Charles Barkley's case for top 15

[migya]

Does Charles Barkley have a case for top 15 alltime?


RS:
1073gm, 36.7mins, 22.1pts, 54.1fg%, 5.9ftm, 73.5ft%, 11.7reb, 3.9ast, 1.5stl, 0.8blk, 3.1tos, 119OR, 105DR, 24.6PER, 61.2ts%, 123.3ows, 53.9dws, 177.2ws, .216ws/48, 6.1bpm, 80.5vorp

PS:
123gm, 39.4mins, 23pts, 51.3fg%, 6.1ftm, 71.7ft%, 12.9reb, 3.9ast, 1.6stl, 0.9blk, 2.9tos, 108OR, 107DR, 24.2PER, 58.4ts%, 13.6ows, 5.9dws, 19.5ws, .193ws/48, 6.3bpm, 10.1vorp


These are outstanding numbers over 16 seasons. He holds up in the playoffs very well, has great efficiency and is one of the best offensive players and rebounders ever.

[70sFan]

I think I am higher on Barkley's offensive game than most here, but I find his top 15 case to be quite weak. He'd be the worst defender inside top 15 by a clear margin, his offense is elite but not on GOAT level and his longevity is only decent, nothing special for top 15 material. On top of that, his resume (whetever you want to include or not) isn't top tier either - no rings, only one MVP, no sustained postseason resume.

I think it would be very hard to create a consistent criteria that would put Barkley inside top 15.

[migya]

I think I am higher on Barkley's offensive game than most here, but I find his top 15 case to be quite weak. He'd be the worst defender inside top 15 by a clear margin, his offense is elite but not on GOAT level and his longevity is only decent, nothing special for top 15 material. On top of that, his resume (whetever you want to include or not) isn't top tier either - no rings, only one MVP, no sustained postseason resume.

I think it would be very hard to create a consistent criteria that would put Barkley inside top 15.

mvp voting:

1985-86 NBA 0.171 (6)
1986-87 NBA 0.145 (6)
1987-88 NBA 0.136 (4)
1988-89 NBA 0.111 (6)
1989-90 NBA 0.667 (2)
1990-91 NBA 0.231 (4)
1991-92 NBA 0.019 (12)
1992-93 NBA 0.852 (1)
1993-94 NBA 0.005 (10)
1994-95 NBA 0.091 (6)


That's very good in a stacked era with the likes of Magic and Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Malone and then Shaq.

He lost to the champion Rockets in even games in both 94 and 95, then lost in the wcf on a game winner in game 6. He doesn't have a huge playoff resume but when he had good teammates he competed and did relatively well. That Philly team was low talented and he only was able to compete from 93 onwards, when he was 29 years old.

5 Allnba 1st team, 5 Allnba 2nd team, very good in a stacked era.

His offense was among the best for bigs alltime. His efficiency his first eight years, in Philly, was great, beyond Shaq level. 64ts% with no threes is amazing. He has better career metrics than Shaq.

His longevity is very good because he was impactful every season except His last one, that's fifteen years, more than most. It's not total games that matter.

[70sFan]

mvp voting:

1985-86 NBA 0.171 (6)
1986-87 NBA 0.145 (6)
1987-88 NBA 0.136 (4)
1988-89 NBA 0.111 (6)
1989-90 NBA 0.667 (2)
1990-91 NBA 0.231 (4)
1991-92 NBA 0.019 (12)
1992-93 NBA 0.852 (1)
1993-94 NBA 0.005 (10)
1994-95 NBA 0.091 (6)


That's very good in a stacked era with the likes of Magic and Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Malone and then Shaq.

So he was top 3 exactly twice, how is that good for top 15 candidate?

He lost to the champion Rockets in even games in both 94 and 95,

Yes and he underperformed both times, while having a better team than Hakeem in 1994.

He doesn't have a huge playoff resume but when he had good teammates he competed and did relatively well. That Philly team was low talented and he only was able to compete from 93 onwards, when he was 29 years old.

Sure, I don't say it's his fault, but his playoff resume isn't something you can rely on to force him inside top 15.

5 Allnba 1st team, 5 Allnba 2nd team, very good in a stacked era.

Well, if you think that everyone from the 1990s is underrated, then I guess it is a stacked era for you.

His offense was among the best for bigs alltime. His efficiency his first eight years, in Philly, was great, beyond Shaq level. 64ts% with no threes is amazing.

True, but not among the very best all-time. With him being also a mediocre defender, I don't think that's enough to put him inside top 15.

He has better career metrics than Shaq.

No, he doesn't.

His longevity is very good because he was impactful every season except His last one, that's fifteen years, more than most. It's not total games that matter.

It's not "very good" among top 15 candidates.

It seems that you think I'm low on him, but you again don't realize how stacked the competition is for top 15 all-time...

[AdagioPace]

25 years ago he would probably be top 15, but some very great players appeared in the last quarter century.
Is he even better than Durant all things considered? (somebody I don't have in my top 15)

[Colbinii]

No objective case

[penbeast0]

In addition to his defense, Barkley was also a negative locker room influence. Jayson WIlliams' book is very damning about his partying the night before games, even playoff games, and dragging younger players out to clubs inappropriately. He was (and is) also an attention hungry class clown type which if you've ever tried to work in a classroom with one of these students you know can be a major distraction as well as being inconsistent about practicing.

On the plus side, I would say his offensive stats ARE one of those players mentioned for GOAT level at least individually; his affect on team ORTG isn't as great. And, like a few other stars, he seemed to focus better and play better in the playoffs both on offense and defense.

[migya]

25 years ago he would probably be top 15, but some very great players appeared in the last quarter century.
Is he even better than Durant all things considered? (somebody I don't have in my top 15)

Besides Lebron and Duncan, there isn't another player clearly better than him. Durant maybe, but his defense isn't really better than Barkley's and he isn't close to the rebounder.

Barkley doesn't have a strong case for top 15 but he has some. He may have a better case than Kobe going by metrics. Kobe's prime isn't much longer than Barkley's.

[OhayoKD]

I think I am higher on Barkley's offensive game than most here, but I find his top 15 case to be quite weak. He'd be the worst defender inside top 15 by a clear margin, his offense is elite but not on GOAT level and his longevity is only decent, nothing special for top 15 material. On top of that, his resume (whetever you want to include or not) isn't top tier either - no rings, only one MVP, no sustained postseason resume.

I think it would be very hard to create a consistent criteria that would put Barkley inside top 15.

mvp voting:

1985-86 NBA 0.171 (6)
1986-87 NBA 0.145 (6)
1987-88 NBA 0.136 (4)
1988-89 NBA 0.111 (6)
1989-90 NBA 0.667 (2)
1990-91 NBA 0.231 (4)
1991-92 NBA 0.019 (12)
1992-93 NBA 0.852 (1)
1993-94 NBA 0.005 (10)
1994-95 NBA 0.091 (6)


That's very good in a stacked era with the likes of Magic and Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Malone and then Shaq. .

Shaq peaked in the 2000's, and regardless I'm not sure how "stacked era" applies here. The league drew from a smaller talent pool in the 90's than it did in the 2000's or the 2010's or the 2020s. If we're giving Barkley a boost for 3 other top 5 finishes because the era was "stacked" are we going to boost all the near mvp's did it in later, more "stacked" time periods?

[Amares]

Barkley's case for top 15 is as strong as Hardens. So probably none at this point, I saw him as top 15 the day he retired. But since that day he was surpassed by 10+ players, with next 3-4 coming to surpass him in 5 to 10 years. So overall he's gonna be more like barely top 30 player in 5+ years, let alone top 15. Competition is already too strong for players with his resume to compete for such high spots.

[OhayoKD]

I think I am higher on Barkley's offensive game than most here, but I find his top 15 case to be quite weak. He'd be the worst defender inside top 15 by a clear margin, his offense is elite but not on GOAT level and his longevity is only decent, nothing special for top 15 material. On top of that, his resume (whetever you want to include or not) isn't top tier either - no rings, only one MVP, no sustained postseason resume.

I think it would be very hard to create a consistent criteria that would put Barkley inside top 15.

Yeah, very hard for me to rate a big without strong positive(relative to replacement) defensive value. You have to be Jokic for me to even consider that honestly and its not like Barkley is special among top 30 all-timers in the departments of his resume or team success

[OhayoKD]

Barkley's case for top 15 is as strong as Hardens. So probably none at this point, I saw him as top 15 the day he retired. But since that day he was surpassed by 10+ players, with next 3-4 coming to surpass him in 5 to 10 years. So overall he's gonna be more like barely top 30 player in 5+ years, let alone top 15. Competition is already too strong for players with his resume to compete for such high spots.

Well. Harden can say he pushed the greatest team ever to the brink and then was competitive with them the following year with a limited cast. Harden also has better longevity and was a stronger MVP candidate throughout his RS(3 2nds, 1 1st) and a slew of strong offensive performances vs eventual champions(I think 2020 vs the lakers was probably his best considering the defensive aspect and the limited spacing).

The 93 Bulls and the 94 Rockets were not close to comparable to the KD-Warriors on paper, in terms of full-strength performance, rs performance, or post-season performance and both teams faced tougher challenges in other rounds. Barkley and Harden's track record is superficially similar in some ways, but I'd say even relative to era Harden clearly accomplished more, was a better/more consistent rs performer, and put up a more impressive slew of playoff highlights.

Honestly I don't think either team was on par with the 2020 Lakers(though this is probably alot more debatable) but I'd say Harden played better that series than barkley did in any of his.


Also if we're using "stacked era" as a consideration, Harden can always say he played in the most talented incarnation of the league :shrug:

[migya]

In addition to his defense, Barkley was also a negative locker room influence. Jayson WIlliams' book is very damning about his partying the night before games, even playoff games, and dragging younger players out to clubs inappropriately. He was (and is) also an attention hungry class clown type which if you've ever tried to work in a classroom with one of these students you know can be a major distraction as well as being inconsistent about practicing.

On the plus side, I would say his offensive stats ARE one of those players mentioned for GOAT level at least individually; his affect on team ORTG isn't as great. And, like a few other stars, he seemed to focus better and play better in the playoffs both on offense and defense.

Barkley's impact offensively was among the best for bigs. Think he was better than Nowitzki, who I have seen rated as high as 15 before. Barkley's scoring, efficiency and rebounding are at the level of top 10 bigs Kareem, Duncan and Olajuwon.

[70sFan]

I have a question - is there any 1990s player that you would consider overrated?

[migya]

I have a question - is there any 1990s player that you would consider overrated?

Suppose you are directing that at me?

Hmmmmm, probably late 90s Garnett and Nash

[AdagioPace]

I have a question - is there any 1990s player that you would consider overrated?

I would say Karl Malone. His MVP years are on the weak side.
Maybe Rodman too. Too many narratives about his defense.

[migya]

I have a question - is there any 1990s player that you would consider overrated?

I would say Karl Malone. His MVP years are on the weak side.
Maybe Rodman too. Too many narratives about his defense.

Why do you think Malone's mvp years were weak?

[70sFan]

I have a question - is there any 1990s player that you would consider overrated?

Suppose you are directing that at me?

Hmmmmm, probably late 90s Garnett and Nash

So you don't see any problem with thinking that one decade is a source of top 15 players of all-time and anyone that came after is overrated?

[No-more-rings]

I’m not sure if Barkley is even a top 15 offensive player ever, let alone top 15 overall. If you aren’t top 15 on O, and are a negative on d there’s no way you’re top 15 overall.

[migya]

I have a question - is there any 1990s player that you would consider overrated?

Suppose you are directing that at me?

Hmmmmm, probably late 90s Garnett and Nash

So you don't see any problem with thinking that one decade is a source of top 15 players of all-time and anyone that came after is overrated?

There are top 15 players from other eras, didn't say there wasn't.