Where do you rank Barkely all-time? Does this board and the general public underrate or overrate him (or neither)

[ardee]

It feels like a lot of people agree that he's in the running for 10 greatest offensive players of all time (or at least top 12-15).

But then you'd expect him to at least be a top 20 guy overall considering the top 20 is generally offensively slanted. You have a handful of guys who are behind Barkley on an offensive GOAT list but then pass him due to defense (Russell, Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson, etc), but I'm really not sure if it's enough to bump him out of the top 20.

Obviously he wasn't a very good defender, probably even a negative on that end some years, but the same goes for someone like Magic who is always in the top 10 no matter what (deservedly so), or even Curry.

How do you evaluate him?

Personally to me he really should be on the fringe end of the top 20. Historically good offensive player who actually was amazing in the Playoffs too: to me that sounds like Dirk with worse defense, and I have Dirk firmly in my top 15.

[70sFan]

The last time I ranked him, he was 23rd on my list (not counting this season). He was an enormous offensive force, but his defense really hurt his overall value and his longevity is only decent enough.

About Curry and Magic - I think they are definitely better than Barkley (on both ends of the floor to be honest).

About Dirk - I have Dirk 19th on the same list, mostly due to better longevity. As you can see, I am lower on both than you are.

[penbeast0]

Barkley may get a bit overrated by (a) celebrity and (b) pure offensive stat comparison. He suffers on defense but also on leadership (I am a bit swayed by former teammate's Jayson Williams' book). I had him close to top 20 before; probably closer to 30 today. In terms of players generally considered PFs, I have Duncan, Dirk, Karl Malone, and Pettit over him.

[HeartBreakKid]

Top 30, and I think that is around where he is on these boards.

As for the general public...depends on the age of the person and how much they know. He is probably a bit out the top 20 and occasionally within.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think 5 years ago I had him safely top 20 but now a few players have moved up and others have solid cases for being at or above him so probably 22-25 is my range. I don't think there's really that much of a gap between 24 and 17 though. Had Barkley stayed healthier in the 97-99 years and won a bit more I think I'd still have him top 20.

[scrabbarista]

I always thought he was very overrated because I thought his defense at a big position was a significant liability in his era. Over time, I realized that maybe my standard for "big defense" was being slanted by having grown up watching Hakeem more than any other player. Also, there was some bias from the fact that I had to watch Barkley be literally (yes, literally "literally") the worst three-point shooter in NBA history on my Houston Rockets in the mid-late 90's.

I still think he may be a little overrated, but he currently sits at 24th on my all-time list, which I think is well within the range of normalcy compared to where others have him.

[kendogg]

Barkley was lazy on defense to conserve energy for offense. Like many stars, but Barkley is more pronounced I think because he expended more energy than most on offense with his playstyle and he's a big dude. When he was locked in, however, he was a good (not great) defender. Gambled a bit too much but his defensive issues were not lack of awareness or basketball IQ. And he's clearly one of the best rebounders of all time, and defensive rebounding is a part of defense.

Offensively he's easily a top 20 peak and probably top 15 (10 years ago he might have had a top 10 case but I think a few players from this era bounced him out). But he didn't have a super long career and doesn't have a lot of intangibles (leadership, rings) to raise his stock. Depending how you value peak vs longevity and intangibles, he's somewhere between 15-30. Wide range, but there's a lot of players in history in that superstar tier that is just below the GOAT tier. I'd personally put him in the low 20's

[IdolW0rm]

Barkley around Top 25.
Barkely? GOAT.

[penbeast0]

Barkely isn't a goat, he's a dog.

[migya]

He is around 20. He was a beast and once he got talent around him he won quite well. I see him better than Nowitzki as he was a great rebounder and post force that could create for teammates.

[SilentA]

I think the public tends to underrate him because of no ring and reputation as a funny blunt media guy. Also because his game wouldn't translate as well to today (spamming post ups, being iso heavy, bad shooting and meh defense), even if offensive rebounding and efficient close ranged 2s are still important. For example, even if Barkley had more impact than McHale in his career, McHale would likely have more success today.

Easily top 8 power forward for me, with a case for #5 behind Duncan KG Dirk and Malone.

[kendogg]

I think the public tends to underrate him because of no ring and reputation as a funny blunt media guy. Also because his game wouldn't translate as well to today (spamming post ups, being iso heavy, bad shooting and meh defense), even if offensive rebounding and efficient close ranged 2s are still important. For example, even if Barkley had more impact than McHale in his career, McHale would likely have more success today.

Easily top 8 power forward for me, with a case for #5 behind Duncan KG Dirk and Malone.

Barkley could definitely play today. He was massively efficient in his inside the arc game. So much that his inside game rivals the best offenses today (125 rating). Combine that with the fact that he was a willing and able passer, in his era, he'd be even more dominant. He's also quite switchable, and yes, he was lazy in his era but that was partially a product of his era as well, it was seen as OK to go home and eat cheeseburgers and drink cokes. With modern conditioning practices, and more talent around him to take some of the offensive load off, he could easily be a better defender.

Also in this era he would have grown up shooting the 3 so he'd be better from the outside. Let Barkley take 5 steps and carry like Giannis and he could euro his way to more dunks than in his era. Who is going to defend Barkley 1v1 today? He's as athletic as prime LeBron just 2 inches shorter. Nobody in the league is stronger than him except maybe Embiid or Jokic and they are too slow. Pretty much EVERY player in past eras would have a field day in this era. It's the easiest era to score in BY A HUGE MARGIN.

[SilentA]

I think the public tends to underrate him because of no ring and reputation as a funny blunt media guy. Also because his game wouldn't translate as well to today (spamming post ups, being iso heavy, bad shooting and meh defense), even if offensive rebounding and efficient close ranged 2s are still important. For example, even if Barkley had more impact than McHale in his career, McHale would likely have more success today.

Easily top 8 power forward for me, with a case for #5 behind Duncan KG Dirk and Malone.

Barkley could definitely play today. He was massively efficient in his inside the arc game. So much that his inside game rivals the best offenses today (125 rating). Combine that with the fact that he was a willing and able passer, in his era, he'd be even more dominant. He's also quite switchable, and yes, he was lazy in his era but that was partially a product of his era as well, it was seen as OK to go home and eat cheeseburgers and drink cokes. With modern conditioning practices, and more talent around him to take some of the offensive load off, he could easily be a better defender.

Also in this era he would have grown up shooting the 3 so he'd be better from the outside. Let Barkley take 5 steps and carry like Giannis and he could euro his way to more dunks than in his era. Who is going to defend Barkley 1v1 today? He's as athletic as prime LeBron just 2 inches shorter. Nobody in the league is stronger than him except maybe Embiid or Jokic and they are too slow. Pretty much EVERY player in past eras would have a field day in this era. It's the easiest era to score in BY A HUGE MARGIN.

Did anyone say he couldn't play today or would be bad? I don't think I did anyway.

The problem with Barkley is you have to do more hypothetical "if he changed his game this way and that way and didn't do this..." etc. than a lot of other great players. Nobody said he'd be bad (or I certainly didn't imply it), just that his game and some indicators are less (relatively) transferrable to modern play than alot of other greats. And this is why it's harder for a lot of people to envision him as someone who would thrive in the modern era versus people like Reggie Miller, Mark Price or Hakeem (and imo McHale). I still think he'd be great player, definitely all NBA and he's rightly considered an all-time great. His FT% doesn't suggest he'd ever become a good outside shooter, but he'd still be dominant in the paint and a top tier rebounder, which is very valuable.

[kendogg]

I think the public tends to underrate him because of no ring and reputation as a funny blunt media guy. Also because his game wouldn't translate as well to today (spamming post ups, being iso heavy, bad shooting and meh defense), even if offensive rebounding and efficient close ranged 2s are still important. For example, even if Barkley had more impact than McHale in his career, McHale would likely have more success today.

Easily top 8 power forward for me, with a case for #5 behind Duncan KG Dirk and Malone.

Barkley could definitely play today. He was massively efficient in his inside the arc game. So much that his inside game rivals the best offenses today (125 rating). Combine that with the fact that he was a willing and able passer, in his era, he'd be even more dominant. He's also quite switchable, and yes, he was lazy in his era but that was partially a product of his era as well, it was seen as OK to go home and eat cheeseburgers and drink cokes. With modern conditioning practices, and more talent around him to take some of the offensive load off, he could easily be a better defender.

Also in this era he would have grown up shooting the 3 so he'd be better from the outside. Let Barkley take 5 steps and carry like Giannis and he could euro his way to more dunks than in his era. Who is going to defend Barkley 1v1 today? He's as athletic as prime LeBron just 2 inches shorter. Nobody in the league is stronger than him except maybe Embiid or Jokic and they are too slow. Pretty much EVERY player in past eras would have a field day in this era. It's the easiest era to score in BY A HUGE MARGIN.

Did anyone say he couldn't play today or would be bad? I don't think I did anyway.

The problem with Barkley is you have to do more hypothetical "if he changed his game this way and that way and didn't do this..." etc. than a lot of other great players. Nobody said he'd be bad (or I certainly didn't imply it), just that his game and some indicators are less (relatively) transferrable to modern play than alot of other greats. And this is why it's harder for a lot of people to envision him as someone who would thrive in the modern era versus people like Reggie Miller, Mark Price or Hakeem (and imo McHale). I still think he'd be great player, definitely all NBA and he's rightly considered an all-time great. His FT% doesn't suggest he'd ever become a good outside shooter, but he'd still be dominant in the paint and a top tier rebounder, which is very valuable.

You said Barkley's game wouldn't translate well which I emphatically refute. He doesn't have to change a thing about his game and he'd be one of the best scorers in the NBA today. His game is basically the same as Giannis except that Barkley has a better post game. Barkley's 2 point % at peak is better than Giannis today playing in an era that's harder to score.

[penbeast0]

Barkley was lazy on defense to conserve energy for offense. Like many stars, but Barkley is more pronounced I think because he expended more energy than most on offense with his playstyle and he's a big dude. When he was locked in, however, he was a good (not great) defender. Gambled a bit too much but his defensive issues were not lack of awareness or basketball IQ. And he's clearly one of the best rebounders of all time, and defensive rebounding is a part of defense.
...

Just based on eye test, I will disagree with this. His main defensive issues that I saw when I used to watch him were exactly a lack of awareness (letting his man slip him when he didn't have the ball and missing cutters into his space) and defensive basketball IQ (blowing switches, lazy movement under picks, etc.). His strength was his great lower body strength; few people (maybe Shaq) could force their way through him into their sweet spots into the post and he had no issues with banging with just about anybody which made him a decent post defender, although his height allowed most of the taller players to shoot over him with relative ease.

[SilentA]

Barkley could definitely play today. He was massively efficient in his inside the arc game. So much that his inside game rivals the best offenses today (125 rating). Combine that with the fact that he was a willing and able passer, in his era, he'd be even more dominant. He's also quite switchable, and yes, he was lazy in his era but that was partially a product of his era as well, it was seen as OK to go home and eat cheeseburgers and drink cokes. With modern conditioning practices, and more talent around him to take some of the offensive load off, he could easily be a better defender.

Also in this era he would have grown up shooting the 3 so he'd be better from the outside. Let Barkley take 5 steps and carry like Giannis and he could euro his way to more dunks than in his era. Who is going to defend Barkley 1v1 today? He's as athletic as prime LeBron just 2 inches shorter. Nobody in the league is stronger than him except maybe Embiid or Jokic and they are too slow. Pretty much EVERY player in past eras would have a field day in this era. It's the easiest era to score in BY A HUGE MARGIN.

Did anyone say he couldn't play today or would be bad? I don't think I did anyway.

The problem with Barkley is you have to do more hypothetical "if he changed his game this way and that way and didn't do this..." etc. than a lot of other great players. Nobody said he'd be bad (or I certainly didn't imply it), just that his game and some indicators are less (relatively) transferrable to modern play than alot of other greats. And this is why it's harder for a lot of people to envision him as someone who would thrive in the modern era versus people like Reggie Miller, Mark Price or Hakeem (and imo McHale). I still think he'd be great player, definitely all NBA and he's rightly considered an all-time great. His FT% doesn't suggest he'd ever become a good outside shooter, but he'd still be dominant in the paint and a top tier rebounder, which is very valuable.

You said Barkley's game wouldn't translate well which I emphatically refute. He doesn't have to change a thing about his game and he'd be one of the best scorers in the NBA today. His game is basically the same as Giannis except that Barkley has a better post game. Barkley's 2 point % at peak is better than Giannis today playing in an era that's harder to score.

"Also because his game wouldn't translate as well to today (spamming post ups, being iso heavy, bad shooting and meh defense), even if offensive rebounding and efficient close ranged 2s are still important."

Alright you can keep arguing against/UHM AKSHUALLY-ing an invisible bogeyman if it makes you feel better lol because not a single person in this topic implied he would be bad. If the point understandably went over your head in the first post because "relative" effectiveness is too hard to grasp (i.e. post-up iso-reliant players would have to adjust more than great shooters, slashers or P&R players, even if they would still be good), and again in the second post's clarification, then there's not much I can do to help you

"Doesn't have to change a thing about his game" is wrong. Back to the basket violations and his few seasons of terrible 3-point chucking is already going to be something he'll have to adjust (this is where I say he'd still be a great offensive player and you ignore it, get excited and post some other arguments against nobody or some invisible person).

[Woodsanity]

Call me crazy I rate him higher than Malone.

Malone is better RS and has greater longevity but Barkley is a far far better playoff performer and PS has more value than RS.
Malone also had the benefit of playing with an all time great PG for his entire career.

[homecourtloss]

Barkley was lazy on defense to conserve energy for offense. Like many stars, but Barkley is more pronounced I think because he expended more energy than most on offense with his playstyle and he's a big dude. When he was locked in, however, he was a good (not great) defender. Gambled a bit too much but his defensive issues were not lack of awareness or basketball IQ. And he's clearly one of the best rebounders of all time, and defensive rebounding is a part of defense.
...

Just based on eye test, I will disagree with this. His main defensive issues that I saw when I used to watch him were exactly a lack of awareness (letting his man slip him when he didn't have the ball and missing cutters into his space) and defensive basketball IQ (blowing switches, lazy movement under picks, etc.). His strength was his great lower body strength; few people (maybe Shaq) could force their way through him into their sweet spots into the post and he had no issues with banging with just about anybody which made him a decent post defender, although his height allowed most of the taller players to shoot over him with relative ease.

This is exactly it—he was a poor defender (c.f., on/off numbers available, partial RAPM numbers, eye test), playing in an era where he got to play a lot of one on one defense. He could look down on a man, use his hands, body them up a little bit and do OK. His problem was that he had poor defense of awareness and/or didn’t care that much on defense. During his peak, he was a negative defender, but in today’s game if he played exactly the same way defensively, he would be a massive liability because today’s game would require him to defend in space, switch, make many many more rotations off of many many more actions that each team runs. In today’s game if you are late on a rotation, you’re giving up an open three pointer to probably a good shooter and/or and open lane to the basket after one pass. In Barkley’s days, late on a rotation meant you gave up an 18 footer to somebody.

Barkley could definitely play today. He was massively efficient in his inside the arc game. So much that his inside game rivals the best offenses today (125 rating). Combine that with the fact that he was a willing and able passer, in his era, he'd be even more dominant. He's also quite switchable, and yes, he was lazy in his era but that was partially a product of his era as well, it was seen as OK to go home and eat cheeseburgers and drink cokes. With modern conditioning practices, and more talent around him to take some of the offensive load off, he could easily be a better defender.

Also in this era he would have grown up shooting the 3 so he'd be better from the outside. Let Barkley take 5 steps and carry like Giannis and he could euro his way to more dunks than in his era. Who is going to defend Barkley 1v1 today? He's as athletic as prime LeBron just 2 inches shorter. Nobody in the league is stronger than him except maybe Embiid or Jokic and they are too slow. Pretty much EVERY player in past eras would have a field day in this era. It's the easiest era to score in BY A HUGE MARGIN.

Did anyone say he couldn't play today or would be bad? I don't think I did anyway.

The problem with Barkley is you have to do more hypothetical "if he changed his game this way and that way and didn't do this..." etc. than a lot of other great players. Nobody said he'd be bad (or I certainly didn't imply it), just that his game and some indicators are less (relatively) transferrable to modern play than alot of other greats. And this is why it's harder for a lot of people to envision him as someone who would thrive in the modern era versus people like Reggie Miller, Mark Price or Hakeem (and imo McHale). I still think he'd be great player, definitely all NBA and he's rightly considered an all-time great. His FT% doesn't suggest he'd ever become a good outside shooter, but he'd still be dominant in the paint and a top tier rebounder, which is very valuable.

You said Barkley's game wouldn't translate well which I emphatically refute. He doesn't have to change a thing about his game and he'd be one of the best scorers in the NBA today. His game is basically the same as Giannis except that Barkley has a better post game. Barkley's 2 point % at peak is better than Giannis today playing in an era that's harder to score.

It doesn’t matter at all if it’s “easier to school today than ever before,” because it’s easier for EVERYONE to score so you have to score better than the rest of the competition if you want to make an offensive impact. At his athletic peak, he was a +10 to +13 rTS% monster. Does anyone think that he would be a +13 rTS% consistently in today’ game at the same volume? I doubt it—30 ppg on 70%+ TS sounds unlikely. So, even if he were scoring more easily, relative to the rest of the league, he won’t be that much more efficient than when he was in his own days and most likely the disparity wouldn’t be as great.

As his explosive athleticism declined, he did develop an underrated nuanced offensive repertoire, including a very effective left-hand finish, some nice open under moves, absorbing contact, being able to shoot off the dribble. He availed himself of illegal defense rules to create iso situation with his back to the basket as well as facing up, but she wouldn’t be able to do today that as effectively today.