Charles Barkley vs Reggie Miller

[Matt15]

Who would you rather build around in todays league?

[SickMother]

Think Chuck would absolutely feast in today's league with how much more space there is to operate inside compared to when he was playing in paint packed with twin towers.

He was an insane scorer from both an efficiency & volume standpoint (123 TS+ | 1,459 TS Add for Chuck from 86/87 to 89/90 compared to a 4 season peak of 119 TS+ | 1,158 TS Add for Reggie) which I don't think would have any problem translating, and could also see his already impressive rebounding totals taking a jump with less competition inside to grab them too.

[trelos6]

As always, depends on teammates. Reggie fits on more teams.

Barkley is def leading you to at least the second round in playoffs, but you need to tailor the team to suit his skills.

[Jaivl]

How highly do you rate a hypothetical prime Zion? Higher than Lillard?

[No-more-rings]

How highly do you rate a hypothetical prime Zion? Higher than Lillard?

Potentially pretty high if he can lay off the cheeseburgers. Someone like Barkley didn’t have nearly the same conditioning issues though. Barkley seems to be a more skilled talent anyway.

[1993Playoffs]

I feel Reggie is starting to get a bit overrated imo

[penbeast0]

Barkley is the better play in today's or any league but I might still take Miller. His skill set fits with almost any other player I might draft and in today's league you need at least two stars plus, if I'm starting a new team, I don't want Barkley setting the culture. He was a force of nature but he was also a party hardy disruptive locker room presence. If I have a good team that fit either and wanted to add one player who could turn that good team into a great team, it would be Barkley but like Dennis Rodman, I think you need a culture around him for him to fit into.

[70sFan]

I pick the better player, so Barkley.

[xinxin]

I feel Reggie is starting to get a bit overrated imo

A bit???? Try waaaay overrated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jaivl]

How highly do you rate a hypothetical prime Zion? Higher than Lillard?

Potentially pretty high if he can lay off the cheeseburgers. Someone like Barkley didn’t have nearly the same conditioning issues though. Barkley seems to be a more skilled talent anyway.

He's more skilled but also smaller and not as much of an athletic freak (while still being 99th percentile). Still, think he's a close enough comp to illustrate the point.

I'd think you easily take the prospect of a healthy Zion over a Lillard kind of guy.

[70sFan]

How highly do you rate a hypothetical prime Zion? Higher than Lillard?

Potentially pretty high if he can lay off the cheeseburgers. Someone like Barkley didn’t have nearly the same conditioning issues though. Barkley seems to be a more skilled talent anyway.

He's more skilled but also smaller and not as much of an athletic freak (while still being 99th percentile). Still, think he's a close enough comp to illustrate the point.

I'd think you easily take the prospect of a healthy Zion over a Lillard kind of guy.

I think Zion has the potential to become a better offensive player than Barkley, but for now the skills gap is significantly bigger than Zion physical advantage.

[No-more-rings]

How highly do you rate a hypothetical prime Zion? Higher than Lillard?

Potentially pretty high if he can lay off the cheeseburgers. Someone like Barkley didn’t have nearly the same conditioning issues though. Barkley seems to be a more skilled talent anyway.

He's more skilled but also smaller and not as much of an athletic freak (while still being 99th percentile). Still, think he's a close enough comp to illustrate the point.

I'd think you easily take the prospect of a healthy Zion over a Lillard kind of guy.

Yeah but again, Zion needs to stay slimmer realistically. He’s a big strong guy and that helps him a lot, but not a style suitable for a long nba career.

[CharityStripe34]

Not even close. I'd take Sir Charles. And I'd add an ounce limit of vodka intake in the contract.

[henshao]

they're both fundamentally offensive engines but Chuck is a more powerful one IMO with other benefits

[Dooley]

Both of them would be great offensive engines in the modern era. Chuck would be phenomenal on that end. But modern teams are also really good at building an offense around an off-ball shooting machine like Reggie. And the gap between Chuck and Reggie as scorers was already surprisingly small, given the substantial gap in historical reputation between them.

Defensively, I think Chuck would have problems in the modern era. He was already an uneven defender in his own day and teams today are much more committed to mercilessly attacking big men with problems in space, especially in the playoffs. I don't think Chuck would be a better defender than Jokic, and very likely would be worse, while offering less on offense. And we already have people arguing that Jokic is incapable of being a top 5 player in the postseason due to his defensive problems.

Basically, if you think that it's next to impossible to win with Jokic as your best player in the modern era for defensive reasons, that logic should also apply to Chuck.

[RCM88x]

Both of them would be great offensive engines in the modern era. Chuck would be phenomenal on that end. But modern teams are also really good at building an offense around an off-ball shooting machine like Reggie. And the gap between Chuck and Reggie as scorers was already surprisingly small, given the substantial gap in historical reputation between them.

Defensively, I think Chuck would have problems in the modern era. He was already an uneven defender in his own day and teams today are much more committed to mercilessly attacking big men with problems in space, especially in the playoffs. I don't think Chuck would be a better defender than Jokic, and very likely would be worse, while offering less on offense. And we already have people arguing that Jokic is incapable of being a top 5 player in the postseason due to his defensive problems.

Basically, if you think that it's next to impossible to win with Jokic as your best player in the modern era for defensive reasons, that logic should also apply to Chuck.

The thing that can save Barkley in this sort of thing is that he's not a C. With Jokic, it's impossible (well maybe not really but it would be very hard to find someone to fill the role) to play him at the 4. He has to play the 5 which makes him much easier to target and put a much bigger load on his shoulders defensively. Barkley would probably be more like a 3-4 defensively and would be easier to cover with other wings on switches and whatnot.

Maybe it's just so out of the norm these days for a team to be able to cover the weaknesses of a defensive liability at the 5 that it's hard to picture a situation like that, but I don't think its impossible. Just far more probable/easier for teams to cover someone who's effectively a wing/PF.

[cupcakesnake]

I feel Reggie is starting to get a bit overrated imo

A bit???? Try waaaay overrated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really sure how either of you think he's being rated, so it's hard to comment on this. I guess if he's being put in the same conversation with Barkley, that's probably overrating him a little bit?

A lot of the NBA fandom does not rate Miller highly. People think Ray Allen is better, people question Reggie's place in the NBA 75, and they look at his meh box score numbers and don't get how this guy could be good.

But amongst the ultra-nerdy NBA crowd who is going back and watching film and doing analysis of impact, Reggie is kinda of a folk hero. He's statistically proven to be one of the most resilient playoff scorers of all-time. Tons of data put Reggie up there with all kinds of offensive GOAT level players.

It makes him a hard player to call overrated or underrated. There is a big discrepancy in how different fans view Reggie's game. Even if the nerds are overrating him, the wider NBA fanbase is definitely underrating him when they say things like the opinions in my second paragraph.

Reggie is a bit like Ginobili in that he's so much better than his basic counting stats indicate, but the low counting stats make him hard to rank against other stars.

[falcolombardi]

Not even close. I'd take Sir Charles. And I'd add an ounce limit of vodka intake in the contract.

I dont know why it wouldnt be close?

Reggie had similar offense team success even whe he didnt play in teams like the suns with kevin johnson, was comparably efficient with close volume in the playoffs

Neither is a defensive needle mover but reggie may be more consistent with less mistakes there

Barkley lets you run more offense (which means more assists/creation) through him and of course rebounding (although the value of his offensive reboubding to a degree is already accounted for in his scoring) but reggie provides the extra spacing

Seems fairly close tbh?

[Dooley]

Both of them would be great offensive engines in the modern era. Chuck would be phenomenal on that end. But modern teams are also really good at building an offense around an off-ball shooting machine like Reggie. And the gap between Chuck and Reggie as scorers was already surprisingly small, given the substantial gap in historical reputation between them.

Defensively, I think Chuck would have problems in the modern era. He was already an uneven defender in his own day and teams today are much more committed to mercilessly attacking big men with problems in space, especially in the playoffs. I don't think Chuck would be a better defender than Jokic, and very likely would be worse, while offering less on offense. And we already have people arguing that Jokic is incapable of being a top 5 player in the postseason due to his defensive problems.

Basically, if you think that it's next to impossible to win with Jokic as your best player in the modern era for defensive reasons, that logic should also apply to Chuck.

The thing that can save Barkley in this sort of thing is that he's not a C. With Jokic, it's impossible (well maybe not really but it would be very hard to find someone to fill the role) to play him at the 4. He has to play the 5 which makes him much easier to target and put a much bigger load on his shoulders defensively. Barkley would probably be more like a 3-4 defensively and would be easier to cover with other wings on switches and whatnot.

Maybe it's just so out of the norm these days for a team to be able to cover the weaknesses of a defensive liability at the 5 that it's hard to picture a situation like that, but I don't think its impossible. Just far more probable/easier for teams to cover someone who's effectively a wing/PF.

Yeah, it's plausible - and it's also plausible that it's just not an insurmountable issue for either of them.

But I'm just not sure that I totally buy that it's much easier to hide a true PF from being targeted on pick n rolls than it is a center. And I'm not really sure you want Barkley switching much, or playing like a 3. He's not really a modern-day jumbo wing type player IMO.

[henshao]

I may be misremembering this but I feel Barkley was actually a surprisingly effective rim-protector, ala Wade