RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #21 (Charles Barkley)

[BigBoss23]

I'm curious as to when Anthony Davis/Kawhi Leonard may start getting traction as AD's prime in particular basically coincided with when Curry's prime began, and Kawhi is one of the few wings in the league that are on the level of Lebron or Durant.

I think Barkley and Durant are the obvious selections at this juncture but I'd argue they would have been justified for being voted in earlier, mainly because they're both offensive powerhouses that have incredible scalability (see 1992/1996/2012 olympic teams) and were arguably the best players on the 1992/2012 teams.

Wade seems to be underrated since Curry/Harden are beginning to gain traction, and of course we have Nash/CP3 for point guards.

So for the record, I expect that my next vote for a current player after the Paul/Durant/Curry group will not happen for quite a while, and it will likely be Kawhi, then Harden, then AD, then Giannis.

Is Harden getting traction? People are talking about Curry/Harden because it's been mentioned, but has anyone voted for Harden? I'll look after I post, but I'll say I think it's way too early for him.

IMO if we're going to be discussing Curry then Harden deserves to be mentioned. Curry didn't really take off until the 2012-13 season which is in line with Davis/Harden. So while we can use playoff success as a pro for Curry, I think Davis/Harden were in less optimal settings than Curry. Let's not forget that GSW took off in large part because they were ahead of the curve, and Kerr inserted Draymond over David Lee in the starting lineup to optimize Curry/Klay/Draymond.

I'd compare Curry's impact to Shaq in terms of gravity (Shaq internal, Curry outside of course). But with these types of players (and Id argue Lebron is in the same boat) they require players who are elite at creating their own shot to really maximize their gravity. Its no surprise that until Kobe/Durant/Wade/Kyrie/Davis came in the picture, none of these greats won much of anything except for Curry in 2015.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I'm curious as to when Anthony Davis/Kawhi Leonard may start getting traction as AD's prime in particular basically coincided with when Curry's prime began, and Kawhi is one of the few wings in the league that are on the level of Lebron or Durant.

I think Barkley and Durant are the obvious selections at this juncture but I'd argue they would have been justified for being voted in earlier, mainly because they're both offensive powerhouses that have incredible scalability (see 1992/1996/2012 olympic teams) and were arguably the best players on the 1992/2012 teams.

Wade seems to be underrated since Curry/Harden are beginning to gain traction, and of course we have Nash/CP3 for point guards.

So for the record, I expect that my next vote for a current player after the Paul/Durant/Curry group will not happen for quite a while, and it will likely be Kawhi, then Harden, then AD, then Giannis.

Is Harden getting traction? People are talking about Curry/Harden because it's been mentioned, but has anyone voted for Harden? I'll look after I post, but I'll say I think it's way too early for him.

IMO if we're going to be discussing Curry then Harden deserves to be mentioned. Curry didn't really take off until the 2012-13 season which is in line with Davis/Harden. So while we can use playoff success as a pro for Curry, I think Davis/Harden were in less optimal settings than Curry. Let's not forget that GSW took off in large part because they were ahead of the curve, and Kerr inserted Draymond over David Lee in the starting lineup to optimize Curry/Klay/Draymond.

I'd compare Curry's impact to Shaq in terms of gravity (Shaq internal, Curry outside of course). But with these types of players (and Id argue Lebron is in the same boat) they require players who are elite at creating their own shot to really maximize their gravity. Its no surprise that until Kobe/Durant/Wade/Kyrie/Davis came in the picture, none of these greats won much of anything except for Curry in 2015.

I'm really confused by this post. What do you mean by "these types of players"?

[Cavsfansince84]

IMO if we're going to be discussing Curry then Harden deserves to be mentioned. Curry didn't really take off until the 2012-13 season which is in line with Davis/Harden. So while we can use playoff success as a pro for Curry, I think Davis/Harden were in less optimal settings than Curry. Let's not forget that GSW took off in large part because they were ahead of the curve, and Kerr inserted Draymond over David Lee in the starting lineup to optimize Curry/Klay/Draymond.

I'd compare Curry's impact to Shaq in terms of gravity (Shaq internal, Curry outside of course). But with these types of players (and Id argue Lebron is in the same boat) they require players who are elite at creating their own shot to really maximize their gravity. Its no surprise that until Kobe/Durant/Wade/Kyrie/Davis came in the picture, none of these greats won much of anything except for Curry in 2015.

I think that's somewhat fair with regard to Harden. I've been thinking in my mind and even writing out how I might vote from 20-30 and I think he will deserve strong consideration soon. Something else I have always felt with regard to KD is that WB was not an optimal pairing for him and that KD being paired with a more traditional pg and another shooter would work much better who understood when KD should have the ball.

[DQuinn1575]

So with Mikan and Moses in, I'm sort of at a different level, where I think we have everybody in who was the best player in the game for an extended time, although I'm sure there will be cases made for other for a shorter time period. One of my goals was to develop a numeric system, and I'm somewhere in the middle of it, but have enough that I will use that for a time period. It means following the numbers a little more, and my judgment a little less, as it is really hard for me to definitely say Barkley > Durant or Pettit > Baylor. So, this is a derivative of what Bill James did in rating baseball players, using win shares, and using all-time, peak, adding playoff with a little time-line adjustment.

1. Durant - one of the components is 3 best seasons, and Durant scores highest in this of any remaining player. He's not too many games behind Magic, Bird, Russell, and if he comes back 100% he will be higher the next time we do this.

2 .Barkley - my numbers basically had Chris Paul and Barkley just about tied, and judgmentally I had Barkley ahead before. I also think when I do tweak this, I will rate assists a little lower, and volume scoring a little higher than winshares, so my final rankings should put Barkley ahead.

3 Chris Paul - surprised by the numbers, as my judgment wouldn't have him quite as high. All-around he doesnt have the single negative of defense (Curry) peak (Stockton) efficiency (Thomas) career length (Frazier).

[eminence]

Are you arguing for Barkley having 8+ top 3 level seasons (roughly) here or am I misreading this? Cause that strikes me as being very very high on Barkley (he finished top 3 in MVP voting twice, RPOY 3 times). If you're that high on Barkley you should present the case, cause I don't think I've seen anyone argue him as that level.

?? Curry has only been top 6 in mvp voting 5 times so why should the bar for Barkley be top 3 in mvp voting? Barkley was top 6 8 times. Look I know some people are very high on Curry and will argue this stuff till the day they die but imo its a bit irrational in how its applied. I have no dog in any of this. Just 30+ years of watching bb and also being a fan of statistics. Prime and in a sense career value(not counting so much seasons where a guy is just having little impact) along with ps play is what matters to me. I don't see much of any case for Steph over Charles in that regard.

You set the bar yourself? You said Curry only had 5-6 all-time great seasons and then proceeded to tell me that meant approximately top 3 level.

[Doctor MJ]

A note on AD who I generally consider myself to be quite high on:

To me it was really surprising that NO wasn't able to be better than they were, and while I'll certainly call AD the most valuable player and asset they had and thus not say he was "the problem", I expected he'd be able to do more there than he did.

My general sense of this comes down to likely things:

1. AD really needs to play with a strong on-ball playmaker at a level above the Jrue Holidays of the world if you really want to him to be huge on offense.

2. AD really needs to have a coach thinking through defensive strategy or else he tends to spin his wheels.

3. AD seems to be the type of player who can lose focus and thus hasn't proven to be able to galvanize a team through the season either with his on-court or off-court impact.

None of this changes the fact that in the playoff last year, when AD's game was really working, he was the most effective basketball player on the planet.

AD's performance in the playoff has absolutely rocketed him up my Top 100 list, but he remains not nearly as high as he'll be if, say, he demonstrates to do this over and over again and leads the Lakers to a dynasty.

I think with a repeat performance AD is poised to overtake Kawhi & Harden, but to this point I can't say I feel like he's done more with what he's had to work with over the course of his career than those guys did.

Also with regards to the Giannis comparison where I did move AD above Giannis based on the playoffs, the issue is specifically that Giannis has to demonstrate that a team playing Giannis-ball can be expected to thrive against all comers. If in the end it yields a lower ceiling than a team using AD appropriately, then AD is the player I'd go for.

[Cavsfansince84]

Are you arguing for Barkley having 8+ top 3 level seasons (roughly) here or am I misreading this? Cause that strikes me as being very very high on Barkley (he finished top 3 in MVP voting twice, RPOY 3 times). If you're that high on Barkley you should present the case, cause I don't think I've seen anyone argue him as that level.

?? Curry has only been top 6 in mvp voting 5 times so why should the bar for Barkley be top 3 in mvp voting? Barkley was top 6 8 times. Look I know some people are very high on Curry and will argue this stuff till the day they die but imo its a bit irrational in how its applied. I have no dog in any of this. Just 30+ years of watching bb and also being a fan of statistics. Prime and in a sense career value(not counting so much seasons where a guy is just having little impact) along with ps play is what matters to me. I don't see much of any case for Steph over Charles in that regard.

You set the bar yourself? You said Curry only had 5-6 all-time great seasons and then proceeded to tell me that meant approximately top 3 level.

ok, even if that is the criteria then Steph would still only have 2 such seasons. The thing is though that I never really agreed with that phrase or criteria as being the criteria that I personally would use to make sense of players' careers. If anything I said its too vague and hard to define.

[BigBoss23]

So for the record, I expect that my next vote for a current player after the Paul/Durant/Curry group will not happen for quite a while, and it will likely be Kawhi, then Harden, then AD, then Giannis.

Is Harden getting traction? People are talking about Curry/Harden because it's been mentioned, but has anyone voted for Harden? I'll look after I post, but I'll say I think it's way too early for him.

IMO if we're going to be discussing Curry then Harden deserves to be mentioned. Curry didn't really take off until the 2012-13 season which is in line with Davis/Harden. So while we can use playoff success as a pro for Curry, I think Davis/Harden were in less optimal settings than Curry. Let's not forget that GSW took off in large part because they were ahead of the curve, and Kerr inserted Draymond over David Lee in the starting lineup to optimize Curry/Klay/Draymond.

I'd compare Curry's impact to Shaq in terms of gravity (Shaq internal, Curry outside of course). But with these types of players (and Id argue Lebron is in the same boat) they require players who are elite at creating their own shot to really maximize their gravity. Its no surprise that until Kobe/Durant/Wade/Kyrie/Davis came in the picture, none of these greats won much of anything except for Curry in 2015.

I'm really confused by this post. What do you mean by "these types of players"?

Curry's not a player you just dump the ball to against a good defense and say "get your shot off with at least a good look". Similarly in their own ways, Shaq as a big and Lebron not being a great shooter.

[eminence]

Anywho, I'd genuinely appreciate a real case for Barkley at that level (8+ top 3 level seasons with any additional longevity is approaching GOAT tier for me), but he's certainly worth considering here without it.

[Jordan Syndrome]

IMO if we're going to be discussing Curry then Harden deserves to be mentioned. Curry didn't really take off until the 2012-13 season which is in line with Davis/Harden. So while we can use playoff success as a pro for Curry, I think Davis/Harden were in less optimal settings than Curry. Let's not forget that GSW took off in large part because they were ahead of the curve, and Kerr inserted Draymond over David Lee in the starting lineup to optimize Curry/Klay/Draymond.

I'd compare Curry's impact to Shaq in terms of gravity (Shaq internal, Curry outside of course). But with these types of players (and Id argue Lebron is in the same boat) they require players who are elite at creating their own shot to really maximize their gravity. Its no surprise that until Kobe/Durant/Wade/Kyrie/Davis came in the picture, none of these greats won much of anything except for Curry in 2015.

I'm really confused by this post. What do you mean by "these types of players"?

Curry's not a player you just dump the ball to against a good defense and say "get your shot off with at least a good look". Similarly in their own ways, Shaq as a big and Lebron not being a great shooter.

Yeah I'm just not seeing that with LeBron. LeBron proved over the past decade he is a player who can do that--dump the ball to against a good defense and get a good look.

If we move beyond that, is this the most important aspect in basketball? If Curry's impact and gravity far exceeds Durants or Harden's then why does it matter if Durant and Harden are better isolation scorers?

Is your argument any deeper than "Kareem needed Oscar/Magic, Jordan needed Pippen and Wilt needed West"?

[Cavsfansince84]

Something else I'd like to bring up about KD is I think his GS years at this point are sort of being minimalized into a KD v Steph sort of debate but what's lost is that those were likely to be his peak years as an nba player being his age 28-30 years(despite missing around 30 games). Now keep in mind that prior to that he had spent the previous 6-7 years being widely seen as the second or third best player in the league(including 2014 when he was mvp). So I think its sort of underplayed how good KD was likely to be with or without Steph during those 3 years. He was at that point imo where his mental and physical game was likely to come together in a near historic way. It did actually in a couple of those playoff runs but like I said above, its been sort of lost in to what degree it was due to playing with Steph. Those should have been his LeBron in Miami years regardless of what team he was playing on. gs was lucky to get him though in hindsight it might not have been the best thing for KD legacy wise despite getting 2 fmvps.

[eminence]

?? Curry has only been top 6 in mvp voting 5 times so why should the bar for Barkley be top 3 in mvp voting? Barkley was top 6 8 times. Look I know some people are very high on Curry and will argue this stuff till the day they die but imo its a bit irrational in how its applied. I have no dog in any of this. Just 30+ years of watching bb and also being a fan of statistics. Prime and in a sense career value(not counting so much seasons where a guy is just having little impact) along with ps play is what matters to me. I don't see much of any case for Steph over Charles in that regard.

You set the bar yourself? You said Curry only had 5-6 all-time great seasons and then proceeded to tell me that meant approximately top 3 level.

ok, even if that is the criteria then Steph would still only have 2 such seasons. The thing is though that I never really agreed with that phrase or criteria as being the criteria that I personally would use to make sense of players' careers. If anything I said its too vague and hard to define.

Walking back your initial reply (stating Curry had 5-6 seasons at that level) is fine, but kind of makes the last few posts we've each made irrelevant. Instead of discussing why I feel Curry does have 5-6 seasons at an ATG level (where you appear to feel it's closer to 2) I've spent it discussing how nobody else (remaining) has more than that.

[Cavsfansince84]

You set the bar yourself? You said Curry only had 5-6 all-time great seasons and then proceeded to tell me that meant approximately top 3 level.

ok, even if that is the criteria then Steph would still only have 2 such seasons. The thing is though that I never really agreed with that phrase or criteria as being the criteria that I personally would use to make sense of players' careers. If anything I said its too vague and hard to define.

Walking back your initial reply (stating Curry had 5-6 seasons at that level) is fine, but kind of makes the last few posts we've each made irrelevant. Instead of discussing why I feel Curry does have 5-6 seasons at an ATG level (where you appear to feel it's closer to 2) I've spent it discussing how nobody else (remaining) has more than that.

Well in that statement I was using my own definition of what all time great would be but again imo that's too vague to use as a definitive criteria in this sort of a debate. We could debate 2013 but again I think its sort of pointless to the discussion unless we figure out how this is going to be applied to other players. I'm not going to dismiss the bulk of someone like Barkley's prime as not good enough to matter based on this criteria. That would just be ludicrous.

[Doctor MJ]

?? Curry has only been top 6 in mvp voting 5 times so why should the bar for Barkley be top 3 in mvp voting? Barkley was top 6 8 times. Look I know some people are very high on Curry and will argue this stuff till the day they die but imo its a bit irrational in how its applied. I have no dog in any of this. Just 30+ years of watching bb and also being a fan of statistics. Prime and in a sense career value(not counting so much seasons where a guy is just having little impact) along with ps play is what matters to me. I don't see much of any case for Steph over Charles in that regard.

You set the bar yourself? You said Curry only had 5-6 all-time great seasons and then proceeded to tell me that meant approximately top 3 level.

ok, even if that is the criteria then Steph would still only have 2 such seasons. The thing is though that I never really agreed with that phrase or criteria as being the criteria that I personally would use to make sense of players' careers. If anything I said its too vague and hard to define.

For the record I rank Curry as being Top 2 in 4 seasons: '14-15, '15-16, '16-17, and '18-19 and I'm really not sure I'd ever rank Barkley as having a Top 2 season.

Tangent: It's amazing to me the damage the '16-17 season did to Curry in many people's eyes when aside from being the MVP of the best team in history over the course of a season, he was the clear cut MVP of the Western Conference playoffs. Literally, it's just the Finals that year when tied to the Finals the previous that re-wrote the narrative.

[Cavsfansince84]

For the record I rank Curry as being Top 2 in 4 seasons: '14-15, '15-16, '16-17, and '18-19 and I'm really not sure I'd ever rank Barkley as having a Top 2 season.

Tangent: It's amazing to me the damage the '16-17 season did to Curry in many people's eyes when aside from being the MVP of the best team in history over the course of a season, he was the clear cut MVP of the Western Conference playoffs. Literally, it's just the Finals that year when tied to the Finals the previous that re-wrote the narrative.

That is due in part to how his numbers were not that good in the first month of the two of the season as gs tried to incorporate KD into the offense. Even now if you look at his 2015-2019 years his 2017 rs stands out as easily the worst of the group by a lot of metrics along with 2019. His playoffs imo is what elevates that season but the rs has to be seen as somewhat weak in comparison. His 3pt % for instance was the lowest of his career that season. Its also worth pointing out with regard to Barkley that he was playing alongside peak Bird, Magic, MJ, Hakeem, DRob and Malone from 85-95 to varying degrees who were all just voted top 18 players of all time and even so he was top 4 in mvp voting 4 times in that period despite being on somewhat weak Philly teams during that time which makes it harder to win mvps. I say weak because imo he was carrying them to 40-50 wins seasons most years with either Maurice Cheeks or Hersey Hawkins as his second best player.

[eminence]

Happy to see a Schayes mention in this thread, to me he looks a guy very comparable to Pettit - who's gotten considerably more love. Very solid player from '49-'61, going 6 with Mikan in '50 and 7 with Russell in '59. One of a list of players you could probably count on your fingers to outplay Wilt in a playoff game (game 2 in 1960). Had a ROY season in the '49 NBL that's worth tacking on to whatever you feel his career value is if folks didn't know about that, teamed with Cervi to lead likely the 2nd best team in the last season of the NBL.

[BigBoss23]

I'm really confused by this post. What do you mean by "these types of players"?

Curry's not a player you just dump the ball to against a good defense and say "get your shot off with at least a good look". Similarly in their own ways, Shaq as a big and Lebron not being a great shooter.

Yeah I'm just not seeing that with LeBron. LeBron proved over the past decade he is a player who can do that--dump the ball to against a good defense and get a good look.

If we move beyond that, is this the most important aspect in basketball? If Curry's impact and gravity far exceeds Durants or Harden's then why does it matter if Durant and Harden are better isolation scorers?

Is your argument any deeper than "Kareem needed Oscar/Magic, Jordan needed Pippen and Wilt needed West"?

History has shown us that both “gravitational” and “elite iso scorers” are required by in large for the all time great teams. I dont have a clear answer for who is most important, but I will admit I am more impartial to elite isolation scorers.

When the Warriors were struggling in both game 3s at Cleveland in 2017 and 2018 they kept going back to Durant for buckets when everyone else was struggling. To me, thats what tips the scales of Durant over Curry.

Im a big fan if Curry’s game. Hes one of the most unique players in history. Hes not a true 1 like Nash or CP3, but not an elite wing either.

[eminence]

1. Steve Nash
2. Charles Barkley
3. Stephen Curry

Flipping up my 3rd ballot this time around (from CP3). Nash/Barkley are the last two guys I see as having both MVP level peak/primes and decent longevity. Prefer Nash due to playoff strength and method of approach, seems more transferable to other teams, while Barkley himself being a weaker defensive big seems tougher to slot onto great teams.

Steph grabs my 3rd ballot this time around. Best peak/prime remaining imo, and wound up siding with that plus feeling he spent some legit time as the face/heel of the league. I don't feel that way for the other guys who either didn't hit MVP level in my estimation (Schayes/Pettit/Stockton) or have more marginal longevity edges on Curry (CP3/Durant/Harden). CP3 is next in line for me, though I need to look at Pettit in particular a bit more, and would welcome others arguments for him.

[Doctor MJ]

For the record I rank Curry as being Top 2 in 4 seasons: '14-15, '15-16, '16-17, and '18-19 and I'm really not sure I'd ever rank Barkley as having a Top 2 season.

Tangent: It's amazing to me the damage the '16-17 season did to Curry in many people's eyes when aside from being the MVP of the best team in history over the course of a season, he was the clear cut MVP of the Western Conference playoffs. Literally, it's just the Finals that year when tied to the Finals the previous that re-wrote the narrative.

That is due in part to how his numbers were not that good in the first month of the two of the season as gs tried to incorporate KD into the offense. Even now if you look at his 2015-2019 years his 2017 rs stands out as easily the worst of the group by a lot of metrics along with 2019. His playoffs imo is what elevates that season but the rs has to be seen as somewhat weak in comparison. His 3pt % for instance was the lowest of his career that season. Its also worth pointing out with regard to Barkley that he was playing alongside peak Bird, Magic, MJ, Hakeem, DRob and Malone from 85-95 to varying degrees who were all just voted top 18 players of all time and even so he was top 4 in mvp voting 4 times in that period despite being on somewhat weak Philly teams during that time which makes it harder to win mvps. I say weak because imo he was carrying them to 40-50 wins seasons most years with either Maurice Cheeks or Hersey Hawkins as his second best player.

What's fascinating there is that '16-17 Curry appears to be the all-time record holder in terms of raw +/-.

In '16-17 Curry had a +1257 while Durant had a +888, yet despite this and the fact that Durant ring-chased his way to the Warriors, people think Durant carried Curry to the title.

Re: 85-95 competition. It's fine to bring that up, it's not like Curry hasn't put up seasons that would have put him in the Top 2 in a bunch of those years. Barkley was where he was because his performance was generally pretty inconsistent. He took a lot of possessions off on defense, and his impact from year to year really seemed shaped by his mood.

I'll mention another raw +/- stat I like - and as always, I know these stats are not the end-all, be-all, but they are concrete stuff everyone can understand that few are aware of:

We know that Barkley either led his team in +/- 6 or 7 times (we're missing '92-93 which is a likely yes), despite as you say, typically being seen as by far the most talented player on his roster.

We know that Curry has already led his team in +/- 6 times, which includes 3 times topping Durant.

We also know that Durant has only led his team in +/- 3 times total, but given that he played with Harden, Westbrook, and Curry, quite frankly I don't think it's any kind of a given that Barkley is more accomplished along these lines than Durant is.

[penbeast0]

...as my judgment wouldn't have him quite as high. All-around he doesnt have the single negative of defense (Curry) peak (Stockton) efficiency (Thomas) career length (Frazier).

I find Barkley's defense to be significantly more of a problem than Curry's who I consider okay rather than bad. For that matter I give Barkley a stronger hit than Nash, whose defense get routinely slammed here. Why? (a) big man have a much stronger defensive role than smaller players, being responsible for shutting off the paths to the rim as well as for their man; Barkley got caught not paying attention to other players (or ball watching and losing his man) more often than any other top 50 candidate I can think of with the possible exception of George Gervin and I think Barkley was worse at it than Gervin. (b) The type of defensive lapses, ie. taking plays off, ignoring teammates who needed help, missing switches, etc. which I aggregate as lack of defensive focus, to me as a coach tends to create problems with the defense of teammates as well as they know you won't be doing your job consistently so they feel they have to ignore the defensive system and play more man oriented defense.

Barkley did one thing very well on defense, he was very difficult to move off post position with his strength and low center of gravity. HE was also above average at chase down style recovery when he was trying. Similarly, Gervin did one thing very well on defense, he was one of the best shotblocking 2's ever (DWade is the only one I would say was better) and, like Barkley, did an above average job of chase down style recovery with his great athleticism. It's not enough in either case for me not to push them down from the level they would be in an offense/statistics only comparison on this list.

I don't really consider Frazier a short prime player. He had an 8 year run as a top 5 guard in the league plus 1 more year as a very good starter. He didn't have a long run as a roleplayer type and that's at the short end of solid prime for me, but 8 years to me is a solid prime. Of course, I'm also voting Curry at the moment and supported Mikan for a long time so I'm not one of the major longevity advocates here.

I won't be supporting Walton in my top 100 because he was only around for 1 real playoff run as a starter (but demanded superstar money for almost a decade despite that) but he's the extreme case of having only 1 true star season (plus one MVP caliber 2/3 of a season he didn't make the playoffs and 1 SMOY year where he did).

For that matter, not sure Stockton's peak is that weak, just people tend to overrate scoring and underrate, well, everything else. And his prime was incredibly consistent so even a lesser peak would be a lesser penalty in my book. I have him over Nash and Frazier, behind Curry, and probably behind Chris Paul too (I love the turnover efficiency!).