#17 Highest Peak of All Time (Wade '09 wins)

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

MisterWestside
Starter
Posts: 2,449
And1: 596
Joined: May 25, 2012

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#121 » by MisterWestside » Sun Sep 9, 2012 9:59 pm

There is a reason that the 76ers had a tough time to build a really, really good team around Barkley, because Barkley's skillset required players who are less likely to get, because there are not that many of them.


Maybe you take a time machine back into the 80s and tell the Sixers brass/coaches that instead of putting the blame on Barkley. They made him their guy and implemented him as their bruiser in the post. He did that that -- and now he's the scapegoat for it. Only in basketball/on RealGM :lol:

You are shifting goalposts here, first you wanted to have Birk as backup, now you want him as player next to Nowitzki.


No, I'm keeping this about team performance without the player. Dirk misses playing time, Birk steps in and the team chugs along without him. A pretty +0 SRS change. Dirk "sucks" now. Where's the "impact"? What if Dirk plays with Birk as a backup and plays on a crappy fitting team/team that ? But still gives you the scoring/solid play he's capable of? Someone on the floor has to score. He does his job -- and he's blamed for it. :-?

As I said, if you think I'm just too stupid to get something which is easy to understand for you, than just say so, at least it would contain some honesty.


I don't think you're stupid; I'm simply making some points. So don't take it personally. FTR, I'm not even saying to put Barkley here at #17 at all (like I said before, I'm figuring out where to slot him in), but these threads tend to turn into "+10 impact! GOAT! +0 impact? Worthless!" (Pardon the hyperbole.) Vote for who you want to vote for, but someone has to comment on the things that are being typed here.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,545
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#122 » by therealbig3 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:05 pm

MisterWestside wrote:No, I'm keeping this about team performance without the player. Dirk misses playing time, Birk steps in and the team chugs along without him. A pretty +0 SRS change. Dirk "sucks" now. Where's the "impact"? What if Dirk plays with Birk as a backup and plays on a crappy fitting team/team that ? But still gives you the scoring/solid play he's capable of? Someone on the floor has to score. He does his job -- and he's blamed for it.


Ok, but what kind of backups/replacements did they have for Barkley when he missed time that explains the somewhat unimpressive change in playing level?

And comparing him to Nash, Dragic played great off the Suns bench...and there was still evidence of huge impact from Nash.

I'm not trying to say Barkley sucks or anything like that, because I think he's a top 25 peak player ever, so he was awesome...but I think other players are better, because I believe that the "good backups"/"poor coaching" applies to them as well, and they still had better results.
Minge
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,421
And1: 6
Joined: Jul 03, 2006

 

Post#123 » by Minge » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:12 pm

Comment removed.
MisterWestside
Starter
Posts: 2,449
And1: 596
Joined: May 25, 2012

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#124 » by MisterWestside » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:16 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Ok, but what kind of backups/replacements did they have for Barkley when he missed time that explains the somewhat unimpressive change in playing level?


I brought up the drawbacks of the 6'6" PF mold from before. And, I read all this about skillset, but did the Sixers ask Chuck to turn into some more traditional 6'6" SG? Didn't they want him to play the way he did? Imagine doing your job at work, then being knocked for it by random internet posters. Harsh. At least he's paid, though.

I'm not trying to say Barkley sucks or anything like that, because I think he's a top 25 peak player ever, so he was awesome...but I think other players are better, because I believe that the "good backups"/"poor coaching" applies to them as well, and they still had better results.


So do I, actually. But MJ played like a guard and was used like one. Dirk's height helps him at the 4 spot. Chuck gets slammed because he was the undersized husky boy playing great PF :lol: And the thing is that he was a Paxson's shot away from playing game 7 at home with his Suns to possibly knock off the GOAT in his prime. So this talk about crap skillset or "can't build around him" irks me.
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#125 » by C-izMe » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:17 pm

I can't see Barkley over Nash. Maybe that's just me but Chuck was a negative defender (like Nash), and not a better offensive player than Nash. Until I realized that I think I overrated Chuck but now I see him as a top 25 player outside of Dirk/TMac/etc. level.
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#126 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:27 pm

Tmac has no argument over Barkley. You can complain about Barkley's lack of defense but Tmac wasn't much better, or better at all.

Then when we factor in other aspects such as scoring, passing, rebounding, etc. Barkley wins out. Barkley was super efficient, arguably the best passing PF of all-time, and arguably the greatest rebounder of all-time.

Anything Tmac could do, Barkley could do better.
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#127 » by C-izMe » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:36 pm

Lightning25 wrote:Tmac has no argument over Barkley. You can complain about Barkley's lack of defense but Tmac wasn't much better, or better at all.

Then when we factor in other aspects such as scoring, passing, rebounding, etc. Barkley wins out. Barkley was super efficient, arguably the best passing PF of all-time, and arguably the greatest rebounder of all-time.

Anything Tmac could do, Barkley could do better.

No. First off he has no argument over KG for best passing PF. Second he probably isn't a top 10 rebounder ever. No argument for number one at all. And he was a efficent scorer but so was Dantley. That says nothing to me. It's really looks nice but offensively he's probably just as good as TMac (better scorer, worse passer, less portable) and defensively TMac could at least turn it on and play great defense at times (he was a defensive specialist in Toronto).
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#128 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:38 pm

C-izMe wrote:No. First off he has no argument over KG for best passing PF. Second he probably isn't a top 10 rebounder ever.

I can't even tell if you are serious here, if so, please back that up because you sound clueless.

And he was a efficent scorer but so was Dantley. That says nothing to me. It's really looks nice but offensively he's probably just as good as TMac (better scorer, worse passer, less portable) and defensively TMac could at least turn it on and play great defense at times (he was a defensive specialist in Toronto).

Sure, and Barkley could play defense for a few possessions as well, so that tells me nothing.

What is the argument for Tmac again? It sounds like he doesn't have any because the only thing that makes McGrady great is his numbers and Barkley's numbers just flat out destroy Tmac's.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#129 » by mysticbb » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:46 pm

MisterWestside wrote:Maybe you take a time machine back into the 80s and tell the Sixers brass/coaches that instead of putting the blame on Barkley. They made him their guy and implemented him as their bruiser in the post. He did that that -- and now he's the scapegoat for it. Only in basketball/on RealGM


You are making no sense at all. The 76ers obviously played better with Barkley and they most likely hoped to get the fitting players, either via luck (draft) or via useful trades. I would have done the same. Even a +3 player isn't that easy to get, and most teams are lucky to have one who can also produce at a high rate.
It is also quite funny, because you are contradicting yourself, you are implying that they got it right with Barkley, but at the same time they were just too dumb to either look at their team or to make the right roster moves.

MisterWestside wrote:No, I'm keeping this about team performance without the player. Dirk misses playing time, Birk steps in and the team chugs along without him. A pretty +0 SRS change. Dirk "sucks" now. Where's the "impact"? What if Dirk plays with Birk as a backup and plays on a crappy fitting team/team that ? But still gives you the scoring/solid play he's capable of? Someone on the floor has to score. He does his job -- and he's blamed for it. :-?


See, you are too caught up in your desire to show "some points" rather than making sense of what I said. When a team plays +6 with a +6 player in and he gets replaced with a +6 player, I don't expect the team to get any different result. But in that case the impact of the player does NOT become 0, just the on/off. And at that point you might consider what I said about "putting things into context". Barkley's impact was not 0 on the 76ers, in fact it was clearly higher. Just not as high as his boxscore numbers suggest. That's all I said, and you are making a huge fuss about that, because you couldn't comprehend some things I find rather simple.

MisterWestside wrote:"+10 impact! GOAT! +0 impact? Worthless!" (Pardon the hyperbole.)


Maybe you shouldn't get into that hyperbole so much, and should start making more useful posts? See, I told you a couple of times already that I take the production and efficiency of a player into account. In fact, I even developed a boxscore metric which is supposed to convert production+efficiency into scoring margin. Why do you think I spend so much time on that? Because I don't care about it and just look at on/off or in/out data? It is not the first time we discussed that and yet you felt the need to run with the same baseless accusations as the previous times. Not quite sure what you want to accomplish with that.

MisterWestside wrote:Vote for who you want to vote for, but someone has to comment on the things that are being typed here.


I'm not even having a vote ...
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#130 » by C-izMe » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:46 pm

Rodman, Dwight, Love, Malone, Russell, Chamberlain, Deke, B.Wallace, Duncan, KG. You know Chuck only led the league in rebounds once right (and he's never led in trb%)?

You do know KG averaged more assists with lower to% most years right (and there's evidence he made his teammates better)?

And Chuck couldn't just turn it on and stop Karl Malone from makin a basket at will. He was talk enough (or quick enough) to be a great defensive PF. TMac on the other hand is possibly the longest true SG ever (so no Paul George) and was extremely quick. His defense was amazing when he had the energy.
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#131 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:48 pm

C-izMe wrote:You do know KG averaged more assists with lower to% most years right (and there's evidence he made his teammates better)?

Where is the evidence that Barkley didn't?

And Chuck couldn't just turn it on and stop Karl Malone from makin a basket at will. He was talk enough (or quick enough) to be a great defensive PF. TMac on the other hand is possibly the longest true SG ever (so no Paul George) and was extremely quick. His defense was amazing when he had the energy.

Feel free to tell me who could stop Karl Malone from making a basket at will.

So let me get this straight, Barkley is not a good defender because he couldn't guard Malone, one of the greatest scorers of all-time, but Tmac is a good defender because he had length, even though plenty of players would torch him and plenty of people have criticized his lack of motivation and consistency on that end?

Sounds legit, you sure convinced me why Tmac was better than Barkley.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#132 » by mysticbb » Sun Sep 9, 2012 10:49 pm

MisterWestside wrote:So this talk about crap skillset or "can't build around him" irks me.


If your reading comprehension skills would be better, it wouldn't irk you at all, because NEITHER of that was ever said in this thread. ;)
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#133 » by C-izMe » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:01 pm

Lightning25 wrote:
C-izMe wrote:You do know KG averaged more assists with lower to% most years right (and there's evidence he made his teammates better)?

Where is the evidence that Barkley didn't?

Read the earlier posts on Barkley. Mystic had a great post on how the production from him to his backup suggests the team should drop off more. That had to have been made up for by other teammates (meaning they play better without him).

And Chuck couldn't just turn it on and stop Karl Malone from makin a basket at will. He was talk enough (or quick enough) to be a great defensive PF. TMac on the other hand is possibly the longest true SG ever (so no Paul George) and was extremely quick. His defense was amazing when he had the energy.

Feel free to tell me who could stop Karl Malone from making a basket at will.

So let me get this straight, Barkley is not a good defender because he couldn't guard Malone, one of the greatest scorers of all-time, but Tmac is a good defender because he had length, even though plenty of players would torch him and plenty of people have criticized his lack of motivation and consistency on that end?

Sounds legit, you sure convinced me why Tmac was better than Barkley.

I was just using Karl as an example of a good scoring big. He couldn't guard most people due to his lack of length and quickness. Too slow for SFs and too short for PFs like what they say with most tweeners. And many people didn't torch TMac when he tried. People could still torch Chuck when he tried though (which he didn't).

You might not remember this but TMac shut down Dirk in 05 (held him to 21.3ppg on 47TS). That was in 7 games (a decent sample size) after his prime when the injuries started coming. TMac on a team where he can afford to play defense is probably a great defender and even without giving much effort he was still about average. Chuck was definetly below average defensively.
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#134 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:05 pm

C-izMe wrote:I was jus usin Karl as an example of a good scoring big. He couldn't most people due to his lack of length and quickness. Too slow for SFs and too short for PFs like what they say with most tweeners. And many people didn't torch TMac when he tried. People could still torch Chuck when he tried though (which he didn't).

I suggest you look back at what Kobe use to do with Tmac.

You might not remember this but TMac shut down Dirk in 05 (held him to 21.3ppg on 47TS). That was in 7 games (a decent sample size) after his prime when the injuries started coming. TMac on a team where he can afford to play defense is probably a great defender and even without giving much effort he was still about average. Chuck was definetly below average defensively.

Tmac guarded Dirk for the last 6 games of the series, Ryan Bowen was the one guarding Dirk in Game 1 and he was supposedly the Dirk stopper after that. Dirk didn't have a low-post game then though which is why Dirk was easy to expose pre-2008 which is why he did get exposed as bad as he did in the 2007 1st round against the Warriors.

I still see fail to see the argument. Every argument you use for Tmac is completely hypothetical and could also be used for Barkley. Tmac played defense when he wanted to, so did Barkley. So what is your argument? He wasn't a better scorer, he was completely inferior when it came to rebounding, their passing/playmaking were similar, and then T-Mac was clearly less accomplished.

What is the argument again? The very miniscule advantage Tmac has over Barkley on defense? Is that it? If so, lets put Paul Pierce above Barkley too.
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#135 » by C-izMe » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:30 pm

Paul Pierce isn't close to Chuck offensively though. With two guys that are close a tie breaker needs to be established. Mine is that Chuck was a bad defender and TMac was "lazy" (meaning he could be good at times).
And I took Kobe's numbers against TMac (for all TMac's ORL and HOU games against him. Here's what I got for Kobe:
Total for Kobe in ALL GAMES: 26.9 on 51.7TS
From 01 to 08: 28.8 ppg on 51.8TS 40.7mpg
From 01 to 08 against the league: 29.0 ppg on 56.1TS 40.0mpg

I would say TMac did a pretty good job. :D
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#136 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:33 pm

C-izMe wrote:Paul Pierce isn't close to Chuck offensively though. With two guys that are close a tie breaker needs to be established. Mine is that Chuck was a bad defender and TMac was "lazy" (meaning he could be good at times).

Chuck was a lazy defender, just like Tmac. Like I said, it's the same as saying Pierce is better than Barkley. Barkley was just flat out better than Tmac at everything.

And I took Kobe's numbers against TMac (for all TMac's ORL and HOU games against him. Here's what I got for Kobe:
Total for Kobe in ALL GAMES: 26.9 on 51.7TS
From 01 to 08: 28.8 ppg on 51.8TS 40.7mpg
From 01 to 08 against the league: 29.0 ppg on 56.1TS 40.0mpg

I would say TMac did a pretty good job. :D

Really? Because Tmac didn't even guard him for the last 4 years of the years he listed. Shane Battier did. He wasn't even in his prime/peak either in those last 4 years.

Plus, why are you listing TS%? What does Kobe making FTs at a successful or unsuccessful rate have anything to do with how Tmac guards him? Tmac cannot defend Kobe from the FT line.
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#137 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:41 pm

The more I think about it, the more I realized that Tmac's peak is probably not even top 25 and I would probably take 2012 Durant over any version of Tmac.

mystic, could you pull up Durant's stats vs. BA and AA teams?
MisterWestside
Starter
Posts: 2,449
And1: 596
Joined: May 25, 2012

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#138 » by MisterWestside » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:41 pm

mysticbb wrote:You are making no sense at all. The 76ers obviously played better with Barkley and they most likely hoped to get the fitting players, either via luck (draft) or via useful trades. I would have done the same.


So in the meantime, he plays the style of basketball he's known all along (and which he's done since winning at Auburn), the team says "Chuck you're great at PF; play it!" ; he goes out on the floor and does his job. And some RealGM posters hate it. Like I said before, if you know so much more than everyone else that a 6'6" PF doesn't make for optimal basketball, tell the Sixers to craft a different strategy instead of making Barkley the scapegoat. And for actually producing on the floor!

It is also quite funny, because you are contradicting yourself.


Nope. Not once.

But in that case the impact of the player does NOT become 0, just the on/off.


Didn't talk about "on/off" there. Besides, most fans liken "impact" players to those players whose teams don't play as well without them in the lineup. Dirk's "impact" is lessened with Birk, even more so if he plays on a team with crap fit/coaching strategy (no high SRS with those things in place!) To some around here, it's "Dirk's" fault, even if he still does his job on the floor.

Barkley's impact was not 0 on the 76ers, in fact it was clearly higher. Just not as high as his boxscore numbers suggest. That's all I said, and you are making a huge fuss about that, because you couldn't comprehend some things I find rather simple.


And all I said is that he's not to blame for it.

See, I told you a couple of times already that I take the production and efficiency of a player into account.


Your metric is useful. It's also not the metric in basketball.

Maybe you shouldn't get into that hyperbole so much, and should start making more useful posts?


If you don't like them, tough.
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#139 » by C-izMe » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:49 pm

No because Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively. I just said that.

And he doesn't guard Kobe from the free throw line but if you let someone get to the line 15 times it doesn't matter if you held them to 2-7. And excluding those 4 years they spent in the same conference we have a 5 game sample size. Kobe scored 25.2 on 19.8fga and 10.2fta (51.8TS/42.4 fg%/42.4eFG% -- that's right he didn't make a single 3 point shot). Kobe against the league from 01-03 put up 27.9ppg (54.9TS/46.1 fg%/48.2eFG%). Still suggests that he played great against Kobe.
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: #17 Highest Peak of All Time (ends Sun 9:00 PM Pacific) 

Post#140 » by Lightning25 » Sun Sep 9, 2012 11:51 pm

C-izMe wrote:No because Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively. I just said that.

And he doesn't guard Kobe from the free throw line but if you let someone get to the line 15 times it doesn't matter if you held them to 2-7. And excluding those 4 years they spent in the same conference we have a 5 game sample size. Kobe scored 25.2 on 19.8fga and 10.2fta (51.8TS/42.4 fg%/42.4eFG% -- that's right he didn't make a single 3 point shot). Kobe against the league from 01-03 put up 27.9ppg (54.9TS/46.1 fg%/48.2eFG%). Still suggests that he played great against Kobe.

How is that great? That looks like what Kobe does to every other defense which would mean he played average defense and that's a small sample size.

You still have just about nothing to explain why McGrady is better than Barkley besides the miniscule difference between their defense when Barkley was flat out better than McGrady at everything.

You said Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively......neither is McGrady.

Return to Player Comparisons