PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #11 NBA Player of All Time



JordansBulls
07-18-2011, 07:19 PM
Voting for #10 has concluded and PSD's Official #10 NBA Player of all time is....

Tim Duncan


20.8 PPG / 11.4 RPG / 2.3 BPG / .508 FG / 24.8 PER

Achievements:

13 time All-Star
4 NBA Championships
2 Time MVP
3 Time Finals MVP
1 Time Allstar game MVP
9 Time All-NBA First Teamer
8 Time Defensive First Teamer
Rookie of the Year
#1 in Active Defensive Win Shares


Top 3 Voters

Tim Duncan = 91 votes
Oscar Robertson = 19 votes
Jerry West = 8 votes




The List:
1. Michael Jordan (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631361)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631585)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632046)
4. Magic Johnson (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632690)
5. Bill Russell (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632852)
6. Larry Bird (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=633428)
7. Shaquille O'neal (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=633751)
8. Kobe Bryant (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634022)
9. Hakeem Olajuwon (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634733)
10.Tim Duncan (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=635092)


NOTE: There are already 30 poll options and can't add more than 30. So keep the nominations coming and around player #15, we can add in 5 new guys.

alencp3
07-18-2011, 07:23 PM
sir charles

DR_1
07-18-2011, 07:25 PM
Big O

Hawkeye15
07-18-2011, 07:27 PM
the fat kid from Auburn

LakersMaster24
07-18-2011, 07:28 PM
Mr.Turrible

GoPacers33
07-18-2011, 08:18 PM
Big O

alencp3
07-18-2011, 08:20 PM
barkley probably wont win but i like that he is getting some consideration
he deserves it

Khalifa21
07-18-2011, 08:30 PM
Round mound of rebound.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-18-2011, 08:33 PM
Nice to see Chuck getting some consideration here. His numbers are comparable to Duncan and Hakeem, he just lacks the hardware.

C_A_S_H
07-18-2011, 08:40 PM
The Big O , Cmon He Avg A Triple Double For A Season!!!!!!!!!!!

JordansBulls
07-18-2011, 09:10 PM
I can't believe the amount of disrespect Moses Malone is getting. Dude has 3 league mvp's, 1 finals mvp's and led a team to the finals twice as the man.

bagwell368
07-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Nice to see Chuck getting some consideration here. His numbers are comparable to Duncan and Hakeem, he just lacks the hardware.

His weakness was defense, and it wasn't awful, just not the equal of his offense. He should be off the board at either #12 or #13.

ManningToTyree
07-18-2011, 09:27 PM
Big O

Cavs_Fan24
07-18-2011, 09:28 PM
Gotta be Oscar here. Averaged a triple-double over he course of a season and was a fundamental BEAST. You don't see that out of a lot of guards. He also has a ring. Big O!!

ragee
07-18-2011, 10:02 PM
This is kind of boring... Everyone is on the same page... I can't wait til we reach the top 15-20 where I am sure people would start throwing different names and start arguing because there would be different opinions... :D

KaganRS
07-18-2011, 10:42 PM
Are you guys kidding me voting Barkley over Oscar Robertson ?

lol quit playin !

jokes.

TheRunKiller
07-18-2011, 10:44 PM
Kobe #8 player of all time? really? :pity:

Swashcuff
07-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Are you guys kidding me voting Barkley over Oscar Robertson ?

lol quit playin !

jokes.

How do you think Barkley would have performed had he played in Oscar's era?

KaganRS
07-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Wow Barkley more votes then west the big O Malone erving etc. Is really really telling on how smart psd is

Popularity contest ......:facepalm:


The next thread is gonna be some kind of show.

KaganRS
07-18-2011, 10:49 PM
How do you think Barkley would have performed had he played in Oscar's era?

so we meet again!

did you vote for Barkley or something ?

alright let me have it ... lol

Swashcuff
07-18-2011, 10:57 PM
so we meet again!

did you vote for Barkley or something ?

alright let me have it ... lol

:laugh:

Yes we have

Actually I am still on the fence about this so I am yet to make my choice. I think you should do open your mind to the arguments that will be featured for Barkley. He really has a good case. I am not saying that I agree 100% as of right now but I certainly am open to changing my mind on it. He's quite possibly one of the most underrated players in league history.

tredigs
07-18-2011, 11:05 PM
How do you think Barkley would have performed had he played in Oscar's era?

I'm damn tempted to make a case for Barkley here myself, but I think we should be careful with such a linear way to compare the players. It's one factor, but not the whole story. Here's some key measures that can all be taken into account when making a "# X Player of All Time". <-- Notice that the wording is ambiguous as to not say "best","most dominant", "influential", etc.

* Dominance relative to your peers during your prime.

* Peak year(s) dominance.

* Longevity of elite seasons.

* # Titles won as the teams best player.

* Changes that you brought to the game (EG: Oscar is credited w/ bringing the head fake and fadeaway to the NBA offensive arsenal).

* # Titles won as a number 2 (Oscar's only title falls in this category, certainly a knock on him - but less so when you factor that he played in the Celtics 60's).

* Individual performance in the playoffs (for those with garbage casts, or simply weaker ones than lesser #1's with a more potent team).

* Ability to transcend any era of play (this will almost exclusively favor modern players just given the nutrition/workout standards of today, not to mention the ability to learn and grow mastering moves that were invented by some of the GOAT candidates of yesteryear).

etc, etc.

People tend to pick one or two of those facets of 'greatness' and hype that area up to back whatever player their currently choosing, but the best arguments try to take it all into account. We're all guilty of it. And depending on how you weigh any of the above categories, we're all going to have a slightly different/subjective look at the players.

Nothing concrete in these lists, but the arguments (when they're well done and possibly change your opinion on a player) are well worth it.

MacFitz92
07-18-2011, 11:06 PM
It's got to be O-Train..

Swashcuff
07-18-2011, 11:15 PM
I'm damn tempted to make a case for Barkley here myself, but I think we should be careful with such a linear way to compare the players. It's one factor, but not the whole story. Here's some key measures that can all be taken into account when making a "# X Player of All Time". <-- Notice that the wording is ambiguous as to not say "best","most dominant", "influential", etc.

* Dominance relative to your peers during your prime.

* Peak year(s) dominance.

* Longevity of elite seasons.

* # Titles won as the teams best player.

* Changes that you brought to the game (EG: Oscar is credited w/ bringing the head fake and fadeaway to the NBA offensive arsenal).

* # Titles won as a number 2 (Oscar's only title falls in this category, certainly a knock on him - but less so when you factor that he played in the Celtics 60's).

* Individual performance in the playoffs (for those with garbage casts, or simply weaker ones than lesser #1's with a more potent team).

* Ability to transcend any era of play (this will almost exclusively favor modern players just given the nutrition/workout standards of today, not to mention the ability to learn and grow mastering moves that were invented by some of the GOAT candidates of yesteryear).

etc, etc.

People tend to pick one or two of those facets of 'greatness' and hype that area up to back whatever player their currently choosing, but the best arguments try to take it all into account. We're all guilty of it. And depending on how you weigh any of the above categories, we're all going to have a slightly different/subjective look at the players.

Nothing concrete in these lists, but the arguments (when they're well done and possibly change your opinion on a player) are well worth it.

I fully agree with everything said here and it holds true to my method when making decisions such as this.

Though my question to the other poster was actually hypothetical I just wanted him to get an understanding that while Oscar is/was an all time great it's not farfetched to think that Barkley could have been in an even bigger stat (not necessarily overall efficiency but in large part scoring and rebounding hikes) monster if he played in that extremely high paced era of basketball.

I mean though Oscar's adjusted #s are still LeBron like to say something along the lines of the man averaged a triple double so he has to go in the top 10 or ahead of Barkley, Moses, Stockton etc may not be looking at it holistically. I am not saying that they are wrong because Oscar does indeed have a case but I'm just saying they should put his career into perspective before making their decision.

tredigs
07-18-2011, 11:18 PM
I guess to illustrate my point in the most simple/fundamental way possible (in the athletic realm) - I would ask someone to complete this list:

Official number ___ Sprinter of All Time?

Choices are Usain Bolt, Jesse Owens, Michael Johnson, Carl Lewis, Donovan Bailey, etc.

Pure speed aside, some of these guys dominated at different lengths, some for longer periods, others were more dominant relative to their competition, and some broke down barriers and evolved the sport.

It would be simple to just look at the exact times of their shared events and judge them in that order, but then how do we give due credit to prior racers who were born prior to the knowledge of the same nutrition/supplements in order to reach the levels of even mid-class sprinters of today? The human body hasn't fundamentally changed in 50 years - only how we run it - so it would be ignorant to assume that the top sprinters of yesteryear would not compete with the top of today (if all external factors were equal).

Anyway, I'm getting way off on a tangent now. Hopefully that made sense to someone.

edit:

1. Bolt
2. Owens
3. Lewis

Bruno
07-19-2011, 12:19 AM
This is where it gets really interesting again, IMO. Usually top ten lists are so popular only because they're so aesthetically pleasing, "ten" seems so official; it's marketing. But here, I think there is a legitimate drop off between the careers of our top 10, and everybody else. Noticeable break off from #10 to #11, IMO. Perhaps not in overall skill, but in career accomplishments, for sure.

I'm gona wait a day or two to vote on this; I'm not sure, need to look at the history books.

**Edit: Make that #12. Moses has the stats and accolades to hang with the rest of our top 10.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
07-19-2011, 12:33 AM
^^^^ Yeah I'll wait for arguments to be made before I vote.

Arch Stanton
07-19-2011, 12:38 AM
Why does the list keep growing? Are we going after a top 50? Why are players that are in there prime on the list? --- Just curious....

Cano4prez
07-19-2011, 12:54 AM
Why does the list keep growing? Are we going after a top 50? Why are players that are in there prime on the list? --- Just curious....

Because LeBron and Wade are both top 50 players of all time

mightybosstone
07-19-2011, 01:25 AM
I can't believe the amount of disrespect Moses Malone is getting. Dude has 3 league mvp's, 1 finals mvp's and led a team to the finals twice as the man.

I love the guy, but he's behind Oscar and West in my book. I think 13 is a solid spot for Moses.

Chronz
07-19-2011, 01:53 AM
WTF the big o?

Hawkeye15
07-19-2011, 02:06 AM
WTF the big o?

who do you have here? Moses? Barkley? Who?

Hawkeye15
07-19-2011, 02:06 AM
nevermind, I just looked at the vote.

Chronz, why Moses here? Just interested

THE GIPPER
07-19-2011, 02:17 AM
I asked this in the last thread and nobody responded so i'll say it again: I didnt see much of sir charles at all and I would like to know if he was better than lebron james and if so, why?

IVE GOT WOOD
07-19-2011, 02:47 AM
I love the guy, but he's behind Oscar and West in my book. I think 13 is a solid spot for Moses.

You and I sir are on the same page West goes next, then Moses and then at 14 I'm voting for.......The Mailman!!! Wanted to go Dr J but one more spot won't hurt him

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:54 AM
You and I sir are on the same page West goes next, then Moses and then at 14 I'm voting for.......The Mailman!!! Wanted to go Dr J but one more spot won't hurt him

The Mailman was a very good regular season player but he also drastically declined come postseason time. I'm not sure if there's any all-time great with a sharper decline from regular season to postseason.

From a numbers standpoint (using WS/48), the Mailman lost about 33% of his performance from the regular season in the postseason. That's a VERY large amount.

That's ultimately why he should be behind Barkley.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:56 AM
nevermind, I just looked at the vote.

Chronz, why Moses here? Just interested

Speaking of Moses, he was primarily a Center correct? I've read he played some PF too.

IVE GOT WOOD
07-19-2011, 03:16 AM
The Mailman was a very good regular season player but he also drastically declined come postseason time. I'm not sure if there's any all-time great with a sharper decline from regular season to postseason.

From a numbers standpoint (using WS/48), the Mailman lost about 33% of his performance from the regular season in the postseason. That's a VERY large amount.

That's ultimately why he should be behind Barkley.

Malone went to 2 finals against one of the greatest teams ever or else he might have two rings and his regular season/playoff numbers aren't that different. Playoff avgs were 24.7ppg 10.7rb 46fg%(was low for his career) 3.2ast and 1.3stl....sorry but those numbers don't show me much of a decline

IVE GOT WOOD
07-19-2011, 03:32 AM
Then you add in the fact that Malone was a 2time MVP a 11 time All NBA First Team plus he did this little inconsequential thing like score 13,000 more points than Chuck did in his career but whatever choose how you may.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 04:13 AM
^As I said, using Win Shares/48, Malone saw a steep decline in his numbers. He lost about 5 percentage points in TS% too. Same goes for eFG%, all while having the same USG%. He also lost 7 points in ORtg too. That's a pretty sharp decline.

And I'm not trying to crap on the Mailman, he was outstanding in the regular season. But there's a reason it took him so long to get to his first Finals. And to be fair to him, Stockton also saw a large decline in the postseason.

Actually, out of PFs, I'd have Malone behind Duncan, KG, Barkley and yes, Dirk (his winning a ring having nothing to do with being ahead of the Mailman).

Prime Chuck and Prime Mailman were pretty equal in the regular season but Chuck performed better in the postseason.

NYKalltheway
07-19-2011, 05:08 AM
I can't believe the amount of disrespect Moses Malone is getting. Dude has 3 league mvp's, 1 finals mvp's and led a team to the finals twice as the man.

It's really sad to watch this honestly...

MTar786
07-19-2011, 06:39 AM
^As I said, using Win Shares/48, Malone saw a steep decline in his numbers. He lost about 5 percentage points in TS% too. Same goes for eFG%, all while having the same USG%. He also lost 7 points in ORtg too. That's a pretty sharp decline.

And I'm not trying to crap on the Mailman, he was outstanding in the regular season. But there's a reason it took him so long to get to his first Finals. And to be fair to him, Stockton also saw a large decline in the postseason.

Actually, out of PFs, I'd have Malone behind Duncan, KG, Barkley and yes, Dirk (his winning a ring having nothing to do with being ahead of the Mailman).

Prime Chuck and Prime Mailman were pretty equal in the regular season but Chuck performed better in the postseason.

id have to agree with you.. but at this point i would call dirk, charles and karl equals now. malone was better in the reg season and appeared in more finals than barkley. performance means one thing, but APPEARING means more to me. barkley had one and malone had 3. failed in all lol. but i would rank karl and chuck equally good at the end. with dirk over taking them both very very soon.. imo it goes

duncan
kg
dirk - eventually
malone/chuck

Geargo Wallace
07-19-2011, 08:04 AM
I voted Moses. He was a bruiser. A rebounding machine. He made some great big men look pedestrian. Not to mention, he was the original straight outta high school to the pros guy.

kozelkid
07-19-2011, 08:09 AM
^As I said, using Win Shares/48, Malone saw a steep decline in his numbers. He lost about 5 percentage points in TS% too. Same goes for eFG%, all while having the same USG%. He also lost 7 points in ORtg too. That's a pretty sharp decline.

And I'm not trying to crap on the Mailman, he was outstanding in the regular season. But there's a reason it took him so long to get to his first Finals. And to be fair to him, Stockton also saw a large decline in the postseason.

Actually, out of PFs, I'd have Malone behind Duncan, KG, Barkley and yes, Dirk (his winning a ring having nothing to do with being ahead of the Mailman).

Prime Chuck and Prime Mailman were pretty equal in the regular season but Chuck performed better in the postseason.

Similar to KG vs Duncan, which was why I decided to drop my case for KG as number 11th when I realized how much he dropped as a player in the postseason vs Charles. In fact, I might even consider Dirk ahead of KG. Maybe...

kozelkid
07-19-2011, 08:10 AM
I gotta say though, I'm rather disappointed on how overrated Oscar is being here. And it's only because of that triple double in an era with a much faster pace.

JordansBulls
07-19-2011, 08:31 AM
nevermind, I just looked at the vote.

Chronz, why Moses here? Just interested

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18582804#post18582804


Regarding Oscar



Why is he ranked over Moses, Kobe, Dr. J, West or even players like Barkley and Robinson who had more statistically impressive seasons (which I am assuming is the only reason he is even in the top 10)?

Pace adjusted his stats are NOT better than almost all of these players.

He led his team to 50+ wins just once in his career.

Won only one championship as arguably the 2nd fiddle on a team led by Kareem.

Chronz
07-19-2011, 11:59 AM
nevermind, I just looked at the vote.

Chronz, why Moses here? Just interested

Fo Fo Fo aint good enough for ya? How about cuz I like size and hes the next best center, he played forever dominated for a long time too. He peaked earlier than you would expect of a great bigman and thats why his career lost so much steam after his title but he still got in some truly dominant years, years in which he was without a doubt the best player in a league that included KAJ. Theres some speculation as to why he declined so early, some argue it was a loss of athletic ability stemming from him being such a workhorse from age 18 to some overblown theory (imo) that Robert Parish wrote the book on how to defend him.

That and he practically trained Hakeem so I thank him for that. As much as I love Chuck, I have him slightly ahead of Karl Malone and on par with D-Rob. Moses surpasses those benchmarks rather easily IMO.

69centers
07-19-2011, 12:17 PM
George Gervin needs to be on the poll.

Mile High Champ
07-19-2011, 12:18 PM
Karl Malone for me.

todu82
07-19-2011, 12:35 PM
Oscar Robertson

b1e9a8r5s
07-19-2011, 12:48 PM
I hope Pip get's on the next list

Chronz
07-19-2011, 01:29 PM
Oscar Robertson

Why? If you can make a case without mentioning the words triple double, I will respect your opinion.

If not, your just like the rest of the newbs who cant contextualize stats and fall for arbitrary measures.

Seriously people at least defend why your voting for the guy, you would think someone with such a large edge in the ballot would have a few guys defending their stance.

This is why I think we should have a committee for the next one, one where you actually have to defend your opinion.

Swashcuff
07-19-2011, 01:34 PM
Why? If you can make a case without mentioning the words triple double, I will respect your opinion.

If not, your just like the rest of the newbs who cant contextualize stats and fall for arbitrary measures.

Seriously people at least defend why your voting for the guy, you would think someone with such a large edge in the ballot would have a few guys defending their stance.

This is why I think we should have a committee for the next one, one where you actually have to defend your opinion.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Chronz
07-19-2011, 01:41 PM
Lets go over the points being made by Big O supporters, you will notice a trend of very informative posts:


Big O

Big O
They gave us his nickname


Are you guys kidding me voting Barkley over Oscar Robertson ?

lol quit playin !

jokes.

Wow Barkley more votes then west the big O Malone erving etc. Is really really telling on how smart psd is
They put us in our place



The Big O , Cmon He Avg A Triple Double For A Season!!!!!!!!!!!
Statistical analysis at its finest

Gotta be Oscar here. Averaged a triple-double over he course of a season and was a fundamental BEAST. You don't see that out of a lot of guards. He also has a ring. Big O!!
PS He actually averaged a triple double over the course of 5 seasons IIRC.



The big O his stats plus championships do it for me
Apparently better stats+championships dont do it for him






^^^^ Yeah I'll wait for arguments to be made before I vote.
You waited too long

JordansBulls
07-19-2011, 01:50 PM
George Gervin needs to be on the poll.

Again you can't have more than 30 options in it. Also unless that player is going to get a considerable amount of votes, I don't think it really matters.

Chronz
07-19-2011, 01:57 PM
George Gervin needs to be on the poll.
Right after Tmac

Chronz
07-19-2011, 02:03 PM
Speaking of Moses, he was primarily a Center correct? I've read he played some PF too.
In the ABA as a developing teen but hes always been a Center in the NBA by my understanding. Definitely not in the Duncan mold of splitting time at the 2 spots regularly if thats what your asking.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:04 PM
Similar to KG vs Duncan, which was why I decided to drop my case for KG as number 11th when I realized how much he dropped as a player in the postseason vs Charles. In fact, I might even consider Dirk ahead of KG. Maybe...

Dirk vs. KG is indeed interesting. Dirk's playoff performance is much better, however what KG brings to the defensive side of the ball is often underrated with the numbers. Dirk was a poor defender for awhile and then improved and at this point might be an above average defender. But KG has brought all world defense his whole career.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:07 PM
In the ABA as a developing teen but hes always been a Center in the NBA by my understanding. Definitely not in the Duncan mold of splitting time at the 2 spots regularly if thats what your asking.

Yeah, thanks. How about Oscar? I've always thought he was a PG but basketball-ref lists he played Forward too.

Chronz
07-19-2011, 02:13 PM
Yeah, thanks. How about Oscar? I've always thought he was a PG but basketball-ref lists he played Forward too.
Dunno bro, thats always been up for debate. I'd call him a PG who defended 3's in a similar way that Magic was a PG who defended 4's. For the most part both were PG's offensively but defensively their matchups were dependent on well matchups.

Lakersfan2483
07-19-2011, 02:19 PM
I can't believe the amount of disrespect Moses Malone is getting. Dude has 3 league mvp's, 1 finals mvp's and led a team to the finals twice as the man.

I have him in my top 15 all time.

Mile High Champ
07-19-2011, 02:21 PM
As much as I like Moses, I maintain that Karl Malone was better.

Karl has a better lifetime PER, eFG%, TS%, higher FTA per game and more win shares. People always seem to undervalue Karl since he never won a title but he was simply incredible throughout his career and he easily has other guys like Barkley beat as well. Interesting stat, Moses had only 2 seasons of over 15+ win shares, Malone had 9. That is simply incredible.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=malonka01&y1=2004&p2=malonmo01&y2=1993

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:25 PM
Dunno bro, thats always been up for debate. I'd call him a PG who defended 3's in a similar way that Magic was a PG who defended 4's. For the most part both were PG's offensively but defensively their matchups were dependent on well matchups.

Thanks again. I think I'll just use the PG positional replacement for Oscar, as I did with Magic.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:30 PM
As much as I like Moses, I maintain that Karl Malone was better.

Karl has a better lifetime PER, eFG%, TS%, higher FTA per game and more win shares. People always seem to undervalue Karl since he never won a title but he was simply incredible throughout his career and he easily has other guys like Barkley beat as well. Interesting stat, Moses had only 2 seasons of over 15+ win shares, Malone had 9. That is simply incredible.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=malonka01&y1=2004&p2=malonmo01&y2=1993

I think Karl Malone and Barkley were comparable in the regular season. However, come postseason time, Barkley was flat out better. Malone really declined in the postseason.

Their peaks were very similar though. In Barkley's best 3 seasons, he had 50.1 win shares and in Karl's best 3 seasons, he had 49 win shares. Malone had the better 5 consecutive year stretch though. Haven't done the 10 consecutive years out for Barkley yet but I'll be posting all those numbers later today.

Edit: I was talking about Karl. Haven't done my analysis out for Moses yet.

Mile High Champ
07-19-2011, 02:34 PM
I think Malone and Barkley were comparable in the regular season. However, come postseason time, Barkley was flat out better. Malone really declined in the postseason.

Their peaks were very similar though. In Barkley's best 3 seasons, he had 50.1 win shares and in Karl's best 3 seasons, he had 49 win shares. Malone had the better 5 consecutive year stretch though. Haven't done the 10 consecutive years out for Barkley yet but I'll be posting all those numbers later today.

Barkley only had 3 years of having win shares over 15, As I said Karl Malone had 9. Do you realize how incredible that stat is. For a player to have that many dominant years is mind blowing. Again they had a similar 3 year stretch but Karl did what Chuck did for those 3 years for 9 seasons. Plus I would argue that Karl has Chuck beat as a better post season player.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 02:37 PM
Barkley only had 3 years of having win shares over 15, As I said Karl Malone had 9. Do you realize how incredible that stat is. For a player to have that many dominant years is mind blowing. Again they had a similar 3 year stretch but Karl did what Chuck did for those 3 years for 9 seasons.

Karl definitely did produce for a longer stretch of time than Barkley. But his postseason numbers still took a nosedive.


. Plus I would argue that Karl has Chuck beat as a better post season player.

Using WS/48, he lost approx 1/3 of his performance from the regular season to the postseason. He also saw a 5% drop in TS% and eFG%, all while having the same USG%. Barkley's numbers dropped but not an an out of the ordinary amount.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html

Chuck is much better in WS/48, PER, TS%, eFG%, and ORtg. He's also better with TRB%, DRB%, ORB% and Ast%. The ONLY think Karl does better is turn the ball over less. Chuck is easily better in the postseason.

Swashcuff
07-19-2011, 02:38 PM
Lets go over the points being made by Big O supporters, you will notice a trend of very informative posts:

They gave us his nickname

They put us in our place

Statistical analysis at its finest

PS He actually averaged a triple double over the course of 5 seasons IIRC.

Apparently better stats+championships dont do it for him

You waited too long

This is why I prefer the other forum that is also currently having this debate for threads such as these. At least the posters give sound reasons for their opinion and have an understanding of what they are debating. I haven't seen any posts from you there in quite a while however.

Chronz
07-19-2011, 02:44 PM
This is why I prefer the other forum that is also currently having this debate for threads such as these. At least the posters give sound reasons for their opinion and have an understanding of what they are debating. I haven't seen any posts from you there in quite a while however.
They dont let me vote over there thats why

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Question on Jerry West. I see him primarily cited as a SG but some places say he was a PG. I know back in those days, the positions were "blended" quite often. But I would assume he was mainly a SG?

D-Will4Prez
07-19-2011, 04:02 PM
double post

D-Will4Prez
07-19-2011, 04:04 PM
As much as I like Moses, I maintain that Karl Malone was better.

Karl has a better lifetime PER, eFG%, TS%, higher FTA per game and more win shares. People always seem to undervalue Karl since he never won a title but he was simply incredible throughout his career and he easily has other guys like Barkley beat as well. Interesting stat, Moses had only 2 seasons of over 15+ win shares, Malone had 9. That is simply incredible.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=malonka01&y1=2004&p2=malonmo01&y2=1993

Barkley only had 3 years of having win shares over 15, As I said Karl Malone had 9. Do you realize how incredible that stat is. For a player to have that many dominant years is mind blowing. Again they had a similar 3 year stretch but Karl did what Chuck did for those 3 years for 9 seasons. Plus I would argue that Karl has Chuck beat as a better post season player.
^ what he said. I'm going with Karl.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 04:09 PM
^ what he said. I'm going with Karl.

He also said that Karl Malone was a better postseason player, which is in fact wrong. I've already pointed out the evidence.

Mile High Champ
07-19-2011, 04:16 PM
Karl definitely did produce for a longer stretch of time than Barkley. But his postseason numbers still took a nosedive.

Come on man, now you are simply just hating. Karl averaged 24 ppg and 10.2 rpg in the post season. For his career in the regular season he averaged 24.2 ppg and 9.8 rpg. I don't see that as a drop or a "nose dive" as you claim.


Using WS/48, he lost approx 1/3 of his performance from the regular season to the postseason. He also saw a 5% drop in TS% and eFG%, all while having the same USG%. Barkley's numbers dropped but not an an out of the ordinary amount.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html

Chuck is much better in WS/48, PER, TS%, eFG%, and ORtg. He's also better with TRB%, DRB%, ORB% and Ast%. The ONLY think Karl does better is turn the ball over less. Chuck is easily better in the postseason.

Look at the sample size you are using. 123 games for Barkley and 193 games for Malone. I would like to think that Chuck would have beat Malone in many post seasons statistics due to the smaller sample size of 70 games. Plus 5% points down in many categories is not a nose dive..haha.

Plus I am looking at the bigger picture and that begins with the Regular season. Malone played 1476 games, Barkely 1073. The incredible thing as I have said a few times now is what Malone did for his whole career. Look at the win share numbers, they are simply off the charts. While Barkley had a few dominant seasons, Malone had many. Malone is being completely disrespected in this thread.

Mile High Champ
07-19-2011, 04:16 PM
He also said that Karl Malone was a better postseason player, which is in fact wrong. I've already pointed out the evidence.

Barkley had a much smaller sample size to work with. 70 games to be exact.

Even beside the point, Malone has the more impressive resume and the numbers he has for his career put him amongst the best.

Chronz
07-19-2011, 04:24 PM
Question on Jerry West. I see him primarily cited as a SG but some places say he was a PG. I know back in those days, the positions were "blended" quite often. But I would assume he was mainly a SG?
When they rank him as a PG its mainly to fit him into todays physical prototypical mold. Hes kind of small for a SG but hes huge for a PG. There are 2 trains of thoughts on this, one is that as the game evolved to more resemble the game we have today, West transitioned into the role anyways and even won a title playing the spot, thus should be ultimately remembered as a PG, be it a scoring one in his youth but a superb floor general later in his career, its the position he would play today, and a position where his length would be a nightmare to deal with for opposing PG's. This ignores the notion that he would adapt along with todays technique and bulk up abit to play the 2 full time if necessary.

The 2nd is that he should be remembered for what the positions playing style dictates. How that translates into todays game is irrelevant but most speculate if necessary West would bulk up as the league dictated.

I like West as a PG but Im probably in the minority.

NBAfan4life
07-19-2011, 04:26 PM
I like Karl Malone as well over Barkley. I still have not made up my mind yet, but leaning towards the other Malone.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 04:54 PM
Come on man, now you are simply just hating. Karl averaged 24 ppg and 10.2 rpg in the post season. For his career in the regular season he averaged 24.2 ppg and 9.8 rpg. I don't see that as a drop or a "nose dive" as you claim.

I don't see why I should care about per game numbers. No offense to those who still like to look at them; in fact, I still do. However, when evaluating a player, I don't see why I should put any stock into it.



Look at the sample size you are using. 123 games for Barkley and 193 games for Malone. I would like to think that Chuck would have beat Malone in many post seasons statistics due to the smaller sample size of 70 games.

What does that have to do with TS%, eFG% and USG%? And either way, both have played more then 1 full season worth of games in the postseason. Chuck has about 1.5 seasons, which is a good amount. There's no evidence to point to that would say with an additional 70 games played, his TS%, eFG%, ect. would drop by 5-6% points.



Plus 5% points down in many categories is not a nose dive..haha.

Well I don't quite know the standard deviation of TS% or eFG%, but in terms of those stats, based on the range, it is a nose dive. Going from 57.7% TS% to 52.6% TS% is going from a very good % to below average %. That's a nose dive, wouldn't you say?

Or to put it in easier terms, thats like going from Lebron's TS% this year to the league average TS% (which is about a 5 point difference). Nose dive right?

You can look at 5% points and think its not a nosedive but in the context of the stat, it really is.

And when I said nosedive, I was also pointing to his WS/48, which goes from .205 in the regular season to .140 in the postseason. Thats about a 33% drop in performance from the regular season to postseason. It's also far greater than any of the other all-time greats.



Plus I am looking at the bigger picture and that begins with the Regular season. Malone played 1476 games, Barkely 1073. The incredible thing as I have said a few times now is what Malone did for his whole career. Look at the win share numbers, they are simply off the charts. While Barkley had a few dominant seasons, Malone had many. Malone is being completely disrespected in this thread.

Malone has great longevity and that's fair if you want to put a lot of stock into that. Personally, I do put some stock in that but I prefer peak and a player's postseason value. Their peak's are relatively even and Chuck is the better player in the postseason.

I have nothing against Malone by the way. In fact, I liked him as a player. But his numbers were significantly worse in the postseason. He kept the same USG rate but couldn't maintain his shooting %'s. He also got to play with another all-time great for his entire career and despite developing legendary chemistry together, they only got to 2 finals. Not all of the blame goes to Karl though, Stockton also saw a dip in his numbers.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 05:07 PM
When they rank him as a PG its mainly to fit him into todays physical prototypical mold. Hes kind of small for a SG but hes huge for a PG. There are 2 trains of thoughts on this, one is that as the game evolved to more resemble the game we have today, West transitioned into the role anyways and even won a title playing the spot, thus should be ultimately remembered as a PG, be it a scoring one in his youth but a superb floor general later in his career, its the position he would play today, and a position where his length would be a nightmare to deal with for opposing PG's. This ignores the notion that he would adapt along with todays technique and bulk up abit to play the 2 full time if necessary.

The 2nd is that he should be remembered for what the positions playing style dictates. How that translates into todays game is irrelevant but most speculate if necessary West would bulk up as the league dictated.

I like West as a PG but Im probably in the minority.

Thanks for the great response. I think what I may do is just split the difference.

NBAfan4life
07-19-2011, 06:09 PM
I don't see why I should care about per game numbers. No offense to those who still like to look at them; in fact, I still do. However, when evaluating a player, I don't see why I should put any stock into it.



What does that have to do with TS%, eFG% and USG%? And either way, both have played more then 1 full season worth of games in the postseason. Chuck has about 1.5 seasons, which is a good amount. There's no evidence to point to that would say with an additional 70 games played, his TS%, eFG%, ect. would drop by 5-6% points.



Well I don't quite know the standard deviation of TS% or eFG%, but in terms of those stats, based on the range, it is a nose dive. Going from 57.7% TS% to 52.6% TS% is going from a very good % to below average %. That's a nose dive, wouldn't you say?

Or to put it in easier terms, thats like going from Lebron's TS% this year to the league average TS% (which is about a 5 point difference). Nose dive right?

You can look at 5% points and think its not a nosedive but in the context of the stat, it really is.

And when I said nosedive, I was also pointing to his WS/48, which goes from .205 in the regular season to .140 in the postseason. Thats about a 33% drop in performance from the regular season to postseason. It's also far greater than any of the other all-time greats.



Malone has great longevity and that's fair if you want to put a lot of stock into that. Personally, I do put some stock in that but I prefer peak and a player's postseason value. Their peak's are relatively even and Chuck is the better player in the postseason.

I have nothing against Malone by the way. In fact, I liked him as a player. But his numbers were significantly worse in the postseason. He kept the same USG rate but couldn't maintain his shooting %'s. He also got to play with another all-time great for his entire career and despite developing legendary chemistry together, they only got to 2 finals. Not all of the blame goes to Karl though, Stockton also saw a dip in his numbers.

I thought most players shooting percents dropped in the playoffs? I'm not talking overall production but shooting percentages. Also though the difference in lifetime stats is not small at all. Were talking 13000 career points, that is a solid career for most players.

Playoff performance is more important than regular season but still. Malone's longevity is amazing.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-19-2011, 06:49 PM
I thought most players shooting percents dropped in the playoffs? I'm not talking overall production but shooting percentages. Also though the difference in lifetime stats is not small at all. Were talking 13000 career points, that is a solid career for most players.

Playoff performance is more important than regular season but still. Malone's longevity is amazing.

They do drop but I don't think they drop that drastically. Chuck's for example, dropped by about 3 percentage points. Duncan's doesn't drop at all. Garnett's %'s drop by about 3 points too. Moses Malone sees about a 2 point % drop. I haven't looked at this for all the all-time greats but I would imagine that most typically see a drop in their shooting %'s by about 2-3 % points. Karl Malone's is about twice as much as the typical all-time great.

No doubt that Karl had Chuck beat with the lifetime numbers. He's way ahead in that regard. But it depends on what you value, does that make up for Chuck's superior postseason #'s? For some, it might. For others, it won't.

I'm going to be posting that method I had done earlier updated with a bunch of other players and you can see Karl's #'s suffer because of his playoff stats.

RealistFan
07-19-2011, 07:34 PM
I voted for the Doctor. Pretty underrated based on the vote count.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2011, 01:21 AM
Barkley had a much smaller sample size to work with. 70 games to be exact.

Even beside the point, Malone has the more impressive resume and the numbers he has for his career put him amongst the best.

If you're curious why I have Barkley ahead of Karl Malone, read this post (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18595784&postcount=37).

Moving on to intangibles, what does Karl possess that Barkley doesn't? I'd give them even marks there. They both played in the same era basically.

As for teammates, while Chuck had some good teammates later in his career and even at the very beginning with Dr. J and Moses, for most of his prime, he was alone. Moses and Chuck played together for 2 seasons at the start of Chuck's career. And Chuck started producing his best numbers the year after Moses left. In fact, the year after Moses left, Chuck led the NBA in TS%, eFG% and ORB%. Dr. J played with Barkley for 3 seasons but the Dr. J that was playing with him was far from his prime. Barkley was the best player on the 85-86 and 86-87 teams. The team in 85-86 had Moses, he wasn't there the following year. In 86-87, Dr. J was essentially a below average player.

From that point to his departure from Philadelphia, Chuck was quite easily the best player. And the 2nd best player in that time period was Mo Cheeks for a couple years and Hersey Hawkins for the rest. Neither of those guys are good enough to be a quality #2.

Chuck then went to Phoenix where he was surrounded by Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson and a relatively old Danny Ainge and carried that team to the Finals where they lost to the Bulls. He also won the MVP that year. Pretty remarkable year considering what he was surrounded with and he got them to the Finals.

By the time he got to Houston, he was out of his prime, although still pretty productive.

Compare that to Karl who played almost his whole career with one of the greatest point guards of all-time. In fact, the only year he didn't play with Stockton was when he went to the loaded Lakers team with Shaq and Kobe. That's another top 20-25 player of all-time and he managed 2 finals runs with Stockton. Barkley reached the Finals essentially on his own with some nice role players around him, no top 25 player of all-time playing alongside with him.

Finally, if you consider what a great duo the Stockton-Malone combo was, doesn't it bring light to the fact that put together, they put up even better career numbers then they would've if they were split apart? Give Malone Barkley's cast for most of his prime and is Karl putting up those kinds of numbers?

Between the numbers I posted and some of these other arguments, I'm feeling pretty fairly confident in picking Barkley over Karl Malone.

Chronz
07-20-2011, 01:42 AM
Thanks for the great response. I think what I may do is just split the difference.
Just wondering why youve chosen to focus on position adjusted stats?

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2011, 01:50 AM
Just wondering why youve chosen to focus on position adjusted stats?

I've focused on Win Shares and EWA, not really because I want to but because the data is available (or easy to calculate). I would've liked to do it for WARP but I highly doubt Pelton would provide me with the data and I have no desire to calculate it out on my own. And of course, for any advanced based +/- stats, there is definitely no data available.

Not really sure what other stats I could focus on.

Mile High Champ
07-20-2011, 10:05 AM
I don't see why I should care about per game numbers. No offense to those who still like to look at them; in fact, I still do. However, when evaluating a player, I don't see why I should put any stock into it.

I am not saying it starts and ends with per game averages but at the same time I don't think they should be ignored. There are always holes with only looking at TS% since they reward players that visit the free throw line often. As much as I enjoy using the stats there are still flaws in solely relying on them.


What does that have to do with TS%, eFG% and USG%? And either way, both have played more then 1 full season worth of games in the postseason. Chuck has about 1.5 seasons, which is a good amount. There's no evidence to point to that would say with an additional 70 games played, his TS%, eFG%, ect. would drop by 5-6% points.

It has everything to do with the percentages. It is always easier to maintain your percentages at a high level with a lower sample size. Chuck played 70 games less in the post season than Malone. I would fully expect that Chuck would have an easier time maintaining that high level with less games played. Here is something else to chew on and the major difference. Malone played in 35 playoff games over the age of 37 years old. Barkley did not play in a single playoff game after is 36th birthday. This is very important when you consider that Malone never had higher than a .485 TS% over the final few years year of his post season career. Certainly being an aging veteran approaching 40 dropped those playoff stats you love to quote and Barkley fortunately enough for your argument never had to endure playing at the same age Malone did. Had Malone never played those 35 games, those advanced playoff stats would look instantly better. Plus you are only looking at the player success, look at the trips to the conference finals. Malone had six runs to the conference finals. Barkley made it there just three times.


Well I don't quite know the standard deviation of TS% or eFG%, but in terms of those stats, based on the range, it is a nose dive. Going from 57.7% TS% to 52.6% TS% is going from a very good % to below average %. That's a nose dive, wouldn't you say?.

The apparent "nose dive" is a result of playing 35 playoff games near the end of his career. I would also not call it a nose dive.


And when I said nosedive, I was also pointing to his WS/48, which goes from .205 in the regular season to .140 in the postseason. Thats about a 33% drop in performance from the regular season to postseason. It's also far greater than any of the other all-time greats.

Again you are being selective. I saw that you only chose to compare their 3 year high's for win shares, WS/48 mins and playoff win shares. What about the regular season in which Malone had a total of 234.6. Barkley a total of 177.2.

Barkley had only had 3 seasons in which he exceeded 15 win shares.
Barkley had only had 5 season in which he exceeded 13 win shares.

Lets compare Malone

Malone had 9 seasons in which he exceeded in 15 win shares.
Malone had 12 seasons in which he exceeded 13 win shares.

It really is not even close when discussing who the better regular season performer was and who the better player overall is. You can hide behind your small playoff sample size all you want but it really does nothing to prove that Barkely was better. Not when I have over 15+ seasons of data to work with while you have just over one.




Malone has great longevity and that's fair if you want to put a lot of stock into that. Personally, I do put some stock in that but I prefer peak and a player's postseason value. Their peak's are relatively even and Chuck is the better player in the postseason.

Greatest understatement right here. Just great longevity? Talk about incredible longevity. When Malone was 34 years old he had a season in which he had 16.4 win shares, .597 TS%, 26 ppg, 10 rpg, PER of 27.9. What was Barkley doing at age 34? 8.6 win shares, .581 TS%, 15.2 ppg, 11.7 rpg. PER of 23.0. While Malone was actually getting better as his career went on and posted some of his best seasons at 33 and 34 years of age, Barkley peaked at age 26.

Here you go again with the peak, it is only 3 years. Barkley only had 3 maybe 4 incredible seasons. Of course you are going to say they were even at their peak because it reinforces your selective argument when it comes to the regular season.


I have nothing against Malone by the way. In fact, I liked him as a player. But his numbers were significantly worse in the postseason. He kept the same USG rate but couldn't maintain his shooting %'s. He also got to play with another all-time great for his entire career and despite developing legendary chemistry together, they only got to 2 finals. Not all of the blame goes to Karl though, Stockton also saw a dip in his numbers.

Lets compare the bigger picture here for just once.

Malone twice led his team to the Finals, Barkley did it only once
Malone is a 2X MVP winner, Barkley 1X MVP
Malone is 14x All Star, Barkley 11x All Star
Malone 11x All First Team Member, Barkley 5x All First team member
Malone 3 All-Defensive First Team Member, Barkley never made the team

The list goes on and on. We have not even begin to discuss defense yet as well. The biggest difference between the two players was their defensive abilities. Malone was arguably one of the best defensive PF in the league in the 90's and was recognized for it many times. Barkley throughout his career never once garnered a defensive reputation as he was a below average defender at best. Unlike Malone, Barkley' selfish style of play rarely complimented the skills and abilities of his teammates, often choosing to do everything himself before giving up the ball when it was most needed. Also it does not help that Barkley had a tendency to disappear in games due to his very questionable work ethic.

It really is without question that Malone was the more complete player. They were arguably even offensively though I give the slight edge to Malone and on defense it was no question in Malone's favor.

mightybosstone
07-20-2011, 10:33 AM
I don't know if this has been addressed yet, becuase I haven't gone through every page of the thread and I'm far too lazy, but I would love to see justification for the voting of Allen Iverson this early on. Top 25? Maybe. Top 50? Certainly. Top 11? Not even close.

Gibby23
07-20-2011, 10:53 AM
If you're curious why I have Barkley ahead of Karl Malone, read this post (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18595784&postcount=37).

Moving on to intangibles, what does Karl possess that Barkley doesn't? I'd give them even marks there. They both played in the same era basically.

As for teammates, while Chuck had some good teammates later in his career and even at the very beginning with Dr. J and Moses, for most of his prime, he was alone. Moses and Chuck played together for 2 seasons at the start of Chuck's career. And Chuck started producing his best numbers the year after Moses left. In fact, the year after Moses left, Chuck led the NBA in TS%, eFG% and ORB%. Dr. J played with Barkley for 3 seasons but the Dr. J that was playing with him was far from his prime. Barkley was the best player on the 85-86 and 86-87 teams. The team in 85-86 had Moses, he wasn't there the following year. In 86-87, Dr. J was essentially a below average player.

From that point to his departure from Philadelphia, Chuck was quite easily the best player. And the 2nd best player in that time period was Mo Cheeks for a couple years and Hersey Hawkins for the rest. Neither of those guys are good enough to be a quality #2.

Chuck then went to Phoenix where he was surrounded by Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson and a relatively old Danny Ainge and carried that team to the Finals where they lost to the Bulls. He also won the MVP that year. Pretty remarkable year considering what he was surrounded with and he got them to the Finals.

By the time he got to Houston, he was out of his prime, although still pretty productive.

Compare that to Karl who played almost his whole career with one of the greatest point guards of all-time. In fact, the only year he didn't play with Stockton was when he went to the loaded Lakers team with Shaq and Kobe. That's another top 20-25 player of all-time and he managed 2 finals runs with Stockton. Barkley reached the Finals essentially on his own with some nice role players around him, no top 25 player of all-time playing alongside with him.

Finally, if you consider what a great duo the Stockton-Malone combo was, doesn't it bring light to the fact that put together, they put up even better career numbers then they would've if they were split apart? Give Malone Barkley's cast for most of his prime and is Karl putting up those kinds of numbers?

Between the numbers I posted and some of these other arguments, I'm feeling pretty fairly confident in picking Barkley over Karl Malone.

If you take out Malone's last 4 playoff years, how do the numbers look then? Those lat 4 were about the worse of his career and in his last year he played 21 post season games with the lakers when he wasn't the same player. Can you run something taking out Malones last 4 playoff years?

JordansBulls
07-20-2011, 12:28 PM
I don't know if this has been addressed yet, becuase I haven't gone through every page of the thread and I'm far too lazy, but I would love to see justification for the voting of Allen Iverson this early on. Top 25? Maybe. Top 50? Certainly. Top 11? Not even close.

Yeah, the poll should really be adjusted to only have about 10 options. Probably won't add anymore options for the next 5 spots as I don't think it is fair to take guys off the list now.

Mile High Champ
07-20-2011, 12:32 PM
I maintain Reggie Miller should be on the list of options.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2011, 01:59 PM
If you take out Malone's last 4 playoff years, how do the numbers look then? Those lat 4 were about the worse of his career and in his last year he played 21 post season games with the lakers when he wasn't the same player. Can you run something taking out Malones last 4 playoff years?

Yup, I'll do that and post the numbers later.

mightybosstone
07-20-2011, 02:04 PM
I maintain Reggie Miller should be on the list of options.

Maybe if this gets all the way to top 50, but I don't even think he should be in the same breath as "top 25" and I definitely don't think he deserves consideration right now.

Mile High Champ
07-20-2011, 02:08 PM
Maybe if this gets all the way to top 50, but I don't even think he should be in the same breath as "top 25" and I definitely don't think he deserves consideration right now.

Oh I agree with him not being top 25 but some of the other names on this list are not more deserving than him. I know that for sure.

Mile High Champ
07-20-2011, 02:10 PM
I just hope that Big O, Moses and Karl are the next 3 off the board.

Geargo Wallace
07-20-2011, 02:12 PM
Moses and Rick Barry might be 2 of the biggest forgotten superstars left on this list. A lot of the younger PSD members will be reluctant to give them votes.

Gibby23
07-20-2011, 02:21 PM
Yup, I'll do that and post the numbers later.

Thanks.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Thanks.

No problem. For what its worth though, I had weighted Karl's 3 best playoff runs at 10% each so hopefully that would've helped "cancel out" Malone's poor performance in his older years. And actually, it did help his numbers out a lot.

djeller1139
07-20-2011, 05:34 PM
Jerry West.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2011, 05:36 PM
If you take out Malone's last 4 playoff years, how do the numbers look then? Those lat 4 were about the worse of his career and in his last year he played 21 post season games with the lakers when he wasn't the same player. Can you run something taking out Malones last 4 playoff years?

Ok, I ran the numbers. For the old way, where I didn't weight the player's 3 best playoff runs and just used their career totals, if you subtract out Malone's last 4 years where he was old, this is how he compares to Barkley:

For Win Shares:
Barkley's playoff WS number was 13.00
Malone's without the last 4 years was 11.05

For EWA:
Barkley's playoff EWA was 20.43
Malone's without the last 4 years was 18.42

I haven't calculated the overall numbers but since the prime is relatively even, my guess is Barkley still comes out ahead despite the inferior career totals. In fact, I'm fairly confident about that.

However, thats not the way I did my calculations out in the post I referenced. If you factor in a player's 3 best playoff runs, these are the results:

For Win Shares:
Barkley's playoff WS: 13.34
Malone's without the last 4 years: 12.20

For EWA:
Barkley's playoff EWA: 20.76
Malone's without the last 4 years: 19.67

Overall WS:
Barkley: 14.62
Malone: 14.68

Overall EWA:
Barkley: 22.15
Malone: 22.67

Malone is better in this case but is it fair to be selective like this? I suppose Barkley stopped playing at age 36 which was Malone's last decent playoff run. His last 4 playoff years were ages 37-40. Still, I'm not a fan of doing this because then I'd have to do it for every player who played in the playoffs at a really old age. In addition, by weighting a players' 3 best playoff runs, I feel like that's already sort of "canceled out" Malone's old age postseason performance.

For what its worth though, I could see a case being made for Malone and I think whenever I end up coming out with my new updated number crunching, I suspect Malone will come out ahead of Barkley (because I'm planning on putting more weight into career/longevity).

Admiration
07-20-2011, 05:46 PM
Jerry West.

My coach in middle school was cousins with Jerry West and he used to talk about how he would dribble to school everyday and dribble back home after school, always had a ball with him. Inspiring character.

Gibby23
07-20-2011, 05:53 PM
Ok, I ran the numbers. For the old way, where I didn't weight the player's 3 best playoff runs and just used their career totals, if you subtract out Malone's last 4 years where he was old, this is how he compares to Barkley:

For Win Shares:
Barkley's playoff WS number was 13.00
Malone's without the last 4 years was 11.05

For EWA:
Barkley's playoff EWA was 20.43
Malone's without the last 4 years was 18.42

I haven't calculated the overall numbers but since the prime is relatively even, my guess is Barkley still comes out ahead despite the inferior career totals. In fact, I'm fairly confident about that.

However, thats not the way I did my calculations out in the post I referenced. If you factor in a player's 3 best playoff runs, these are the results:

For Win Shares:
Barkley's playoff WS: 13.34
Malone's without the last 4 years: 12.20

For EWA:
Barkley's playoff EWA: 20.76
Malone's without the last 4 years: 19.67

Overall WS:
Barkley: 14.62
Malone: 14.68

Overall EWA:
Barkley: 22.15
Malone: 22.67

Malone is better in this case but is it fair to be selective like this? I suppose Barkley stopped playing at age 36 which was Malone's last decent playoff run. His last 4 playoff years were ages 37-40. Still, I'm not a fan of doing this because then I'd have to do it for every player who played in the playoffs at a really old age. In addition, by weighting a players' 3 best playoff runs, I feel like that's already sort of "canceled out" Malone's old age postseason performance.

For what its worth though, I could see a case being made for Malone and I think whenever I end up coming out with my new updated number crunching, I suspect Malone will come out ahead of Barkley (because I'm planning on putting more weight into career/longevity).

Thanks again!

You also have to give Malone some credit for playing 80 or more games a year at age 37, 38, and 39 and playing over 36 mpg at that time with over 20 ppg.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2011, 05:59 PM
Thanks again!

You also have to give Malone some credit for playing 80 or more games a year at age 37, 38, and 39 and playing over 36 mpg at that time with over 20 ppg.

With the new changes I'm planning to make, that should be included. As I said, I suspect he'll come out ahead of Barkley.