wins, I'll honestly just chuckle and move on. Yet despite the fact that I'd expect to vote Durant before Barkley, I have some emotional need for others to think Curry > Durant. (Please read that last bit with whatever color font means self-depreciating humor.)

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

Based on the voting so far. Most don't see it this way. Very well, where would you take this conversation next?

I'm generally with you on this (I think it's pretty close overall due to KD having a clear longevity edge as a star, but I'd take Steph clearly for the sum of the '13-'19 period). I think you'd have to sell the non-believers on Steph still being the key Warrior once KD arrived, if they see KD as the main Warrior for that era there's no way they're siding with Steph in an overall comparison.

[Hornet Mania]

I'm with you on Curry > Durant, Doc. My only qualm with him is that he has basically only had six seasons playing at an all-time level (2012/2013 until 2018/2019) which tends to hurt him in my estimation since I highly rate total career value. He's a guy who would shoot way up my list if he could just tack on 2-3 more years of that production with good health.

So really my only issue with Curry so far, which could be considered very slight as is the case with a lot of the warts on these greats, is that he hasn't stacked up the same number of campaigns as others (even as I concede a few of those campaigns are GOATish). And then when I consider some of the bad luck with health during certain playoff runs, something that hurts CP3 in my estimation as well, it just becomes tough to put him over guys with double-digit high-impact campaigns. His time will come soon though.

[penbeast0]

I agree that Curry was the more dominant and impactful player in his prime than Durant. I have them 1-2 here.

For the next slot, it's either Paul, Stockton, or Pettit. OF the 3, Pettit is the only one who was ever the best player in the league, albeit for the short stretch between Mikan and Russell who easily eclipsed him. And, during the strong league stretch of his career, he was a clear level above every except Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar and Baylor. It's close between Baylor and Pettit and they were contemporaries who both played the PF forward over the same period generally speaking (I have Baylor as more of a PF type than LaRusso) though Baylor was a 4/3 while Pettit was a 4/5. As expected from their positions, Pettit was the better rebounder while Baylor was the better ballhandler. But Pettit has two edges on Baylor that give him the advantage for me. First, he was the more efficient scorer, particularly relative to league since he played his first few years in a much less efficient league than Baylor played his post-Pettit career. Second, from what I've been able to gather from their contemporaries, Pettit was the stronger defender. So, I have Pettit over Baylor.

1. Curry
2. Durant
3. Pettit

[Cavsfansince84]

1. Barkley
-what I view as a somewhat long and very productive prime(11th in career vorp, top 5 7 times)
-very good peak(finished higher than prime level MJ in mvp voting twice)
-great post skills to go with solid outside shot, good handles for a big and passing ability
-game changing off rebounding
-consistently great playoff gear
-his mixture of strength, explosiveness and skill is what makes me put him here, it would be unstoppable in any era

2. Pettit
-10 time all nba 1st team
-very good shooter which he could do off the dribble
-excellent rebounder
-very good metrics/efficiency for his era(led league in per 4 times, has total ts add of 1757 for his career)
-25.5/15.8 career playoff averages
-won ring and top 4 in mvp voting 8 times

3. KD
- 9x top 10 in mvp voting, 6x top 5, 4x top 2. 5x top 3 in vorp. 4x league ppg leader
-extremely unique combination of size, length, athleticism and skills which translates very well into the playoffs.
- generally speaking I think he's consistently very good with some great peaks with the Warriors(which can be taken with a grain of salt) in the playoffs and plays on winning rs teams. I think its pretty easy to build around him as your best player though I don't like his leadership skills much and think he needs a strong coach or teammate to sort of guide his teams.

[eminence]

My only qualm with him is that he has basically only had six seasons playing at an all-time level (2012/2013 until 2018/2019)

If you meant through '18-'19 then that's 7 seasons

[Hornet Mania]

My only qualm with him is that he has basically only had six seasons playing at an all-time level (2012/2013 until 2018/2019)

If you meant through '18-'19 then that's 7 seasons

You're right, I miscounted

[Cavsfansince84]

My only qualm with him is that he has basically only had six seasons playing at an all-time level (2012/2013 until 2018/2019)

If you meant through '18-'19 then that's 7 seasons

It is 7 total but in the sense of an all time level only 5-6 really count. I don't see how a case can be made for him as top 20-22 based on those 5-6 seasons but to each his own. Mikan got in on 8 seasons but he is kind of a special case given his level of dominance/titles.

[eminence]

My only qualm with him is that he has basically only had six seasons playing at an all-time level (2012/2013 until 2018/2019)

If you meant through '18-'19 then that's 7 seasons

It is 7 total but in the sense of an all time level only 5-6 really count. I don't see how a case can be made for him as top 20-22 based on those 5-6 seasons but to each his own. Mikan got in on 8 seasons but he is kind of a special case given his level of dominance/titles.

Which seasons would you say don't count on an Alltime level?

[Joey Wheeler]

1-Kevin Durant

Should already be in, don't see any case for some of the guys already in over him. GOAT level scorer, imo the best ever in that regard along with Jordan, his insane volume and efficiency holds up even in the biggest stage in the Finals. Too big to be defended by wings, he'll just shoot over them; too quick and agile to be defended by bigs. He's a walking mismatch and can score at insane efficiency with a shot profile full of what would be inefficient shots for just about anyone else. Very good longevity already too.

2-Charles Barkley

One of the best offensive players ever, super efficient scorer, great offensive rebounder, he was outright dominant during his prime.

3-Dwyane Wade

Incredible force at his peak, one of the best Finals performances ever. Could be much higher if not for injuries/longevity.

[Cavsfansince84]

If you meant through '18-'19 then that's 7 seasons

It is 7 total but in the sense of an all time level only 5-6 really count. I don't see how a case can be made for him as top 20-22 based on those 5-6 seasons but to each his own. Mikan got in on 8 seasons but he is kind of a special case given his level of dominance/titles.

Which seasons would you say don't count on an Alltime level?

2013 but it would also probably be good to set some sort of parameters on what would really qualify as all time level if we're going to bother to debate it. I think of all time level as something like top 3 in the league or close to what a top 10-15 player generally did in their prime.

[Joey Wheeler]

So I find myself feeling like making an impassioned plea for Steph Curry over Kevin Durant, but I'm honestly not sure what to say that would resonate with people.

I'd just really like to have that conversation come to the forefront because a debate between guys we just saw play together and split up seems like it should be a big deal in everyone's mind.

While I intend to vote for Curry next, if Barkley wins, I'll honestly just chuckle and move on. Yet despite the fact that I'd expect to vote Durant before Barkley, I have some emotional need for others to think Curry > Durant. (Please read that last bit with whatever color font means self-depreciating humor.)

But look for me, I feel like it's pretty simple:

1. I've always known that if someone were good enough at shooting, a guy who is otherwise less talented all-around could in theory rise up above everyone else.

2. With Curry we very clearly have a guy who is that kind of next-level shooter.

3. He's taking to new levels the dark art of off-ball movement now known as "gravity". It's a bigger deal than many still realize.

4. When we look at the +/-, Curry's pretty clearly had the edge all through his prime.

5. Intangibles matter, and Durant's taken a significant hit in my eyes as a result of his behavior since the last Top 100. I also continue to hold Curry exceptionally highly in all of these leadership-related domains.

Based on the voting so far. Most don't see it this way. Very well, where would you take this conversation next?

This is all true... in the regular season. Curry's game just isn't resilient against tough playoff defenses, he goes from game-breaking to just a star. For me, it's not even a debate, even in 2016 when Currymania was at its peak, I'd still take Durant that year. Then of course if you care about longevity at all this becomes a non-debate even if you think Curry is better, they're both the same age and Durant's career totals pretty much lap Curry's.

I think Curry vs Harden is a much better debate and honestly without winning bias Harden probably takes that one. As great a RS scorer as Curry is, Harden has surpassed him on that front and is commanding double when he passes half court.

[giordunk]

No Curry is getting disrespectful

[Cavsfansince84]

No Curry is getting disrespectful

Its really not in the least. If you want to make a case for him then do so but there is absolutely no getting around the fact that his prime to date is 7 years long and that the length of prime as well as quality of it should be a major criteria that is taken into account. His ability to be slowed down a decent amount in the playoffs also seems apparent as well as his issues durability wise.

[Odinn21]

21. Charles Barkley
I think we're getting to the part, long prime duration and overall longevity are luxuries to have at the same time.
The player pool I have for this spot;
Barkley, Wade, Curry, Durant, Pettit (and maybe Ewing but probably not)
As I stated many times before, peak, average prime quality, prime duration, overall longevity, intangibles and career resume are my criteria.
We can beat a dead horse about peak, but I'd rate Barkley at the top for average prime quality and prime duration. His intangibles were quite problematic but it's not enough to force one of the other 4 ahead of him.

I think Barkley's quality / average prime level are underrated.
I don't like making a case based BBRef profile pages but I want to highlight consistency (bar 1992) from 1988 to 1993.
[I'll use very old Eff in there too because I think unweighted data is also important.]

Regular season;
26.5 pts 11.7 reb 4.1 ast 1.6 stl 0.9 blk 3.3 tov on .587 efg .642 ts
31.9 eff per game (40.9 eff per 100), 27.3 per, 0.254 ws/48, 7.3 obpm
https://i.imgur.com/cwRfYKp.png
Just look at this. This is insane consistency. Especially on offense. His defensive performance in these seasons were average. Not bad. Actually, I'd go on a limb and would say Barkley was slightly positive impact in 1993 Phoenix Suns where he did not have to create and carry an offense as hard as he did in Philadelphia.

His unweighted eff data is also very consistent.
From 1988 to 1993, his eff per game; 32.5, 32.7, 31.7, 30.8 and 31.8
From 1988 to 1993, his eff per 100; 41.1, 40.7, 40.4, 41.5 and 40.7

These are for his +/- data in Philadelphia;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1344019
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=1421792540

I'm never one to use MVP as the best player award. However, in Barkley's case I think the results he got should be mentioned because 1990 and 1993 were among the top competitions for the award.
In 1990, he got the most 1st place votes when Jordan and Magic were still in their MVP competition seasons. (What I mean is, something like James in 2009-2013 time frame and James after 2013) Barkley arguably should've won the award considering he was denied by hate.
In 1993, it was Jordan and Olajuwon.
I'm not saying he got the MVP and he should be way up. What I mean will be in italics after.

Jordan, Magic and Olajuwon made the top 10 in this project. And Barkley came really really close to them. Even in Retro PotY project which had postseasons under consideration as well, Olajuwon and Barkley were neck on neck. (Olajuwon 0.652 vs. Barkley 0.570 share)
One way to go from there; Barkley was better in 1990 and Olajuwon was not that better in 1994 compared to 1993. I'm not saying this as Barkley was better than Olajuwon. Barkley's prime level was insane. He kept it up with peak/near peak Jordan (and Magic/Olajuwon) better than Curry and Durant kept it up with James.

Barkley was also more durable than Curry and Durant, and his postseason resilience was significantly better. Wade's postseason resilience was on par with Barkley but Barkley has him beat in prime duration and overall longevity.

22. Bob Pettit
I initially thought about this spot between Wade, Durant, Curry (then Ewing, Paul and Nash). Wade was coming ahead. Then remembered Pettit's existence and I think the more modern names ain't beating him for me.

23. Dwyane Wade
As I said in Pettit's vote, Wade was coming ahead of that lot.
In terms years, Durant's prime duration look superior to Wade and Curry since he's been a superstar since 2010. But indulging his performances and complete seasons, I'd take Wade's and Curry's higher ups. This latest top 10 seasons between Durant and Harden thread really put that into perspective.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86640846#p86640846

---

I guess it's early for him to be on the ballots but I think Frazier could get some traction. We've reached a point that 7+ seasons of prime (like 1992 David Robinson for example) is hard to come by. Frazier was a proper force on court from 1969 to 1975. Even after 1975, he was still one but the Knicks didn't get good results as a team.

What I wrote about Frazier's defensive performance in the playoffs in the #11 thread;

Spoiler:

Frazier always caused big troubles to the player he defended.

A quick look at the star players played against the Knicks in the playoffs during Frazier's prime;
E. Monroe against Frazier in '69 playoffs - 28.3 ppg on .386 fg (25.8 ppg on .440 fg r. season average for Monroe and his team was .427 against the Knicks)
E. Monroe in '70; 28.0 ppg on .481 fg (23.4 ppg on .446 fg r. season and .418 fg team)
E. Monroe in '71; 24.4 ppg on .407 fg (21.4 ppg on .442 fg r. season and .448 fg team)
S. Jones in '69; 14.5 ppg on .350 fg (16.3 ppg on .450 fg r. season and .469 fg team)
P. Maravich in '71; 22.0 ppg on .377 fg (23.2 ppg on .458 fg r. season and .427 fg team)
J. West in '70; 31.3 ppg on .450 fg (31.2 ppg on .497 fg r. season and .494 fg team)
J. West in '72; 19.8 ppg on .325 fg (25.8 ppg on .477 fg r. season and .421 fg team)
J. West in '73; 21.4 ppg on .442 fg (22.8 ppg on .479 fg r. season and .431 fg team)
J. White in '72; 22.6 ppg on .402 fg (23.1 ppg on .431 fg r. season and .416 fg team)
J. White in '73; 23.6 ppg on .414 fg (19.7 ppg on .431 fg r. season and .443 fg team)
J. White in '74; 15.2 ppg on .385 fg (18.1 ppg on .449 fg r. season and .467 fg team)
C. Murphy in '75; 20.7 ppg on .418 fg (18.7 ppg on .484 fg r. season and .481 fg team)

The only time a player improved their scoring volume and fg% from the floor was Monroe in 1970. There are 12 performances on there and literally half of them regressed in both volume and % against Frazier. Other than those 6, I'd put also '69 against Monroe, '70 against West and '75 against Murphy as definite wins in Frazier's case. That's 9 out of 12.
That's a pretty impressive track record if you ask me. Especially considering defense was more about 1v1 performances back then meaning those performance drops were more directly related to Frazier than team's defensive schemes.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm with you on Curry > Durant, Doc. My only qualm with him is that he has basically only had six seasons playing at an all-time level (2012/2013 until 2018/2019) which tends to hurt him in my estimation since I highly rate total career value. He's a guy who would shoot way up my list if he could just tack on 2-3 more years of that production with good health.

So really my only issue with Curry so far, which could be considered very slight as is the case with a lot of the warts on these greats, is that he hasn't stacked up the same number of campaigns as others (even as I concede a few of those campaigns are GOATish). And then when I consider some of the bad luck with health during certain playoff runs, something that hurts CP3 in my estimation as well, it just becomes tough to put him over guys with double-digit high-impact campaigns. His time will come soon though.

C

I do understand longevity as an argument, but a thought to consider on the subject, which I'm not saying applies to you Hornet Mania:

Suppose this is the end of the Warriors' run. Suppose both Steph & Klay seem wrecked going forward. All used up, achieving what they did.

Curry's probably already played more basketball than Mikan ever did.

If it was enough for Mikan to do what he did only as long as he did because circumstances used up his body, and Curry's got used up a bit later because circumstances, why isn't that enough for Curry?

I'm not whining here, I'm asking, what precisely are we missing that would fundamentally change how we see his longevity?

Surely we're not talking about another dynasty because if he does that, then we're talking about a GOAT candidate.

We've got to be talking about something impressive but not so impressive that it fundamentally changes are notion of what he was capable of. Maybe we're talking a Damian Lillard impression for...how long? How long would it be before it shifted your sense of what Curry accomplished?

I ask this because I think the reality is that what the Warriors did over this half decade not only isn't just the most dominant half decade since Russell's Celtics. It might be the most dominant run we ever get to see.

And if you're a franchise, isn't that what you're after? Do you really think a few more years of Dame level success would fundamentally change what Curry's time meant for you?

I'm not asking these questions trying to play "Gotcha" and trick y'all into coming over to the other side, I'm just asking you to really think about why what matters to you matters to you, and why others might see it differently.

[Odinn21]

I ask this because I think the reality is that what the Warriors did over this half decade not only isn't just the most dominant half decade since Russell's Celtics. It might be the most dominant run we ever get to see.

I think this might be an overstatement though.

Just a quick statistical comparison;

The Warriors from 2015 to 2019
62.8 W and 61.8 xW per season, +8.79 SRS (+0.70 gap to the next best values) and +9.0 NRtg (+0.4 gap to the next best values), 77-28 postseason record (.733), 5 NBA Finals, 3 NBA Titles

The Bulls from 1991 to 1998 in Jordan's full seasons *
64.7 W and 64.3 xW per season, +9.10 SRS (+1.71 gap to the next best values) and +10.1 NRtg (+1.9 gap to the next best values), 90-26 postseason record (.776), 6 NBA Finals, 6 NBA Titles

If you say not having 1994 and 1995 is not accurate, I might agree with that. Jordan's absence is really two edged sword, messes up with context. Even with those two seasons included, it's 6 NBA Finals in 8 seasons and 101-35 postseason record (.743) which is still better than what the Warriors had and it's 3 season longer.