How many contending seasons did Barkley and Karl Malone each have?

[f4p]

How many contending seasons did Barkley and Karl Malone each have?

I would like to have threads for most of the Top 30-ish guys like a mini-project or something, so hopefully there is some response to this. And I didn't want to start with more Jordan/Lebron so I figured I'd try two guys with no rings.

This is relative: If a team wins 57 games and no one else wins more than 52, they're probably a contender. If a team wins 57 games and 3 teams win 65+ and they have to beat all of them on the road, they're probably not a contender.

This is not a supporting cast question: If Bill Russell plus 4 guys from the Y win the title, that's a contender. If Charles Barkley and 4 guys from the Y win 30 games, that's not a contender. Of course, if it's Barkley and 4 all-stars and they only win 30 games, you could still say they were a contender and just underperformed.

This is dynamic: It's really a "Did a team have a chance to win it all?" question. If things outside of a team's control help/hurt, take that into account. This includes injuries. The 2000 Spurs might have been contenders, but not once Tim Duncan missed the playoffs. However, if it's new information in a team's control, like if they're the 8th seed and upset the 1st seed, that's just a great series by a non-contender, not the birth of a new contender. The 2007 Cavs aren't necessarily contenders even while making the Finals, the 2007 Mavs are even though they lost in the 1st round.

Optional (but not optional): Apply weights to contending seasons. This isn't championship odds so the numbers aren't supposed to add up to 1.0 for each season. I would say something like below, but choose whatever you want:

1.0 - Favorite / Co-Favorite ('85 Lakers and Celtics?)
0.75 - 2nd best team but there is a strong favorite ('97 Jazz?) / Top 3-4 team in wide open field
0.5 - 2nd best team but there is a dominant favorite ('96 Sonics / '17 Cavs?) / 3rd best team behind co-favorites / Top 4-6 team in wide open field
0.25 - Fringe contender, lots of things need to go right, but not like "once in NBA history" right (if you're the 5th or maybe even 4th seed, you probably don't qualify most years)

So maybe for Barkley:

1985 - 0.5
1993 - 1.0
1994 - 0.75
1995 - 0.75
1997 - 0.25

Spoiler:

.

.

.

[Dr Positivity]

Going into playoffs using your system

Barkley

85 - 0.75. Legitimate threat 2 years from title and reloaded.
86 - 0.25. Clearly behind Celtics/Lakers but still champion players.
90 - 0.25. Behind a bunch of teams but with arguable MVP
93 - 1.0. Co-favorite
94 - 0.75. Open field.
95 - 0.75. Open field.
97 - 0.25. Underdogs but still superteam.

Malone

89 - 0.5. - Lakers 3peat are favorite but competition is not too bad this year (Pistons haven't won a title yet)
90 - 0.5 - In the mix
91 - 0.25. - Seems like too many teams ahead of them including 91 Bulls reg season
92 - 0.5. Serious West threat but Bulls overall favorites easliy
94 - 0.75. Wide open field without MJ
95 - 0.75. Open field again.
96 - 0.25. 72 W Bulls and Sonics great in West.
97 - 0.75. Bulls are still the favorites and Rockets old stars could spoil in West.
98 - 1.0. Co-favorite
99 - 0.75. Perhaps favorite but overall open field.
00 - 0.5. Risky matchup for Lakers, but obviously aging.
01 - 0.5. Another decent season but still on the outside.
04 - 0.75. Probably should be called more of a wide open field situation than 1.0.

[AEnigma]

^1996 being a 0.25 is absurd, they lost a road game 7 in the conference finals by four points and outscored the Sonics overall for the series.

Agree with the Barkley years, although would boost 1997 up to 0.5. Clearly the #3 team for me that year.

For Malone, no way I am giving middling SRS early exits anything higher than 0.25. 1992 is probably a 0.5 year — fourth best team in à comparatively down season (Magic, Hakeem, Barkley, and Robinson all out of the playoffs). Once they trade for Hornacek I would have them as 0.75 until 1997 and 1998, where they are at 1. 0.5 in 1999 (third best in their conference), then 0.25 in 2000 (good theoretical matchup with Shaq but no real shot against the Blazers or even the Pacers).

[Dr Positivity]

^1996 being a 0.25 is absurd, they lost a road game 7 in the conference finals by four points and outscored the Sonics overall for the series.

This is how much of a contender they are before the playoffs so doing well in WCF is irreleevant. They'd have been 0.5 in a normal year but everyone goes down a peg in a season where the best team is a 72-10 former 3 time champion.

Jazz are arguable favorites in 99 imo because they'd done it before and in great "now that Jordan's gone" position. Spurs may be imposing for talent reasons but ensemble Blazers team probably not over them. The East also sucks.

[AEnigma]

If we are going into the playoffs then the Sonics have twice choked to bad first-round opponents.

The 1996 Bulls are basically identical to what they were in 1997, and while the Jazz were better in 1997 than they were in 1996, it is the same core and playstyle.

[f4p]

^1996 being a 0.25 is absurd, they lost a road game 7 in the conference finals by four points and outscored the Sonics overall for the series.

Agree with the Barkley years, although would boost 1997 up to 0.5. Clearly the #3 team for me that year.

For Malone, no way I am giving middling SRS early exits anything higher than 0.25. 1992 is probably a 0.5 year — fourth best team in à comparatively down season (Magic, Hakeem, Barkley, and Robinson all out of the playoffs). Once they trade for Hornacek I would have them as 0.75 until 1997 and 1998, where they are at 1. 0.5 in 1999 (third best in their conference), then 0.25 in 2000 (good theoretical matchup with Shaq but no real shot against the Blazers or even the Pacers).

so that's 0.25 for 1989, 1990, and 1991, and 0 in 2001? is 2004 0.75 or not counting it for malone due to his role?

[Dr Positivity]

If we are going into the playoffs then the Sonics have twice choked to bad first-round opponents.

The 1996 Bulls are basically identical to what they were in 1997, and while the Jazz were better in 1997 than they were in 1996, it is the same core and playstyle.

In addition to Sonics I'd say the the Rockets (back to back champs and bad matchup for Bulls, and not really a worse regular season than in 95) and Magic (previous finalist and beat MJ the previous year) have reasons to seem like bigger title threats than Jazz, and Spurs about the same.

[Owly]

If we are going into the playoffs then the Sonics have twice choked to bad first-round opponents.

The 1996 Bulls are basically identical to what they were in 1997, and while the Jazz were better in 1997 than they were in 1996, it is the same core and playstyle.

In addition to Sonics I'd say the the Rockets (back to back champs and bad matchup for Bulls, and not really a worse regular season than in 95) and Magic (previous finalist and beat MJ the previous year) have reasons to seem like bigger title threats than Jazz, and Spurs about the same.

Rockets not worse RS than '95 ...
1) it's ('95) a pretty awful RS for a champ
2) '96 is still down by circa 0.7 SRS to 1.63
3) '95 can at least argue between time out from Horry, Olajuwon and the trade they didn't have their best lineup (smallball) together much and to a lesser extent didn't have their team at full strength even with the more conventional roster. '96 can/did trim some fat too, with better health and a tightener rotation.

Honestly I think it's part that '95 Rockets were pretty lucky and weak champs. Then Olajuwon drops, Drexler drops and the upside isn't so high there anymore. Olajuwon bounces back somewhat the next year, so maybe you can argue it.

Depending on what the perspective (what info we have) is I'm not sure the Rockets transpired to be a huge matchup problem for the Bulls in the second three-peat, though I've only looked very surface level (Bulls 5-1).

Again depending on what info we might have, the '96 playoff Rockets didn't look a lot better than a less than "firing on all cylinders" Lakers, then get beaten decisively by the Sonics (in what is, granted their own problem matchup).

If we're looking with the benefit of hindsight, for myself, I wouldn't see Houston as a big roadblock.

[f4p]

Again depending on what info we might have, the '96 playoff Rockets didn't look a lot better than a less than "firing on all cylinders" Lakers, then get beaten decisively by the Sonics (in what is, granted their own problem matchup).

If we're looking with the benefit of hindsight, for myself, I wouldn't see Houston as a big roadblock.

yeah it's hard to say how we look if we don't face seattle. honestly we could have probably taken anyone but the bulls but we could have also lost to a lot of teams. 48-34 was a pretty fair reflection. it took all-world hakeem for 2 years to drag a #6 and #11 SRS team to the title in '94 and '95. although i've watched games 1 and 2 against seattle recently. they basically made the bet that they could double hakeem (i have them at literally 100% doubles on any hakeem post-up through 2 games) and run at the role players with their fast defense and the role players wouldn't be able to make them pay after getting run off the line. for the most part, a correct assumption. though it was basically an even series after the game 1 blowout. i watched game 2, the game where the sonics hit 20 3's and only won by 4. in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, they literally hit 13 straight 3's! consecutive! and we were still winning at that point. with just an amazing 14-27 night instead of 20-27, they score 87 and lose by 14.

any vote on barkley/malone?

[AEnigma]

^1996 being a 0.25 is absurd, they lost a road game 7 in the conference finals by four points and outscored the Sonics overall for the series.

Agree with the Barkley years, although would boost 1997 up to 0.5. Clearly the #3 team for me that year.

For Malone, no way I am giving middling SRS early exits anything higher than 0.25. 1992 is probably a 0.5 year — fourth best team in à comparatively down season (Magic, Hakeem, Barkley, and Robinson all out of the playoffs). Once they trade for Hornacek I would have them as 0.75 until 1997 and 1998, where they are at 1. 0.5 in 1999 (third best in their conference), then 0.25 in 2000 (good theoretical matchup with Shaq but no real shot against the Blazers or even the Pacers).

so that's 0.25 for 1989, 1990, and 1991, and 0 in 2001? is 2004 0.75 or not counting it for malone due to his role?

2004 — fair to count by the same standards you are counting 1985 for Barkley
2001 — I think they were the sixth best team in the western conference that season. Maybe fifth over the Kings. No shot at topping the Lakers or Spurs. Whether that sounds like 0 or 0.25 will leave to you.

[eminence]

'85 - 0.75 Sixers
'86 - 0.5 Sixers
'87 - none
'88 - none
'89 - 0.25 Jazz
'90 - 0.25 for Jazz and Sixers
'91 - 0.25 Jazz
'92 - 0.5 Jazz
'93 - 1.0 Suns
'94 - 0.75 Suns, 0.5 Jazz, wide open year
'95 - 0.75 Jazz, 0.5 Suns
'96 - 0.5 Jazz
'97 - 0.75 Jazz, 0.5 Rockets
'98 - 0.75 Jazz
'99 - 1.0 Jazz, 0.25 Rockets
'00 - 0.25 Jazz (could be 0.5 simply for a favorable Lakers matchup)
'01 - 0.25 Jazz
'02 - none
'03 - none
'04 - 0.75 Lakers

Malone - 6.75
Barkley - 4.5