How do you rank Dirk, Barkley, KG and Malone all time?

[trex_8063]

Don't see Nowitzki as better than Barkley. He had an outside shot yea, but his rebounding was weak and his defense was no better than Barkley. Barkley, with the teams Nowitzki had would've won championships in the 2000s. He had alltime great post game and created for others in light of that. Was top 5 in the most talented era in nba history.

Barkley's a notably better offensive rebounder. He's a little better on the defensive glass......but only a little: he's a career 23.7% DREB%, peaking at 28.8% [though in a slightly lower minute season late in his career].
By comparison, Dirk from '01-'18 [a whopping 18-year span] was a 22.5% DREB%, peaking at 28.3% [in a lower minute season late in his career]. It's not a huge difference on the defensive glass.

Barkley did more play-making, and had the ability to lead the break. Dirk made smart passes in his own right, if never really creative ones.

Barkley's an outrageously good finisher near the basket, and has a crazy-good foul-draw rate. Dirk had range [which---combined with his gravity---arguably provides more spacing benefit than Barkley's low-post gravity], accuracy, post-game [even though it's not close to the hoop, attack the rim type post-game, it's still post-game]; and by late in his prime a near unstoppable shot.
His career avg scoring volume and shooting accuracy [relative to league norms] is fairly close to the Barkley's career standards in the rs, and it was more playoff resilient (to where he probably looks marginally better than Barkley in the playoffs by an amalgamation of these measures). Part of this is Dirk consistently playing to his strengths, whereas by '93 and after Barkley went more and more to the mid-range and 3pt shot (where he was mediocre at best).

In the overall statistical comparison, they're similar-tiered scorers (Barkley a little better in rs, Dirk slightly better in the ps), Barkley's the better rebounder and does more assisting, while Dirk turns the ball over FAR less [GOAT-tier among bigs].
Defense is more subjective, though I'd at least marginally disagree that it's a wash. Barkley's length [and occasionally conditioning and/or effort] leaves him at a slight disadvantage relative to Dirk in guarding bigger scorers. He's also weirdly a lesser pnr defender, imo, even though he should be more versatile on the perimeter.

So they're pretty darn close in overall quality, imo (personally I'd give the marginal edge to Dirk, based on playoff resiliency and his impressive impact profile).....

But then Dirk has a notable longevity/durability edge [not at all insignificant to many of us in terms of all-time ranking], and has the legacy boost of having won a title as the clear [far and away] best player (something Barkley obviously lacks).

[migya]

Don't see Nowitzki as better than Barkley. He had an outside shot yea, but his rebounding was weak and his defense was no better than Barkley. Barkley, with the teams Nowitzki had would've won championships in the 2000s. He had alltime great post game and created for others in light of that. Was top 5 in the most talented era in nba history.

I'm curious. What Mavs teams do you think you through Barkkey on that wins them a title?

Particularly the Nash, Finley ones, but most years.

[JordansBulls]

Q

What does this mean?

[ceoofkobefans]

My rankings (all time range)

1. Kevin Garnett (8-12)

While he may not be underrated in this forum KG KG is one of the most underrated players of all time by most basketball fans. He is one of the few players in nba history Imo that have a strong argument for having a top 10 peak and top 10 longevity (along with LeBron Kareem Tim Duncan Hakeem Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal). He may be the greatest 2nd option ever with his Fantastic off ball ability and shooting combined with his all time Playmaking abilities for a big (his assist and turnovers rates are that of an elite playmaking 2) and while his limitations as a self creator limit his abilities as a number 1 option (and overall offensively in a playoff environment) he’s still A high quality offensive player and has arguably a top 5 defensive peak ever. I don’t really see the argument to have him under any of the players listed here due to said combo of peak and longevity (these guys are super high longevity with lower peaks).

2. Karl Malone (13-20)

While he’s a Playoff dropper and imo peaked lower than dirk he arguably has the 4th most longevity ever (and does imo) and as someone that values longevity over peak I think that’s enough to give Him the edge over dirk who has the peak edge)

3. Dirk Nowitzki (13-20)

I think dirk has the 2nd best peak here, being a clear top 9 scorer ever and one of the better playmaking bigs ever thanks to his goat tier off ball abilities for a Big and his GOAT Tier spacing helps him be an all time offensive player and he’s not a - defender Imo. He has good off ball awareness and is a solid weak side rim protector and post defender. He also has ≈ 15 HQ seasons and never really had major injury issues which is enough to give him the third spot here.

4. Charles Barkley (20-27)

As shown by the ranges I do have Chuck a tier below dirk and KM (who are a tier below KG). I have his peak a tier below KM and Dirk’s and he clearly has the worst longevity. He’s clearly the worst scorer of the 3 and Im not sure how much better he is than dirk or KM as a playmaker (although he is prolly a better one). Barkley is also a playoff dropper like Karl Malone but he isn’t as good in the RS and is also a significantly worse defender imo (and worse than Dirk).

These are my rankings please interact with me I am bored

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

X) Barkley>KG>Malone>Dirk
I prefer peaks to longevity

[Ginoboleee]

Q

What does this mean?

per OP:
Q) KG>Dirk>Malone>Barkley

[Ginoboleee]

X) Barkley>KG>Malone>Dirk
I prefer peaks to longevity

So do I.
Actually, if I was being frank, I prefer neither.
Because there is Longevity and then there is Longevity.
Too often we pretend we are talking about Prime when we are talking about Post Prime Compilation.

I value Prime stats, then PrimeTimeTeamAccomplishments, then Awards to break any ties; a single-season-peak rarely factors in for me.
Because I assume every legend has an impressive peak.
And increasingly over time most every new legend has impressive (post-prime) longevity.
In fact, Prime Longevity is increasing too probably, so that should be kept in mind before we do a disservice to earlier cohorts.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Barkley’s stock has dropped over the last 20 years.

[Ginoboleee]

Barkley’s stock has dropped over the last 20 years.

Maybe.
But not really.
He is on top of the world.

[No-more-rings]

Barkley’s stock has dropped over the last 20 years.

20 years ago Duncan had only 1 title, while Dirk and KG had 0 and 0 mvps.

[Ginoboleee]

What do these simplistic factoids have to do with anything?

I appreciate that both Trex and CEO of Kobe Fans have made substantive contribution on Page 2 of this thread so far.

I wish there were more thoughtful engagement in general.
Alas, the Internet.
Alas, the humans.

[Franco]

Barkley’s stock has dropped over the last 20 years.

It's almost like 20 years worth of basketball happened in the last 20 years

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Barkley’s stock has dropped over the last 20 years.

It's almost like 20 years worth of basketball happened in the last 20 years

No it is more than younger guys coming up. The current opinion of Barkley is lower than it was. I don’t think the younger people that have only seen Barkley on a few videos understand Barkley.

Maybe if young folk thought of Barkley as fatter stronger LeBron with a little short Shaq thrown in then young folk might understand Barkley. I think younger people are not understanding Barkley. Barkley did not play good defense. But Barkley’s offense and rebounding was so good and his defense was not bad enough to offset that.

Barkley did not change in 20 years. Basketball fans changed. Barkley was better than Karl Malone. They overlapped.
I would take Barkley over KG and Dirk. No doubt about taking Barkley over Dirk. Not as sure about KG.

[Cavsfansince84]

No it is more than younger guys coming up. The current opinion of Barkley is lower than it was. I don’t think the younger people that have only seen Barkley on a few videos understand Barkley.

Maybe if young folk thought of Barkley as fatter stronger LeBron with a little short Shaq thrown in then young folk might understand Barkley. I think younger people are not understanding Barkley. Barkley did not play good defense. But Barkley’s offense and rebounding was so good and his defense was not bad enough to offset that.

Barkley did not change in 20 years. Basketball fans changed. Barkley was better than Karl Malone. They overlapped.
I would take Barkley over KG and Dirk. No doubt about taking Barkley over Dirk. Not as sure about KG.

They did overlap and that fact doesn't fully support Barkley in the comparison. Charles was better from 86-90. Probably even from 91-93 then Malone became better after that. You could argue Barkley peaked higher was overall better in the playoffs. I will say its a shame that Chuck wasn't on better teams from 87-92. Had he been able to win a ring in that period the general perception of him probably does change a lot or if KJ had remained healthy maybe he wins a ring in Phx.

[tsherkin]

Maybe if young folk thought of Barkley as fatter stronger LeBron with a little short Shaq thrown in then young folk might understand Barkley.

That's extremely hyperbolic. Barkley was good, but the notion that he was really anything like Lebron's level as a playmaker is fairly far off-base, enough so to make that a poor comparison.

Barkley did not change in 20 years. Basketball fans changed. Barkley was better than Karl Malone. They overlapped.

Was he? He definitely had a 4- to 6-year run where you could argue his offense that way, sure, then a few more years where he was still bringing it hard in the playoffs (though 96 is a tough one, because it was a first-round elimination and he stank like ass in the close-out game). I suppose it depends on what you value. Malone's availability per year and overall longevity smoke Barkley, and their RS offense isn't dissimilar. There's a very strong argument for peak Chuck on offense, one I think would be hard to overturn, for sure. But 28/11 or so from Malone for 11 years (as many years as Chuck scored 20.0+ PPG in his career, as it happens) and still some very good years before and after is hard to overlook. An extra MVP, an extra Finals appearance. In as much as I grill him for that BS screen on Barkley in 97, he did go through those Rockets to reach the Finals. Not a lot better as a passer compared to Malone. There's space to look at Malone over Chuck if you don't value only peak, and maybe even if you do, given defensive value and floor spacing.

Meantime, Malone did stack on four years after Barkley retired and snuck into the Finals one last time with those Lakers, not that it added too much to his legacy.

I think it's usually a mistake to make comments about fan generation in a discussion of evaluation. Particularly in context of something like this board in particular, since the level of basketball knowledge and attention to methods of evaluation tend to be more sophisticated than you would generally find from fandom watching 20-30 years ago. There are, of course, exceptions, but the PC Board is better for that than the General Board.

Barkley was very good, and a lot of people remember him more for being old and fat in Houston with a bunch of his bounce and explosion gone, no doubt (for those who saw him live at all). And maybe people remember him more for being very, very boring in Houston and working with Mark Jackson to enable the creation of the 5-second backdown rule, heh. Philly Chuck is certainly a long way back, and he was a beast on O on some very forgettable teams back then, for sure. And he definitely helped Phoenix to the Finals in a series where he didn't stun (remember, he was something like -5% TS relative to his RS performance in that series).

But Karl Malone was also very, very good, so it is at least an interesting discussion, and just casually dismissing the opposite opinion as rooted in generation is a little sloppy, IMHO.

[tsherkin]

Had he been able to win a ring in that period the general perception of him probably does change a lot or if KJ had remained healthy maybe he wins a ring in Phx.

Yeah, that's fair. A ring would certainly change a lot of opinions about him, and KJ was certainly riddled with injuries. And he stank in the 93 Finals, which hurt the Suns a lot. That series would have looked a lot different if he'd been even passable.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Rings
KJ’s injuries should affect Barkley’s rank.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Maybe if young folk thought of Barkley as fatter stronger LeBron with a little short Shaq thrown in then young folk might understand Barkley.

That's extremely hyperbolic. Barkley was good, but the notion that he was really anything like Lebron's level as a playmaker is fairly far off-base, enough so to make that a poor comparison.

Barkley did not change in 20 years. Basketball fans changed. Barkley was better than Karl Malone. They overlapped.

Was he? He definitely had a 4- to 6-year run where you could argue his offense that way, sure, then a few more years where he was still bringing it hard in the playoffs (though 96 is a tough one, because it was a first-round elimination and he stank like ass in the close-out game). I suppose it depends on what you value. Malone's availability per year and overall longevity smoke Barkley, and their RS offense isn't dissimilar. There's a very strong argument for peak Chuck on offense, one I think would be hard to overturn, for sure. But 28/11 or so from Malone for 11 years (as many years as Chuck scored 20.0+ PPG in his career, as it happens) and still some very good years before and after is hard to overlook. An extra MVP, an extra Finals appearance. In as much as I grill him for that BS screen on Barkley in 97, he did go through those Rockets to reach the Finals. Not a lot better as a passer compared to Malone. There's space to look at Malone over Chuck if you don't value only peak, and maybe even if you do, given defensive value and floor spacing.

Meantime, Malone did stack on four years after Barkley retired and snuck into the Finals one last time with those Lakers, not that it added too much to his legacy.

I think it's usually a mistake to make comments about fan generation in a discussion of evaluation. Particularly in context of something like this board in particular, since the level of basketball knowledge and attention to methods of evaluation tend to be more sophisticated than you would generally find from fandom watching 20-30 years ago. There are, of course, exceptions, but the PC Board is better for that than the General Board.

Barkley was very good, and a lot of people remember him more for being old and fat in Houston with a bunch of his bounce and explosion gone, no doubt (for those who saw him live at all). And maybe people remember him more for being very, very boring in Houston and working with Mark Jackson to enable the creation of the 5-second backdown rule, heh. Philly Chuck is certainly a long way back, and he was a beast on O on some very forgettable teams back then, for sure. And he definitely helped Phoenix to the Finals in a series where he didn't stun (remember, he was something like -5% TS relative to his RS performance in that series).

But Karl Malone was also very, very good, so it is at least an interesting discussion, and just casually dismissing the opposite opinion as rooted in generation is a little sloppy, IMHO.

The current not looking at Barkley' as a variant of of LeBron is more wrong than looking at Barkley as a LeBron type player would be. How would I talk to fans that only value LeBron about the greatness of Barkley, of course I must point out Barkley’s similarities to LeBron.

LeBron was so ball dominant drive and kick point guard that LeBron’s point guards were not being asked to do much as ball handlers.

Barkley did a fair amount of drive and kick. Barkley also passed out of post ups well. Barkley was a creator.

LeBron is no Magic Johnson as a point guard. LeBron has the ball to score but he can pass. LeBron is closer to Barkley at creation for others per minutes with the ball in his hands than LeBron is like Magic. Draymond Green gets more assists per minutes with the ball in his hands than LeBron but of course there are reasons for that.

LeBron was a mediocre point guard tacked onto a second only to Jordan scorer in the style of Jordan.
LeBron is more like 1/3 Karl Malone and 2/3rds Jordan with an average point guard thrown in. Actually Jordan was also an average point guard anytime Jordan needed to be a point guard.

LeBron was faster than Barkley and had longer reach. But Barkley did drive and create, especially if you are willing to call an isolation back the defender in a slow motion back to the basket drive.

[falcolombardi]

Maybe if young folk thought of Barkley as fatter stronger LeBron with a little short Shaq thrown in then young folk might understand Barkley.

That's extremely hyperbolic. Barkley was good, but the notion that he was really anything like Lebron's level as a playmaker is fairly far off-base, enough so to make that a poor comparison.

Barkley did not change in 20 years. Basketball fans changed. Barkley was better than Karl Malone. They overlapped.

Was he? He definitely had a 4- to 6-year run where you could argue his offense that way, sure, then a few more years where he was still bringing it hard in the playoffs (though 96 is a tough one, because it was a first-round elimination and he stank like ass in the close-out game). I suppose it depends on what you value. Malone's availability per year and overall longevity smoke Barkley, and their RS offense isn't dissimilar. There's a very strong argument for peak Chuck on offense, one I think would be hard to overturn, for sure. But 28/11 or so from Malone for 11 years (as many years as Chuck scored 20.0+ PPG in his career, as it happens) and still some very good years before and after is hard to overlook. An extra MVP, an extra Finals appearance. In as much as I grill him for that BS screen on Barkley in 97, he did go through those Rockets to reach the Finals. Not a lot better as a passer compared to Malone. There's space to look at Malone over Chuck if you don't value only peak, and maybe even if you do, given defensive value and floor spacing.

Meantime, Malone did stack on four years after Barkley retired and snuck into the Finals one last time with those Lakers, not that it added too much to his legacy.

I think it's usually a mistake to make comments about fan generation in a discussion of evaluation. Particularly in context of something like this board in particular, since the level of basketball knowledge and attention to methods of evaluation tend to be more sophisticated than you would generally find from fandom watching 20-30 years ago. There are, of course, exceptions, but the PC Board is better for that than the General Board.

Barkley was very good, and a lot of people remember him more for being old and fat in Houston with a bunch of his bounce and explosion gone, no doubt (for those who saw him live at all). And maybe people remember him more for being very, very boring in Houston and working with Mark Jackson to enable the creation of the 5-second backdown rule, heh. Philly Chuck is certainly a long way back, and he was a beast on O on some very forgettable teams back then, for sure. And he definitely helped Phoenix to the Finals in a series where he didn't stun (remember, he was something like -5% TS relative to his RS performance in that series).

But Karl Malone was also very, very good, so it is at least an interesting discussion, and just casually dismissing the opposite opinion as rooted in generation is a little sloppy, IMHO.

The current not looking at Barkley' as a variant of of LeBron is more wrong than looking at Barkley as a LeBron type player would be. How would I talk to fans that only value LeBron about the greatness of Barkley, of course I must point out Barkley’s similarities to LeBron.

LeBron was so ball dominant drive and kick point guard that LeBron’s point guards were not being asked to do much as ball handlers.

Barkley did a fair amount of drive and kick. Barkley also passed out of post ups well. Barkley was a creator.

LeBron is no Magic Johnson as a point guard. LeBron has the ball to score but he can pass. LeBron is closer to Barkley at creation for others per minutes with the ball in his hands than LeBron is like Magic. Draymond Green gets more assists per minutes with the ball in his hands than LeBron but of course there are reasons for that.

LeBron was a mediocre point guard tacked onto a second only to Jordan scorer in the style of Jordan.
LeBron is more like 1/3 Karl Malone and 2/3rds Jordan with an average point guard thrown in. Actually Jordan was also an average point guard anytime Jordan needed to be a point guard.

LeBron was faster than Barkley and had longer reach. But Barkley did drive and create, especially if you are willing to call an isolation back the defender in a slow motion back to the basket drive.

Words cannot express how much i disagree with this point

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

That's extremely hyperbolic. Barkley was good, but the notion that he was really anything like Lebron's level as a playmaker is fairly far off-base, enough so to make that a poor comparison.




Was he? He definitely had a 4- to 6-year run where you could argue his offense that way, sure, then a few more years where he was still bringing it hard in the playoffs (though 96 is a tough one, because it was a first-round elimination and he stank like ass in the close-out game). I suppose it depends on what you value. Malone's availability per year and overall longevity smoke Barkley, and their RS offense isn't dissimilar. There's a very strong argument for peak Chuck on offense, one I think would be hard to overturn, for sure. But 28/11 or so from Malone for 11 years (as many years as Chuck scored 20.0+ PPG in his career, as it happens) and still some very good years before and after is hard to overlook. An extra MVP, an extra Finals appearance. In as much as I grill him for that BS screen on Barkley in 97, he did go through those Rockets to reach the Finals. Not a lot better as a passer compared to Malone. There's space to look at Malone over Chuck if you don't value only peak, and maybe even if you do, given defensive value and floor spacing.

Meantime, Malone did stack on four years after Barkley retired and snuck into the Finals one last time with those Lakers, not that it added too much to his legacy.

I think it's usually a mistake to make comments about fan generation in a discussion of evaluation. Particularly in context of something like this board in particular, since the level of basketball knowledge and attention to methods of evaluation tend to be more sophisticated than you would generally find from fandom watching 20-30 years ago. There are, of course, exceptions, but the PC Board is better for that than the General Board.

Barkley was very good, and a lot of people remember him more for being old and fat in Houston with a bunch of his bounce and explosion gone, no doubt (for those who saw him live at all). And maybe people remember him more for being very, very boring in Houston and working with Mark Jackson to enable the creation of the 5-second backdown rule, heh. Philly Chuck is certainly a long way back, and he was a beast on O on some very forgettable teams back then, for sure. And he definitely helped Phoenix to the Finals in a series where he didn't stun (remember, he was something like -5% TS relative to his RS performance in that series).

But Karl Malone was also very, very good, so it is at least an interesting discussion, and just casually dismissing the opposite opinion as rooted in generation is a little sloppy, IMHO.

The current not looking at Barkley' as a variant of of LeBron is more wrong than looking at Barkley as a LeBron type player would be. How would I talk to fans that only value LeBron about the greatness of Barkley, of course I must point out Barkley’s similarities to LeBron.

LeBron was so ball dominant drive and kick point guard that LeBron’s point guards were not being asked to do much as ball handlers.

Barkley did a fair amount of drive and kick. Barkley also passed out of post ups well. Barkley was a creator.

LeBron is no Magic Johnson as a point guard. LeBron has the ball to score but he can pass. LeBron is closer to Barkley at creation for others per minutes with the ball in his hands than LeBron is like Magic. Draymond Green gets more assists per minutes with the ball in his hands than LeBron but of course there are reasons for that.

LeBron was a mediocre point guard tacked onto a second only to Jordan scorer in the style of Jordan.
LeBron is more like 1/3 Karl Malone and 2/3rds Jordan with an average point guard thrown in. Actually Jordan was also an average point guard anytime Jordan needed to be a point guard.

LeBron was faster than Barkley and had longer reach. But Barkley did drive and create, especially if you are willing to call an isolation back the defender in a slow motion back to the basket drive.

Words cannot express how much i disagree with this point

Ball dominance produced the assists more than good point guard play did.

Fans love the LeBron Look Away passes. I don’t because LeBron overdoes the Look-away and thereby telegraphs his pass.

I compared him to an average staring point guard. An averaged starting point guard is skilled. When LeBron fans claim that LeBron has point guard skills better than the average staring point guard I get annoyed because that is just not true.

LeBron’s scoring threat makes LeBron as a point guard. LeBron’s actual point guard skills if isolated from LeBron’s drive to score game are not that good.