Shaq vs Barkley: Offense Only

[kooldude]

GO!

[5DOM]

Prime Shaq = D o m i n a t i o n

only flaw being his FT shooting

[Teddy KGB]

Shaq easily imo. prime shaq just could not be stopped.

[jeahwe]

It's close, but prime Barkley was like smaller version of Shaq with much more range and better ballhandling.

Barkley
career TS% – 61.2
career eFG% – 55.8
best five years TS% - 66.5, 66.1, 66.0, 65.3, 63.5 (four times lead NBA)
best five years eFG% - 60.8, 60.6, 60.4, 59.4, 58.9
career OFFREB% - 12.5
best five years OFFREB% - 16.7, 14.5, 14.0, 13.7, 13.4 (once lead NBA)
career AST% - 17.5
best five years AST% - 22.1, 21.2, 20.6, 20.6, 20.0
career FTA per game – 7.9
best five years FTApg – 10.8, 9.5, 9.3, 8.7, 8.2
career PPG – 22.1
five best years PPG – 28.3, 27.6, 25.8, 25.6, 25.2

Shaq
career TS% - 58.4
career eFG% - 58.1
best five years TS% - 60.5, 60.2, 59.0, 58.9, 58.8
best five years eFG% - 60.1, 60.0, 59.9, 59.3, 59.1
career OFFREB% - 11.9
best five years OFFREB% - 13.5, 13.4, 13.3, 13.1, 12.4
career AST% - 14.5
best five years AST% - 19.3, 18.8, 17.3, 16.4, 16.2
career FTA per game – 10.0
best five years FTApg – 13.1, 11.4, 10.8, 10.8, 10.7
career PPG – 25.2
five best years PPG – 29.7, 29.3, 29.3, 28.7, 28.3 (two times lead NBA)

So again (just like with Hakeem) – prime Barkley was better. More efficient scorer (better in TS, what was obvious, but also they even – well, in fact it's little advantage in Sir Charles favor – in eFG, what supraised me), better offensive rebounder and better passer. Shaq draws more fouls and scored 1.5-3 more points (but Barkley don't loose his effectives when scored a lot – when he had 28.3 ppg he also had his best year in TS and third in eFG so its AMAZING)

[Loose Cannon]

Wow @ using statistics to argue this. Seriously.

Shaq, I don't need to look at their stat pages to be self-assured about it either.

[nate33]

Shaq easily imo. prime shaq just could not be stopped.

Yes you could. Just foul him. The recipe for defeating Shaq was to get 3 big stiffs on your team and just use all 18 fouls. The other thing is that it's very hard to feed the post consistently and it's much easier to double-team the post.

Barkley, being a ball handler, could get a shot off on just about any possession. And fouling him was no answer. Stats don't lie that much on offense. Barkley was a much more efficient scorer than Shaq.

[Loose Cannon]

Shaq easily imo. prime shaq just could not be stopped.

Yes you could. Just foul him. The recipe for defeating Shaq was to get 3 big stiffs on your team and just use all 18 fouls. The other thing is that it's very hard to feed the post consistently and it's much easier to double-team the post.

Barkley, being a ball handler, could get a shot off on just about any possession. And fouling him was no answer. Stats don't lie that much on offense. Barkley was a much more efficient scorer than Shaq.

Too bad hardly any teams had the right personnel. You could hack him but he's still doing considerable damage to your team's foul situation, and there's always the risk of him stepping up and actually draining them.

You could throw doubles at him, and he's always finding an open shot. Shaq (on the Lake Show) is easily the most dominant that we've ever witnessed IN spite of his horrid free throw shooting. Barkley more efficient? Doubt it, the percentages may tell a different story (bull TS% mainly, Shaq's FT% is horrible but I'd still take him any day over Barkley), but Shaq operated in the low post area and did what was the most efficient for his team, whether it be generating an efficient shot for his teammates or himself. 3 rings.

[Malinhion]

I once said that Barkley's offensive statistics in his prime were "Shaq-like."

That being said, Shaq. While he had nowhere near the range of Barkley, his sheer physical force and ability to overpower the opposition and change a team's whole defensive schematic weighs more in his favor.

The triangle has only been modified for two players--Shaq and Jordan.

[tsherkin]

The triangle has only been modified for two players--Shaq and Jordan.

Actually, since Shaq is a center, the triangle is actually built from the beginning to accomodate his style of play. Before it was called the triple-post offense by Fred Winter, the offense he used as the basis of his system was called the Center Opposite system and everything about all versions of the triangle include heavy usage of the low post. Shaq just happened to be a dominant volume scorer at that spot.

Yes you could. Just foul him. The recipe for defeating Shaq was to get 3 big stiffs on your team and just use all 18 fouls.

When has that worked? It's not what Hakeem and the Rockets did to beat him in the '95 Finals and it's not what caused the Lakers to lose in the years leading up to Phil Jackson or in '03 or '04. You beat Shaq by playing him when his teammates aren't playing at a sufficient complementary level and his coach isn't organized or clever (see Brian Hill, Del Harris, etc).

The other thing is that it's very hard to feed the post consistently and it's much easier to double-team the post.

Notably, the one problem that teams running the triangle never really had was getting their post feed to happen... to Jordan/Pippen or to Shaq. The triangle offense gives you too many options to effectively deny the post entry pass a sufficient amount if the team is playing the right way. Certainly not in single coverage and if you shade over, you're screwed because you open passing lanes that Shaq always hit.

Barkley, being a ball handler, could get a shot off on just about any possession. And fouling him was no answer. Stats don't lie that much on offense. Barkley was a much more efficient scorer than Shaq.

Actually, that's a lie; Barkley was a more efficient scorer, yes, but not a much more efficient scorer. 3% of TS in the 58-61 percent range isn't much. More importantly, Shaq didn't take as long as Barkley and his passing is actually more impressive because he wasn't working outside in as often as Sir Charles, which lends itself to volume passing (see Kevin Garnett versus Tim Duncan, for example).

Offensively, Shaq was also considerably better at drawing fouls, which few seem interested in acknowledging as a valuable offensive commodity. You talk about fouling Shaq but this is a guy with a career FTA/FGA of .578 versus Barkley's .554.

Shaq posted 10+ FTA/g in 10 seasons, including 8 in a row; Barkley? He has two (consecutive) seasons with 10+ FTA/g, both early in his career.

That's an absolutely IMMENSE topic that no one here has seemed interested in broaching when comparing these two guys. Forget Barkley's 3% advantage in TS%; the MASSIVE advantage Shaq incurs by putting his defenders into foul trouble and how quickly he helps his team get the opposition into the penalty outweighs any advantage Barkley has in true shooting percentage.

[Pats19andO]

Ill take the man with the ring, Shaq