Peaks: Barkley vs Nash vs Ewing vs K.Malone

[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

[No-more-rings]

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.

It’s not that hard when who he’s being compared to was way worse on offense and not a defensive anchor. It’s not like comparing Barkley to Duncan or Wilt.

[falcolombardi]

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.

depends on which seasons do you consider karl malone peak, in the early 90's he was a more resilient playoffs scorer than in the late 90's jazz teams when he was well into his 30's

from 89-92 (4 seasons) he averaged close to 30 points in 60% true shooting (+6/+7 for the era) in regular season
with only 10.5% turnover percentage (fairly good) and strong rebounding (3 offensive boards) although not as many assists as in the late 90's

in the playoffs he kept most of these but lost efficiency to 57% ts (+3/+4 for the era, depending on the season)

not great but a lot better scoring resiliency than in the late 90's era jazz

and in his best playoffs year (1992) he averaged 30 points in 62%ts (+8 for the era) althoug again with more turnovers than assists

[migya]

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.

It is ludicrous anyone saying Karl Malone isn't an alltime great scorer, the numbers show otherwise. He shouldered such a scoring load that it is no knock on him that the better teams made his percentages slightly lower.

Suppose Giannis is not an alltime great mvp caliber scorer?

Malone - 1988-92, age 24-28:
RS - 407gms, 38.8mins, 10.4fgm, 19.6fga, 53.1fg%, 8.1ftm, 10.7fta, 75.6ft%, 11.4reb, 2.8asr, 1.4stl, 0.7blk, 3.5tos, 29.0pts
Playoffs - 44gms, 43.3mins, 10.1fgm, 20.9fga, 48.4fg%, 8.8ftm, 11.1fta, 79.0ft%, 12.1reb, 2.3ast, 1.3stl, 1.0blk, 3.1tos, 29.0pts

Giannis - 2018-22 age 23-27:
RS - 338gms, 33.3mins, 10.2fgm, 18.4fga, 55.6fg%, 6.9ftm, 9.8fta, 7p.7ft%, 11.7reb, 5.6ast, 1.2stl, 1.3blk, 3.4tos, 28.4pts
Playoffs - 64gms, 36.2mins, 10.6fgm, 19.8fga, 53.5fg%, 6.3ftm, 10.1fta, 62.7ft%, 12.7reb, 5.6ast, 1.0stl, 1.3blk, 3.4tos, 28.4pts

Similar numbers. Giannis, touted by some here to already be better than Malone and already top 50 players ever, scored less than Malone, in a stat inflated era, but better efficiency, in a time with less shotblockers and more spacing for him to score to his strength. Worse free throw shooter and less attempts. Malone slightly better steals, Giannis slightly better blocks. Even in rebounding and tos.

Young Malone, at same age as Giannis, with less spacing on his team, scored slightly more than Giannis and scored the same amount in the playoffs.

Name the bigs alltime that scored more in both RS and playoffs, at that age, than Malone?

[Stan]

Barkley
Nash
Malone
Ewing

[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.

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.

That's sort of what I meant when I said his scoring doesn't scale super-well: his decline in the playoffs is more than most superstars.

However, his average playoff output is still fairly good. Looking, for example, at a HUGE spread of years [his full extended prime '89-'01, so not cherry-picking the best], in the playoff he averaged a pretty substantial 35.3 pts/100 possessions [in a massive 41.4 mpg] at approximately +0.1% rTS. That's not exactly insubstantial scoring, and he coupled that with 4.4 ast/100 and only 3.8 tov/100. His modified TOV% [similar to Ben Taylor's "creation-adjusted TOV%"] in the playoffs over this span of years was just 7.92%.......which is really good for a big man. It's actually BETTER than his rs standard (something to bear in mind when noting that his shooting efficiency declines: his turnover efficiency gets better in the playoffs).

Compare that to Dirk Nowitzki, for example: during his prime, his shooting efficiency held more or less steady in the playoffs, but his turnover economy got a little worse. Despite Dirk being damn near the GOAT [among big men] in turnover economy during the rs, prime Malone almost matches prime Dirk in the playoffs in turnover economy.

And again, if that playoff scoring from Malone looks pedestrian, it's in part because he set such an elite standard in the rs: his prime AVERAGE was 36.7 pts/100 [in 37.9 mpg] @ +6.0% rTS.
That's not a cherry-picked best year......that's what he averaged over a 13-year span. This ends up being relevant [to me], because I'm not as playoff-centric as others [probably not as much as you are].

He had his simple forays at the rim [often just looking for contact (had a decent foul-draw rate), though was also a decent finisher [finished >66% at the rim from '97-'01, even though we're decidedly into late prime here]. Good FT-shooter. He had that face-up game and was a solid mid-range shooter at least by the mid-90s. From '97-'01, he was >47% from 16-23' [which is basically spot on with prime Dirk, although he lagged several % behind Dirk from 10-16']. And of course he was very good [even elite some years] in transition, also very good at rim-running when younger.

And at any rate [as another poster mentioned], even if you ARE so playoff-centric, you can cherry-pick a year in which his scoring DIDN'T decline (he does have one or two such years), because the context of this thread is peaks.


And I do think pretty highly of Malone's passing. A common play run with some of the late-90s Jazz squads was the guard [Stockton or Hornacek] with ball on the wing would get the ball to Malone in the mid-post region, with everyone else cleared out toward the perimeter; then that guard would trot laterally toward the top of the key before [on the far side of the key] cutting toward the basket off the back-pick being set by the OTHER guard…...and if the defense wasn’t perfect, Malone would hit that cutter for a lay-up. By the latter half of his prime he was excellent [OUTSTANDING, even] at hitting cutters in general (see video below; actual passes start at 0:14 mark), and also fantastic passing out of double-teams.

Watch on YouTube

As I believe 70sFan once alluded to, I think that’s a big part of why/how the Jazz of the late 90s managed some fantastically elite rORTG’s (relative to their opponents) even in the post-season.
And actually----contrary to popular opinion----their post-season offense [on average] didn't fall off much during Malone's prime......

Again, looking at that broad 13-year span:
Jazz post-season offenses in each series [relative to DRtg faced (# of games)] during Malone’s prime
‘89: -1.6 (3)
‘90: +2.1 (5)
‘91: +5.9 (4), +5.1 (5) [+5.46 overall (9)]
‘92: +8.3 (5), +8.3 (5), +8.8 (6) [+8.49 overall (16)]
‘93: -2.1 (5)
‘94: +6.0 (4), +5.0 (7), +3.9 (5) [+4.91 overall (16)]
‘95: +8.8 (5)
‘96: +9.9 (5), +10.6 (6), +2.8 (7) [+7.37 overall (18)]
‘97: +14.1 (3), +7.3 (5), +8.8 (6), +1.4 (6) [+7.0 overall (20)]
‘98: -4.9 (5), +2.4 (5), +12.4 (4), -3.7 (6) [+0.75 overall (20)]
‘99: +0.1 (5), +2.2 (6) [+1.25 overall (11)]
‘00: +1.7 (5), -5.1 (5) [-1.7 overall (10)]
‘01: +2.1 (5)
AVG: +3.32 (143)
Per Year AVG: +3.29 (only -0.35 from rs avg in same span of years.....so fairly negligible decline [from what was frequently an elite offense in the rs during the latter half of the 90s])


And he was decent defensively.
For one, he could bang in the post. I mean….



No one is pushing that around. He could bang with the bigger PF’s, or occasionally defend centers in the post.

His lateral mobility was pretty decent, too. I think because he’s so huge [see photo] it would give the impression of “clunky” movement…..but he was quite mobile.

He also had very quick and active hands, which is how he came to be 13th all-time [still] in steals (and 2nd to only Hakeem among PF/C’s). He’s 17th all-time in career playoff steals, btw (1st among PF/C’s).
And he was the master at “pulling the chair” in the post.

I don’t want to give the impression that he was consistently an All-D level defensive PF, but he was pretty good thru much of his career. And he was a solid rebounder within basically any year you could select within that prime, too.


It's also typically thought that you can't win a title with Malone as your best player; but I don't think that's true. In fact, I think they could have [likely would have] won it in '98, if not for some bad officiating.
The refs blew TWO shot-clock calls in game 6, BOTH against Utah [a 5-point swing] in a game they lost by a single point, in which Chicago almost never led in the 2nd half. Two calls that wouldn't [couldn't] be blown today, because of replay/review; if that had been allowed in '98, that's a 5-point swing back to Utah.

If game 6 goes to the Jazz, game 7 would have been played in SLC with Pippen either out or severely hampered [back injury]. I still firmly believe that the Jazz were at least 55-60% favs to win that series if the refs don't botch those two crucial calls (or hell, even if they just get the ONE Eisley trey correct [which was good by a mile!], that alone was probably enough to give Utah a victory, even if the refs still blow the 2nd call).

Anyway, I think he's a substantial player, and definitely not one to easily brush aside in this comparison.

[ChartFiction]

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

Basketball isn't football. Offense and defense are not discrete.

A D'Antoni system is by nature going to perform worse defensively and perform better offensively.