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

[fatal9]

- '93 Barkley was still a pretty bad defender. I would be careful assigning Barkley with positive defensive impact based on the Suns being a slightly above average defensive team. They were a -2.0 defense the year before, and that was with two bad defenders (Chambers and Hornacek) who were starters in '92 but weren't in '93. They had decent, as well as mediocre, defenders on both teams but the point is that a similar level (or worse) defensive core from the previous year was an above average defensive team before Barkley got there (offensively, both teams played uptempo style). After maybe Cedric Ceballos, Barkley was still the guy who was causing the most defensive breakdowns on the team, and still the guy most likely to let his man play far above his normal offensive output. His effort defensively was much better that season, wasn't lazy on rotations, was aware that he would have to hold his own defensively for Suns to win, but don't be fooled by blocks and steals (especially steals, Barkley gambled a lot when being posted up because he knew he would have a tough time stopping his man), the reasons for Barkley's bad defense go far beyond that. The question is, how much of this can be mitigated with a good defensive center? Everyone, especially in this range, needs players that they fit with to cover some of their weaknesses. And does his ability to produce really efficient offenses make him slightly less of a liability? He also brought value with his defensive rebounding.

- I don't think it's worth looking at '92 Suns and comparing their SRS with '93 Suns. KJ only played half the season, Hornacek who I felt was their second best player in '92 was traded (awesome offensive impact), Dumas was in and out of the lineup with his issues. This very easily could have been (sub?) .500 type year for the Suns with all these things going on, but Barkley came in and provided the offensive stability, particularly in the absence of KJ, to keep the Suns from collapsing. That's not to say he had a bad or even average cast (championship caliber cast for sure, especially for an "MVP"), but with KJ out they had no one you could give the ball to and ask to get the team a good shot. This year could have been a recipe for disaster without Barkley and I think he's making great offensive impact here.

- McHale is one of my favorite players, but the thing that hurts him here is that the year where he was an absolute freak, he wasn't 100% in the playoffs. I feel '87 was clearly McHale's peak, some of the stretches he had in the season were godly, and he was getting better and better as the season was progressing, had an absolutely sick stretch of games from end of Jan to middle of March. But then he fractured his foot in the last week of the regular season. He still played in the playoffs even with doctors advising him not to, and then he injured his foot again in a few months later at the start of the '88 season. So after '87, '86 is the year to look at. A brilliant post season where he went up against Hakeem in the finals and probably slightly outplayed him, great two way impact with his shot blocking/good team defense/unreal scoring efficency, he was even shutting down star perimeter players like Dominique in the ECSF, had some injuries during the RS but was in top form in the playoffs. Based on how much weight has been assigned to playoff health in this project, '86 might be the season to pick to remain consistent, even though '87 is when he looked scary good on a nightly basis to me.

- Thing I love most about McHale is you could count on him to play well against ANYONE in the playoffs (to those grueling series with the Lakers, to matchup with Hakeem, to Bad Boy Pistons...he brought it against them all). The consistency of his scoring is really something to be appreciated. But is he an offensive anchor? Definitly not on the level of a Barkley. I will say his passing skills are underrated, and you could argue that his role on his teams was to focus on his own offense with Bird/DJ setting the table for everyone else. We should also keep in mind that in the last 20+ years a player can better dictate the game as an individual with his offense than his defense (though defense starts to matter more and more in playoffs with certain matchups), particularly if he is a dominant offensive player who can get everybody on the team good shots. This is why Barkley's clear/enormous edge on offense makes me side with him against a peak comparison vs. McHale and probably K. Malone as well.

[lorak]

- '93 Barkley was still a pretty bad defender. I would be careful assigning Barkley with positive defensive impact based on the Suns being slightly above average defensive team. They were a -2.0 defense the year before, and that was with two bad defenders (Chambers and Hornacek) who were starters in '92 but weren't in '93. They had decent, as well as mediocre, defenders on both teams but the point is that a similar level (or worse) defensive core (with both teams playing uptempo offensively) from the previous year showed they were an above average defensive team before Barkley got there.

1992 team had more good defenders. Look at minutes played:

Code: Select all

1992      1993
Hornacek 3078   Majerle 3199
KJ 2899      Barkley 2859
Majerle 2853   Ainge 2163
Perry 2483   Chambers 1723
Lang 1965   KJ 1643
Chambers 1948   Ceballos 1607
West 1436   West 1558
Ceballos 725   Dumas 1320


So Majerle and West (two best Suns defenders during these two seasons) played almost the same amount of minutes during both years. Chambers also played almost the same amount of minutes. Hornacek's (ok defender) minutes were replaced by Ainge's (ok defender) and Dumas (also ok?) minutes. So what's left is much more minutes for Ceballos (bad defender) and less for KJ (good defender) in 1993 and Barkley in place of Lang (good defender) and Perry (good defender?).

So 1993 Suns lost some good defensive players, increased minutes for bad one (Ceballos) and added Barkley. So if Barkley really was so bad defensively as his reputation suggest they should collapse on D - but that's not what happened.

[bastillon]

fatal, why 86 McHale over 88 version ? he seemed to pick it up after the injury.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lits/1988/
I don't think McHale was really better per se in 87 than in 86/88. he was more consistent, more focused on delivering it every night, perhaps had to do more without Walton on the team anymore, but he could do the same thing when called upon in 86/88. you look at his scoring and you notice that when he's shooting more his efficiency doesn't drop. his scoring skills were so awesome, and he was so unpredictable with his variety of hooks and shot fakes, that he could step up his game anytime. he reminds me of Manu Ginobili, not stylistically but rather in terms of ability to step up. you often see Manu put up some pedestrian 13/4/3 games but when he's handling the ball a lot and Pop tells him to play, Manu can deliver a 35/11/6 performance quite easily. I see McHale as that type of player, so I don't really care about his RS averages because I know they don't capture his real impact/skills. sort of like I'm not surprised by D-Rob/Malone struggling in the postseason since their avges overstated their abilities in the first place. that's why I'm reluctant to see McHale dropping a couple pts in the RS and call it worse year. he was still amazing in the 88 playoffs so that injury didn't seem to affect him that much. he put up a 27 ppg/63% TS/126 ORTG vs the best playoff defense in the NBA (Bad Boys) when Bird was struggling with injury. I really don't think McHale would have any trouble putting up better numbers if he needed.

[Lightning25]

lol at anyone trying to argue Tmac over Barkley. Thank god people in this voting panel have sense.

Tmac did nothing better than Barkley, nothing.

Tmac was a more potent defender but both were bad on defense on a normal basis so it shouldn't make a difference.

It's not like Tmac was Wade, Kobe, or Lebron out there on defense even when he tried. He was capable of being a good man to man defender and that was it but he never played defense on a normal basis anyways so what's the big deal? He also wasn't that good of a help defender and that is far more important on defense. Tmac usually guarded some scrub/worst offensive player on the opposing team to conserve energy on offense and even then he was bad at it. I remember he would allow constant backdoor layups/dunks and completely give up as soon as a screen was set on him. Since when was that good defense?

Tmac has never been able to impact on both sides of the ball. Even when Tmac was playing with Yao, he was horrible defensively, he was actually a liability in his last 3-4 years with Houston. I'm not even saying this because I want to, it's the truth, and you can ask most Houston/Tmac fans like Chronz. Even he'll tell you that Tmac's defense was a joke in Houston outside of 2005.

Also, Tmac never boxed out for rebounds and yes this is a huge thing. Rebounds can be misleading. Tmac averaged a lot of rebounds, sure, but he never really worked or earned the rebounds or sealed off the offensive player from getting offensive boards. Tmac was someone that made everyone else on the team box-out and do all the dirty work while he would just come in the middle of no where and steal the rebound. I've never seen Tmac box-out or at least box-out consistently especially in Houston. I can't even count how many offensive rebounds Tmac allowed in the 2007 playoffs just because he didn't box-out and was afraid of hurting his back. I still laugh at all of the people who act like Tmac had nothing to do with the 2007 playoff failure because he was easily the biggest reason why they lost, easily.

We all know how great of a rebounder Barkley is and the advantage is even bigger than what the numbers actually show. Barkley worked hard for rebounds, boxing out, hustling, and just flat out grabbing a ton especially in elimination games.

[C-izMe]

TMac isn't a better passer than Barkley? Your sounding really biased right now.

[Dipper 13]

TMac isn't a better passer than Barkley? Your sounding really biased right now.

Let us not forget he was perhaps the best we have ever seen in the post at passing out of double teams, and indisputably the best at exploiting illegal defense in isolation, baiting defenders out of proper position.

[C-izMe]

TMac isn't a better passer than Barkley? Your sounding really biased right now.

Let us not forget he was perhaps the best we have ever seen in the post at passing out of double teams, and indisputably the best at exploiting illegal defense in isolation, baiting defenders out of proper position.

He was great but I'm not sure if any SG ever has had TMac's passing ability.

[MisterWestside]

:wavefinger:

Let us not forget he was perhaps the best we have ever seen in the post at passing out of double teams, and indisputably the best at exploiting illegal defense in isolation, baiting defenders out of proper position.

Well said Dipper13.

While other posters just focus on 15 games of with/without, the other evidence is available to use. And Barkley had the game (post-up, passing out the double, accurate midrange shot, rebounding motor, can provide defense when motivated) and the (season-long) numbers to match.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Charles Barkley '93

I'm good with this bandwagon. Barkley was an absolute force of nature. A true offensive GOAT candidate who at times quite reasonably looked better than prime Jordan & Magic. I know he's sloppy as hell on defense, but I'm not yet sold he was such a negative that a massive downgrade is in order.

[MisterWestside]

93 playoffs Shawn Kemp vs. Mystery Player A:
game 1: 117 ortg 20 usg
game 2: 101 ortg 14 usg
game 3: 110 ortg 21 usg
game 4: 114 ortg 30 usg
game 5: 132 ortg 20 usg
game 6: 44 ortg 13 usg (Kemp's foul-trouble game)
game 7: 131 ortg 21 usg

93 playoffs Shawn Kemp vs. Barkley
game 1: 111 ortg 18 usg
game 2: 150 ortg 14 usg
game 3: 110 ortg 22 usg
game 4: 113 ortg 25 usg
game 5: 132 ortg 36 usg
game 6: 138 ortg 20 usg
game 7: 103 ortg 20 usg

Of course we're assuming that player A and Barkley guarded Kemp the whole time (which bastillon assumes in his post), and defense incorporates more than one-on-one play. But outside of the foul game aberration, how was Kemp soooooooo much more dominant against Barkley than player A? The ridiculously undersized, less athletic Barkley actually held his own or was better than player A in over half of their respective games.

Btw, player A is Hakeem (whom bastillon also assumed guarded Kemp). Yep, DPOY 7-footer Hakeem.

[bastillon]

93 playoffs Shawn Kemp vs. Mystery Player A:
game 1: 117 ortg 20 usg
game 2: 101 ortg 14 usg
game 3: 110 ortg 21 usg
game 4: 114 ortg 30 usg
game 5: 132 ortg 20 usg
game 6: 44 ortg 13 usg (Kemp's foul-trouble game)
game 7: 131 ortg 21 usg

93 playoffs Shawn Kemp vs. Barkley
game 1: 111 ortg 18 usg
game 2: 150 ortg 14 usg
game 3: 110 ortg 22 usg
game 4: 113 ortg 25 usg
game 5: 132 ortg 36 usg
game 6: 138 ortg 20 usg
game 7: 103 ortg 20 usg

Of course we're assuming that player A and Barkley guarded Kemp the whole time (which bastillon assumes in his post), and defense incorporates more than one-on-one play. But outside of the foul game aberration, how was Kemp soooooooo much more dominant against Barkley than player A? The ridiculously undersized, less athletic Barkley actually held his own or was better than player A in over half of their respective games.

Btw, player A is Hakeem (whom bastillon also assumed guarded Kemp). Yep, DPOY 7-footer Hakeem.

lol @ this ridiculously biased analysis. there is no game when Barkley guarded Kemp better. you're only using ORTG because it disregards volume. if you weren't biased you'd use ppg @ ts% at the very least, like everyone does. besides Kemp was actually playing the same amount of mins as the rest of their starters. not to mention that Kemp was in foul trouble nearly every game (I thought everyone would know this, especially after checking game by game stats) so why would you wanna overlook game which doesn't seem really different from the rest of the series ? of the 14 games Kemp played against Barkley and Olajuwon, he had 5 or more fouls in 9 of them (NINE!). 26 mpg is not that far off his series averages anyway. he didn't play 30+ because the game was a huge blowout at that point. FWIW, he scored 1 pt on 0-2 shooting. there is no reason to overlook this game other than being hopelessly biased.

let's put it this way:
Game 1
vs Hakeem 14/11/5/117 Ortg/13.8 GmSc
vs Barkley 16/10/5/111/15.2

Game 2
vs Hakeem 8/9/3/101/11
vs Barkley 16/6/150/18

Game 3
vs Hakeem 12/5/2/110/8.4
vs Barkley 19/12/1/110/15.6

Game 4
vs Hakeem 23/18/4/114/20.4
vs Barkley 20/8/3/113/17.2

Game 5
vs Hakeem 19/12/4/132/21.1
vs Barkley 33/6/4/132/28.3

Game 6
vs Hakeem 1/9/1/44/4.1
vs Barkley 22/15/4/138/23.2

Game 7
vs Hakeem 18/11/3/131/14.1
vs Barkley 18/8/3/103/13.5

going by pts Kemp scored less against Hakeem in 5 of 7 games, going by Game Score Kemp put up worse number in 5 games, the only games where Barkley has a case are game 4 (when Kemp was shooting a lot but Hakeem bothered him with his shotblocking and caused 42% TS anyway) and game 7. this is completely one sided comparison. I can't believe someone would try to make their case for Barkley's man defense over Hakeem with those misused numbers of ORTG.

[MisterWestside]

there is no game when Barkley guarded Kemp better. you're only using ORTG because it disregards volume.

Instead of calling posters out like you usually do, how about reading my post and noticing that I included Usg for every game that was played Thanks. Btw Gm Score tends to be a little biased towards extra volume. The best offensive games in history aren't always the ones with the most points scored.

of the 14 games Kemp played against Barkley and Olajuwon, he had 5 or more fouls in 9 of them (NINE!). 26 mpg is not that far off his series averages anyway. he didn't play 30+ because the game was a huge blowout at that point. FWIW, he scored 1 pt on 0-2 shooting. there is no reason to overlook this game other than being hopelessly biased.

5 fouls and only 26 minutes of play (he played 30+ in every other game in the series) usually suggest Kemp picked up some quick fouls and was on the bench. But even if he didn't, if the game was a blowout early on then clearly he and the Sonics decided to pack up shop and get ready for game 7 at home. Anyone who doesn't see the obvious anomaly in that game is clearly biased.

[bastillon]

Instead of calling posters out like you usually do, how about reading my post and noticing that I included Usg for every game that was played Thanks. Btw Gm Score tends to be a little biased towards extra volume. The best offensive games in history aren't always the ones with the most points scored.

Game Score, like PER, overrates inefficient chucking. Kemp shot 59% FG vs Barkley and 42% FG vs Hakeem. think about what that means in terms of Game Score overrating inefficient volume shooters. there is absolutely no case for what you're arguing. Kemp performed FAR better against Barkley.

5 fouls and only 26 minutes of play (he played 30+ in every other game in the series) usually suggest Kemp picked up some quick fouls and was on the bench. But even if he didn't, if the game was a blowout early on then clearly he and the Sonics decided to pack up shop and get ready for game 7 at home. Anyone who doesn't see the obvious anomaly in that game is clearly biased.

5 fouls - irrelevant, Kemp had 5 or more fouls in 9/14 games against Barkley/Hakeem
26 mins - caused by blowout which was caused in large part because of Kemp going for 1 pts in his 26 mins. if you wanna argue that Kemp didn't play enough mins then you can go with per minute scoring in that series and it will account for Kemp's lower playing time in this game. so no matter how you want to manipulate those stats, Barkley comes out far behind Hakeem. as I said, no case whatsoever.

[MisterWestside]

Game Score, like PER, overrates inefficient chucking. Kemp shot 59% FG vs Barkley and 42% FG vs Hakeem.

He also turned over the ball alot more against Barkley, which negates the advantage in shooting. GmSc also includes components such as steals, blocks and drebs, and I simply wanted to focus on offensive performance (which ortg/usg does).

5 fouls - irrelevant, Kemp had 5 or more fouls in 9/14 games against Barkley/Hakeem
26 mins - caused by blowout which was caused in large part because of Kemp going for 1 pts in his 26 mins.

Please. Getting blown out on the road when you know you can go home and play game 7 isn't motivation to play at an optimum level. Even Kemp admitted he didn't play "his" game in game 6 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=1702550

Kemp, who blamed his poor outing in Game 6 on misplaced generosity, said he will be more selfish on offense in Game 7.

"In the last game, I was trying to get the ball to the open shooter, to help them get their touch back, and it kind of backfired on us," Kemp said. "This time, I have to keep myself aggressive."

[ardee]

I don't understand the thinking behind some of the posts here. Why is everyone looking at the negatives of a player? Everyone is desperately trying to prove or disprove that Barkley's teams played a little worse on defense while he was out, but why is everyone not even LOOKING at what an incredible offensive player he was, and he was one of the best big game performers we've ever seen, in that year?

It's not a coincidence that that version of Chuck had 3 of the 5 highest playoff game scores ever within the space of one year.

I mean, Kemp had I think three 20 point games on Barkley on good efficiency, but when Barkley was dropping 43/15/10 and 44/24 on him, who the hell cares?

This is like discrediting Shaq's 2001 Finals performance because Mutombo scored 17 ppg on 60% shooting, and leaving aside Shaq's 33-16-5 with the 44/20 and 28/20/9/8 games.

[thebottomline]

I don't understand the thinking behind some of the posts here. Why is everyone looking at the negatives of a player?

Why wouldn't we examine a player's negatives and take that into consideration? The players are so close that knowing whether a player was average on defense or a slight negative on defense could make all the difference.

For example, to put numbers on it, if someone thinks Moses is a +5 offensive player and a +1 defensive player (just made up numbers), and Barkley is a +6 offensive player, well then it really matters if Barkley was a +0 or -1 (or whatever) on defense.

I personally am interested in whether Barkley was truly a negative defensive player, and so far I'm leaning towards yes based on what has been presented. In which case he slides back a few spots on my list. But it's still really close...

[ElGee]

Fatal, your take on Barkley is interesting to me. I did not see much of late 80's Barkley in Philly. My impression of him by 90 is that his athleticism allows for some more versatility on defense. Of course, he's a good rebounder too. As I said, I can play him at either forward and not be barbecued (games I've re-watched recently confirm this to me). I think we both agree Chuck's not a good defender -- he has some terrible habits -- but I'm surprised that you like the less athletic Pho version of him on defense. You also say he's more polished and while his mid-range and even passing might be up a touch, to me it's the difference between an 88 and a 90...small changes to the same foundation.

For the record, I have Barkley as a slight net negative on defense and one of the GOAT-level "bigs" on offense (simply a phenomenal offensive player). I've explained how his offense gives me the same or a slightly higher ceiling than a Moses Malone-centered team.

I'm leaning toward Barkley as well, but I'd like to hear why you picked 1990 over 1993, which had the much superior Playoff performance and wasn't exactly a bad regular season either.

I think people are too swayed by PS box stats. Variance and matchups are HUGE in these issues. The real question to always ask is "would Player X have produced a better result?" You can play very well even with a 5 ppg drop and 5% TS drop in a PS series from your RS averages.

As for 90 Barkley, his opening game of the 90 PS was against the Cavs, a team with Nance, Price and Daugherty was a -0.9 DRtg (39g). He scored 38 pts, grabbed 21 reb on 64% TS. He sat in a blowout in G3. His G5 was not a marquee game. He did have a 34-20-8 (6 TOV, 62% TS) game against the Bulls.

93 Barkley did not play well in G2 against LA (8-24), and going totally by 19 year-old memory, was "blamed" for it. Again, his G5 in the 1st round wasn't a marquee game. It really wasn't until the 16th game of the PS (G5 v Sea) that Barkley dropped a monster. (43-15-10!) Of course, he had a larger sample (both games and opponents) to do that. In 90, I could also point out that his last 10g of the season Barkley averaged 29-11-2 69% TS. His March 30th game against Denver: 38 points, 13 reb, 14-16 from the floor...in 29 minutes.

I guess I just don't entirely see the offensive divide between these two seasons.

Btw Barkley's defensive in/outs (negatives mean the D got better):
1987 +0.9 (14g) -- Dr. J also missed time
1991 +0.3 (15g) -- Gilliam in (50g)
1994 -4.6 (17g) -- KJ missed 15 of 17. Ceballos replaces Barkley
1995 +3.5 (14g) -- KJ missed time
1996 +2.7 (10g)

[fatal9]

vote: '93 Barkley

1992 team had more good defenders. Look at minutes played:

Code: Select all

1992      1993
Hornacek 3078   Majerle 3199
KJ 2899      Barkley 2859
Majerle 2853   Ainge 2163
Perry 2483   Chambers 1723
Lang 1965   KJ 1643
Chambers 1948   Ceballos 1607
West 1436   West 1558
Ceballos 725   Dumas 1320


So Majerle and West (two best Suns defenders during these two seasons) played almost the same amount of minutes during both years. Chambers also played almost the same amount of minutes. Hornacek's (ok defender) minutes were replaced by Ainge's (ok defender) and Dumas (also ok?) minutes. So what's left is much more minutes for Ceballos (bad defender) and less for KJ (good defender) in 1993 and Barkley in place of Lang (good defender) and Perry (good defender?).

So 1993 Suns lost some good defensive players, increased minutes for bad one (Ceballos) and added Barkley. So if Barkley really was so bad defensively as his reputation suggest they should collapse on D - but that's not what happened.

The point was that you can't assign Barkley with positive D impact because of team D rating when it was even better in the previous year. Regardless of whether you think the cast was better or not (I don't...personnel aside, a team going into a year where they are expecting championship is going to be more focused defensively), it doesn't change what we see on the court. It's like using the Knicks improving their D-rating when Amare joined the team and Suns getting slightly worse as a reason to think Amare isn't a horrible defender. A lot of variables come into play season to season and you can't account for everything (but we do know that the Suns were a pretty good defensive team before Barkley got there). For one thing, Barkley was taking the starting job of another horrible defender from the previous year (Tom Chambers), it's not like the Suns got a major downgrade defensively where a "defensive collapse" should happen.

Defense is the one thing that should be assessed by watching games, especially in the absence of stats like rapm. Barkley is terrible, he doesn't have the ability to contest shots of his own man, can't challenge or intimidate guards attacking the paint, he's prone to mental lapses which lead to breakdowns and to top it off he's lazy especially if he is having a frustrating shooting game (not as much of an issue in '93). His defense is even more of an issue in the playoffs where he can be exploited by guys at his position and his (lack of) paint defense can be exploited by guys away from his position. Suns were basically the worst defensive team in the playoffs (13th out of 16, other three teams didn't play more than 4 games)...do you think Barkley's defense had nothing to do with that? A young Elden Campbell was looking like an all-star whenever Barkley played him straight up. In the Sonics series they were switching Barkley on whoever the least effective offensive big man was and he could still be taken advantage of. And if they played him on Kemp? Basket if you don't double. In the finals, we see how deadly slashers can absolutely carve up an interior D co-anchored by Barkley as Pippen and MJ were getting whatever they wanted in the paint without much resistance. They had no respect for Barkley's defensive "presence".

I'm arguing FOR '93 Barkley's defense ITT, that it's better than any other year in his prime, but calling him a neutral or even slightly positive defender is going way too far. He didn't magically overcome all his flaws.

fatal, why 86 McHale over 88 version ? he seemed to pick it up after the injury.

better defense/mobility. and I think it's brave to say '87 version wasn't clearly the best. It's a better moving/defensive version of '88, and an even more efficient scoring version of '86 (slightly better jumpshot, first season shooting over 80+% at the line in his career). The level he was playing on a night by night basis was unreal. There are stretches of dominance he had that he never matched in his career (from the end of January to middle of March...he averaged 29 ppg on 67% shooting, along with 82 FT%). He had the only season in NBA history of shooting 60+% while scoring 25+ ppg. Could you argue that maybe his role was different, the '87 Celtics bench was worse and they needed more offense from McHale? Yes, but I'll side with the season where he actually played at that level. This isn't just a case of raising his ppg, this is him also seeing a big rise in his efficiency (+3.2 TS% from previous year) while he is doing that. He finished 4th in MVP voting after Magic, MJ and Bird (got nearly same amount of votes as Bird). People around the league took notice.

Fatal, your take on Barkley is interesting to me. I did not see much of late 80's Barkley in Philly. My impression of him by 90 is that his athleticism allows for some more versatility on defense. Of course, he's a good rebounder too. As I said, I can play him at either forward and not be barbecued (games I've re-watched recently confirm this to me). I think we both agree Chuck's not a good defender -- he has some terrible habits -- but I'm surprised that you like the less athletic Pho version of him on defense. You also say he's more polished and while his mid-range and even passing might be up a touch, to me it's the difference between an 88 and a 90...small changes to the same foundation.

For the record, I have Barkley as a slight net negative on defense and one of the GOAT-level "bigs" on offense (simply a phenomenal offensive player). I've explained how his offense gives me the same or a slightly higher ceiling than a Moses Malone-centered team.

Re: '90 Barkley and '93 Barkley's defense. The difference in defense is effort. '90 might offer more versatility/athleticism but he didn't play better defense at the time. '93 stands out as the year where he is more focused on defense (but still a negative) than any other season of his career. '90 was definitely more athletic (and the earlier 80s version even more so) but there wasn't a dramatic fall off in '93 (not like we see after '94), a noticeable drop but I don't think it hurt his game at all. He was still an amazing full court player, a little bit less likely to power dunk his finishes but as effective as always, and he was an even better rebounder by the numbers (particularly his drb%, way better in '93 than in '90, it was the best drb% he ever posted in his career up until that point...which further helps his defensive impact that year). His efficiency is down because he's taking more jumpshots in '93 than he did in '90 and because he isn't pursuing offensive rebounds as much.

His jumpshooting in '93 can also be a criticism because there were a lot of games where '93 Barkley was taking way too many jumpers (and even threes when he was horrible at them), but the offense was also producing those type of looks for him more often. I agree that '90 Barkley's midrange game had "arrived" and I was careful to use words like "little bit" and "slightly" when comparing him to '93 because I don't view the difference to be that major. I see a more offensively polished player for sure, but '90 Barkley also had his own advantages (better faceup game, slightly better at finishing and in the open court). To be clear, I don't see much of a difference between them offensively which is why I left myself open to voting for either year. The bigger difference is on defense to me.

If I see a player making a similar ballpark offensive impact in a comparison, I generally side with the experienced and more polished version of a player as long as long as there is no dramatic fall off in athleticism (a little bit of a fall off here) and more importantly, in defense (clear improvement here). I'm going to guess this is going to come up again in the next thread with Malone (I prefer '96-'98 versions of him over previous years).

Also, about him playing 3. '90 Barkley could move like a SF, had handles and the faceup game, but he's still someone whose bread and butter was working in the post. And while his midrange game was pretty good, it was erratic for his entire career, not someone you want to rely on for spacing at 3. Playing alongside a stretch 4 (more common today than back then) I'd say he could be effective as a 3 though.

[Doctor MJ]

This looks to me like '93 Barkley takes it, but I'm too tired to do the conclusive count. We'll start the new thread in the morrow. Pipe up if you have a different count.

[bastillon]

vote: 83 Moses
viewtopic.php?p=33240981#p33240981

I actually think people missed that post because it was last on the page and fatal posted the next post right away after that. I feel I made a pretty strong case for Moses being a way better defender in 83 than Barkley 93. I mean Philly was a dominant defensive team in the playoffs, and they basically STOPPED showtime's offense (with Kareem taking a huge drop off compared to the rest of the playoffs. on the other hand you have a guy who was consistently getting abused by his opponents and anchored one of the worst playoff defenses in 93. I feel like Suns 93 and Philly 83 were comparably good without Barkley/Moses. but Suns were actually struggling in the postseason (relatively speaking of course), they BARELY got to the finals. meanwhile Philly was one of the most dominant playoff teams ever. how did they both do vs the best opp ? Moses dominated Kareem, Barkley dominated Kemp. but compare Kemp vs Barkley vs other opps, and Kareem vs Moses and other opps. huge gap.

I have huge issues with Moses. I'd consider voting for Dwight right now. or Lanier for that matter. both could go over Moses and Barkley for me (though I'm not really sure about this at all). but given the picks that are being considered now, I'm going with 83 Moses easily over Barkley.