RealGM Top 100 List #18

[ElGee]

I have to admit, even though I figure it's hard for Nash to be held as high as I hold him because his still an active player AND has Wade-like longevity, I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated. We're pretty clearly looking at one of the all-time wizards in basketball, both by a huge number of metrics and the eye-test.

There's the offensive dynasties.
The +/- stats.
His all-time level box stats.

I'd like to add in that I've now calculated almost all of the 110+ offenses in the PS since 1980, and relative to their opp RS DRtg avg., these are the unofficial top PS offenses:

1. Suns 2005 16.2
2. Suns 2010 12.6
3. Lakers 2001 12.2
4. Suns 1992 11.8
5. Suns 1995 11.5
6. Bulls 1991 10.9
7. Lakers 1987 10.5
8. Nuggets 2009 10.2
9. Mavericks 2003 10.0
10. Lakers 1985 9.8
11. Lakers 1998 9.5
12. Kings 2003 9.5
13. Magic 1996 9.3
14. Rockets 1997 9.3
15. Lakers 1989 9.1
16. Mavericks 2002 9.0
17. Spurs 2006 9.0
18. Suns 2006 9.0
19. Bulls 1993 8.9
20. Mavericks 2005 8.7

Nash is only on 5 of the top-20. Par for the course at this point.

Really, if you are picking teams and you want a PG who will run the show, who will QB an offense (fast or slow) and who will improve shooters and PnR players, is there anyone you clearly take after Magic Johnson other than Steve Nash??

You can say Oscar Robertson, but that's about it, no? And since neither Oscar nor Magic have an edge defensively -- heck, we're talking about PG's, there defensive impact isn't large one way or the other anyway -- the arguments really come down to longevity, rebounding, and in Johnson's case superiority. But Nash is right there, and people shouldn't blink but he's had 7 all-nba seasons and 4 just absolutely fantastic years (which again, at this point IN THE VOTING is really good).

I find it so bizarre that no one seems to care that Magic Johnson started his career NOT being given the keys to the car (Norm Nixon ran it) and he's clearly one of the greatest offensive players in history, if not No. 1. Nash, a WHITE CANADIAN DUDE FROM SANTA CLARA, who played behind Jason Kidd and Kevin Johnson, then next to a franchise player on a stacked offensive team, wasn't given the keys right away and people use that as some argument that he's a product of something else. Rules. System. Whatever.

Am I missing something there?

[Pistol Pete Vescey]

V: Pettit
N: Pippen

[An Unbiased Fan]

The 2005 Spurs held opponents to 98.8 points/100...and you think they "brought them back down to Earth" by allowing 114 points per 100?? (Not 113.9, technically) Are you serious?

PHX had a 121.3 ORtg in the 2005 playoffs before they faced SA. Forcing PHX to play halfcourt more certainly had an impact.

Why do you think the Suns lost that series to the Spurs? Why do you think LA almost beat Phoenix in 2006? Do you think it was because Phoenix didn't score a lot of points? Or do you think it was because of something else?

They lost to the Spurs and struggled against both LA teams because those teams were able to lower PHX's open court opportunities. That team's whole identity depended on huge offensive outputs(lack of defense didn't seem to hurt them in the RS or other series). Once their offense was stifled, they suffered.

Again, this is what happens to pretty much every run & gun team. They rack up regular season wins, and have issues when forced into the halfcourt by a good defense in the playoffs.

[ElGee]

So going from 95 pace to 92 is enough to "have issues?" And by issues, you mean a team that scores about 114 points per 100?

Are you totally unaware of how much worse their defense was against SAS, or have you just decided not to look?

[An Unbiased Fan]

So going from 95 pace to 92 is enough to "have issues?" And by issues, you mean a team that scores about 114 points per 100?

Are you totally unaware of how much worse their defense was against SAS, or have you just decided not to look?

I was pretty clear on what I meant, and never mentioned pace at all.

PHX was all about offense and open court play. The key for opposing defenses was to force them into the halfcourt, and teams that successfully did this gave the Suns problems. So when people reference how good those Suns offenses were, it's important to note that they weren't "historic" offensively in their halfcourt play.

[ronnymac2]

Bunch of awesomeness

I mean we're talking about a PG that had a stretch of eight straight season in which he averaged at least 18 points (5x over 20 PPG), and 8 assists (4x over 10 APG). We're talking about a guy that was a HUGE playoff performer, six post seasons with at least 20/4/8 with ridiculously clutch and memorable playoff performances. This same guy was the leader for two championship teams, and is ridiculously underrated in terms of All-NBA/MVP accolades.

Still no problem with Nash, I think his peak is better, but Isiah's overall body of work might be more impressive? Still, such a toss up, trying to think out loud who I'd lean towards.

Great post TMAC. This is essentially what I wanted to post.

Thomas from 1984-1988 gets underrated. That's the part of his career that proves to me he was dominant. He always performed in the playoffs, raising his game when his team needed him to. It's just that from 1984-1988, his teammates didn't raise their game when he needed them.

Now, people look at 1989 and 1990 and look at the great teams Detroit had and think that's what defines Thomas as a player. It isn't. Isiah's legacy should be connected to his on-court play from 1984-1988. It's that on-court play that makes his nomination at this spot sound.

[andrewww]

The 2005 Spurs held opponents to 98.8 points/100...and you think they "brought them back down to Earth" by allowing 114 points per 100?? (Not 113.9, technically) Are you serious?

PHX had a 121.3 ORtg in the 2005 playoffs before they faced SA. Forcing PHX to play halfcourt more certainly had an impact.

Why do you think the Suns lost that series to the Spurs? Why do you think LA almost beat Phoenix in 2006? Do you think it was because Phoenix didn't score a lot of points? Or do you think it was because of something else?

They lost to the Spurs and struggled against both LA teams because those teams were able to lower PHX's open court opportunities. That team's whole identity depended on huge offensive outputs(lack of defense didn't seem to hurt them in the RS or other series). Once their offense was stifled, they suffered.

Again, this is what happens to pretty much every run & gun team. They rack up regular season wins, and have issues when forced into the halfcourt by a good defense in the playoffs.

While phx was undeniably most dangerous in the open court, the 07 version of the suns wasnt just run and gun. They were an incredibly efficient team in the halfcourt, and watching that series against SA, it was obvious to me at least that these were the 2 best teams in the league, and it really could have gone either way because the suns broke serve in game 4 to make it a best of 3 w/ HCA but after the suspensions the potential upper hand that the suns possessed was gone. nash is imo unquestionably the 2nd greatest offensive PG to ever play, and while his defense leaves something to be desired, the fact that he plays the 1 makes it less of an issue than say amare's defense as a big man for example.

[andrewww]

Bunch of awesomeness

I mean we're talking about a PG that had a stretch of eight straight season in which he averaged at least 18 points (5x over 20 PPG), and 8 assists (4x over 10 APG). We're talking about a guy that was a HUGE playoff performer, six post seasons with at least 20/4/8 with ridiculously clutch and memorable playoff performances. This same guy was the leader for two championship teams, and is ridiculously underrated in terms of All-NBA/MVP accolades.

Still no problem with Nash, I think his peak is better, but Isiah's overall body of work might be more impressive? Still, such a toss up, trying to think out loud who I'd lean towards.

Great post TMAC. This is essentially what I wanted to post.

Thomas from 1984-1988 gets underrated. That's the part of his career that proves to me he was dominant. He always performed in the playoffs, raising his game when his team needed him to. It's just that from 1984-1988, his teammates didn't raise their game when he needed them.

Now, people look at 1989 and 1990 and look at the great teams Detroit had and think that's what defines Thomas as a player. It isn't. Isiah's legacy should be connected to his on-court play from 1984-1988. It's that on-court play that makes his nomination at this spot sound.

at this point in the rankings, you really cant go wrong with nominating either isiah or nash as the next best PG candidates, and thomas had "it" when it came down to making plays whether it be scoring, playmaking, or toughness. he's not the biggest stat sheet padder but his impact on the bad boys and his underrated stats relative to the 80s was pretty good, save for a certain magic johnson.

EDIT: context also matters, and while some hold it against isiah for his stats dipping during the b2b titles in 89/90 and having his best statistical yrs/making 1st team all-nba from 84-86, it's been proven time and time again (even in MJ's case as the best example) that volume scoring from a perimeter player is often not the best way to achieve success even though said player may technically be in his prime when it comes to skillset/athleticism/experience. isiah is a different player from nash despite playing the same position, but both of them were the most irreplacable player on their teams and I think that should hold some weight for both isiah and nash to be the next players nominated.

[An Unbiased Fan]

It's not a coincidence that given his individual peak that in relation with MVP voting Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, & Terry Porter all placed ahead of him. His individual statistics just didn't impact the Jazz as well as any of the guys I'm listing---Kidd, Payton, Isiah, Nash, they've all got one thing in common. They've all been considered a super-star or a top 6 player in the league on at least two different occasions. John Stockton hasn't, no excuses, you keep bringing up "excuses" reasons why, stop it.

FACTS are that it's happened, live with it, and evaluate from that, you've made excuses and statements, but they're being recycled page after page throughout this thread by numerous posters, please stop with the repetitiveness, it's not taking this discussion anywhere.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How is adding context making "excuses". I haven't argued that Stockton should have been a top MVP candidate, so why would I make "excuses" for it?

I'm not even the one who keeps bringing up MVP voting. I have been pointing towards production and actual play.

My main points from the start have been:
-Stock was just as efficient at scoring
-Stock's individual offensive production dwarfs Nash's
-Stock was a superior defender
-Stock has a massive longevity advantage

[andrewww]

It's not a coincidence that given his individual peak that in relation with MVP voting Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, & Terry Porter all placed ahead of him. His individual statistics just didn't impact the Jazz as well as any of the guys I'm listing---Kidd, Payton, Isiah, Nash, they've all got one thing in common. They've all been considered a super-star or a top 6 player in the league on at least two different occasions. John Stockton hasn't, no excuses, you keep bringing up "excuses" reasons why, stop it.

FACTS are that it's happened, live with it, and evaluate from that, you've made excuses and statements, but they're being recycled page after page throughout this thread by numerous posters, please stop with the repetitiveness, it's not taking this discussion anywhere.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. How is adding context making "excuses". I haven't argued that Stockton should have been a top MVP candidate, so why would I make "excuses" for it?

I'm not even the one who keeps bringing up MVP voting. I have been pointing towards production and actual play.

My main points from the start have been:
-Stock was just as efficient at scoring
-Stock's individual offensive production dwarfs Nash's
-Stock was a superior defender
-Stock has a massive longevity advantage

no slight to stockton, but while stock was the better defender, him being under sloan's PNR system as he focus of the offense leaves for less eye popping stats than nash per say. having said that, nash's impact on the offensive end of the floor has almost no weakness. not only can he run everything stockton, but his ability to put pressure on the defense as a threat to score makes nash among the most elite offensive players ever. longevity-wise, nash is no slouch himself. after all he's been playing at a high level since 2001 which makes it a decade of all-nba level production, and he's still going strong despite being 37.

[lorak]

Anyways, I think Barkley is getting underrated here in favor of Pettit and LeBron. The dude was a beast, one of the greatest offensive forces ever, and he maintained his play in the playoffs, which is important.

Which is untrue.

Also with/without numbers show that Barkley's real impact on the game was lower than his box score numbers suggest.
As a scorer he was basically like Dantley, but better passer and much better rebounder and that's where most of his value come from.



re: Stockton vs Nash

I nominated Nash, but it's annoying when Nash's supporters keep ignoring things like for example that Jazz 1998 with Stockton was the best offensive team of all time (!) or that by every non box score metric Stockton's impact is HUGE. He also had his great series in playoffs, one even better than any of Nash's - 1988 vs Lakers, when he outplayed Magic, or at least played at the same level as prime Johnson.

[lorak]

Era dominance is Isiah's calling card, at least a mini one. He does, after all, have two titles, and like Russell you can link his tenacity to what made those Piston teams great.
.

Pistons defensive versatility made those teams great.

[lorak]

83-84: Did 22/4/11 on roughly 47% shooting. Anchored the #1 ranked ORTG team in the NBA without a true floor spacer. Granted the three point shot wasn't a huge part of the game at the time, it's still interesting to note that outside of Isiah; the team went 10-76 from the three point line the ENTIRE season. They lost to a similar caliber Knicks squad in the first round, but Bernard King absolutely blew up in the playoff this season (35 PPG on 57%). The same Knicks team that took the defending champion Celtics to a grueling seven game series. Also note, this was the same series in which Isiah had the legendary 16 points in the final 94 seconds to force the game in OT.

Yeah, that was legendary but Pistons lost this series (and Detroit had HCA!) because of Isiah very bad play in first three games:
G1 - only 10 pts, game lost
G2 - only 11 pts, game won because of great performances of Laimbeer and Tripucka (they combined scored almost 60 pts)
G3 - 0 pts in first half and Knicks had almost 20 pts advantage after first two quarters and game was lost.


BTW, it's interesting that Isiah's most legendary performances are the games, when Pistons lost: G5 vs NYK or G6 vs Lakers... BTW, in 1988 finals Isiah had 42.6 FG% (46.3% in regular season). And of course he probably had so many unclutch performances as clutch, with that "great" hockey assist to Bird to DJ in 1987 as the most famous play...

[lorak]

PHX had a 121.3 ORtg in the 2005 playoffs before they faced SA. Forcing PHX to play halfcourt more certainly had an impact.

(...)


PHX was all about offense and open court play. The key for opposing defenses was to force them into the halfcourt, and teams that successfully did this gave the Suns problems. So when people reference how good those Suns offenses were, it's important to note that they weren't "historic" offensively in their halfcourt play.

In 2005 Suns had 114 ortg against Spurs in the playoffs
Spurs defense that season was 98.8 ((BTW, 2005 SAS is 6th best defensive team of all time/since 1974)
That means Suns offense in that series was GREAT. +15.2 ortg is amazing result.
And of course Nash also played very good: 23.2 PPG, 10.6 APG, 57.5 TS%

[therealbig3]

Anyways, I think Barkley is getting underrated here in favor of Pettit and LeBron. The dude was a beast, one of the greatest offensive forces ever, and he maintained his play in the playoffs, which is important.

Which is untrue.

Also with/without numbers show that Barkley's real impact on the game was lower than his box score numbers suggest.
As a scorer he was basically like Dantley, but better passer and much better rebounder and that's where most of his value come from.



re: Stockton vs Nash

I nominated Nash, but it's annoying when Nash's supporters keep ignoring things like for example that Jazz 1998 with Stockton was the best offensive team of all time (!) or that by every non box score metric Stockton's impact is HUGE. He also had his great series in playoffs, one even better than any of Nash's - 1988 vs Lakers, when he outplayed Magic, or at least played at the same level as prime Johnson.

Can you show me Barkley's on/off numbers, and why his impact isn't as big as his numbers suggest? I'm not arguing or anything, I'm curious to see them.

I just see that Barkley had some monster games for his teams in the playoffs, his overall playoff numbers are arguably better than his regular season numbers, and his teams were always elite offensively. So I'm assuming that to mean that Barkley usually "showed up" in the playoffs, and he had a big offensive impact.

He had an 11-year prime with some very good non-prime years as well. So I think his longevity is very good too.

[drza]

Re: the point guards

I am very, very interested in seeing how the debates play out regarding Isiah, Nash and Stockton once they actually are in the running for votes. Even now it has been interesting, but I hope someone eventually brings out the big guns and gives us a full, analytical comparison of the three of them. In a sense, they are three of the most polarizing PGs of all-time to analyze, each representing a different extreme:

*Isiah is the epitome of old-school impact. A guy that could lead a team in points and assists, but without the new-age emphasis on efficiency. He's a hero of yesteryear...growing up, he was one of my favorite players and one of the larger-than-life crew, a scant step below Magic and Larry among the legends. The newer boxscore-based stats skewer him like they do Iverson, but I am curious if there are any rough impact stats that could estimate his prime years. I know by the 90s someone pointed out that there wasn't a big difference in +/-, but I wonder if there is anything from his years before.

*Stockton is the epitome of longevity. 20 years of never getting hurt, consistently putting up the best assist totals in the league and some of the best steal totals, leaving records that might never be broken. Always considered great, but never the best at any one time. As others have pointed out, Sloan's system is great for assists and the Jazz reached their peaks as both an offense and a team with Stockton on the downside. And yet. Despite Sloan's system being assist-friendly, even another all-star in Deron Williams never approached what Stockton was able to do. And despite the +/- stats only catching the extreme tail of Stockton's career, Winston's APM suggest that there at the end he was still one of the bigger impact players in the league. Many of the voters in this project have decided that Malone was the the more important member of the Stockton/Malone duo...yet at the time, especially among Jazz fans, there was a serious sentiment that Stockton was really the leader and the more important one on the court. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but how to recreate that? I hope we give it a good run in this project.

*Nash is the epitome of what our current state-of-the-art for advanced stats says is greatness at PG. He is efficient as both a scorer and a passer, he can produce large volumes of assists and very solid scoring with ridiculous percentages. More-so, he has led many of the best offenses in history, the way that we currently measure them. And his offensive APM numbers are right there at the top of anyone in the last almost decade. But then, he started so much later and, though great in Dallas, no one fore-saw him as a future MVP. But it turns out he was, just in disguise that only showed his potential in spurts. Is he, then, a product of a system? Or was D'Antoni just the first to properly utilize him, and once the diamond was revealed others have then been able to make better use of him? I want to see this hashed out on a big scale.

On a personal level, my heart believes that the Isiah I grew up watching was the best of the three. On the other hand, my head tells me that Nash surely measures out as the best of them. I really hope that as this plays out, I have the time to really dig into it and that my fellow posters in this thread brings some great material so that I can really sink my teeth in and get my head and heart on the same page by the time I vote.

[lorak]

Anyways, I think Barkley is getting underrated here in favor of Pettit and LeBron. The dude was a beast, one of the greatest offensive forces ever, and he maintained his play in the playoffs, which is important.

Which is untrue.

Also with/without numbers show that Barkley's real impact on the game was lower than his box score numbers suggest.
As a scorer he was basically like Dantley, but better passer and much better rebounder and that's where most of his value come from.



re: Stockton vs Nash

I nominated Nash, but it's annoying when Nash's supporters keep ignoring things like for example that Jazz 1998 with Stockton was the best offensive team of all time (!) or that by every non box score metric Stockton's impact is HUGE. He also had his great series in playoffs, one even better than any of Nash's - 1988 vs Lakers, when he outplayed Magic, or at least played at the same level as prime Johnson.

Can you show me Barkley's on/off numbers, and why his impact isn't as big as his numbers suggest? I'm not arguing or anything, I'm curious to see them.

Yes, I will do it, but later or in next thread.

I just see that Barkley had some monster games for his teams in the playoffs, his overall playoff numbers are arguably better than his regular season numbers,

No, they are not better:
Barkley RS: 24.6 PER, 0.216 WS/48
Barkley PS: 24.2 PER, 0.193 WS/48

In fact his postseason numbers are Robinson's like: 23.0 PER, 0.199 WS/48
And as we know box score don't include defense, so overall DRob looks even better.

And what with Barkley play in playoffs against really good opponents?

Barkley 1994 vs Rockets: 23.4 PPG, 53.2 TS%
Barkley 1995 vs Rockets: 22.3 PPG, 53.6 TS%
(Robinson 1995 vs Rockets: 23.8 PPG, 55.3 TS%)

Barkley 1993 vs Spurs: 26.2 PPG, 53.8 TS%
(Robinson 1993 vs Suns: 25.7 PPG, 55.2 TS%)

Barkley 1996 vs Spurs: 25.5 PPG, 56.2 TS%
(Robinson 1996 vs Suns: 30.0 PPG, 62.0 TS%)

and his teams were always elite offensively.

Oh no!
In his second season, when first time in his career he played +30 MPG 76ers ortg decreased (!) and was only +1.4 above league average. Good result, but in no way elite (elite is result like Jordan's Bulls or Nash's Suns: +7 and higher).
In next season he played even more minutes, but missed many games (I'll show with/without numbers later). 76ers ortg was only 0 relatively to LA. Similar story in 1988, only +0.8 and Barkley played 80 games and 40 mpg.

1990 is the first year when he led really good offense: +5.2. The same next year +5.4. But that's all during Phily years, in next two season 76ers ortg again was barely above average.

1993 Suns with him also were very good: +5.3 (and better than year before: +3.9). Next two season in Phoenix he also led (or maybe it was KJ?) very good offenses: +5.4 and +6.2. But that's all and in his last season in Phoenix +2.7. Only 5 teams in 11 years who very very good (but not elite!) on offense.

[TMACFORMVP]

Good points Stern, ones which I agree with, but it's still hard to put the complete blame on Isiah, as it was his first couple playoff games of his career, and there's a bit more perspective on those games which would imply it wouldn't be completely right to pin it primarily on Isiah.

Game 1: The Knicks came out with a trapping defense in the second half, primarily focused on getting the ball out of Isiah's hands. Well, the result worked, in not only limiting Isiah, but winning the game at the end as well. The Pistons were up 93-87 with 1:16 left in the game, until Walker and King pretty much changed the game. King would then make it 93-89 with a pair of free throws. With the trapping defense, they picked off a pass thrown by Lambieer, which led to another two points for the Knicks. Then Walker stole it from Vinnie Johnson at halfcourt, which led to FT's. Walker would only make one of two, but because of Kent Benson's inability to handle the ball, he lost control and was called for a foul. Sparrow was awarded two FT's, and that would turn out to be the game-winner. Though they caught a break with King only scoring 36 points in this game.

Game 2: Isiah also did have 13 assists in the game.

Game 3: Yeah, not excusable. Pistons did make a run with Isiah scoring 29 points in the second half, but had he played better in the first, then we could be looking at a different outcome (though, King nearly matched Isiah in the second half, with 30 of his own).

Then in Game 4 he had 22 points and 16 assists to lead them to the win, and Game 5 with his legendary, but admittedly in a loss performance.

Also Bernard King for the series scored 213 points. That's a SERIES average of 42.6 PPG (last four games with 40+ points, thus the "only 36 points" in recap of Game 1). I blame the defense of the Pistons wings!

As for the last point, it's true he's had unclutch performances as well (who hasn't?), but I'd still argue he's had more great ones than "duds." Just look at the '90 Finals. In Game 1, ten straight points in the fourth, 16 overall in the quarter sparking a 23-4 run to lead the team to a come from behind win. Or the two big scoring possessions down the stretch of Game 4 of the same series which pretty much solidified a Pistons win. He also had the game-tying shot in Game 5 before Vinnie Johnson's game winning shot.. Even in the '90 Finals, he hit the game clinching FT's in Game 2. Dude had the ball in his hands during big game situations, and came away with terrific success in a ridiculously competitive era. His supporting cast was great (as is almost every other All-Time great), but Isiah's leadership, down the stretch play, and big game performances in the post-season offensively were obviously a huge factor as well.

Re: I however completely agree with your Barkley points. I think there should definitely be more discussion on Robinson versus Barkley.

[therealbig3]

@DavidStern:

That's interesting stuff, thanks for the info. But about "against really good opponents", what about Barkley in 87 against the Bucks, 89 against the Knicks, 91 against the Bulls, and 93 against the Sonics and the Bulls?

87 against the Bucks, who won 50 games and were the 4th best defensive team in the league:
24.6 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.4 apg, 64.9% TS

89 against the Knicks, who won 52 games and were the 10th best defensive team in the league:
27.0 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 5.3 apg, 69.1% TS

91 against the Bulls, who won 61 games and were the 7th best defensive team in the league (and were the champions that year):
25.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 5.4 apg, 66.6% TS

93 against the Sonics, who won 55 games and were the 2nd best defensive team in the league
25.6 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 4.0 apg, 58.1% TS
And it deserves mentioning, that in Game 5, with the series tied 2-2, Barkley had a monster triple double, LeBron-esque game, with 43 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists on 16-22 shooting. Then in the deciding game 7, Barkley goes for 44 points and 24 rebounds on 12-20 shooting.

93 against the Bulls, who won 57 games and were the 7th best defensive team in the league (and were the champions that year):
27.3 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 5.5 apg, 54.4% TS

I doubt you can find consistent great series like that from Robinson against top-notch teams, and if you can find monster games in pivotal situations like what Barkley did against Seattle.

And I haven't really looked at the numbers, but against the Rockets and Spurs like you showed, I think Barkley maintained great rebounding and playmaking, even if his scoring wasn't that impressive or, at least, was out-shined by Robinson.

And I looked at what Shawn Kemp did against Barkley in that 93 series (since Kemp was probably the only PF he faced who you can expect to have comparable production), and Kemp played alright, including an outstanding game 5 (in which he was outplayed by Barkley), but he wasn't anything spectacular and he was held in check for ~3 of those games.

[therealbig3]

And when I look at offenses, I mainly look at where they ranked compared to the rest of the league, not really at how much better than average they were.

But the Sixers were still average ranked offensive teams more often than I thought, so maybe Barkley didn't help an offense as much as I originally thought, but some of the ranks of his teams:

89 Sixers: 3rd
90 Sixers: 2nd
93 Suns: 1st
94 Suns: 1st
95 Suns: 3rd
96 Suns: 7th

Relative to the rest of the league, some of his teams have been elite offensively.