Better Player : KG or Sir Charles

[PGDynasty24]

I was arguing about this the other day. I would have to say Barkley. What do you guys think. I think barkley was the 4th best PF of all time. Behind Timmy D,Malone and Mchale

[Darrin]

I was arguing about this the other day. I would have to say Barkley. What do you guys think. I think barkley was the 4th best PF of all time. Behind Timmy D,Malone and Mchale

Because of his liabilities on the defensive end, I have to give the nod to KG over Barkley.

[duhoh]

fat man vs tall douchebag. . .


tough choice

[Chieflion]

I will go with the fat comedian. He has that killer instinct and can take over games.

[spursncowboys]

Barkley wasn't fat when he played for the sixers. In there prime though, I would take garnett. He did pretty good accepting he wasn't going to be the first option. I don't think Barkley would have been able to do that when he was still in his prime.

[Darrin]

I will go with the fat comedian. He has that killer instinct and can take over games.

Killer instinct, huh? That's why Charles Barkley has all those rings.

[Muser]

Killer instinct, huh? That's why Charles Barkley has all those rings.

Yeah because the amount of rings you get measures Killer Instinct...

as for the question, i'd take Barkley.

[Hemotivo]

Barkley

[Chieflion]

Killer instinct, huh? That's why Charles Barkley has all those rings.
Oh ya, of course, I know how Antoine Walker has a killer instinct because he has a ring. Funny stuff there. You don't measure killer instinct with rings. I am sure Bill Russell has the most killer instinct, seeing how he has 10 rings for his hand one for his toe.

[JamStone]

Barkley was awesome. One of my favorites growing up.

But I believe KG is the second best PF in the history of the game after Timmy.

[ambchang]

Barkley by a hair. He was able to absolutely dominate the paint and he rebounded like a mad man. His biggest problem was defense, and dominating the ball though.

Garnett was fantastic, definitely one of the best of all time, but he's 2nd fiddle material, closer to McHale than to Barkley.

Duncan
Barkley
McHale
Garnett
Malone.

[pauls931]

Defensively KG is vastly superior, but Barkley's will to rebound and win puts him over the top I believe. You NEVER see anyone ripping a rebound from him. Had barkley had the luxury of being added to a stacked team, he'd have a ring too (93 suns were close but lacked defensive players outside of KJ). Also KG never had to face MJ in the finals.

[Leetonidas]

Imagine if Barkley was 6'11"...

[lefty]

Killer instinct, huh? That's why Charles Barkley has all those rings.

Yeah, Barkley shoud have beaten Jordan in 93 :rolleyes

[JamStone]

While I think Charles is the better rebounder, I don't think he was that much better a rebounder than KG, especially if you consider he played in an era that was more uptempo that had more rebounding opportunities. No doubt he was a hell of a rebounder, but so is KG. Charles was definitely a more talented offensive player though.

What I do wonder is how a player so tenacious at rebounding didn't use all that will and determination at his overall defense. Same thing with a guy like David Lee. Guys who work that hard at rebounding should be better defenders than they are/were.

[pauls931]

While I think Charles is the better rebounder, I don't think he was that much better a rebounder than KG, especially if you consider he played in an era that was more uptempo that had more rebounding opportunities. No doubt he was a hell of a rebounder, but so is KG. Charles was definitely a more talented offensive player though.

What I do wonder is how a player so tenacious at rebounding didn't use all that will and determination at his overall defense. Same thing with a guy like David Lee. Guys who work that hard at rebounding should be better defenders than they are/were.

Rebounding just requires getting in position for a couple seconds, defense requires working til your team gets the ball back. I think it's easy to see how someone can be a good rebounder, but poor defender.

It's like playing 21 with 3 people. One person may be busting his ass off on D, while the other slacks and hangs around the hook and gets the ball all the time without playing a lick of D.

[lefty]

While I think Charles is the better rebounder, I don't think he was that much better a rebounder than KG, especially if you consider he played in an era that was more uptempo that had more rebounding opportunities. No doubt he was a hell of a rebounder, but so is KG. Charles was definitely a more talented offensive player though.

What I do wonder is how a player so tenacious at rebounding didn't use all that will and determination at his overall defense. Same thing with a guy like David Lee. Guys who work that hard at rebounding should be better defenders than they are/were.
I agree,

The rare times Barkley wanted to play D, he was spectacular

I remember a play during the 93 playoffs: David Robinson was going for a dunk and Barkley rejected him; I was like :wow

[JamStone]

I understand the dynamic differences between rebounding and overall defense. That distinction you just described still doesn't answer my question. A great rebounder should be able to be a great defender if he puts in the work and effort he does at rebounding towards his overall defense. When he doesn't, it shows a certain level of disinterest and/or laziness.

[pauls931]

I understand the dynamic differences between rebounding and overall defense. That distinction you just described still doesn't answer my question. A great rebounder should be able to be a great defender if he puts in the work and effort he does at rebounding towards his overall defense. When he doesn't, it shows a certain level of disinterest and/or laziness.

Maybe not having individual stats show up for playing D turns off some players. The closest to stats I've read about was the Jazz staticisians (I made up a word!) keeping track of deflections on a per player basis on D.

[Bukefal]

Sir Charles!

[noob cake]

Charles of course.

KG is a mother fucken douche faggot. Worst human being alive.:ihit

[DBryant88]

charles of course.

Kg is a mother fucken douche faggot. Worst human being alive.:ihit

+1

[redzero]

staticisians (I made up a word!)

No, you just spelled it incorrectly.

[Shastafarian]

No, you just spelled it incorrectly.

:lmao

Statisticians

[xellos88330]

Barkley for me. It is harder for a shorter player to play the game of basketball. Therefore KG has an easier time. Barkley will have to work every night.

[21_Blessings]

Barkley wasn't a great defender like KG but he was far from a liability like someone else ignorantly suggested. Biggest ass in the NBA and he knew how to use it. Super quick Ron Artest like hands. Smart, heady defender. Just not dominant on that end.

And KG isn't even close to the rebounder Sir Charles was. He's one of the greatest rebounders (arguably the greatest offensive rebounder) ever at 6foot fucking 5ish. If he put all his effort into rebounding like Rodman did he would easily post similar absurd board numbers. But the reality was Barkley was one of the most dominant offensive players of his era. He could do everything out there on the offensive end.

Overall Barkley was the better player. But I would take probably take KG to build a team around due to the simple fact that Barkley required higher maintenance and has less patience for losing. 1-2 bad mediocre seasons and Chuck would be bitching, moaning and demanding a trade.

[The Gemini Method]

I would say Charles Barkley because of his lack of true PF height and his ability to muscle his way around the post area. Garnett, while a total prick at times, did kind've revolutionize the way the PF position was played with his ability to take his game from the post area to the perimeter and vice-versa. I really liked Charles, so I'll give him the nod. Tim Duncan is numero uno, Karl Malone is numero dos and McHale is numero tres...the rest of the list is muddled.

[Duncan2177]

fat man vs tall douchebag. . .


tough choice

I think you mean asshole vs asshole

[superbigtime]

Definitely Charles. Tougher. More guts. More heart.

[baseline bum]

I love Garnett, but Barkley was capable of carrying a team on his back and was a monster in the low post, so I'd take Sir Charles. Plus, he's one of my 5 favorite players all-time.

[dude1394]

Barkley by a mile. He could actually carry a team.

[Darrin]

Barkley by a mile. He could actually carry a team.

And KG couldn't? The Minnesota franchise's all-time leader in games, minutes, field goals, free throws, offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and points brought the team 501 regular-season wins in 12 seasons. He played in all 47 playoff games in franchise history highlighted by a trip to the Western Conference Finals in 2004. The close-out game-seven that sent the Wolves to the Conference Finals, is up for TNT's version of performance of the decade. He only had 32 points, 21 rebounds, 5 blocks, and 4 steals highlighted by 13-consecutive points in the fourth quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

What has Minnesota done without him? 497 losses in 9 seasons. No more than 29 wins in a season. No playoffs.


He not only can carry a franchise, his is the Minnesota Timberwolves.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

And KG couldn't? The Minnesota franchise's all-time leader in games, minutes, field goals, free throws, offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and points brought the team 501 regular-season wins in 12 seasons. He played in all 47 playoff games in franchise history highlighted by a trip to the Western Conference Finals in 2004. The close-out game-seven that sent the Wolves to the Conference Finals, is up for TNT's version of performance of the decade. He only had 32 points, 21 rebounds, 5 blocks, and 4 steals highlighted by 13-consecutive points in the fourth quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VtZht_8t4

What has Minnesota done without him? 497 losses in 9 seasons. No more than 29 wins in a season. No playoffs.


He not only can carry a franchise, his is the Minnesota Timberwolves.


He carried them to nowhere.

[Otaku]

Sir Charles by a mile.

[Darrin]

He carried them to nowhere.

Before him, there were no playoffs. Before him, no playoff series wins. Before him, no trips to the Conference Finals. Since leaving, there have been no playoffs. In 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004 he was the leader of the team that set a franchise-record for wins.

He led them to respectibility. He made them a title contender and won the Western Conference in 2004.

Just to clarify, he averages 22.3 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.34 spg, and 1.87 bpg in 47 playoff games (17-30).

At Charles Barkley's longest stop--8 years with the Sixers--he never got them to the Conference Finals and had just as many disappointing series. In 1994, he was a part of a team that blew a 2-0 series lead to the eventual-Champion Houston Rockets. And in 1995, he was a part of a team that blew a 3-1 series lead. In Houston, he was injured and surrounded by older players. The team got worse every year he was there. He never did anything without Clyde Drexler.

Rings:
KG - 1.
Barkley - 0.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Rings:
KG - 1.
Barkley - 0.


Rings:
Horry - 7
Jordan - 6

[Darrin]

Rings:
Horry - 7
Jordan - 6

We went from comparing apples and apples to apples and oranges. Horry never was the best player on his team--just a good evaluator of where the best team was. Barkley and KG are both players that have had playoff disappointments who carried sorry franchises to respectability. Given the ability to win a title after he was traded to a contender at the age of 30, KG won a title. At the age of 29 he was given the chance to win a title by being traded to a contender, and Barkley made it to the Finals and didn't win.

Cue the "It's Michael Jordan's fault" response.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Horry never was the best player on his team


Neither was KG in 2008.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

He made them a title contender and won the Western Conference in 2004.


2004 was the only year they were a contender, and really, the won the WC in 2004? Who'd they play in the finals?

[Darrin]

2004 was the only year they were a contender, and really, the won the WC in 2004? Who'd they play in the finals?

And how often did Barkley contend while carrying the Sixers? One season, and he wasn't carrying the team. He was a 21-year-old rookie playing with Moses Malone, Dr. J, Andrew Toney, Bobby Jones, and Maurice Cheeks. They had the same record as the 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves, 58-24.

2003-04 Western Conference Standings: (all teams above .500)
Minnesota Timberwolves - 58-24.
San Antonio Spurs - 57-25.
Los Angeles Lakers - 56-26.
Sacramento Kings - 55-27.
Dallas Mavericks - 52-30.
Memphis Grizzlies - 50-32.
Houston Rockets - 45-37.
Denver Nuggets - 43-39.
Portland Trailblazers - 41-41

[ambchang]

Having the best regular season record is not winning the WC. Going to the finals is.

BTW, the no playoffs before and after KG thing. You do realize you are dealing with an awfully small sample size, right?

Do you want to know how the 6ers did after trading Barkley? They stunk for 6 years.

[Chieflion]

Having the best regular season record is not winning the WC. Going to the finals is.

BTW, the no playoffs before and after KG thing. You do realize you are dealing with an awfully small sample size, right?

Do you want to know how the 6ers did after trading Barkley? They stunk for 6 years.
And with the first overall draft pick, they selected "The Canswer'. Sorry, I mean "The Answer".

[21_Blessings]

Do you want to know how the 6ers did after trading Barkley? They stunk for 6 years.

Because that was one most lopsided trades of all-time. And fans bitch about the Gasol trade :lol

Last I checked Marc Gasol was beasting it with 16/11 while making 5 million less than Thabeet. Not to mention the cap space and 2 first rounders they got.

[Chieflion]

Because that was one most lopsided trades of all-time. And fans bitch about the Gasol trade :lol

Last I checked Marc Gasol was beasting it with 16/11 while making 5 million less than Thabeet. Not to mention the cap space and 2 first rounders they got.
You mean the two 1st rounders which are better off early second rounders because they have to pay guaranteed money to the guy unless he was sent to a Euro club to improve his skills.

[Darrin]

Having the best regular season record is not winning the WC. Going to the finals is.

BTW, the no playoffs before and after KG thing. You do realize you are dealing with an awfully small sample size, right?

Do you want to know how the 6ers did after trading Barkley? They stunk for 6 years.

You're kidding--you think Charles Barkley has defined the Sixers? The same franchise that gave us Wilt Chamberlain and Julius Erving?

This is Barkley's career:

1984-85: 58-24, 4th-leading scorer (14.0 ppg) as a rookie, Lost in the Conference Finals to the Boston Celtics.
1985-86: 54-28, 2nd-leading scorer (20.0 ppg), Lost in the second round to the Milwaukee Bucks.
1986-87: 45-37, 1st in scoring (23.0)--Moses Malone left the team, lost in first round to the Milwaukee Bucks.
1987-88: 36-46, Dr. J retired, no playoffs.
1988-89: 46-36, All-NBA the last two seasons, lost in the first round to the New York Knicks.
1989-90: 53-29, Lost in the Semifinals to the Chicago Bulls.
1990-91: 44-38, Lost in the Semifinals to the Chicago Bulls.
1991-92: 35-47, no playoffs, demands trade.

[Darrin]

And with the first overall draft pick, they selected "The Canswer'. Sorry, I mean "The Answer".

He's got a better legacy with the Sixers than Barkley does.

[Chieflion]

He's got a better legacy with the Sixers than Barkley does.
No one was arguing that Iverson was worse than Barkley was with the Sixers so stop being an ass.

[ambchang]

You're kidding--you think Charles Barkley has defined the Sixers? The same franchise that gave us Wilt Chamberlain and Julius Erving?

This is Barkley's career:

1984-85: 58-24, 4th-leading scorer (14.0 ppg) as a rookie, Lost in the Conference Finals to the Boston Celtics.
1985-86: 54-28, 2nd-leading scorer (20.0 ppg), Lost in the second round to the Milwaukee Bucks.
1986-87: 45-37, 1st in scoring (23.0)--Moses Malone left the team, lost in first round to the Milwaukee Bucks.
1987-88: 36-46, Dr. J retired, no playoffs.
1988-89: 46-36, All-NBA the last two seasons, lost in the first round to the New York Knicks.
1989-90: 53-29, Lost in the Semifinals to the Chicago Bulls.
1990-91: 44-38, Lost in the Semifinals to the Chicago Bulls.
1991-92: 35-47, no playoffs, demands trade.

Since when have I said Barkley defined the 6ers? And what significance does that have?

Durant is defining the Thunder, he is better than Kobe Bryant because Magic, Kareem, Wilt and Shaq were better Lakers.

Carter defines the Raptors, so he must be better than Havlicek, Cousy, and McHale, who can't even define the Celtics that was once led by Russell or Bird

Chris Webber is better than David Robinson, because Webber defined the Kings and the Admiral only comes in 2nd on the Spurs.

I am not even sure what bloody kind of logic this is.

And you want to talk about Garnett’s playoff success and his role with the Wolves?
95-96: 5th leading scorer on the 7 year franchise, team finished 26-56, missed playoffs
96-97: 2nd leading scorer (behind Tom Gugliotta), team finished 40-42. Swept by Rockets in the 1st round.
97-98: leading scorer on the Wolves (Gugliotta seriously injured). Team finished 45-37. Lost 3-2 to the Sonics
98-99: Wolves finished 25-25 in the lockout shortened season, lost 3-1 to eventual champions Spurs.
99-00: Team sees improvement to 50-32 record (1st 50 win season) after the addition of Terrell Brandon. Lost 3-1 to Blazers in 1st round.
00-01: Finished with 45-37 record, lost 3-1 in 1st round to Spurs.
01-02: Finished with 50-32 record, swept in 1st round by Mavs.
02-03: Finished 51-31, lost 4-2 to Lakers in new playoff 1st round format (7 game vs. 3 game)
03-04: Finished 58-24 after adding key players Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell, lost in WCF finals to Lakers.
04-05: Finished 44-38 after injuries to Cassell. Missed playoffs.
05-06: Finished 33-49 after Cassell and Sprewell were gone (Trade and free agency). Missed playoffs.
06-07: Finished 32-50, missed playoffs.
07-08: Finished 22-60 after trading Garnett for Al Jefferson, missed playoffs.

Garnett failed to make it out of the 1st round or missed the playoffs entirely 9 out of the 10 years he was with the Wolves, with the only exception coming in the 04 playoffs, when Cassell and Sprewell provided the necessary help.

[Culburn369]

No one was arguing that Iverson was worse than Barkley was with the Sixers so stop being an ass.

Speaking of "being an ass", good morning, amb.

[ambchang]

LOL Culburn, I didn't even know I was this far under your skin.

BTW, losing to the Suns in the 1st round two years in a row! Might as well get this in before you talk about the Mavs series again.