# The 20 Greatest Players of All Time



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

_20. Dwyane Wade
19. Karl Malone
18. Charles Barkley
17. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Elgin Baylor
15. Julius Erving
14. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
12. Lebron James
11. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
9. Jerry West
8. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Larry Bird
6. Earvin Johnson
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
1. Michael Jordan

_

Just curious, do you broadly agree, or vehemently disagree?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

It's not the worst list I've seen, but I disagree with a lot of it. Hakeem, Dr J, Dirk, and Wade are all too high.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

lol, Wade


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

It's a nice player pool if you take out the numbers 1-20, I'd probably take at least 16-18 of them for my top 20. 

Now you're rankings aren't the worse like RWE said, but there's a lot that would be changed and moved around.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I'll do it in tiers

*Tier One:* Magic, Jordan, Kareem

*Tier Two:* Russell, Wilt

*Tier Three:* Shaquille, Duncan, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem, LeBron

*Tier Four:* West, Oscar

*Tier Five:* Dr. J, Moses, Karl Malone, D-Rob, Isaiah, Barkley, Baylor

Guys like Dirk, Pettit, etc. just missed the cut


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

RollWithEm said:


> It's not the worst list I've seen, but I disagree with a lot of it. Hakeem, Dr J, Dirk, and Wade are all too high.


Hakeem is ranked so highly because, in a nutshell, players DO NOT peak in their early 30s. That is, Hakeem was lumbered with such a shitty coach and teammates, in such a shitty organisation, that what should have been his prime ('89-'92) was flushed down the toilet. Chaney was a friggin assclown, utterly oblivious to greatness right under his nose. It took Rudy T about 10 minutes to work out that "hang on a minute, why don't we run the offense through Hakeem's duel scoring/facilitating threat?" Instead, Chaney decides that Sleepy Floyd is going to "run" the team in '89 & '90, Kenny Smith in '91, and then set up a sort of "point guard" by committee scenario in '92. Truly pathetic. 

Dirk? How much lower do _you_ rank him? This is a guy who was a top 5 player, just about every year, for a decade. A guy who put up 2 great post season runs, culminating in 2 Finals trips including a championship and FMVP. He was a very high impact guy - 4s who stretch the floor are incredibly valuable, and efficient ISO scorers even more so. He's also a very good defensive rebounder (as good as Moses Malone, for example), somewhat underrated defensively, and rarely turned the ball over. 

And Erving? Don't discount his ABA years, especially his '76 post season where he submitted one of the great carrying jobs in history.


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

TheAnswer said:


> there's a lot that would be changed and moved around.


Such as?


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

Luke said:


> I'll do it in tiers
> 
> *Tier One:* Magic, Jordan, Kareem
> 
> ...


The thing that sticks out to me is Isiah over Dirk. Completely absurd, imo.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*RWE's 30 Greatest Players of All Time (for now)*

Keep in mind that my list is always changing slightly. For some reason, the players are grouping relatively along positional lines for me after the top few tiers. Since I have Wade at 29, I'll list my top 30:

*Gawd Tier*
1) Michael Jordan
2) Bill Russell
3) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4) Wilt Chamberlain

*DemiGawd Tier*
5) Magic Johnson
6) Larry Bird
7) Tim Duncan
8) Kobe Bryant
9) Lebron James

*Supernatural Tier*
10) Jerry West
11) Oscar Robertson
12) Hakeem Olajuwon
13) Shaquille O'Neal
14) Moses Malone

*Beastly Forward Tier*
15) Elgin Baylor
16) Kevin Garnett
17) Charles Barkley
18) Karl Malone
19) Bob Pettit

*Studly Forward Tier*
20) Julius Erving
21) John Havlicek
22) Dirk Nowitzki
23) Scottie Pippen 
24) Rick Barry

*Electric Guard Tier*
25) Isiah Thomas
26) Clyde Frazier
27) John Stockton
28) Gary Payton
29) Dwayne Wade
30) Steve Nash


----------



## Bucks4Ever91 (Sep 17, 2013)

I'll do top 10

10. Steve Nash
9. LeBron James
8. Tim Duncan
7. Julius Earving
6. Oscar Robertson
5. Bill Russell
4. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Larry Bird 
2. Earvin "Magic" Johnson
1. Michael Jordan


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: RWE's 30 Greatest Players of All Time (for now)*



RollWithEm said:


> Keep in mind that my list is always changing slightly. For some reason, the players are grouping relatively along positional lines for me after the top few tiers. Since I have Wade at 29, I'll list my top 30:
> 
> *Gawd Tier*
> 1) Michael Jordan
> ...


I'm having a really hard time with The Big O over Shaq and Hakeem. I'd like to hear the explanation for that.


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: RWE's 30 Greatest Players of All Time (for now)*



hobojoe said:


> I'm having a really hard time with The Big O over Shaq and Hakeem. I'd like to hear the explanation for that.


He's basically copied Simmons's list. Bill Simmons, after the '10 season, had..

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Wilt
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. West
10. Oscar
11. Hakeem
12. Shaq
13. Moses


His top 13 is exactly the same, except he's moved Wilt ahead of Magic/Bird, and bumped Lebron up into the top 10 because of his 2 titles the last couple years.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: RWE's 30 Greatest Players of All Time (for now)*



RollWithEm said:


> Keep in mind that my list is always changing slightly. For some reason, the players are grouping relatively along positional lines for me after the top few tiers. Since I have Wade at 29, I'll list my top 30:
> 
> *Gawd Tier*
> 1) Michael Jordan
> ...


Shaquille is a low but that's a good list.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

Top 25 - with 3 "unrated." Like RWE 15 and up changes a bit. 

1- Jordan
2- Russell
3- Wilt
4- Jabbar
5- Magic
6- Bird
7- LeBron
8- Duncan
9- Kobe
10- Shaq
11- Oscar
12- Hakeem
13- Moses
14- Dr J
15- 16 undecided West/Karl Malone
17- Garnett
18- Hondo
19- Isiah
20- Dirk
21/22 - Undecided DRob/Barry 

Never saw Pettit, Mikan and Baylor play whne they were good. And no decent tapes.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

oolalaa said:


> _20. Dwyane Wade
> 19. Karl Malone
> 18. Charles Barkley
> 17. Dirk Nowitzki
> ...


1-- Hakeem at 5. Should be lower. 
2-- West at 9. Should be lower. 
3- Barkley at 18. Should be lower. 
4- Wade at 20. Should be much lower. Doesn't belong near top 20 yet.


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> Top 25 - with 3 "unrated." Like RWE 15 and up changes a bit.
> 
> 1- Jordan
> 2- Russell
> ...


1) Lebron is too high. You claim that Wade shouldn't be anywhere near the top 20 _"yet"_, presumably because his body of work isn't long enough, but then put Lebron, who was drafted in the SAME YEAR as Wade (and who has 1 less title), ahead of Kobe, Duncan _and_ Hakeem?! Absurd. 

2) West should be right next to, or _ahead_ of Oscar. 4/5 spots behind is disrespectful.

3) You overrate Moses. How in the world is he better than someone like KG? (or even Dirk) Tell me, without throwing contextless accomplishments at me (like 3 MVPs, "carried" Rockets to Finals).

As far as I can tell, Moses has only 2 things over KG - slightly better scorer, and much better offensive rebounder. KG, on the other hand, was 10 times the defender that Moses was, KG was 10 times the passer/facilitator (which meant he was comfortably the superior offensive player), KG was 10 times the leader/communicator/motivator, KG was the significantly superior defensive rebounder (you know, the rebounding that actually matters), and a better shot blocker, and stealer, and screen setter. Really, KG is just a slightly worse version of Tim Duncan, and Duncan is so much better than Moses my head hurts just thinking about it. Moses is a #23-25 guy AT BEST.

4) Isiah over Barkley and Dirk (and Wade) is again laughable.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

oolalaa said:


> _
> 20. Dwyane Wade
> 19. Karl Malone
> 18. Charles Barkley
> ...


Not a bad list, but:
1- You are missing Moses Malone;
2- Little too high: Russell, Hakeem, LBJ, KG;
3- Little too low: Wilt, Karl.
4- Lol at: Wade.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

oolalaa said:


> 1) Lebron is too high. You claim that Wade shouldn't be anywhere near the top 20 _"yet"_, presumably because his body of work isn't long enough, but then put Lebron, who was drafted in the SAME YEAR as Wade (and who has 1 less title), ahead of Kobe, Duncan _and_ Hakeem?! Absurd.
> 
> 2) West should be right next to, or _ahead_ of Oscar. 4/5 spots behind is disrespectful.
> 
> ...


Oh. My. God.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Food for thought: can it be an *All-Time *List without Geroge Mikan (4 championships, NBA's first "Giant") or Bob Cousy (6 championships, MVP winner, game's first great PG)?


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Food for thought: can it be an *All-Time *List without Geroge Mikan (4 championships, NBA's first "Giant") or Bob Cousy (6 championships, MVP winner, game's first great PG)?


I didn't include Pettit, either. I made a cut-off point - anyone drafted pre-Russell I don't rank.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: RWE's 30 Greatest Players of All Time (for now)*



oolalaa said:


> He's basically copied Simmons's list.


Why don't you dig out my rankings from 7 or 8 years before that book came out before you start throwing stones rook?


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

*Re: RWE's 30 Greatest Players of All Time (for now)*



RollWithEm said:


> Why don't you dig out my rankings from 7 or 8 years before that book came out before you start throwing stones rook?


Why don't you do that for me..

And hey, if you're right, maybe Simmons copied you.


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Oh. My. God.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Iknowhoops (Sep 18, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not a bad list, but:
> 1- You are missing Moses Malone;
> 2- Little too high: Russell, Hakeem, LBJ, KG;
> 3- Little too low: Wilt, Karl.
> 4- Lol at: Wade.


David Robinson is a top 12 player all time, and statistically he is a top 5 player all time. He gets no love for some reason, but he was the bomb.


----------



## Iknowhoops (Sep 18, 2013)

oolalaa said:


> _20. Dwyane Wade
> 19. Karl Malone
> 18. Charles Barkley
> 17. Dirk Nowitzki
> ...


David was better than KG, Bill Russell, Kobe, Jerry West and basically everyone after 10. And by that I mean had more of an impact on the game. Shaq is also a top 5 of all time and Bill Russel is overrated.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Iknowhoops said:


> David was better than KG, Bill Russell, Kobe, Jerry West and basically everyone after 10. And by that I mean had more of an impact on the game. Shaq is also a top 5 of all time and Bill Russel is overrated.


Your name appears to be sarcastic.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Iknowhoops said:


> David was better than KG, Bill Russell, Kobe, Jerry West and basically everyone after 10. And by that I mean had more of an impact on the game.


I rank Robinson higher than most, but that's absurd. 

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Iknowhoops (Sep 18, 2013)

l0st1 said:


> Your name appears to be sarcastic.


Check the stats. I realise there is a difference between greatest and best. I go by who was actually better. Not by who was on the best teams.


----------



## Iknowhoops (Sep 18, 2013)

hobojoe said:


> I rank Robinson higher than most, but that's absurd.
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Men lie women lie numbers don't.


----------



## Iknowhoops (Sep 18, 2013)

Trust me I know its not a popular opinion at all, but David Robinson performed at a top 5 stat level of all time. That is not debatable. Im not going to give a guy who has more rings a higher rank just because he happened to be on a better team. Yall can do it if you want but not me.


----------



## Iknowhoops (Sep 18, 2013)

And Lebron is much better than Kobe. The only three people that can possibly have an argument over Lebron are Wilt, Jabbar, and Jordan. After that there is nobody.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

oolalaa said:


> Care to elaborate?


Sure.



oolalaa said:


> 3) You overrate Moses. How in the world is he better than someone like KG? (or even Dirk) Tell me, without throwing contextless accomplishments at me (like 3 MVPs, "carried" Rockets to Finals).


Well, context has plenty to do with it. 

Regarding MVPs, please note that Mo was winning them over guys like a prime KAJ and/or Larry Bird. And yeah, he got 3 of them.
Garnett won one when the League started throwing them away like candy, to dudes like Iverson and Steve Nash. At a time where Shaq or Duncan should be collecting them all. Politics. Don't believe me? Guess who was the SOLE MVP that didn't even make it to the playoffs the following season (as back as 1980)?

About the Finals, Mo went to 2 as the undisputed Franchise player and in the difficult 80's. 
Garnett, not so much. He never could get his teams higher because he couldn't be trusted as the go-to guy. Paul Pierce was closing games (in Minny, he only had success when it was Cassell getting the ball). 



> As far as I can tell, Moses has only 2 things over KG - slightly better scorer,


Yeah. Because KG DID score 31ppg in a season. Or 27. Oh wait...



> and much better offensive rebounder.


Moses was the better rebounder. Period.
Check TR% if needed.



> KG, on the other hand, was 10 times the defender that Moses was,


Individual defense is overrated. Team defense is where it's at.
Off course, Mo DID manage to be an all-D 1st teamer in his prime, didn't he? 



> KG was 10 times the passer/facilitator (which meant he was comfortably the superior offensive player),


Why would i want a great center, capable of scoring in big numbers and in good percentages passing the ball around on offense?
On offense, i want my big man scoring and crashing the boards. 2 things Mo did a lot better than Garnett. 



> KG was 10 times the leader/communicator/motivator,


lol. 



> KG was the significantly superior defensive rebounder (you know, the rebounding that actually matters),


Sure, cause second-chance points don't matter in the game of basketball. Only defensive rebounds (that can lead to points OR NOT) matter. 
Again, Mo was the better rebounder of the 2.



> and a better shot blocker,


This is true.



> and stealer,


Sure. Not that it matters much for a center, but i guess a .5 difference is noticeable.



> and screen setter.


lol.



> Really, KG is just a slightly worse version of Tim Duncan,


I've heard that a million times. That doesn't make it true.



> and Duncan is so much better than Moses my head hurts just thinking about it.


I disagree. Duncan is the greater player. But they are not that far apart.



> Moses is a #23-25 guy AT BEST.


No. Just... no.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Moses was SERIOUS


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Iknowhoops said:


> And Lebron is much better than Kobe. The only three people that can possibly have an argument over Lebron are Wilt, Jabbar, and Jordan. After that there is nobody.


Well, there is that guy with 11 Titles in 13 seasons


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

Iknowhoops said:


> Men lie women lie numbers don't.


Numbers don't lie? THAT is the biggest lie ever told, and it is told by the BIGGEST liars


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Iknowhoops said:


> Men lie women lie numbers don't.


I can only assume you have Robertson over Russell then, no? Russell can't be in your top 15. 

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## oolalaa (Aug 30, 2012)

PauloCatarino said:


> Well, context has plenty to do with it.
> 
> Regarding MVPs, please note that Mo was winning them over guys like a prime KAJ and/or Larry Bird. And yeah, he got 3 of them.
> Garnett won one when the League started throwing them away like candy, to dudes like Iverson and Steve Nash. At a time where Shaq or Duncan should be collecting them all. Politics. Don't believe me? Guess who was the SOLE MVP that didn't even make it to the playoffs the following season (as back as 1980)?


I don't begrudge him of his MVPs; he deserved every one (marginally so, though), but they were _LOUSY_ MVPs. In '79, the competition was absolutely pitiful. The Bullets had the league's best record, and only won 54 games. There were only three 50 win teams. Half the players were using coke. The other half were bitching about their contracts and playing time. The only other all-time great to challange Moses was Kareem, and he was stuck on a mediocre team with the motivation and competitive drive of a pregnant sloth. It was perhaps the worst season, in terms of (relative) quality of play, and consistent effort, since the 50s. You wanna know how shitty that season was; Moses, who anchored the second worst defense in the entire league, was picked for the All-Defensive 2nd team. Lmao.

The Rockets won 47 games, with an SRS of 0.92 (12th out of 22). They were a distinctly average team (in a distinctly shitty season). Moses did lead them to the best offense in the league, but they were (relatively) talented offensively outside of him - Calvin Murphy and Barry could both create their own shot (and facilitate), and Rudy T was a decent scorer. In sum, Moses was MVP by default.

In '82, Moses put up his outlier season, a ppg aberration that he never replicated before or since (or got anywhere close). That said, Moses's teammates were worse than they were in '79, and this was a more competitive season (even though the West was weaker then the East), so the Rockets mediocrity (46 wins, -0.39 SRS) was more impressive. But once again, Moses had little top end competition. Bird was 3 years away from his prime, Magic 5 years, and the Dr and Kareem were 2 years past theirs. Moses's prime was perfectly timed.

In '83, Moses joined a team that the previous year had won 58 games, had an SRS of 5.74 (2nd in league), the 5th best offense, the 7th best defense, and lost in the Finals in a competitive 6 games. Moses, who seamlessly replaced the Dawkins/Jones combo, improved them to 65 wins, an SRS of 7.53, the 5th best defense, and a sweep of the injured Lakers whose only healthy player had forgotten how to rebound. To me, that epitomizes the impact of Moses. Good/very good, but never great.



> About the Finals, Mo went to 2 as the undisputed Franchise player and in the difficult 80's.


Dude, the teams the Rockets had to get through to reach the '81 Finals were an absolute joke. Moses had an easier road than '07 Lebron. And Moses second trip came on a team that had made it to the Finals the year before! Lol.



> Garnett, not so much. He never could get his teams higher because he couldn't be trusted as the go-to guy. Paul Pierce was closing games (in Minny, he only had success when it was Cassell getting the ball).


He could never get his teams higher because 1) They were mind-numbingly lousy, 2) The competition he faced in the first rounds was ridiculously hard. '99 - Duncan/Robinson, '00 - A Portland team that was 1 quarter away from beting Shaq's Lakers, '01 - Duncan's Spurs, '02 - Dirk's Mavs, '03 - Lakers. Completely absurd. The one and only time Minny get an "easy" team and KG leads them to the WCFs.

And it wasn't like Minny were a .500 team scraping into the post season every year. Minny won 50 games in '00, 47 in '01, 50 in '02, 51 in '03. The West was unbelievable in the early 2000s, and, incidentally, the exact opposite in the early 80s. In '80, for example, Moses leads the Rockets to 41 wins; who did they get to play in the first round? The 41 win San Antonio Spurs with the leagues 3rd worst defense!




> Yeah. Because KG DID score 31ppg in a season. Or 27. Oh wait...


KG was a 24ppg scorer, Moses was a 26ppg scorer. One season does not change that.



> Moses was the better rebounder. Period.
> Check TR% if needed.


Wrong. KG was one of the very greatest defensive rebounders of all time (peaking at 30DRB%). Moses was not (peaking at 26 DRB%). He was on par with Dirk Nowitzki. 



> Individual defense is overrated. Team defense is where it's at.
> Off course, Mo DID manage to be an all-D 1st teamer in his prime, didn't he?


You're right, and KG was one of the best team defenders in NBA history. Only Russell, Hakeem, and Robinson were superior. Moses was a pretty lousy team defender. Why do you think he anchored such shitty/mediocre defenses? (21/22 in '79, 18/22 in '80, 16/23 in '81, 16/23 in '82)

Sure, Minny's defense's were routinely average (until '04), but that's because KG had the worst defensive help in the entire league. A look at their on/off numbers will tell you that they completely fell apart when he was off the floor.



> Why would i want a great center, capable of scoring in big numbers and in good percentages passing the ball around on offense?
> On offense, i want my big man scoring and crashing the boards. 2 things Mo did a lot better than Garnett.


Lmao, tell me, when was Wilt's peak, and what was the one thing that characterized it relative to earlier seasons? 

Moses didn't pass because he COULDN'T pass, and when he did, he turned it over.



> Sure, cause second-chance points don't matter in the game of basketball. Only defensive rebounds (that can lead to points OR NOT) matter.
> Again, Mo was the better rebounder of the 2.


Defensive rebounding is infinitely more important to winning than offensive rebounding. A lot of Moses's off rebs came off of HIS OWN MISSES, and his lust for grabbing an off reb routinely left him out of position on the defensive end, trailing the play, or getting exposed for fast breaks.



> I've heard that a million times. That doesn't make it true.


It's true because it's true, not because people say it's true. Defensively, and as rebounders, they were negligible. As passers/playmakers, too, very similar. Duncan was a better scorer. That's it.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

*


oolalaa said:



1) Lebron is too high. You claim that Wade shouldn't be anywhere near the top 20 "yet", presumably because his body of work isn't long enough, but then put Lebron, who was drafted in the SAME YEAR as Wade (and who has 1 less title), ahead of Kobe, Duncan and Hakeem?! Absurd. 

2) West should be right next to, or ahead of Oscar. 4/5 spots behind is disrespectful.

3) You overrate Moses. How in the world is he better than someone like KG? (or even Dirk) Tell me, without throwing contextless accomplishments at me (like 3 MVPs, "carried" Rockets to Finals).

As far as I can tell, Moses has only 2 things over KG - slightly better scorer, and much better offensive rebounder. KG, on the other hand, was 10 times the defender that Moses was, KG was 10 times the passer/facilitator (which meant he was comfortably the superior offensive player), KG was 10 times the leader/communicator/motivator, KG was the significantly superior defensive rebounder (you know, the rebounding that actually matters), and a better shot blocker, and stealer, and screen setter. Really, KG is just a slightly worse version of Tim Duncan, and Duncan is so much better than Moses my head hurts just thinking about it. Moses is a #23-25 guy AT BEST.

4) Isiah over Barkley and Dirk (and Wade) is again laughable.

Click to expand...

*
1---- Why is it relevant they came from the same draft? Dwayne Wade is LeBron's bytch. When the game is on the line- the ball goes to LBJ. WHen they need a stop - it's LeBron that handles it. Lebron shoots better from the floor, rebounds better and passes better and handles the ball better and is a better defender. Wade has been 1st team all-nba just twice in his career. Just 1 year he was 3rd in MVP Award shares. That was his highest. Many more deserving players than Wade. 

2--- Oscar having a 5 year run is - not just 1 year but 5- of averaging a triple-double is beyond incredible - never to be duplicated. That is NBA history. History for me "counts." Especially if it is something that willl never be duplicated. He had the misfortune in his prime of having to go through Russeell and Wilt in the East which is why he never reached the finals during his prime. 

3--- What you call "facilaitator" I call "unable to develop a consistent low post game in his prime." Mosos Malone knocked out Jabbar/Magic/Wilkes. Moses outplayed Jabbar one year removed from Jabbar having MVP. Moses had a low post game and was amazing offensive rebounder. You HAD to have help defense in Moses's prime. When he stepped on the court- his team was assured of getting open looks because you HAD to have help. KG HAD to pass a lot more because he just didn't have a dynamic post/ or inside game. Moses did. Passing to inferior less-talented teammates isn't my idea of being better than Moses. Moses had inferior teammates vs the Lakers in 80-81 but he got his teammtes to play at a high level just by the havoc he caused in the paint vs a great Jabbar. 

4--- Dirk and Isiah close. Though before DIrk developed a low post game he was overrated. For Barkley, he was a dumb basketball player. He doesn't belong on this top 20 list. In 94-95 vs. Rockets after he hurt his hamstring, he let his ego get in the way and was a reason (not the only one) why his team lost to Rockets instead of working through KJ. He was stupid. He got smart at some point but his team lost by 1 pt while KJ had 46. Another reason-- Pippen highly criticized teammate Barkley calling him a selfish guy and much worse. Another reason-- - in 92-93 Finals he blew the final Suns defensive coverage that led to the winning basket on a total bonehead gamble. And 4th- he didn't care enough to put forth the effort to play defense in order to win. That's stupid. He just doesn't belong on this list.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> 1---- Why is it relevant they came from the same draft? Dwayne Wade is LeBron's bytch. When the game is on the line- the ball goes to LBJ. WHen they need a stop - it's LeBron that handles it. Lebron shoots better from the floor, rebounds better and passes better and handles the ball better and is a better defender. Wade has been 1st team all-nba just twice in his career. Just 1 year he was 3rd in MVP Award shares. That was his highest. Many more deserving players than Wade.
> 
> 2--- Oscar having a 5 year run is - not just 1 year but 5- of averaging a triple-double is beyond incredible - never to be duplicated. That is NBA history. History for me "counts." Especially if it is something that willl never be duplicated. He had the misfortune in his prime of having to go through Russeell and Wilt in the East which is why he never reached the finals during his prime.
> 
> ...


You can call barkley a stupid player all you want (and for the most part you'll be wrong), but that doesn't take away the fact that barkley was an incredible basketball player. I would certainly argue that he belongs on a list like this.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You can call barkley a stupid player all you want (and for the most part you'll be wrong), but that doesn't take away the fact that barkley was an incredible basketball player. I would certainly argue that he belongs on a list like this.


1-- One can be an increible basketball player and not be a top 20 player. 
2-- If you htink he is- fine. It's your opinion. The above reasons I gave I believe to be fact to show he was stupid. 

Hm being a big part of costing his team a title by blundering in 92-93 in last Bulls possession, readliy admitting not caring enough to put forth an effort on defense (when was teh last time you ever hearda champion say I can't put forth a strong effort to paly defense?), and letting his ego get in the way all this coupled with a guy like Pipen totlally slam him - if you want to ignore those things - what can I say. We disagree. I don't ignore his ignorance. He was ignorant. He's a real good/great guy but we're talking 20 greatest ever. Not "good guys."


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> 1-- One can be an increible basketball player and not be a top 20 player.
> 2-- If you htink he is- fine. It's your opinion. The above reasons I gave I believe to be fact to show he was stupid.


How do those things show he was stupid? 



hoopfan101 said:


> Hm being a big part of costing his team a title by blundering in 92-93 in last Bulls possession, readliy admitting not caring enough to put forth an effort on defense (when was teh last time you ever hearda champion say I can't put forth a strong effort to paly defense?), and letting his ego get in the way all this coupled with a guy like Pipen totlally slam him - if you want to ignore those things - what can I say. We disagree. I don't ignore his ignorance. He was ignorant. He's a real good/great guy but we're talking 20 greatest ever. Not "good guys."


He didn't care. There's a huge difference. And he was a honest person. If anything he isn't stupid because of that fact alone. He could've pulled a wade and made any excuse he could think of but instead told it like it was. I don't understand your logic here. 

In regards to being 20 greatest ever, Barkley is good enough to be on the list, in terms of his basketball talent. You can't deny it. It's not about whether or not he's a good guy, it's about whether or not he's talented enough and he's certainly talented enough. You can't deny how good he was.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Iknowhoops said:


> And Lebron is much better than Kobe. The only three people that can possibly have an argument over Lebron are Wilt, Jabbar, and Jordan. After that there is nobody.


Magic Johnson doesn't have an argument over Lebron?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

oolalaa said:


> I don't begrudge him of his MVPs; he deserved every one (marginally so, though), *but they were LOUSY MVPs*. In '79, the competition was absolutely pitiful. The Bullets had the league's best record, and only won 54 games. There were only three 50 win teams. Half the players were using coke. The other half were bitching about their contracts and playing time. The only other all-time great to challange Moses was Kareem, and he was stuck on a mediocre team with the motivation and competitive drive of a pregnant sloth. It was perhaps the worst season, in terms of (relative) quality of play, and consistent effort, since the 50s. You wanna know how shitty that season was; Moses, who anchored the second worst defense in the entire league, was picked for the All-Defensive 2nd team. Lmao.
> 
> The Rockets won 47 games, with an SRS of 0.92 (12th out of 22). They were a distinctly average team (in a distinctly shitty season). Moses did lead them to the best offense in the league, but they were (relatively) talented offensively outside of him - Calvin Murphy and Barry could both create their own shot (and facilitate), and Rudy T was a decent scorer. In sum, Moses was MVP by default.
> 
> ...


3 lousy MVPs. OK. Still, a great advantage over one lousy MVP, no?



> To me, that epitomizes the impact of Moses. Good/very good, but never great.


Well, if you think a player who averaged 20.6/12.2 over 19 NBA seasons, with 3 MVPs, a championship as the franchise player, 10 All-Nba selections, Top-5 all time in categories such as games, minutes, FTs and rebounds, and who is 7th in scoring as "good/very good", then i do't know what to say... 



> Dude, the teams the Rockets had to get through to reach the '81 Finals were an absolute joke. Moses had an easier road than '07 Lebron. And Moses second trip came on a team that had made it to the Finals the year before! Lol.


Does that include the then-Champions Lakers, who Moses lit up for 31ppg? 



> He could never get his teams higher because 1) They were mind-numbingly lousy, 2) The competition he faced in the first rounds was ridiculously hard. '99 - Duncan/Robinson, '00 - A Portland team that was 1 quarter away from beting Shaq's Lakers, '01 - Duncan's Spurs, '02 - Dirk's Mavs, '03 - Lakers. Completely absurd. The one and only time Minny get an "easy" team and KG leads them to the WCFs.


Please refer to the 1980-1981 WC first round. 



> And it wasn't like Minny were a .500 team scraping into the post season every year. Minny won 50 games in '00, 47 in '01, 50 in '02, 51 in '03. The West was unbelievable in the early 2000s, and, incidentally, the exact opposite in the early 80s. In '80, for example, Moses leads the Rockets to 41 wins; who did they get to play in the first round? The 41 win San Antonio Spurs with the leagues 3rd worst defense!


In ALL of Minny's playoff series, please give me ONE where KG had a Great-Player-Dominant-Series.



> KG was a 24ppg scorer, Moses was a 26ppg scorer. One season does not change that.


KG only ONCE averaged 24ppg. Moses, of course, averaged that or more in 7 seasons. A big difference.



> Wrong. KG was one of the very greatest defensive rebounders of all time (peaking at 30DRB%). Moses was not (peaking at 26 DRB%). He was on par with Dirk Nowitzki.


Why nitpick? Talking about rebounds, here. Nor offensive. NOr defensive. Garnett had 2 20TR% seasons. Moses had 3. AND one at 21TR%, one at 22TR% and two at 23TR%.
Moses Malone was the better rebounder of the 2.



> You're right, and KG was one of the best team defenders in NBA history. Only Russell, Hakeem, and Robinson were superior. Moses was a pretty lousy team defender. Why do you think he anchored such shitty/mediocre defenses? (21/22 in '79, 18/22 in '80, 16/23 in '81, 16/23 in '82)
> 
> Sure, Minny's defense's were routinely average (until '04), but that's because KG had the worst defensive help in the entire league. A look at their on/off numbers will tell you that they completely fell apart when he was off the floor.


Team defense. Not individual defense.



> Lmao, tell me, when was Wilt's peak, and what was the one thing that characterized it relative to earlier seasons?


lol.



> Moses didn't pass because he COULDN'T pass, and when he did, he turned it over.


Again: i don't care if he can or can't pass. I don't want him to do it. Period.



> Defensive rebounding is infinitely more important to winning than offensive rebounding. A lot of Moses's off rebs came off of HIS OWN MISSES, and his lust for grabbing an off reb routinely left him out of position on the defensive end, trailing the play, or getting exposed for fast breaks.


lol. It just amazes me how such and inept basketball player was not only a 3-time NBA MVP but also an HOF and selected as one of the 50Greatest.
Damn. What a blunder! 



> It's true because it's true, not because people say it's true. Defensively, and as rebounders, they were negligible. As passers/playmakers, too, very similar. Duncan was a better scorer. That's it.


I'm all too familiar with the "OMG player A is so flashy and "real" he's a stud" way of thinking. That's why players like Iverson and T-Mac was once judged as equal or better than, say, Kobe Bryant. Amar'e as Karl Malone. Etc., etc..
When KG was in Minny i once got laughed at by saying that no team with KG as The Man would go very far, because KG wasn't a go-to guy and he would be better off defering to someone who would close out games and concentrate on his best habilities of rebounding and defense. A little time later... BAM!
Duncan is/was a whole other animal.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It's always tough to rank current players. Especially one who is only 28. There will always be people who project where he will finish, and then people who rank him as of where he would be if he retired today. So the results will vary quite a bit.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

For being only 20 years old, it's a little hard to make up a legit list when I didn't really see enough of most of these guys to really say who's better than who. I will say though without a doubt that MJ and Russell are the Top 2 players of all-time.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

*


XxIrvingxX said:



How do those things show he was stupid?

Click to expand...

*


XxIrvingxX said:


> You ask how I think he's stupid. If he doesn't "care" - imo he should have "cared" if he wanted to win a title. Apparently if you hear him on TNT- he regrets big time not winning a title. Well the idiot should have worked harder on defense - instead of barely caring. To be a top 25 player - you should care more about trying to win titles than what Barkley showed. Here are the reasons I'll explain more why I believe he was stupid.
> 
> 1-- Barkley defending in last posesssion deciding to gamble and steal the ball while his team was ahead by just by 2 while facing elimination in which the man he was defending would have caught the ball far out with his back to the basket--- that gamble is just plain dumb. He didn't NEED to do it. If you can't see that that gamble was ignorant then I don't know what to say. We disagree.
> 
> ...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> *
> 
> 
> XxIrvingxX said:
> ...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Ricky Davis is a stupid basketball player for future reference. Barkley was a pretty flawed player in a limited number of ways, but he managed to be something like a top 20 all time player in spite of that. You can't do that if you're dumb.

Players make mistakes all the time, citing some play in a single game and saying that makes a player stupid...well that's just completely crap logic. If Barkley had been a stupid player, then the Suns would never had been in that game to begin with.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> hoopfan101 said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

Diable said:


> Ricky Davis is a stupid basketball player for future reference. Barkley was a pretty flawed player in a limited number of ways, but he managed to be something like a top 20 all time player in spite of that. You can't do that if you're dumb.
> 
> Players make mistakes all the time, citing some play in a single game and saying that makes a player stupid...well that's just completely crap logic. If Barkley had been a stupid player, then the Suns would never had been in that game to begin with.


Who says Barkley is a top 20 player of all time? I don't believe Dr Jack Ramsey thinks he is top 20 either. How can you NOT be dumb when even your teammates acknowledge you willingly don't put forth the effort on defense?

This backs up his IGNORANT attempt to GAMBLE and steal the ball on Bulls last possession of 92-93 Finals instead of just stay in front of his man. This isn't like making a mistake during reg season. This was eilimination game last possession of NBA Finals. A play he no way NEEDED to gamble on. If he NEEDED to - that would be okay. Pippen's BACK was to the basket around 15+ maybe 20 ft away. 

This is the same ignorant player that in Game 7 was hurt vs Rockets and was still demanding the ball for a time even though it was obvious he couldn't jump. This isn't just a "normal" game of "ohh well I made a dumb play." This is moneyball time (playoffs. There is a difference between playoffs and reg season. Elimnation games count.) with his team facing elimination and he is doing incredibly stupid things. The kicker though is his defense that he just willingly didn't put forth the effort. THAT IS DUMB. He says it on TNT as well -that he either didn't care or didn't put forth the effort. If you haven't heard him say it on TNT- then I don't know what to tell you. 

You can't just *ignore *defense because you like how he played offensively and had a huge heart. We're comparing ALL-TIME GREATS here (not "good players" vs great."). A guy who basilcaly doesn't give a damn on one side of the ball while never winning a title and showing off his ignorance in the last possession of opposing team is NOT top 20 all-time. There has to be something more special. For me and it looks like for Jack Ramsey there is. Hey- Barkley is a great guy. But he was DUMB. 

You just can't try to pin my opinion on a few plays. THOSE ARE EXAMPLES. Your'e deliberately IGNORING Dr Jack Ramsey's comments and Barkley's TEAMMATES AGREEING WITH Ramsey and trying to pigeon-hole my comments to a few plays. Hell even Barkley speaks of it. Instead you want to reference only the spot plays I mentioned?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

hoopfan101 said:


> *Who says Barkley is a top 20 player of all time? I don't believe Dr Jack Ramsey thinks he is top 20 either. How can you NOT be dumb when even your teammates acknowledge you willingly don't put forth the effort on defense?*
> 
> This backs up his IGNORANT attempt to GAMBLE and steal the ball on Bulls last possession of 92-93 Finals instead of just stay in front of his man. This isn't like making a mistake during reg season. This was eilimination game last possession of NBA Finals. A play he no way NEEDED to gamble on. If he NEEDED to - that would be okay. Pippen's BACK was to the basket around 15+ maybe 20 ft away.
> 
> ...


Most people have Charles Barkley in their All-Time Top 20 lists... 

So you don't like dumb players. That's fine. FYI, i don't consider guys like Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Snaq O'Meal, Tracie McGreedy, Nique Wilkins, Pete Maravich, etc., etc., etc., the brightest tools in the shed either. 

But there's no denying what Chuck brought to the court. Defense or no defense, he arguably IS an All-Time Top-20 player.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

PauloCatarino said:


> Most people have Charles Barkley in their All-Time Top 20 lists...
> 
> So you don't like dumb players. That's fine. FYI, i don't consider guys like Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Snaq O'Meal, Tracie McGreedy, Nique Wilkins, Pete Maravich, etc., etc., etc., the brightest tools in the shed either.
> 
> But there's no denying what Chuck brought to the court. Defense or no defense, he arguably IS an All-Time Top-20 player.


Arguably he is. But for me he isn't. On these lists would you agree a lot is preference and subjective? Well I didn't even know Dr. Jack Ramsey said those things before but I have thought similar way before I even read his article. My opinion isn't coming from left field like when I once heard a Kobe fan say "Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan because he takes tougher shots." That's a left field opinion. 

Anyhow, my preference and it appears Ramsey's is that he isn't. I don't have a problem with those of you who beleive he is. But Irving told me - my opinion is wrong. It CAN't be. I am not telling you or Irving you are "wrong." Irving is telling me I am. That is impossible. It's what I value ,and what apparently a terrific coach like Dr Jack Ramsey seems to value too. So what other posters think about Barkley- great. I don't share their opinion on this subject. I don't value what I feel is COMPELTE stupidity on defense. Other players you mention such as Shaq - I don't believe approach that consistent Barkley defense idiocy. 

There is no "real list. anyhow. With that said because he isn't in my top 25- it doesn't mean I think he syucks. For me you can blow some defensive coverages, have bad games etc but to be "willingly dumb" by not putting forth effort on both sides for most of the game, isn't what I value for a top 25 all-time great. From Dr Jack's article it certainly didn't seem like his teammates appreciated it either. Thus for me - no way is he top 25 on my list. You can read Dr Jack's article. Apparently I'm not alone either. And read what Pippen had to say about Barkley. I am not alone. Thus I disagree with any of you that say "I'm wrong." Barkley's stupidity takes things to another level for me.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> Arguably he is. But for me he isn't. On these lists would you agree a lot is preference and subjective? Well I didn't even know Dr. Jack Ramsey said those things before but I have thought similar way before I even read his article. My opinion isn't coming from left field like when I once heard a Kobe fan say "Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan because he takes tougher shots." That's a left field opinion.
> 
> Anyhow, my preference and it appears Ramsey's is that he isn't. I don't have a problem with those of you who beleive he is. But Irving told me - my opinion is wrong. It CAN't be. I am not telling you or Irving you are "wrong." Irving is telling me I am. That is impossible. It's what I value ,and what apparently a terrific coach like Dr Jack Ramsey seems to value too. So what other posters think about Barkley- great. I don't share their opinion on this subject. I don't value what I feel is COMPELTE stupidity on defense. Other players you mention such as Shaq - I don't believe approach that consistent Barkley defense idiocy.
> 
> There is no "real list. anyhow. With that said because he isn't in my top 25- it doesn't mean I think he syucks. For me you can blow some defensive coverages, have bad games etc but to be "willingly dumb" by not putting forth effort on both sides for most of the game, isn't what I value for a top 25 all-time great. From Dr Jack's article it certainly didn't seem like his teammates appreciated it either. Thus for me - no way is he top 25 on my list. You can read Dr Jack's article. Apparently I'm not alone either. And read what Pippen had to say about Barkley. I am not alone. Thus I disagree with any of you that say "I'm wrong." Barkley's stupidity takes things to another level for me.


I never claimed your opinion is wrong. I'm not even going to bother responding to the other parts of your post. I have a feeling all of that is made up too.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> You can call barkley a stupid player all you want (and for the most part you'll be wrong), but that doesn't take away the fact that barkley was an incredible basketball player. I would certainly argue that he belongs on a list like this.



You called me wrong here. Did you not? "For the most part?"


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> How do those things show he was stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't deny it? But I did, right? SO this means I'm wrong, right?


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I never claimed your opinion is wrong. I'm not even going to bother responding to the other parts of your post. I have a feeling all of that is made up too.



You love Pippen a lot more than I, right? And second one from Dr Jack Ramsey. 

I have no reason to make things up. It's okay we disagree. 






And here is Dr. Jack Ramsey. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ramsay_drjack&id=1734435


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> hoopfan101 said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its kind of hard to place barkley in the top 20 of all time because even at his best he was only an ok defender and he was never in the class offensively of the very best of his era, you wouldn't mistake his offense with that of magic bird or mj or later in his career with olajuwon or shaq.

he was dynamic and fun but if i had my choice i'd rather have a prime pippen than a prime barkley because he could help you in more ways.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

Da Grinch said:


> its kind of hard to place barkley in the top 20 of all time because even at his best he was only an ok defender and he was never in the class offensively of the very best of his era, you wouldn't mistake his offense with that of magic bird or mj or later in his career with olajuwon or shaq.
> 
> he was dynamic and fun but if i had my choice i'd rather have a prime pippen than a prime barkley because he could help you in more ways.


I rate Barkley higher than Pippen. I thought his offense was special.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> You called me wrong here. Did you not? "For the most part?"


For the most part, yes you are wrong, because you're reasoning for saying he's stupid makes little to no sense. If you want to think he's stupid, that's fine, I have no problem with that. I'm arguing against your reasoning for it. 

And you didn't need to make four other posts about this, because

1. You could've just did it all here
2. Like before, you're basically just repeating yourself.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> its kind of hard to place barkley in the top 20 of all time because even at his best he was only an ok defender *and he was never in the class offensively of the very best of his era,* you wouldn't mistake his offense with that of magic bird or mj or later in his career with olajuwon or shaq.


I think it is pretty clear Chuck didn't have the offensive game of Bird and Jordan (not only volume scorers but successfull go-to guys in the crunch) or Magic (scoring, directing and passing), but in his physical prime he was an unstoppable scorer. He lead the league 4 straight seasons in TS% scoring from 23ppg to 28.3ppg.



> he was dynamic and fun but if i had my choice i'd rather have a prime pippen than a prime barkley because he could help you in more ways.


i think you have your Bulls-colored glasses on. No one would ever pick Pippen over Chuck to start a franchise. Pippen was a great player in his own right. But he was no Barkley.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> For the most part, yes you are wrong, because you're reasoning for saying he's stupid makes little to no sense. If you want to think he's stupid, that's fine, I have no problem with that. I'm arguing against your reasoning for it.
> 
> And you didn't need to make four other posts about this, because
> 
> ...


1--- You sent me different posts because you said I was wrong. You keep sending me the same email just wording it differently that I'm wrong. SO I sent them all back to you. 

2-- Not only did you say I was wrong - you practically called me a liar to boot. You're taking this way over the top. SO I don't agree with your opinion. So what? Is that you Mrs. Barkley? 

3--- We disagree. My post of Dr Jack Ramsey and of Pippen's comments imo certainly don't support your claim thatBarkley is *certainly *a top 20 all time player. 

4--- First you say to me I am wrong. Then you say to me you never said it. Then you say to me "For the most part, *yes you are wrong*, because you're reasoning." Yet my "reasoning" is MY OPINION. Which IMO a guy such as Dr. Jack Ramsey backs up. You can disagree. But you can't say I'm wrong. I have tied Dr. Jack Ramsey' accusation of Barkley loafing pretty regularly on defense to stupidity. That is my opinion. You can disagree. But I can't be wrong.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> 1--- You sent me different posts because you said I was wrong. You keep sending me the same email just wording it differently that I'm wrong. SO I sent them all back to you.


So in other words you were just repeating yourself. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's a waste of time. I'd advice you to not make a habit of that.



hoopfan101 said:


> 2-- Not only did you say I was wrong - you practically called me a liar to boot. You're taking this way over the top. SO I don't agree with your opinion. So what? Is that you Mrs. Barkley?


You're making 800 word rants against my comments (and if anyone on this site knows me, it's that you know you're pretty bad when I'm the one pointing this out on you), and you're claiming that I'm taking this way over the top? 



hoopfan101 said:


> 3--- We disagree. My post of Dr Jack Ramsey and of Pippen's comments imo certainly don't support your claim thatBarkley is *certainly *a top 20 all time player.


Why would it?



hoopfan101 said:


> 4--- First you say to me I am wrong. Then you say to me you never said it. Then you say to me "For the most part,


*

What posts are you reading? The very first time you claimed that I said you were wrong, it literally shows right there in bold print that I say "for the most part". 



hoopfan101 said:



But you can't say I'm wrong. I have tied Dr. Jack Ramsey' accusation of Barkley loafing pretty regularly on defense to stupidity. That is my opinion. You can disagree. But I can't be wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can say that you're wrong. What Pippen and Ramsey say about him doesn't take away the fact that he was an outstanding player in terms of scoring, rebounding, and even if he didn't care at all on defense, he showed at times that he was capable of playing it. Claiming that Barkley is stupid doesn't automatically devalue all that he has done, and with what Barkley has done, he is definitely worthy of being considered a top 20 player. His intelligence doesn't take that away. If you were saying that he didn't accomplish enough, then okay, I wouldn't have a right to say that you're wrong. But you're trying to tie in his intelligence with what he has accomplished and you're acting like that takes more importance over it. That is why you are wrong. You're not wrong for thinking that Barkley was a stupid player, you're wrong for thinking that it should matter when it comes to talking about what Barkley accomplished. It's like saying Kobe needs to be taken down a few spots on the list because of his feud with Shaq or because of his rape trial.*


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> So in other words you were just repeating yourself. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's a waste of time. I'd advice you to not make a habit of that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> I think it is pretty clear Chuck didn't have the offensive game of Bird and Jordan (not only volume scorers but successfull go-to guys in the crunch) or Magic (scoring, directing and passing), but in his physical prime he was an unstoppable scorer. He lead the league 4 straight seasons in TS% scoring from 23ppg to 28.3ppg.
> 
> 
> 
> i think you have your Bulls-colored glasses on. No one would ever pick Pippen over Chuck to start a franchise. Pippen was a great player in his own right. But he was no Barkley.


in those 4 _unstoppable_ seasons he made the 2nd round 1nce and lost there , , lost in the 1st round twice and one year didn;'t even make the playoffs and that 1st year he had 6 other guys score in double figures so its not like he didn't have help, he just wasn't good at using it.

in my opinion he was great but not unstoppable(TS% doesn't account for barkley's turnovers) and he never was quite good enough to be the #1 guy on a team and win anything so i'd rather have a guy who could fit in and hurt an opposing team when he didn't have the ball in his hands in addition to scoring since barkley's offense wasn't at that super elite level of a bird magic and jordan .

in addition to that he wasn't the greatest locker room guy and since teams usually take their personality from their best player(s) its double the importance if its the guy you want to start a franchise with.

thats not having bulls colored glasses on , that is simply being logical.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> in those 4 _unstoppable_ seasons he made the 2nd round 1nce and lost there , , lost in the 1st round twice and one year didn;'t even make the playoffs and that 1st year he had 6 other guys score in double figures so its not like he didn't have help, he just wasn't good at using it.


We were talking about scoring, right? And i mentioned Barkley as being THE top scorer in the league, TS%, 4 years in a row. I was not defending his hability to elevate his team, his teammates and whatnot. Just scoring prowess.
You could eventually made a case that those were "empty stats", Adrian-Dantley-style. But they still remain as GREAT for a volume scorer.
And, yes, Barkley DID replicate those stats some in the playoffs.



> in my opinion he was great but not unstoppable(TS% doesn't account for barkley's turnovers)


Yes, he turned the ball over a lot. But it's compensated a little (or a lot) by his offensive rebounding (5 years Top-2 in the league) and, again, his GREAT shooting percentages.



> and he never was quite good enough to be the #1 guy on a team and win anything so i'd rather have a guy who could fit in and hurt an opposing team when he didn't have the ball in his hands in addition to scoring since barkley's offense wasn't at that super elite level of a bird magic and jordan .


I beg to differ. He was good enough to be the #1 guy. He just wasn't as great as a franchise player as the guys you mentioned (wich are, off course, the best of the best - tough competition). 
I'm not trying to pimp Charles (IMHO, he is a sure-fire Top-20 player ever, but closer to the bottom than to the Top-10), only adressing his offensive game.



> in addition to that he wasn't the greatest locker room guy and since teams usually take their personality from their best player(s) its double the importance if its the guy you want to start a franchise with.


Guys like Bird, Jordan, Lew and Kobe were all bad "locker room guys"... Yet, they are ALL Top-10 All-time.

And Pippen? The guy that pissed and moan about Kukoc? The dude that refused to enter a game? The guy that achieved next-to-nothing without coattaling Michael Jordan?



> thats not having bulls colored glasses on , that is simply being logical.


Your comments on Barkley's shortcomings are true (except for his offense). And we haven't even adressed his (lack of) defense. 
Having "bulls colored glasses on" is picking Scottie Pippen over Charles Barkley, wich, IMHO, should be a bannable offense


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> We were talking about scoring, right? And i mentioned Barkley as being THE top scorer in the league, TS%, 4 years in a row. I was not defending his hability to elevate his team, his teammates and whatnot. Just scoring prowess.
> You could eventually made a case that those were "empty stats", Adrian-Dantley-style. But they still remain as GREAT for a volume scorer.
> And, yes, Barkley DID replicate those stats some in the playoffs.
> 
> ...


%s are nice but i believe impact is the bigger indicator of greatness for instance the last 3 seasons tyson chandler has led the league in TS%, artis gilmore led the league in that category 5 straight year earlier in the 80's and is the nba's all time leader in that category , but if you bring either of them up in an all time scoring discussion it wont end well for you 

and at no point was barkley a better scorer than jordan no matter what his %'s say i think thats just obvious hyperbole on your part, i wont go so far and call them as empty as dantley but they clearly were never at that all super elite level, and there are always going to be guys at the top of the league better than barkley because when push came to shove his game never quite matched up.

he didn't always lose to the jordans and the bird's of the world , he lost to the ewings and even the terry cummings as well in his prime ...when he made the playoffs.





> I beg to differ. He was good enough to be the #1 guy. He just wasn't as great as a franchise player as the guys you mentioned (wich are, off course, the best of the best - tough competition).
> I'm not trying to pimp Charles (IMHO, he is a sure-fire Top-20 player ever, but closer to the bottom than to the Top-10), only adressing his offensive game.
> 
> 
> ...


anyone can be a #1 guy its just a matter of how good your team will be with a player in that role , barkley proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he could only be counted to take a team so far unless they were absolutely stacked with all star caliber talent(93 suns) his ability as a scorer took away from his teammates at some point , in addition to his subpar defense.

and its worth noting all the guys you mentioned as bad lock room guys were extremely hard workers who led by example , something you really cant say about charles,



> And Pippen? The guy that pissed and moan about Kukoc? The dude that refused to enter a game? The guy that achieved next-to-nothing without coattaling Michael Jordan?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jordan pissed and moaned about kukoc too actually moreso than pippen because he at that point hated krause more and the only reason he stopped was because it was getting so bad the team owner had to talk reason with him to stop talking about the team negatively altogether.

and while i absolutely disagree with pippen's decision to not re-enter the game , it should be noted the only reason it happened was that kukoc broke the previous play which was called for pippen on a clearout and toni wouldn't leave leaving pippen to make a rather weak attempt, a pull up 3 that missed

i think if jackson had called that play for anyone else other than kukoc pippen would have played, not saying he was right , he was obviously wrong and kukoc made the shot ultimately proving jackson right, but it was rewarding bad behavior and pippen felt disrespected by it , so he sat.

fast forward to the 5 minute mark and you can see it.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=63738C0A4CCF45B928A163738C0A4CCF45B928A1

pippen in his prime was capable of making the playoffs without another all star on the roster or all star caliber talent, barkley in his prime was not, in fact he missed the playoffs in 92(hersey hawkins was an all star the previous year) in addition to 88, also his partying with jayson williams almost turned williams into an alcoholic, so in a way he even suppressed all star talent.

and when they were teammates pippen had problems with barkley's lack of dedication and professionalism as evidenced by the clip by hoopsfan

pippen was considered within bulls ranks a leader equal to jordan ,


> "Scottie was our team leader. He was the guy that directed our offense and he was the guy that took on a lot of big challenges defensively...the year that Michael retired, Scottie I think was the most valuable player in the league. He was probably the player most liked by others. He mingled. He brought out the best in players and communicated the best. Leadership, real leadership is one of his strengths. Everybody says Michael was a great leader. He led by example, by rebuke, by harsh words. Scottie's leadership was equally dominant, but a leadership of patting on the back, of support."
> 
> 
> 
> - Phil Jackson


http://hoops-nation.com/community/t...scottie-pippens-establishment-on-nba-stardom/


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

my goal isn't to denigrate barkley , he is a great player, but the title of the thread isn't 20 greatest offensive players of all time , just 20 greatest players of all time , and defense and leadership play a part in that because the goal of a great player is to win.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> %s are nice but i believe impact is the bigger indicator of greatness for instance the last 3 seasons tyson chandler has led the league in TS%, artis gilmore led the league in that category 5 straight year earlier in the 80's and is the nba's all time leader in that category , but if you bring either of them up in an all time scoring discussion it wont end well for you


That was the thing about Chuck that distanced him from the Chandler/Gilmore conversations: he had a great TS% (not good or very good, great) WHILE being a volume scorer.



> and at no point was barkley a better scorer than jordan no matter what his %'s say i think thats just obvious hyperbole on your part,


My mistake. I meant top scorer *TS%-wise*. It's obvious Barkley wasn't the scorer Michael Jordan was.



> i wont go so far and call them as empty as dantley but they clearly were never at that all super elite level, and there are always going to be guys at the top of the league better than barkley because when push came to shove his game never quite matched up.


At that super elite level? No. Not even in my dreams would i dare to compare Chuck to guys like Jordan, Bird, KAJ, etc. But we aren't talking about "super elite level", are we? We're talking about being a Top-20 (well, 10-to-20, actually) player. I have guys in *my *Top-20 lists who couldn't hold Chuck's jock when it came to *offense*.



> he didn't always lose to the jordans and the bird's of the world , he lost to the ewings and even the terry cummings as well in his prime ...when he made the playoffs.


That's true. But don't underestimate those Bucks teams. 
BUT Barkley, while not being able to get his team far in the playoffs, didn't exactly lay an egg offensively (sp?), did he? Like, in the 1988-1989 first round, where he scored 27ppg on .691TS%...



> Anyone can be a #1 guy


No.



> its just a matter of how good your team will be with a player in that role , barkley proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he could only be counted to take a team so far unless they were absolutely stacked with all star caliber talent(93 suns)


lol. You ARE using Bulls-colored glasses!
Are you talking about the team that started a rookie (later in the season), saw KJ play half the season, had an over-the-hill Tom Chambers (once a dangerous scorer) and started the pitifull center Mark West?
The team that, with the exception of Thunder Dan, had notorious non-defenders like Dumas, KJ, Ceballos, Chambers, Ainge and West play many minutes?
There's only one reason the Suns stayed competitive after Chambers' demise, and that was... yup, Charles Barkley. Who, again, played very well offensively (sp?) in the playoffs, eventhough not as great, TS%-wise, than in his physical prime.
Don't wanna diss that Suns team, but they were very far from "stacked with all star caliber talent"... 



> his ability as a scorer took away from his teammates at some point , in addition to his subpar defense.


No one on that team defended. And what did Charles take away from his teammates? You do know he had his best season as a passer, right?



> and its worth noting all the guys you mentioned as bad lock room guys were extremely hard workers who led by example , something you really cant say about charles,


True. 



> jordan pissed and moaned about kukoc too actually moreso than pippen because he at that point hated krause more and the only reason he stopped was because it was getting so bad the team owner had to talk reason with him to stop talking about the team negatively altogether.
> 
> and while i absolutely disagree with pippen's decision to not re-enter the game , it should be noted the only reason it happened was that kukoc broke the previous play which was called for pippen on a clearout and toni wouldn't leave leaving pippen to make a rather weak attempt, a pull up 3 that missed
> 
> ...


Thing about Pippen: he wasn't as good as Charles Barkley (and that was my point). 
I'll easily concede that he, althought a terrible "leader", was better at it than Charles (not difficult), but one would be grasping at straws if using arguments like being a "leader" while comparing second-fiddle players to franchise players (eventhough not a great one) like Chuck. 

The sole reason Pippen is talked about regarding all-time greats is because he won an ungodly amount of championships playing second-banana to Michael Jordan. If you take that away, i don't think there's ANY argument for Pippen > Barkley.
It's not even the case of "well, if Jordan wasn't there, Pippen would explode" (wich can be said regarding players like James Worthy, for example) because Pippen DID play without Jordan.
And what did he do? He was a 22ppg scorer in under .500FG% and at the age of 33 pretty much done. Chuck didn't have great longevity, also, but in his prime he was vastly superior to Pippen. 

Defense or no defense (and he didn't play much of it).


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> my goal isn't to denigrate barkley , he is a great player, but the title of the thread isn't 20 greatest offensive players of all time , just 20 greatest players of all time , and defense and leadership play a part in that because the goal of a great player is to win.


True. But keep in mind this started with you saying "and he was never in the class offensively of the very best of his era", wich i think it's incorrect and tried to prove otherwise.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> True. But keep in mind this started with you saying "and he was never in the class offensively of the very best of his era", wich i think it's incorrect and tried to prove otherwise.


i think we have different opinions of what "the very best" is 

to me there is jordan bird and magic from the 80's and then a lesser group that consists of guys like karl and moses malone, kareem ,barkley, dominque olajuwon ,ewing and there were others but basically guys who were great in their own right but clearly below the legendary level of offense that those 3 

i think you are inclusive in your group than i am.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

hoopfan101 said:


> 1—I was just replying to your repeats that I was wrong. If you can repeat, so can I. Secondly, I don’t think I’ll take your advice, ok?


Except I wasn't repeating myself, I was responding to your points. The message was the same. You were basically repeating yourself. 



hoopfan101 said:


> 2—You practically called me a liar. I DO think that is over-the-top with such a harmless difference of opinion of a top 20 list that is subjective anyways.


I didn't "practically" call you anything. I claimed you were wrong. There is a huge difference. 



hoopfan101 said:


> 3—Did you read what Ramsey said? He said he wouldn’t categorize Barkley an all-time great because of his defense or lack thereof.


And I could care less what he has to say because it doesn't prove anything. We know Barkley had what it took to be a great defender, but he didn't play like one. Why? Because he didn't care. Look at a guy like Bill Russell. That's all I need to say. 



hoopfan101 said:


> 4—For the MOST part. Then later you said Barkley “certainly is a top 20 player.” You used the word “certainly.” What does “certainly” mean to you when I say in my opinion he isn’t? DO you really want to continue to play this game? Your use of “certainly” is NOT an opinion and it is clearly telling me I’m wrong.


By "certainly" I mean when it comes to his talent, and when it comes to comparing him with other individuals in terms of his rebounding, his scoring, and his overall impact on the game, he is definitely a top 20 player. This is undeniable, assuming of course you don't devalue the living hell out of offense and rebounding. Now I value defense greatly, and him not being an elite on that side of the floor is why I can't put him in the top ten all time list. 



hoopfan101 said:


> 5--- I LOVE IT. This is all I had to read from your rant- Your very 1st sentence on the 5th para here is what you just said— *“Yes, I can say that you're wrong,” *But again you’ll say “You didn’t say I was wrong,” right?


Lol, I suggest you re read what I said. I said "I can say that you're wrong", as you pointed out. But that isn't the same as saying "I said that you're wrong". If I actually said that (and implied it), you would have a point here. But just like the other times where you repeat yourself, you don't.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> At that super elite level? No. Not even in my dreams would i dare to compare Chuck to guys like Jordan, Bird, KAJ, etc. But we aren't talking about "super elite level", are we? We're talking about being a Top-20 (well, 10-to-20, actually) player. I have guys in *my *Top-20 lists who couldn't hold Chuck's jock when it came to *offense*.


the nba has been around since the 40's there are about 420-to 450 players in it at any given time nowadays and you are talking about a top 20 list out of thousands of guys that includes nearly 100 hall of famers not including the bunch of guys who are clearly going but aren't elgible....its a pretty rarefied air you are in.




> That's true. But don't underestimate those Bucks teams.
> BUT Barkley, while not being able to get his team far in the playoffs, didn't exactly lay an egg offensively (sp?), did he? Like, in the 1988-1989 first round, where he scored 27ppg on .691TS%...


once again i am not going to call his numbers empty but clearly he doesn't have the impact they suggest he did








> lol. You ARE using Bulls-colored glasses!
> Are you talking about the team that started a rookie (later in the season), saw KJ play half the season, had an over-the-hill Tom Chambers (once a dangerous scorer) and started the pitifull center Mark West?
> The team that, with the exception of Thunder Dan, had notorious non-defenders like Dumas, KJ, Ceballos, Chambers, Ainge and West play many minutes?
> There's only one reason the Suns stayed competitive after Chambers' demise, and that was... yup, Charles Barkley. Who, again, played very well offensively (sp?) in the playoffs, eventhough not as great, TS%-wise, than in his physical prime.
> ...


that team was good with or without charles ,(they won 53 games the season before and had won at least that amount the 3 years prior ) and tom chambers had already declined he was their 4th leading scorer the season before charles...and they were 8th in the league in defense before charles 9th his 1st year ...they proceeded to get much worse during barkley's time there (16th then 19th then 23rd)

so the whole they didn't play defense , they weren't any good barkley saved them from chamber's decline, it doesn't hold water ...if anything barkley helped bring about the no defense rep you put on them, what he did though is he raised them up a level for a season , they were 2nd round team the season before barkley and after their defense went down a notch that is where they returned in 93-94 and 94-95 followed by a 1st round ouster and a departure to houston.




> Thing about Pippen: he wasn't as good as Charles Barkley (and that was my point).
> I'll easily concede that he, althought a terrible "leader", was better at it than Charles (not difficult), but one would be grasping at straws if using arguments like being a "leader" while comparing second-fiddle players to franchise players (eventhough not a great one) like Chuck.
> 
> The sole reason Pippen is talked about regarding all-time greats is because he won an ungodly amount of championships playing second-banana to Michael Jordan. If you take that away, i don't think there's ANY argument for Pippen > Barkley.
> ...


there is no way pippen was a terrible leader , in fact his teammates consider the fact that he included them in filling the void a big positive instead of trying to take mj's 30 points a game for himself.



> "The luxury is for us to have a defender like Scottie who can cover more than one situation at a time. He's able to hang tight with whoever he's playing and help on a defensive set so the other team can't operate. Scottie is able to be a one-man wrecking crew".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you are an 8th man who really cares what kind of leader you are because you probably aren't very good , so its best you follow anyway, but if you are going to talk about franchise players top whatever players its very important , its a team game and selfish guys are very rarely successful.

and the trend keeps going , before barkley's era , during it and afterwards .

i stand by what i said because even as you pour through his stats his teams embodied him , and when push came to shove they didn't it done and the reason was simple , no defense , not when they needed it most .

defense is half the game you cant be indifferent towards it because you want to score and want to entertain, nobody has ever scored their way to a title you have to get stops sometimes.

add to that pippen was a very good offensive player , he did everything on offense, score, shoot, slash, post up, offensive rebound, pass , run the offense, keep people involved, extremely versatile.

there is always some super all time great in the league barkley couldn't get by the magic bir jordan trio in the 80's-90s if he were in his prime today he wouldn't get by lebron, you have to do more than score, at least with pippen you may have a chance to win on the other side of the floor.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Lol, I suggest you re read what I said. I said "I can say that you're wrong", as you pointed out. But that isn't the same as saying "I said that you're wrong". If I actually said that (and implied it), you would have a point here. But just like the other times where you repeat yourself, you don't.


This is absurd.. Tell you what. I’ll reply one last time to you and you can reply and have last word with me. Your last word wins out. After that – I’ll ignore you and you can ignore me. No hard feelings. I’m sure you are great guy- and we’re both fans. I don’t want to fight on these boards. So we’ll blowtorch each other one more time. 

1—- You keep saying same thing with some stuff with your replies to me. I’m fine with it. But if you can do it- so can I. 

2--- When you say things like “for the most part…” and “certainly . . .” and “I can say you are wrong …” it’s just silly to pretend that you aren’t telling me I’m wrong. 

3--- When I created MY LIST- and I mean this with respect to you and for anyone else- why would I care what you think has meaning if you are completely disregarding what Dr Jack has to say? The initial poster who started the thread asked for opinions on his. Sure if you want to go after mine. But the moment you said I was wrong – I can care less how you look at things when I am referencing Dr Jack too. That leads to Jack Ramsey. 

4--- Why did you think it relevant for you to criticize my point on Barkley with a comment “That you don’t care what Dr Jack Ramsey says.” You know I do. So respectfully I say “big deal that you don’t care.” 

5—You’ve said the following. *“His intelligence doesn't take that away. If you were saying that he didn't accomplish enough, then okay, I wouldn't have a right to say that…”* I’ve said this but differently. And I’m sorry for NOT making it clear. But to rephrase in the way you partially might want to see it- _“imo Barkley did NOT accomplish enough because he was DUMB for deliberately NOT putting forth much consistent effort on defense_.” And if you can repeat things then so can I. I’ll repeat Dr Jack’s comment which imo sums up why he didn't accomplish enough to be top 25– 

"*It was unfortunate because he became a weak spot in his team's defense that opponents didn't hesitate to exploit - and that characteristic prevents Charles from being included among the all-round great players of the game*."

6—My first reply to you was _”One can be an incredible basketball player and not be a top 20 player”. _Yet I see you mention the following *“But that doesn't take away from the fact that he was still an outstanding basketball player.”* I never said he wasn’t outstanding. IMO he is about 30. I don't know personally anyone that is top 30 in the world in anything. Kudos for Barkley with that. IMO to be 30 is outstanding supreme. 

7--- I said you _“practically called me a liar_.” Your reply to me was *“I didn't "practically" call you anything. I claimed you were wrong.” *Yet the reason why I said you _“practically called me a liar_.” Was your prior reply to me when you said *“I have a feeling all of that is made up too*.” If that’s not practically calling me a liar- I don’t know what is. By the way, the 2nd sentence in bold you said “*I claimed you were wrong.” *Another time you called me wrong but later would say you didn't.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the nba has been around since the 40's there are about 420-to 450 players in it at any given time nowadays and you are talking about a top 20 list out of thousands of guys that includes nearly 100 hall of famers not including the bunch of guys who are clearly going but aren't elgible....*its a pretty rarefied air you are in. *


Not really, no. For all of the thousands of players that ever played in the NBA, i think only the Top-5 or so is heavy. Arguments can be made for Wilt, Russell, KAJ, Magic and Jordan (not only winners of multiple championships but also winners of, like 21 of the 58 MVP awards). 

Then there are legends like Bird, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Moses, Oscar, West, etc.

Then comes the rest of the best. And amongst them, Charles.



> once again i am not going to call his numbers empty but clearly he doesn't have the impact they suggest he did


I could go on talking about the "help" he had in Philly, but i'll partially agree. I'm not gonna cal Charles Barkley na underachiever, but yeah, he could have had greater success. 



> that team was good with or without charles ,(they won 53 games the season before and had won at least that amount the 3 years prior ) and tom chambers had already declined he was their 4th leading scorer the season before charles...and they were 8th in the league in defense before charles 9th his 1st year ...they proceeded to get much worse during barkley's time there (16th then 19th then 23rd)


Don't you think losing Andrew Lang (a much better defender than West), Perry (an average-to-good defender) and Horny (a good team defender) and having to start Thunder Dan (who previously brought defense off the bench) had something to do with it? 



> so the whole they didn't play defense , they weren't any good barkley saved them from chamber's decline, it doesn't hold water ...if anything barkley helped bring about the no defense rep you put on them, what he did though is he raised them up a level for a season , they were 2nd round team the season before barkley and after their defense went down a notch that is where they returned in 93-94 and 94-95 followed by a 1st round ouster and a departure to houston.


I'll ask you straight forward: how do you classify the defense (from, say, 1-to-5) of:
- Kevin Johnson;
- Richard Dumas;
- Mark West;
- Dan Majerle;
- Cedric Ceballos;
- Danny Ainge.

there is no way pippen was a terrible leader , in fact his teammates consider the fact that he included them in filling the void a big positive instead of trying to take mj's 30 points a game for himself.





> if you are an 8th man who really cares what kind of leader you are because you probably aren't very good , so its best you follow anyway, but if you are going to talk about franchise players top whatever players its very important , its a team game and selfish guys are very rarely successful.
> 
> and the trend keeps going , before barkley's era , during it and afterwards


.

Can you provide any opinion of Pippen's teammates in Portland and Houston? 



> i stand by what i said because even as you pour through his stats his teams embodied him , and when push came to shove they didn't it done and the reason was simple , no defense , not when they needed it most .


Again: this started talking about Charles' offense. 
I don't think Charles' shortcomings reside only in his lack of defensive effort. He just didn't seem to be focused all the time. You see a guy like Karl Malone (another Top-10-to-20 player) and see a hard working stiff who worked on his body and his game relentlessly. Charles didn't have that drive.



> defense is half the game you cant be indifferent towards it because you want to score and want to entertain, nobody has ever scored their way to a title you have to get stops sometimes.


Pippen was a better defender than Charles. No one can dispute that. IMHO, only team defense matters the most.
What i think is that, as a whole, Charles is head-and-shoulders above Pippen. Chuck was a franchise player (not a great one, but not a T-Mac/allen Iverson one either). Pippen was not.



> add to that pippen was a very good offensive player , he did everything on offense, score, shoot, slash, post up, offensive rebound, pass , run the offense, keep people involved, extremely versatile.


Pippen excelled in the fast break and from the attention Jordan was given. He was no great offensive player (wich Chuck was) by any means or stretch of the imagination. When he had a good defensive team on the other side paying attention to him, how did he delivered? 22ppg on .400FG%.



> there is always some super all time great in the league barkley couldn't get by the magic bir jordan trio in the 80's-90s if he were in his prime today he wouldn't get by lebron, you have to do more than score, at least with pippen you may have a chance to win on the other side of the floor.


I see you factor heavily team success while evaluating Charles Barkley. I'm not saying it is wrong, because i do it myself while evaluating great players. I just try not to exagerate on it (because, you know, take away the championships Jordan brought the Bulls, and no one on his right mind would think twice about Pippen being an all-time great player) But you can bring down Barkley as much as you want, he will still be higher than Scottie Pippen.

To sum it up: 
- Charles Barkley is arguably a Top-20 player in the NBA. At the least, he is Top-25, depending on personal opinion.
- Charles Barkley was a better basketball player than Scottie Pippen.

BTW, Grinch, you have been (recently!  an awesome poster. Keep it up!


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

May was well drop the Barkley argument, he simply makes his opinion based on a tiny quote from one source and apparently some quote from Pippen. He has delusions that Barkley chucked shots against the Rockets when he didn't..

I'm not going to get back into this, he can have his opinion (even if it is wrong ) and base it off of whatever ridiculous criteria he wants to. Arguing with him about this is pointless.

Bottom line, Barkley is no Vlade


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

l0st1 said:


> May was well drop the Barkley argument, he simply makes his opinion based on a tiny quote from one source and apparently some quote from Pippen. He has delusions that Barkley chucked shots against the Rockets when he didn't..
> 
> I'm not going to get back into this, he can have his opinion (even if it is wrong ) and base it off of whatever ridiculous criteria he wants to. Arguing with him about this is pointless.
> 
> Bottom line, Barkley is no Vlade


I was curious as to what motivated you to say this, so I decided to read his post and I see what you mean. 

But I couldn't agree more with the last part, Vlade was a better flopper AND he was smarter. Can't argue against that logic.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I was curious as to what motivated you to say this, so I decided to read his post and I see what you mean.
> 
> But I couldn't agree more with the last part, Vlade was a better flopper AND he was smarter. Can't argue against that logic.


O so you know who Vlade is now ?


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

XxIrvingxX said:


> I was curious as to what motivated you to say this, so I decided to read his post and I see what you mean.
> 
> But I couldn't agree more with the last part, Vlade was a better flopper AND he was smarter. Can't argue against that logic.


You can also read the KG, Malone, Barkley thread where he and I did the same thing you two are doing now.


Yes, Vlade knew how to flop which makes him smart and smart and stupid is the only criteria necessary.


----------



## freedomfichte (Sep 26, 2013)

I don't understand why people are ranking Garnett above Pippen. Please explain.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

l0st1 said:


> May was well drop the Barkley argument, he simply makes his opinion based on a tiny quote from one source and apparently some quote from Pippen. He has delusions that Barkley chucked shots against the Rockets when he didn't..
> 
> I'm not going to get back into this, he can have his opinion (even if it is wrong ) and base it off of whatever ridiculous criteria he wants to. Arguing with him about this is pointless.
> 
> Bottom line, Barkley is no Vlade


This is absurd. Beyond absurd. So let' get this straight - you have interpreted my comments of when I said Barkley went to the bench during timeouts and demanded the ball then got it - and you decide to post that I said "he chucked shots?" How many timeouts are there in a half? To paraphrase I said he demanded the ball when he shouldn't have going into some timeouts. 

And I gotta love your "tiny quote" comment. Here is what Dr Jack RAmsey said: 

*"“But Charles didn't see the importance of defense unless it was required at the very end of a game. When I was working television games for the Sixers, Charles was their main gun. I gave him full credit for his incredible exploits on offense, but I also noted when he was slow getting back on defense, not playing his man, or failing to give needed weak-side help. 

Before a game one night, I was in the Sixers locker room when Charles came in, and seeing me exclaimed, "Jack, you're killing me on TV about my defense. Why do you have to do that?" His teammates, in various states of readiness for the game, stopped what they were doing to listen. I told him, "Charles, I can only say what I see. When you do good things on offense, I say it, but when you loaf on defense, I say that, too." The other players all grinned at me and nodded in agreement. But Charles dismissed the subject, saying, "I can't play defense and score and rebound too."

Charles had his own mind-set about how he should play, and none of his coaches could ever alter it with any consistency. He seemed to feel that since he gave his full effort to offense -and indeed performed wonderful feats there - he shouldn't be required to work as hard on defense. And it wasn't because he lacked defensive skills.

I had seen him force Magic Johnson into a poor percentage shot on a last possession in a Sixers-Lakers game that Philly won. He also had a knack for stealing the ball from high-post players that resulted in open-court layups. But overall, Charles seemed to regard defense as the time during which he could catch his breath, not pressure his man, and nobody could change his mind about that.”*

*It was unfortunate because he became a weak spot in his team's defense that opponents didn't hesitate to exploit - and that characteristic prevents Charles from being included among the all-round great players of the game."*

So let’s be real about this. You took my link of what Dr. Jack Ramsey had to say and referred to my reference to it as "a TINY quote?" Really?


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

freedomfichte said:


> I don't understand why people are ranking Garnett above Pippen. Please explain.



I feel Garnett's offense- was better than Pippen's. KG was also a sensational defender as was Pippen.


----------



## freedomfichte (Sep 26, 2013)

hoopfan101 said:


> I feel Garnett's offense- was better than Pippen's. KG was also a sensational defender as was Pippen.


I think between what you say here and looking at the stats, you might be right.

Pippen's only 'solo' season at his peak was 93-94 and KG's Minnesota stats match up favorably against Pip year-plus as Chicago's top dog. Garnett scored more, rebounded better and blocked more shots. Only thing Pippen has going for him as far as the numbers go is steals.

I suppose I was thinking about it with regard to championships because their numbers are fairly close but Pippen did more, numbers wise, on six championship teams than KG did in his Celtics years.

Obviously the rosters played a huge role in their respective rings.

I tend to think of Pippen as more of a 'winner', but I believe the argument in favor of Garnett is probably stronger. It's obviously not just about rings because Horry isn't even cracking the top 200 lol


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

freedomfichte said:


> I think between what you say here and looking at the stats, you might be right.
> 
> Pippen's only 'solo' season at his peak was 93-94 and KG's Minnesota stats match up favorably against Pip year-plus as Chicago's top dog. Garnett scored more, rebounded better and blocked more shots. Only thing Pippen has going for him as far as the numbers go is steals.
> 
> ...


Only by factoring heavily Team Wins can one compare favourably (sp?) Scottie Pippen to Kevin Garnett.

As great a player he was, Pippen was never considered a top player in the league (only one Top-5 MVP finish). He was a great sidekick (and arguably the greatest sidekick of all time) but he was never a Franchise Player the level of Minny's Garnett.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

hoopfan101 said:


> This is absurd. Beyond absurd. So let' get this straight - you have interpreted my comments of when I said Barkley went to the bench during timeouts and demanded the ball then got it - and you decide to post that I said "he chucked shots?" How many timeouts are there in a half? To paraphrase I said he demanded the ball when he shouldn't have going into some timeouts.
> 
> And I gotta love your "tiny quote" comment. Here is what Dr Jack RAmsey said:
> 
> ...


No I said you said he chucked shots because you keep saying that he took bad shots on a hurt hamstring instead of giving the ball to KJ.



> he went 4-10 in the 2nd half. Of which in the last 4:22 I think he was 2-3. SO that meant he was 2-7 leading up to 4:22





> If he didn’t shoot much in final 4:22 then he had to be shooting other times, right?


Chucking shots was the term I used, you didn't say that, but you did keep bringing up that he was taking shots on a hurt leg and that he was 4-10 in the 2nd half(oh no! 40%!). And actually your initial post in the other thread had you saying ...



> Duirng timeouts he'd demand the ball. You know that because he'd scream going into the huddle and out of the timeout they'd get the ball to him.


So because he was yelling and then after the timeout they gave him the ball that means he demanded the ball? 

But then later you claimed ....


> I REMEMBER Barkley complaining


But now it's some timeouts? I don't get it. Even if he did demand the ball, why is that a bad thing? Injured or not the team can still play off of him at times. It wasn't like he was doing it every trip down or every play while injured. 

Yes, I did refer to it as a tiny quote, because that's what it is. It wasn't some lengthy review. It was a blurb about his defense. And anyway, your basing your judgment of Barkley because of a quote from Ramsay, some quote from Pippen apparently, a "blown" defensive play and one half of basketball when he was injured (in which he put up 18pts 23 reb 5 assists on 44% from the field)? You have Dirk above Barkley despite the fact that Dirk is not a good defender, and routinely gets beat and takes plays off. Kobe? Pretty sure a main critique on him before the Gasol/Bynum era was that he would quit on the Lakers in the playoffs and stop playing. Lebron? I remember a few deciding games he quit on the Cavs or a Finals in which Lebron did not show up for. I'm not trying to argue these players or saying they aren't great or worth their rank my point is judging a player on such a small sample size and using these examples is a joke. And really it just comes across to me as a personal bias against Barkley. 

But once again this debate goes no where. So you can reply(not trying to say all this and then say lets end this because that just isn't fair :lol and then we can just drop this whole debate.

:yesyesyes: or :nono:


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

freedomfichte said:


> I think between what you say here and looking at the stats, you might be right.
> 
> Pippen's only 'solo' season at his peak was 93-94 and KG's Minnesota stats match up favorably against Pip year-plus as Chicago's top dog. Garnett scored more, rebounded better and blocked more shots. Only thing Pippen has going for him as far as the numbers go is steals.
> 
> ...



Comparing numbers across eras AND positions is kind of impossible. Of course Garnett had more rebounds and blocks considering the positional difference.

With that said, I do agree with KG being ranked above Pippen.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

l0st1;9016857
[B said:


> *Chucking shots was the term I used, you didn't say that, but you did keep bringing up that he was taking shots on a hurt leg and that he was 4-10 in the 2nd half(oh no! 40%!). And actually your initial post in the other thread had you saying *...[/B]
> 
> *But now it's some timeouts? I don't get it. Even if he did demand the ball, why is that a bad thing?*
> 
> ...


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm not going to respond to any of the Barkley related stuff, as I said that would be my last post on that subject regardless of how much I disagree with everything you just wrote.

But I will say this, you seem to take things FAR too personally. You seem to get very worked up. This is a discussion board on basketball, that's it. You read way too much into posts, where did I say you can't have an opinion? Where did I say you need to write every thing Barkley ever did down?

As for the word blurb clearly I didn't mean a literal definition of it. I meant a passing comment on it. It wasn't some lengthy researched narrative. It was a guy giving his opinion of a player in which he discussed his views on that players defense. By the way, Jack Ramsay isn't Jesus. Just a headsup.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

l0st1 said:


> I'm not going to respond to any of the Barkley related stuff, as I said that would be my last post on that subject regardless of how much I disagree with everything you just wrote.
> 
> But I will say this, you seem to take things FAR too personally. You seem to get very worked up. This is a discussion board on basketball, that's it. You read way too much into posts, where did I say you can't have an opinion? Where did I say you need to write every thing Barkley ever did down?
> 
> As for the word blurb clearly I didn't mean a literal definition of it. I meant a passing comment on it. It wasn't some lengthy researched narrative. It was a guy giving his opinion of a player in which he discussed his views on that players defense. By the way, Jack Ramsay isn't Jesus. Just a headsup.


Well again we can agree to disagree. I’m not taking things too personally. I almost posted to you with my 1st reply to you on this thread that I thought you might be taking things too personal from my posts. The post below – it sounded a bit that way. But your post - it is fine. But it doesn't deserve "a love response." You are bashing me a bit- so I am going to come back with a little in return. Nothing from us was that bad.

I just get the feeling your taking this Barkley thing too serious- but again it’s okay. I just don’t believe for example Ramsey’s article in which 5 paragraphs he is harping on Barkley’s defense can be considered “a tiny quote” or a “blurp.” Those words “trivialize” Dr. Jack’s assessment IMO you idn't use those words by accident. . Anyhow your post is below and I thought it bordered on taking our arguments too serious but it was ok. We didn't let insults fly. 

However, you seem clearly frustrated with me. I’m sorry – but I agree with Dr Jack. To some extent I agree with Pippen. I know what I have seen over-and-above the examples I gave – but my life wasn’t revolved around remembering more specific plays from Barkley. Just had a feeling he could never get the job done as a leader. And I am not taking things too personal. I’ve said over-and-over its okay we disagree. 

*May was well drop the Barkley argument, he simply makes his opinion based on a tiny quote from one source and apparently some quote from Pippen. He has delusions that Barkley chucked shots against the Rockets when he didn't..

I'm not going to get back into this, he can have his opinion (even if it is wrong ) and base it off of whatever ridiculous criteria he wants to. Arguing with him about this is pointless*


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

So tell me, what did you do before Chuck threw you through the window at that Club? That has been a long time ago, maybe you should let it go.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

Diable said:


> So tell me, what did you do before Chuck threw you through the window at that Club? That has been a long time ago, maybe you should let it go.


I should let it go? I get replies because I don't have him in the top 20. Oh my God. I don't beleive Barkleyis top 20. I get replies on it- but "I'm the one that should let it go." 

AS STATED BEFORE I HAVE SAID BARKLEY IS A GREAT GUY!

AS STATED BEFORE I HAVE BARKLEY ABOUT 30. THAT IS SUPER. I KNOW NO ONE PERSONALLY IN LIFE THAT IS ALL-TIME 30TH BEST. 30 IS SUPER. 

Did Barkely also throw Dr Jack and Pippen through a windows too? 

I should let it go? If you or others reply- why should I not reply back? And I am not taking this personal. I don't belevie he is in 25 never mind 20. Don't think Pippen or Dr Jack for example would disagree either.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

I don't think Barkley is top 20


----------



## Billy Hoyle (Oct 4, 2013)

freedomfichte said:


> I don't understand why people are ranking Garnett above Pippen. Please explain.


I think at his peak, Garnett brought more to the table than Scottie did. I mean I think back to that 04 season when he had a half decent team and KG was just a MONSTER. 

Scottie is obviously a legend in his own right but he lacked leadership. That's the one thing he wasn't built for imo. And it showed.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Garnett always needed two All Stars around him to make it past the first round. He is very similar to Pippen - a great complimentary star.

Pippen's playoff performances edges it for me.


----------



## hoopfan101 (Aug 3, 2013)

edabomb said:


> Garnett always needed two All Stars around him to make it past the first round. He is very similar to Pippen - a great complimentary star.
> 
> Pippen's playoff performances edges it for me.


Which two all-stars were on the all-star team for Minny in KG's MVP year? And by the way, Cassell made the all-star team once in his entire career. It was his 1st year at 34yo that he played with KG.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

hoopfan101 said:


> I should let it go? I get replies because I don't have him in the top 20. Oh my God. I don't beleive Barkleyis top 20. I get replies on it- but "I'm the one that should let it go."
> 
> AS STATED BEFORE I HAVE SAID BARKLEY IS A GREAT GUY!
> 
> ...


Nothing I said had to do with you not having him in your top 20.



hoopfan101 said:


> Well again we can agree to disagree. I’m not taking things too personally. I almost posted to you with my 1st reply to you on this thread that I thought you might be taking things too personal from my posts. The post below – it sounded a bit that way. But your post - it is fine. But it doesn't deserve "a love response." You are bashing me a bit- so I am going to come back with a little in return. Nothing from us was that bad.
> 
> I just get the feeling your taking this Barkley thing too serious- but again it’s okay. I just don’t believe for example Ramsey’s article in which 5 paragraphs he is harping on Barkley’s defense can be considered “a tiny quote” or a “blurp.” Those words “trivialize” Dr. Jack’s assessment IMO you idn't use those words by accident. . Anyhow your post is below and I thought it bordered on taking our arguments too serious but it was ok. We didn't let insults fly.
> 
> ...


Nope not frustrated at all nor am I taking it personally. I simply don't agree with any of your reasoning. Meanwhile you throw in little things like 



> I'm not allowed to say that either because I don't have it taped?





> I can't talk about how he couldn’t lift because I don't have the video? Says who?


Never said anything regarding these quotes, seems like you were getting worked up and taking things a bit personal/serious. That's all I'm saying. Maybe it's just the way you type.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

hoopfan101 said:


> Which two all-stars were on the all-star team for Minny in KG's MVP year? And by the way, Cassell made the all-star team once in his entire career. It was his 1st year at 34yo that he played with KG.


I'm classifying Spree as an All Star calibre player that season - even though he didn't make it.

KG was beyond great that year - and for most of his Minny days. He was crippled by the Joe Smith punishment. I still find it hard to rank him over a guy like Pip given his lack of team success during his prime though.


----------

