Barkley's Phoenix threepeat 1993-95

[Owly]

And Jerry West only won 1 but that doesn't mean much. Point here is how much higher alltime is Barkley ranked.

If Lebron never win anything championships (ie. No superteams ) He wouldn't be seen as the 2 best ever (which he isn't even that high), so championships count.

Was waiting to see how long this would be posted by OP

The Suns nor Barkley were ever good enough to be a three-peat type of team even if you want to prop the ‘90s and Jordan’s competition.

In that 1993 series vs. the Bulls, Barkley was -12 on court (-10, +0, -7, -7, +15, -3). He had a chance (as Malone had a chance) but didn’t play well enough. Perhaps the elbow injury can be a mitigating factor and not having Ceballos, but they kept on losing close series even to an ostensibly inferior Rockets team.

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

The bolded seems to be an absolute statement.

As it stands, it reads to me that not only were the 1993 and 1994 Knicks not good enough to have any plausibility of winning a title, but that upgrading from (prime but not peak) Ewing to (prime ... year uncertain depending on how you play these hypotheticals) LeBron James makes no difference. Given a 6.175 average SRS IRL and a willingness to hypothesize about the Suns stringing together 3 consecutive titles with a worse teams this seems ... hard to square.

[falcolombardi]

Was waiting to see how long this would be posted by OP

The Suns nor Barkley were ever good enough to be a three-peat type of team even if you want to prop the ‘90s and Jordan’s competition.

In that 1993 series vs. the Bulls, Barkley was -12 on court (-10, +0, -7, -7, +15, -3). He had a chance (as Malone had a chance) but didn’t play well enough. Perhaps the elbow injury can be a mitigating factor and not having Ceballos, but they kept on losing close series even to an ostensibly inferior Rockets team.

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

The bolded seems to be an absolute statement.

As it stands, it reads to me that not only were the 1993 and 1994 Knicks not good enough to have any plausibility of winning a title, but that upgrading from (prime but not peak) Ewing to (prime ... year uncertain depending on how you play these hypotheticals) LeBron James makes no difference. Given a 6.175 average SRS IRL and a willingness to hypothesize about the Suns stringing together 3 consecutive titles with a worse teams this seems ... hard to square.

that is a fair point, barkley suns were about as close to 3-peating as 96-98 utah or 92-94 knicks, which is not much

is also not hard to believe that a lebron-ewing trade off would make the defense worse bit the offense so much better they could win a ring

[Matt15]

He’d be ranked around where Kobe is ranked as a arguable top 10 player.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Barkley did his job and does not have to be better.
Kevin Johnson has to be fully healthy.
Everybody else to the team needs to play a little bit better than they did but not much better.
Then the Suns win.

[homecourtloss]

And Jerry West only won 1 but that doesn't mean much. Point here is how much higher alltime is Barkley ranked.

If Lebron never win anything championships (ie. No superteams ) He wouldn't be seen as the 2 best ever (which he isn't even that high), so championships count.

Was waiting to see how long this would be posted by OP

The Suns nor Barkley were ever good enough to be a three-peat type of team even if you want to prop the ‘90s and Jordan’s competition.

In that 1993 series vs. the Bulls, Barkley was -12 on court (-10, +0, -7, -7, +15, -3). He had a chance (as Malone had a chance) but didn’t play well enough. Perhaps the elbow injury can be a mitigating factor and not having Ceballos, but they kept on losing close series even to an ostensibly inferior Rockets team.

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

Ewing and LeBron are on completely different tiers, but interesting that you’d admit the biggest challengers to Jordan in the east in the ‘90s were devoid of talent.

Also, it must be nice to play with a top 10 or better player every season you won a title (Jordan with Pippen).

[falcolombardi]

Was waiting to see how long this would be posted by OP

The Suns nor Barkley were ever good enough to be a three-peat type of team even if you want to prop the ‘90s and Jordan’s competition.

In that 1993 series vs. the Bulls, Barkley was -12 on court (-10, +0, -7, -7, +15, -3). He had a chance (as Malone had a chance) but didn’t play well enough. Perhaps the elbow injury can be a mitigating factor and not having Ceballos, but they kept on losing close series even to an ostensibly inferior Rockets team.

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

Ewing and LeBron are completely different tiers, but interesting that you’d admit the biggest challengers to Jordan in the east in the ‘90s were devoid of talent.

Also, it must be nice to play with a top 10 or better player every season you won a title (Jordan).

i dont think knicks were "devoid of talent" but their talent was more defensively slanted than offensively/scoring wise

those kind of rosters rarely get acknowledged as strong because their talent is not in scoring or offense

[migya]

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

The bolded seems to be an absolute statement.

As it stands, it reads to me that not only were the 1993 and 1994 Knicks not good enough to have any plausibility of winning a title, but that upgrading from (prime but not peak) Ewing to (prime ... year uncertain depending on how you play these hypotheticals) LeBron James makes no difference. Given a 6.175 average SRS IRL and a willingness to hypothesize about the Suns stringing together 3 consecutive titles with a worse teams this seems ... hard to square.

that is a fair point, barkley suns were about as close to 3-peating as 96-98 utah or 92-94 knicks, which is not much

is also not hard to believe that a lebron-ewing trade off would make the defense worse bit the offense so muhch better they could win a ring

This statement makes no sense at all.

Knicks were so close to beating the Bulls in 92 and 93, so close to beating the Rockets in 94. It's not a stretch to say they could've threepeated.

Utah was so choose to beating Seattle in the WCF, so close to beating the Bulls in 97 and 98. They were literally close to threepeating.

[migya]

Barkley did his job and does not have to be better.
Kevin Johnson has to be fully healthy.
Everybody else to the team needs to play a little bit better than they did but not much better.
Then the Suns win.

Those Suns just fell over and beat themselves. They were very talented at key spots. KJ was very important to that team.

[migya]

Was waiting to see how long this would be posted by OP

The Suns nor Barkley were ever good enough to be a three-peat type of team even if you want to prop the ‘90s and Jordan’s competition.

In that 1993 series vs. the Bulls, Barkley was -12 on court (-10, +0, -7, -7, +15, -3). He had a chance (as Malone had a chance) but didn’t play well enough. Perhaps the elbow injury can be a mitigating factor and not having Ceballos, but they kept on losing close series even to an ostensibly inferior Rockets team.

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

Ewing and LeBron are on completely different tiers, but interesting that you’d admit the biggest challengers to Jordan in the east in the ‘90s were devoid of talent.

Also, it must be nice to play with a top 10 or better player every season you won a title (Jordan with Pippen).

Lebron's had it nice when he's won a title. Wade top 5, Bosh top 10, Irving top 10, Love possibly top 10.

Pippen top 10.

[falcolombardi]

The bolded seems to be an absolute statement.

As it stands, it reads to me that not only were the 1993 and 1994 Knicks not good enough to have any plausibility of winning a title, but that upgrading from (prime but not peak) Ewing to (prime ... year uncertain depending on how you play these hypotheticals) LeBron James makes no difference. Given a 6.175 average SRS IRL and a willingness to hypothesize about the Suns stringing together 3 consecutive titles with a worse teams this seems ... hard to square.

that is a fair point, barkley suns were about as close to 3-peating as 96-98 utah or 92-94 knicks, which is not much

is also not hard to believe that a lebron-ewing trade off would make the defense worse bit the offense so muhch better they could win a ring

This statement makes no sense at all.

Knicks were so close to beating the Bulls in 92 and 93, so close to beating the Rockets in 94. It's not a stretch to say they could've threepeated.

Utah was so choose to beating Seattle in the WCF, so close to beating the Bulls in 97 and 98. They were literally close to threepeating.

i think the issue is how you define close

for me close to a 3-peat is a team like 2011-2013 heat or 2008-2010 lakers or 88-90 pistons

knicks, suns or jazz were really close to 1 championship, not 3

[falcolombardi]

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

Ewing and LeBron are on completely different tiers, but interesting that you’d admit the biggest challengers to Jordan in the east in the ‘90s were devoid of talent.

Also, it must be nice to play with a top 10 or better player every season you won a title (Jordan with Pippen).

Lebron's had it nice when he's won a title. Wade top 5, Bosh top 10, Irving top 10, Love possibly top 10.

Pippen top 10.

both had great players but i think you overstimate lebron teammates a little

the wade from 2011-2012 was top 5 (more so in 2011) the wade post injury in 2013 was not top 10

i dont know if irving has ever been top 10 although he is definetely top 20 or top 15

same way i feel about love but he also probably was close to top 10 at his best

i have doubts too bosh was a top 10 player but definetely close at his best

[migya]

that is a fair point, barkley suns were about as close to 3-peating as 96-98 utah or 92-94 knicks, which is not much

is also not hard to believe that a lebron-ewing trade off would make the defense worse bit the offense so muhch better they could win a ring

This statement makes no sense at all.

Knicks were so close to beating the Bulls in 92 and 93, so close to beating the Rockets in 94. It's not a stretch to say they could've threepeated.

Utah was so choose to beating Seattle in the WCF, so close to beating the Bulls in 97 and 98. They were literally close to threepeating.

i think the issue is how you define close

for me close to a 3-peat is a team like 2011-2013 heat or 2008-2010 lakers or 88-90 pistons

knicks, suns or jazz were really close to 1 championship, not 3

It's not only teams that make the finals that come close to winning the championship. Those teams mentioned were close as well and with only a few slight changes, like a call not going against them or loose ball going to them, they could've won those series.

[falcolombardi]

This statement makes no sense at all.

Knicks were so close to beating the Bulls in 92 and 93, so close to beating the Rockets in 94. It's not a stretch to say they could've threepeated.

Utah was so choose to beating Seattle in the WCF, so close to beating the Bulls in 97 and 98. They were literally close to threepeating.

i think the issue is how you define close

for me close to a 3-peat is a team like 2011-2013 heat or 2008-2010 lakers or 88-90 pistons

knicks, suns or jazz were really close to 1 championship, not 3

It's not only teams that make the finals that come close to winning the championship. Those teams mentioned were close as well and with only a few slight changes, like a call not going against them or loose ball going to them, they could've won those series.

is not just one series, that is the thingh

the heatles could have 3 peated if the dallas series went slightly differently, kobe lakers could have 3-peated if the finals in 08 went differently, bad boys pistons could have easily won 88 finals with a free thinghs going their way

suns? they need the 93 finals to go their way, but also the 94 series vs houston but also win the hypothetical series vs knicks but also win in 95, but also beat orlando that year

Detroit only needed to win 1 gane more vs lakers, Miami only needed to win game 2 vs dallas (probably), etc

[Owly]

i think the issue is how you define close

for me close to a 3-peat is a team like 2011-2013 heat or 2008-2010 lakers or 88-90 pistons

knicks, suns or jazz were really close to 1 championship, not 3

It's not only teams that make the finals that come close to winning the championship. Those teams mentioned were close as well and with only a few slight changes, like a call not going against them or loose ball going to them, they could've won those series.

is not just one series, that is the thingh

the heatles could have 3 peated if the dallas series went slightly differently, kobe lakers could have 3-peated if the finals in 08 went differently, bad boys pistons could have easily won 88 finals with a free thinghs going their way

suns? they need the 93 finals to go their way, but also the 94 series vs houston but also win the hypothetical series vs knicks but also win in 95, but also beat orlando that year

Detroit only needed to win 1 gane more vs lakers, Miami only needed to win game 2 vs dallas (probably), etc

Not only this but, as already raised it requires flipping everything in the Suns favor.

But if one wants to flip close outcomes it could just as easily be that Phoenix get eliminated in round 2, 3 or even 1 in 1993.

At a glance the '94 Suns had 6 one point wins (to one such loss). Flip that to 1-6 and they don't have a relatively easy first round opponent (1.76 SRS Warriors) or HCA and are probably looking at being slight underdogs because of this in the first round.

'95 RS Suns go 19-4 in games decided by 5 points or fewer. Make that 12-11 (doing this they still out achieve their points diff expectation of 51 wins) and they're down to 52-30 and lose HCA versus most contenders.

Depending on how loose one is willing to play it, if one is willing to flip selected actual outcomes and gift them later series against high level contenders then one could get an awful lot of teams "close" to titles per year.

[sp6r=underrated]

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

The bolded seems to be an absolute statement.

As it stands, it reads to me that not only were the 1993 and 1994 Knicks not good enough to have any plausibility of winning a title, but that upgrading from (prime but not peak) Ewing to (prime ... year uncertain depending on how you play these hypotheticals) LeBron James makes no difference. Given a 6.175 average SRS IRL and a willingness to hypothesize about the Suns stringing together 3 consecutive titles with a worse teams this seems ... hard to square.

that is a fair point, barkley suns were about as close to 3-peating as 96-98 utah or 92-94 knicks, which is not much

is also not hard to believe that a lebron-ewing trade off would make the defense worse bit the offense so much better they could win a ring

The 97-99 Jazz were very close to a three peat. Both their final appearances could have ended in titles. They somewhat disappointed in the 99 Post-season but the overall data from that season points them to being a legit contender.

[G35]

And Jerry West only won 1 but that doesn't mean much. Point here is how much higher alltime is Barkley ranked.

If Lebron never win anything championships (ie. No superteams ) He wouldn't be seen as the 2 best ever (which he isn't even that high), so championships count.

Was waiting to see how long this would be posted by OP

The Suns nor Barkley were ever good enough to be a three-peat type of team even if you want to prop the ‘90s and Jordan’s competition.

In that 1993 series vs. the Bulls, Barkley was -12 on court (-10, +0, -7, -7, +15, -3). He had a chance (as Malone had a chance) but didn’t play well enough. Perhaps the elbow injury can be a mitigating factor and not having Ceballos, but they kept on losing close series even to an ostensibly inferior Rockets team.

It is a valid point. If Lebron had level of talent around him like Ewing did his whole career he wouldn't have any championships. He was on superteams, unless you disagree?

Those Barkley Suns teams certainly were talented enough to three peat and they only lost to the eventual champions.

I don't understand why people do not get that winning matters and it does bias our opinions. Barkley would be rated higher, Hakeem lower, they would probably switch, because prior to those two titles, people were not that high on Hakeem. He was seen as a malcontent and there were rumors of him being traded.

Another thing about winning is that matchups matter. During that period the Sonics were the Rockets kryptonite. But if you remember the Sonics were the #1 seed in 1994 but they were upset by Dikembe Mutombo, Robert Pack and Laphonso Ellis. This was a huge upset, I believe the first #1 seed to get upset by an 8th seed. That opened up the door for the Rockets...of course they still had to beat Utah, but they matched up better with the Jazz than the Sonics.

But if we take away the usual suspects when talking about winning and if it matters or not and take todays NBA. Whenever the Sixers lose, it is Armageddon in Philadelphia...when the Sixers win then they are the next Shaq and Kobe.

The playoffs and if they can make it to the finals will determine if the trade is successful or not. Winning is a deodorant for every funky problem a team has. It is hard to complain about playing time, coach's decisions, management decisions when you are winning. But when you are losing everything gets questioned.....

[falcolombardi]

The bolded seems to be an absolute statement.

As it stands, it reads to me that not only were the 1993 and 1994 Knicks not good enough to have any plausibility of winning a title, but that upgrading from (prime but not peak) Ewing to (prime ... year uncertain depending on how you play these hypotheticals) LeBron James makes no difference. Given a 6.175 average SRS IRL and a willingness to hypothesize about the Suns stringing together 3 consecutive titles with a worse teams this seems ... hard to square.

that is a fair point, barkley suns were about as close to 3-peating as 96-98 utah or 92-94 knicks, which is not much

is also not hard to believe that a lebron-ewing trade off would make the defense worse bit the offense so much better they could win a ring

The 97-99 Jazz were very close to a three peat. Both their final appearances could have ended in titles. They somewhat disappointed in the 99 Post-season but the overall data from that season points them to being a legit contender.

depends how close "very close" means

lets say that both bulls finals were 50-50 coinflips being generous, the chance utah wins both is 25%, if we give then 40% odds instead (which i see as more sccurate to those teams play) then jazz had a 16% chance of winning both and that is only for 2 titles

if you consider their portland and hypothetical spurs series in 99 as 50/50 odds that moves the 16% into 4% odds

this is just a crude example to show how hard is it to win multiple close series

[JordansBulls]

1994 and 1995 was more realistic because they were actually up in those series by 2 games. Up 2-0 in 1994 and up 3-1 in 1995.