Peaks: Barkley vs Nash vs Ewing vs K.Malone

[Matt15]

How would you rank these players from 1-4?

[No-more-rings]

Nash
Ewing
Barkley
Malone

[Im Your Father]

I could be convinced either way on the other three, but I'd comfortably take Malone 4th.

[Stalwart]

Malone
Barkley
Nash
Ewing

I think Malone had the greatest combination of success when you consider team performance, individual achievement, statistical prowess, peak form, and longevity. Then it's Barkley, Nash, and Ewing.

[therealbig3]

Nash is clearly #1 for me. Then probably Ewing, then Malone, then Barkley.

Hard to really rank a big with bad defense all that highly, over legit two way bigs (Ewing and Malone). Nash was just the most dominant offensive player of the group, and didn’t kill the defense the way Barkley does.

[falcolombardi]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

[70sFan]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

I mean, by this logic you'd have to take Nash over anyone offensively, maybe with the exception of Magic.

Barkley himself anchored some extremely strong offenses in 1993-95 period.

[GSP]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

Are you saying they're the same level on defense? Barkley was probably around average or below average on defense. Nash is a big negative and far below average on defense.

[GSP]

Ewing
Barkley
Nash
Malone

I can see Suns players going either side. Pat and Karl are cemented IMO

[falcolombardi]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

I mean, by this logic you'd have to take Nash over anyone offensively, maybe with the exception of Magic.

Barkley himself anchored some extremely strong offenses in 1993-95 period.

i exxagerated a bit cause of course there are more variables such as teammates offense quality (main one), versatility to impact in different contexts, longevity, durability, etc

but in the context of two guys who didnt give you much in the way of defense and a peak only discussion it seems like the only thingh that should matter is who is better on offense and maybe who is more versatile to keep that impact in different situations (and durability)

is there a case to prefer barkley in your offense over nash? i am not being sarcastic i am curious on this if someone thinks barkley offense was more impresdive and why

(i havr nash as a potential top 5 offensive peak ever for sure in the top 10 and potentially ahead of curry, suffice to say i am very high on him)

[falcolombardi]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

Are you saying they're the same level on defense? Barkley was probably around average or below average on defense. Nash is a big negative and far below average on defense.

a guard is easier to hide on defense and cover for than a power forward/wing (what barkley would play today most likely)

[GSP]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

Are you saying they're the same level on defense? Barkley was probably around average or below average on defense. Nash is a big negative and far below average on defense.

a guard is easier to hide on defense and cover for than a power forward/wing (what barkley would play today most likely)

Considering what we saw from Kyrie, Trae and Ja in playoffs I find that harder and harder to believe. Memphis defense without Ja especially. Weve seen amazing shooters like Duncan Robinson completely erased from the rotation because of how bad their defense is even though Miami is loaded with defenders everywhere else. Guard defense has prolly never been as impactful as it is now with the emphasis on 3s and how much offense is generated at the perimeter now as well as switching

I don't see Chuck playing wing at all. If anything he'd be more 4/5 like Zion who was 90/10 for allocation there and Zion now is much worse defender than peak Charles even with his flaws on defense

Nash just didn't have the frame, athleticism or physicality for defense. He'd be attacked relentless like bad defensive guards are. Chuck would be exploited too but he's far more physically equipped to provide resistance

[70sFan]

what is barkley case over nash? both were one way all offense players who were at best average in defense, but nash led to better offense than barkley

I mean, by this logic you'd have to take Nash over anyone offensively, maybe with the exception of Magic.

Barkley himself anchored some extremely strong offenses in 1993-95 period.

i exxagerated a bit cause of course there are more variables such as teammates offense quality (main one), versatility to impact in different contexts, longevity, durability, etc

but in the context of two guys who didnt give you much in the way of defense and a peak only discussion it seems like the only thingh that should matter is who is better on offense and maybe who is more versatile to keep that impact in different situations (and durability)

is there a case to prefer barkley in your offense over nash? i am not being sarcastic i am curious on this if someone thinks barkley offense was more impresdive and why

(i havr nash as a potential top 5 offensive peak ever for sure in the top 10 and potentially ahead of curry, suffice to say i am very high on him)

I think we should take a closer look at 1990 Barkley as his true peak. It's incredible how he carried this team to the 2nd best offense in the league.

The thing with Barkley is that he created so many easy points via his rim pressure and offensive rebounding. On top of that, he actually could pass the ball reasonably well, especially for a bigman. His physical talent made him also relatively matchup-resiliant, as you can't create a realistic team to stop Barkley from what he did. We have some Barkley shot charts from his prime created a long time ago and his finishing ability was absurdly, prime-LeBron level good.

If you think that offensive rebounding shouldn't be seen as valuable thing, then Barkley has no case over Nash. If you rank them within their eras though, then Barkley is a monster on the boards and he's one of the best finishers ever who could also create their own shot. As bad of a three point shooter as he was, he wasn't actually a horrible midrange shooter. That's why I prefer younger version who didn't rely on a three point shot as much. His defense wasn't as horrible then as it became later either, although he was never a good defender.

Is he better than Nash? I don't know, maybe not. I think he's worth consideration at least.

[Redmoon]

Barkley
Ewing
Nash
Malone

Nash defense brings him down.
Malone is a playoff dropper.
Besides Nash, peak Barkley is the most dynamic and resilient playoff offender of the rest. Ewing two way impact brings him up.

Unfortunate we never really saw peak Barkley in a good team situation. I think he really is a bit underrated and besides being a monster athlete was incredibly skilled as well.

[migya]

Malone
Ewing
Barkley


Nash



It is ridiculous putting Nash in the same group as these alltime stars. He was a product of his environment and coaching style.

Malone's 1997 or 98, probably Malone's best, ranks the best here, then Ewing's 1990, 1988 or 91 for Barkley. It's defense that makes Barkley worse than the other two.

[HeartBreakKid]

Malone
Ewing
Barkley


Nash



It is ridiculous putting Nash in the same group as these alltime stars. He was a product of his environment and coaching style.

Malone's 1997 or 98, probably Malone's best, ranks the best here, then Ewing's 1990, 1988 or 91 for Barkley. It's defense that makes Barkley worse than the other two.

Steve Nash is a product of his environment but Karl Malone who only played with one coach his entire career is not? Well, I guess there was his last season where he played with Phil Jackson, Kobe and Shaq to show off his amazing versatility.

[trex_8063]

Nash is one of my all-time favorite players.....but I'm clearly not as high on him as many posters here are. I was actually somewhat leaning toward having him at the bottom of the four.

But I'm far from certain; this is a good group comparison, all of them fairly close for peaks, imo (I'd likely have all somewhere in the 25-35 range, roughly).
Nash is likely the worst/weakest link defensively. And I'm not fully convinced he can have the same offensive impact [as he did in Phoenix] in all systems and scenarios. His scoring does scale up really well in the playoffs, though, and that's certainly a consideration.

Malone's scoring doesn't appear to scale super-well in the playoffs. But he sets the bar [as a scorer] pretty friggin' high in the rs, and so his playoff decline should be looked at in light of that.
He's also a defensive positive [if not a huge one], which is a leg up on Nash and Barkley. Arguably the best passing big-man in the group, too [though not in transition, like Barkley can be].

Barkley's the best pure scorer of the lot, imo; the best on the offensive boards; arguably the best passing big [though I'd personally give the slight edge to Malone]. But he's also the weakest defender among the three bigs [probably not quite as big a hole as Nash, though].

Ewing is handily the weakest offensive player.......but he's also handily the best defensive player.
So idk. Good comp.

[HeartBreakKid]

Nash is one of my all-time favorite players.....but I'm clearly not as high on him as many posters here are. I was actually somewhat leaning toward having him at the bottom of the four.

But I'm far from certain; this is a good group comparison, all of them fairly close for peaks, imo (I'd likely have all somewhere in the 25-35 range, roughly).
Nash is likely the worst/weakest link defensively. And I'm not fully convinced he can have the same offensive impact [as he did in Phoenix] in all systems and scenarios. His scoring does scale up really well in the playoffs, though, and that's certainly a consideration.

Malone's scoring doesn't appear to scale super-well in the playoffs. But he sets the bar [as a scorer] pretty friggin' high in the rs, and so his playoff decline should be looked at in light of that.
He's also a defensive positive [if not a huge one], which is a leg up on Nash and Barkley. Arguably the best passing big-man in the group, too [though not in transition, like Barkley can be].

Barkley's the best pure scorer of the lot, imo; the best on the offensive boards; arguably the best passing big [though I'd personally give the slight edge to Malone]. But he's also the weakest defender among the three bigs [probably not quite as big a hole as Nash, though].

Ewing is handily the weakest offensive player.......but he's also handily the best defensive player.
So idk. Good comp.

Karl Malone's scoring doesn't scale well because it is lower than his RS scoring, that is normal. It doesn't scale well relative to all time great MVP caliber scorers. He's not in the offensive class of Nash or even the tier below it (and that's being generous). I know you did not say otherwise, but I fail to see how Kevin Nash being a good defender could possibly make him more valuable than Steve Nash.

Karl Malone is a very well rounded player but his primary use was volume scoring which wasn't very good in the post season. Are we really taking a very good passer and defender with decent scoring over all time great offensive players like Chucky and Nash? I don't know, longevity and durability I see an argument. Peak I think Karl Malone is pretty underwhelming.

He's basically just better at things the other players are already weak at.

[eminence]

Malone
Ewing
Barkley


Nash



It is ridiculous putting Nash in the same group as these alltime stars. He was a product of his environment and coaching style.

Malone's 1997 or 98, probably Malone's best, ranks the best here, then Ewing's 1990, 1988 or 91 for Barkley. It's defense that makes Barkley worse than the other two.

Steve Nash is a product of his environment but Karl Malone who only played with one coach his entire career is not? Well, I guess there was his last season where he played with Phil Jackson, Kobe and Shaq to show off his amazing versatility.

I will not tolerate the Frank Layden erasure!

[ceoofkobefans]

Nash
Malone
Barkley
Ewing

Is how I would rank the 4

Reasoning

Nash is clearly the best offensive player here and while he’s a - on O He’s such a good offensive player it makes up for it Imo.

Karl Malone is 2nd. If was able to peak as a scorer and playmaker at the same time he’d prolly be number 1. He’s a + defender but I don’t think he’s an all defender level defender or good enough to close gap between his and Nash’s Offense.


Chuck I think is better than Malone on O but alot worse on Defense so he slides below him here (both are PO droppers which is something to note when comparing them to Nash)

I just don’t think ewings offense is good enough to group him with these guys if I’m being honest