How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Like real basketball, as well as basketball video games? Talk about the NBA, NCAA, and other professional and amateur basketball leagues here.

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:07 am

air gordon wrote:ok so i misunderstood thinking it was sarcasm. you really sat with your notepad and jotted stats for every game. my mistake. carry on


I seriously did, yes.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby shadowgrin on Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:51 am

air gordon wrote:ok so i misunderstood thinking it was sarcasm. you really sat with your notepad and jotted stats for every game. my mistake. carry on

:shake:


The only advantage Robinson had over Duncan was athleticism and maybe never looking old, that's about it.
Robinson had no reliable "go to move" (maybe because of a limited skillset compared to Duncan) that's why he always choked it up in the postseason when defenses would focus on him more when he was still "the man" for the Spurs. Though was outstanding on defense as Duncan's sidekick.
There's also this SI piece about Duncan that mentioned in passing about Robinson being clueless on offense for complicated sets that's why the coaching staff would have simple offensive sets when Robinson was still the man (similar to the Jazz pounding the PnR with Karl Malone because he has trouble doing elaborate sets, like the triangle with the Lakers).

tl;dr: Rasheed Wallace had better basketball IQ than David Robinson and Karl Malone.
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 23221
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21 am
Location: In your mind

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:54 am

We can and will absolutely disagree about Robinson repetoire being less offensively, and in my opinion he was a far superior defender and yes, far more athletic.

Again, we will just have to disagree on that.

In regards to IQ, please show me the article if you can find it. I looked and couldn't find anything about it. My opinion is that Robinson is a superior player.

CORRECTION: I found it

Ask those who know Duncan what drives him, however, and they all say the same things: He loves the game. He cares just as much as the little guys do. It's one thing to claim to love the game and another, as Ferry says, "to make the sacrifices that are necessary to win." They point out how Duncan lost those 15 pounds in the last couple of years to protect his knees, at an age when most 7-footers only get stockier (and indeed, to see him in the locker room with his shirt off, devoid of body fat, is jarring). They talk about how, in contrast to David Robinson, who was lovable and smart and marketable but never could remember all the plays, Duncan "knows every play from front to back, position one through five." As longtime assistant coach Mike Budenholzer says, "Tim could coach the team if he needed to.


I still stand by Robinson being a better player overall. However, good memory on that article. If a draft was conducted tomorrow and I had to choose a David Robinson or Tim Duncan, I choose Robinson.

Cool SI article from 1996 about David Robinson. He admits in it that coming into the league, he didn't know much about basketball, but could still dominate based on his athleticism and size. Amazing what he was able to do early on in his career while still learning the game. By his MVP season, as they stated in the article, he put a nice offensive package together.

https://www.si.com/vault/1996/04/29/212352/trials-of-david-san-antonio-spurs-center-and-born-again-christian-david-robinson-is-trying-to-lead-his-team-to-an-nba-title-and-remain-pure-in-a-world-beset-by-the-seven-deadly-sins
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby air gordon on Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:32 am

shadowgrin wrote:
air gordon wrote:ok so i misunderstood thinking it was sarcasm. you really sat with your notepad and jotted stats for every game. my mistake. carry on

:shake:

hey now. you have to take his word for it otherwise that's just trolling behavior. that would be sad really
Against Boston, you can go down 1-0 and still be fine;
Oopsies
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7813
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:35 am

Don't be hurt by the legends disapproval Air Gordon, it will all be okay.

In regards to Robinson, nobody has to take my word for it, or on anything for that matter. I expressed my opinions based on watching him play. This is a good conversation.

Also FYI, plenty of full games on youtube for you to watch of Robinson. If you get the chance, watch some and you can form your own opinion.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Sauru on Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:48 pm

my 2 cents, robinson would be better today than he was then but still not better than the dream
User avatar
Sauru
 
Posts: 7726
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:01 am

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:54 pm

Sauru wrote:my 2 cents, robinson would be better today than he was then but still not better than the dream


Agreed, he would be even better in the NBA today (and he was damn good), but again not as good as Hakeem.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby hova- on Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:56 pm

Dee4Three wrote:If a draft was conducted tomorrow and I had to choose a David Robinson or Tim Duncan, I choose Robinson.



Really? Out of 12 of his postseason appearances, Robinson shot below 50% from the field in 8. As athletic as he was (definitely more athletic than Duncan, who was still underrated in his prime in that regard), I think he did not nearly have the moves Duncan had on the block. His mid-range game was very good though, but that sitll leads to worse FG% (although you have to consider that mid range shots are hard to defend and easy to get off which makes them better than their bad reputation actually is).

In his prime (2001-2003), Duncans numbers per 36 just explode. 23.5 p / 12.3 r / 4.5 a / 3.7 b per game on 52% shooting in the 2001-2002 Playoffs.

For Robinson, the Playoffs numbers make it hard to really find his prime. 89-90 he has very good per 36 numbers. 95-95, too. Still nowhere near TDs prime numbers, who recorded more assists, better shooting, more boards and also commited less fouls (actually a huge difference, Robinson had almost 4 fouls per 36 even in his best seasons).

I don't know, stats-wise they are similar but I would give Duncan the nod. Same goes for longevity, although Robinson was already 24 after his military service when he came into the league.

The intangibles, like remembering plays or not, being considered a bit too nice or not, being competitive etc are tough to rate from our positions.

Comparing team mates you would get TD the nod everytime.

But the fact that the Spurs went on their big run when TD arrived, Robinson snatched his two championships with Duncan (although he played a good role, TD was the man) and looking at the stats, records and everything:

I would still take Duncan over Robinson every single day.
User avatar
hova-
Two time Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:33 am
Location: Augsburg, Germany

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby NovU on Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:38 pm

David Robinson was the better player than Tim Duncan in their first run to the ring together. Reality is that it took little more than a couple years for Tim Duncan to surpass David Robinson as the best player.

What it really tells us is that what David Robinson really needed was the better teammates. All you guys forget is that super/stacked teams win championships and David Robinson never really was on it until Tim Duncan came along. Best he ever had for a teammate was a rebounding specialist Dennis Rodman only for a season. Otherwise David Robinson led scrubs to winning season year after year.

Most superstars play about 15%-20% worse in the playoffs. Kobe/LBJ, despite their clutch reputation, fall into the category. Not many up their performance in the playoffs. David Robinson was no different with defense/offense focused on him, it's just easy to figure out Spurs game when there is no one else that could step up. Look at Spurs' second/third/fourth best players during David Robinson's run. You see top guys like Del Negro, Elliot, etc, most of them usual scrubs. You gotta ask yourself a question are they championship caliber guys as 2nd/3rd option? What Hakeem had was much better than what David had. Hakeem did not win alone. But he was one of those superstars who upped his productivity in the playoffs, which is amazing. Still, Robinson vs Hakeem to this day to me is a classic example of teammates matter. In my book, Admiral tops Dream. I understand most consider Admiral "overrated" but I think Dream is overrated while Admiral is underrated. How's that for a food for thought?
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:13 am

Hova, totally respect your opinion on Duncan. But even in the SI article I posted it mentions it, in the 94-95 playoffs against the Houston Rockets, The Rockets decided to double team Robinson on every possession while the Spurs elected to have Robinson guard Olajuwon straight up (big mistake). Robinsons field goal In the playoffs was lower because teams would hone in on him 100%, because they knew the rest of his team couldn't hurt him. For most of his years before Duncan, the team was constructed horribly around him with poor shooters or average shooters. It is widely known that Robinson had poorly constructed teams around him.

Put him in his Prime with Parker and Ginobili, and other capable shooters like Horry surrounding him, you don't think that FG% would have gone up? It absolutely would have. On the defensive end, Robinsons athleticism and timing exceeds Duncan, his defensive numbers alone show that picture. Look at Robinsons first 7 years in the league, they are some of the best of all time numbers wise.

Image

Robinson was also better running the floor. I think you may underestimate Robinsons repertoire especially after his first couple seasons. I don't see his offensive game as any worse than Duncan, in fact I prefer Robinsons. Duncan averaged a career best of 25.5, and Robinson 29.8 (Both shooting about the same percentage). Robinsons offensive game in my opinion is very underappreciated in NBA history.

I like both players though, I just go with Robinson.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby hova- on Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:22 am

Dee4Three wrote:Hova, totally respect your opinion on Duncan. But even in the SI article I posted it mentions it, in the 94-95 playoffs against the Houston Rockets, The Rockets decided to double team Robinson on every possession while the Spurs elected to have Robinson guard Olajuwon straight up (big mistake). Robinsons field goal In the playoffs was lower because teams would hone in on him 100%, because they knew the rest of his team couldn't hurt him. For most of his years before Duncan, the team was constructed horribly around him with poor shooters or average shooters. It is widely known that Robinson had poorly constructed teams around him.


I agree with you on that. I think TD also had times where he was facing a lot of pressure. I remember some wicked clutch shots he took with the D all over him (most memorable maybe agains the Lakers when D-Fish countered his shot to win the game) and still hit.

Still it's obvious that he had better teammates than Robinson.

Dee4Three wrote:Put him in his Prime with Parker and Ginobili, and other capable shooters like Horry surrounding him, you don't think that FG% would have gone up? It absolutely would have. On the defensive end, Robinsons athleticism and timing exceeds Duncan, his defensive numbers alone show that picture. Look at Robinsons first 7 years in the league, they are some of the best of all time numbers wise.

https://img.beckett.com/images/items_stock/185226/3199361/3199369/back.jpg

Robinson was also better running the floor. I think you may underestimate Robinsons repertoire especially after his first couple seasons. I don't see his offensive game as any worse than Duncan, in fact I prefer Robinsons. Duncan averaged a career best of 25.5, and Robinson 29.8 (Both shooting about the same percentage). Robinsons offensive game in my opinion is very underappreciated in NBA history.

I like both players though, I just go with Robinson.


Then again, I would consider the counter argument, that weaker teammates forced Robinson to take more shots and thus his scoring went higher compared to TD.

Looking at blocked shots I would argue that TD was one of the best flat footed blockers ever. He could block a lot of shots just by good timing without even jumping. That is why he also did not foul a lot. Robinson was maybe one of the best shot blockers ever numbers wise (put Hakeem, Mutombo and Eaton in that category, too - Wilt and Russell for sure if they would have recorded it), but he also fouled more. So maybe you could say their defensive impact was equal, at least it puts TD in a better perspective than the pure blocking numbers would.

I think you could argue for both guys, but since I did not have a chance to watch Robinson in his prime and did not experience the era (I was born in 1988), I'd rather go with TD.

Still that body of Robinson is wicked. Actually whenever I see him, I think he must have been an 80ies porn star as well.


@ Novu: I think Hakeem directly outplaying Robinson in front of the whole nation has helped causing a perception of the one being WAY better than the other. Which might actually strengthen your argument about Robinson being underrated. Hakeem overrated? I don't know. 2 rings, the stats and a look at his footage make me feel like he is just appreciated in the right way.
User avatar
hova-
Two time Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:33 am
Location: Augsburg, Germany

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:19 am

Robinson didn't really foul much more (First seven primed, uninjured seasons), Tim Duncan averaged 2.82 in his first 7, Robinson averaged 3.06, a difference of .24.

Yes, Duncan was a great defender, but Robinson was an Elite defender. Not only did he have that timing, but he is probably the most athletic big man in NBA History (With Wilt and Russell right up there with him, Wilt was an Olympic Athlete).

Either way, I respect Duncan so it's all good. We just have different views on it. I think that you would see Robinsons FG% shoot way up if he had better teammates around him, so I think he would have been far better than .507 because he was doubled all the time (He shot over 55% earlier in his career). So theres that as well. For example, Shaq almost shot 60% when he had Penny, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott on his team to spread the floor, he also had a capable 15-18 ft out shooter in Horace Grant at one point. You couldn't double Shaq the same way on that team as Robinson, because he had deadlier players around him.

In regards to Hakeem, I think his defense was not only slightly better than Robinsons, but his offensive repertoire is the best of a big man in NBA History. And of course, he dismantled Robinson in the 94-95 Playoffs. I agree with NovU that Robinson is severely underrated in NBA History, so is Patrick Ewing. These amazing bigs don't get the credit they deserve.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby shadowgrin on Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:08 am

Still that body of Robinson is wicked. Actually whenever I see him, I think he must have been an 80ies porn star as well.

It's the moustache.
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 23221
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21 am
Location: In your mind

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby air gordon on Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:49 am

shadowgrin wrote:The only advantage Robinson had over Duncan was athleticism and maybe never looking old, that's about it.
Robinson had no reliable "go to move" (maybe because of a limited skillset compared to Duncan) that's why he always choked it up in the postseason when defenses would focus on him more when he was still "the man" for the Spurs. Though was outstanding on defense as Duncan's sidekick...
tl;dr: Rasheed Wallace had better basketball IQ than David Robinson and Karl Malone.

yes this is what i remember about him. for all the gifts he had, he was earning the wrong goat status in the playoffs.

the dude's in the HOF. that should kill the underrated talk.
Against Boston, you can go down 1-0 and still be fine;
Oopsies
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7813
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:57 am

air gordon wrote:
shadowgrin wrote:The only advantage Robinson had over Duncan was athleticism and maybe never looking old, that's about it.
Robinson had no reliable "go to move" (maybe because of a limited skillset compared to Duncan) that's why he always choked it up in the postseason when defenses would focus on him more when he was still "the man" for the Spurs. Though was outstanding on defense as Duncan's sidekick...
tl;dr: Rasheed Wallace had better basketball IQ than David Robinson and Karl Malone.

yes this is what i remember about him. for all the gifts he had, he was earning the wrong goat status in the playoffs.

the dude's in the HOF. that should kill the underrated talk.


Underrated can be the way people talk about him, though. If you seldom hear about a player, or when you do he is not adequately praised or talked about in the appropriate light, he can be looked at as underrated.

Definition
underestimate the extent, value, or importance of (someone or something).


So while yes he was elected to the Basketball Hall Of Fame, that doesn't mean that in general public opinion he isn't underrated.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby hova- on Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:02 am

hova- wrote:
think Hakeem directly outplaying Robinson in front of the whole nation has helped causing a perception of the one being WAY better than the other. Which might actually strengthen your argument about Robinson being underrated. Hakeem overrated? I don't know. 2 rings, the stats and a look at his footage make me feel like he is just appreciated in the right way.


Don't you guys think that played a role in his perception?
User avatar
hova-
Two time Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:33 am
Location: Augsburg, Germany

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:11 am

hova- wrote:
hova- wrote:
think Hakeem directly outplaying Robinson in front of the whole nation has helped causing a perception of the one being WAY better than the other. Which might actually strengthen your argument about Robinson being underrated. Hakeem overrated? I don't know. 2 rings, the stats and a look at his footage make me feel like he is just appreciated in the right way.


Don't you guys think that played a role in his perception?


It absolutely hurt his image, I think it factors into People placing Hakeem much higher on their lists.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby NovU on Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 am

hova- wrote:@ Novu: I think Hakeem directly outplaying Robinson in front of the whole nation has helped causing a perception of the one being WAY better than the other. Which might actually strengthen your argument about Robinson being underrated. Hakeem overrated? I don't know. 2 rings, the stats and a look at his footage make me feel like he is just appreciated in the right way.

That probably is why Hakeem is overrated to me, "2 rings" which often gets used as END IT ALL argument without much context behind it. It's easily google-able why some consider him overrated, many solid points, many discussions should show up. You might wanna read other side of story too. Off top of my head, until that 2 rings, Hakeem was viewed as a flawed franchise player with no real(goat lvl) successful achievement(but whined, involved in trade talks, selfish, etc). In talent starved years while Jordan was gone and with help of shortened 3 point line(notice surrounded by great shooters), everything about his public perception shifted to GOAT status in short period of time.

Head to Head stats also favors David Robinson by 100 miles. In 30 wins 12 losses meetings in favor of Robinson, he also put up better stats. But we only remember them from highlights of a few games where Olauwon kicked David's ass in the PO. Looking at the entire picture, you get a different perspective.

But each to own, 2 rings nonetheless is a big achievement. Result matters I respect that. His peak was wonderful when focused. But it was short and he was the most fortunate, Admiral most unfortunate. Olajuwon with similar talents around him, led .500 struggling team.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby air gordon on Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:19 am

NovU wrote:
Most superstars play about 15%-20% worse in the playoffs. Kobe/LBJ, despite their clutch reputation...I understand most consider Admiral "overrated" but I think Dream is overrated while Admiral is underrated. How's that for a food for thought?

i'd have to say LBJ in the finals is pretty damn sick and i was rooting against him. RE Bigs discussion- overrated or underrated it's subjective. they are regarded as one of the games best of all time. what an awesome recognition that is but there's always the internet to discuss overrated/underrated
Against Boston, you can go down 1-0 and still be fine;
Oopsies
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7813
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Andrew on Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:47 pm

Dee4Three wrote:I agree with NovU that Robinson is severely underrated in NBA History, so is Patrick Ewing. These amazing bigs don't get the credit they deserve.


I'd say Ewing is definitely one of the more underrated Hall of Famers. Or perhaps overlooked, for anyone who has a problem with the word "underrated" being used to describe a multi-time All-Star and Hall of Famer. Whatever term we want to use though, I don't think he's really given his due when the great centres of the game are brought up.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Topics: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Topics: NBA 2K19 | NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
The One Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 108071
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby air gordon on Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:53 am

Underrated, overlooked, etc and hall of famer in the same sentence is a Paradox

Induction into the nba hall of fame, not an all star selection. What more recognition is needed?!
Against Boston, you can go down 1-0 and still be fine;
Oopsies
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7813
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Andrew on Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:10 am

A player can have many career accolades, including a Hall of Fame induction, and still not be given their due in discussions about the best players of all-time.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Topics: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Topics: NBA 2K19 | NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
The One Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 108071
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby air gordon on Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:24 am

K gotcha. Ewing had a fine career.

So where does Ewing rank in comparison to centers he played with/ in nba history? Where does this narrative of his being overlooked, underrated, etc come from?
Against Boston, you can go down 1-0 and still be fine;
Oopsies
User avatar
air gordon
 
Posts: 7813
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:06 pm
Location: windy city

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Andrew on Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:38 am

I'd say he's the best Knick of all-time and still a top 50 player of all-time. In terms of his fellow centres, I think he's top five for his era, top ten all-time.

It seems like he's often left out of those conversations, though. He's the "Oh yeah, I somehow forgot all about him!" player, the omission that can occur even when discussing great players because a couple of others are the ones battling it out for the top spot in such debates. When he is mentioned in comparison to his peers from the 90s in particular, there seems to be the suggestion that he's not quite in the same class as the likes of Hakeem, Shaq, and Robinson. While I too would probably be inclined to rank him fourth behind those players, I think it's a much closer race; if he is the fourth best of that group, he's not too far behind them.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Topics: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Topics: NBA 2K19 | NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
The One Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 108071
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: How good would Charles Barkley be in modern-day NBA?

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:51 am

I think Ewing is in line with Robinson.

In regards to Ewing, I seldom hear about him in any great center conversations, and when I do, it's only that he was good and didn't win a ring. He wasn't just good, he was a great big man.

Underrated can mean that a player is seldom or never brought up in conversations about players in his position, or routinely listed low on lists, or is not talked about appropriately for what he was good or great at. Ewing was an Elite defensive big, as well as an elite scoring big.

He played at a time when Olajuwon, Jordan, Barkley, Nique, even Bird, Magic, Karl Malone etc were looked at as bigger names. So he gets lost in a lot of conversations about past NBA. Ewing's career was great from the mid 80s all the way up until the end of the 90's, even though he was battling bad knees.

Drexler is another underappreciate Legend, who I consider the 3rd best shooting guard of all time. He was the Western Conference Jordan for all his years in the league, always the second best SG in the league. The man could do it all, but was left off the new NBA Top 50, while Reggie Miller and Ray Allen were added. This is the definition of underrating a great player, and overrating Reggie Miller. Miller is vastly overrated in my opinion.

Clyde Drexler has him beat by A MILE defensively, and had a more full offensive repertoire, a better overall scorer in general. Drexler won a title in 94-95 and WAS a big part of it, he averaged over 20 PPG in the 94-95 finals, he was not washed up in the least. In fact, even in his last season in the NBA he was still impressive and never looked over the hill.

If you want the definition of underrated and Overrated, there you have it.


NovU said referring to David Robinson over Hakeem
He also had better stats


This is not entirely true. Not only does Hakeem win on career averages of PPG, RPG, SPG, and BPG (Tied on APG), but his single season bests also beat Robinson in RPG, SPG and BPG. Robinson had great stats, so did Hakeem. But Robinson does not have better stats.

But if you are talking about when they faced eachother, they were very comparable in those meetings in the regular season. But in the playoffs, Robinson gets demolished by Hakeem. So it certainly looks like Robinson had the regular season edge RECORD wise, but it's not even close in the playoffs.

Here is them in the regular season:

Image

Here is them in the Playoffs (Robinsons stats get crushed)

Image

In regards to that record against eachother, Robinson won 10 in a row starting in 1999, with both players past primes. San Antonio at that point had better teams, and Hakeem was 36+ years old. So while it looks like a blowout in the regular season record, it's a bit skewed because of the players ages and who they had around them at that point and time. Olajuwon from 1996 and under was 12-20 against Robinson. From 1994 and under, Olajuwon had a record of 10-10 against Robinson by the end of the 93-94 season (When the Rockets won the championship).

I believe Hakeem would have his two rings regardless if Jordan retired or not. The Bulls had no answer for the Dream, even Jordan said that in his book. Hakeem was in his apex prime those seasons, and even if Jordan had escaped Orlando in 94-95 and made it to the finals, Hakeem I believe still would have had his second ring. He is the most unstoppable center I have ever seen play the game. In 93-94, his team is not what I would consider stacked by any means, but he was just that good. Houston did a good job that year of giving Olajuwon shooters around him, which Robinson lacked a bit. When Hakeem was doubled, he could kick it out to Smith, Horry, Cassell, Maxwell, Matt Bullard, Jent, etc.

I give Olajuwon the slight edge over Robinson, and Robinson the slight edge over Ewing. But all three were true big man legends.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:37 am, edited 3 times in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA


Follow me on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Dee4Three84
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

PreviousNext

Return to NBA & Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests