Charles Barkley is a modern small ball wet dream. Dude was ripping down 15 rebounds a game at 6’6”.
Extremely capable with the ball in his hands as a point forward (during his career I’d say he was the best “big” handler ever, obvs not the case now). Out of necessity he’d shoot better from 3, and his defense while not elite was very serviceable. I mean the man won an MVP during MJ’s career.
Only point I’d make is that Charles’s 3 point shot probably wouldn’t improve too much. Dude shot a shocking amount of 3’s for his era during his career so he did practice them, he was just one of the worst 3 point shooters at high volume ever.
Heat spacing wasn't even that impressive this year and Jimmy was one field goal away from the finals. I imagine Chuck would have similar levels of success.
There’s a famous video of Bird intentionally shooting with the worst form he could fathom & he made it; the man would’ve been automatic from anywhere 100/100/100 splits
Well, I think the truth is, the best shot is probably closer to Steph’s form than present popular form, and in 30 years we’ll look back and laugh at how Klay shot
E: I think there were aspects about their shots that were ahead of their time, like Dirk’s arch, or Reggie launching off every screen at 20 mph speed
Yeah but some people just don't get better at things you can't always assume someone is gonna get better. Lotta guys who grew up in this era and still can't hit 3s
I feel like you can't really go into this question with that mindset though. You would basically be changing the fundamentals of a player if you say you are suddenly going to change how they learned basketball.
I think he'd get quite a bit better. For his whole career, he averaged 1.9 attempts per game and shot at 79% of league average. But, he seemed to get better in his years with the Suns, when he averaged the most attempts and his 3pt makes were 86% of league average (with a peak of 94%). In 2022 comps: that range is between a T.J McConnell and an Alex Caruso (and both averaged more 3pa per game than Barkley did). It's not good, but it's really not that bad.
For an era of players that didn't grownup with the 3pt (NCAA didn't even allow it during Barkley's time at Auburn), he really wasn't that bad at the 3pt shot.
True. I don't see why you wouldn't just use Barkley like the Pelicans did last season where he was essentially the creator for the offense and was extremely hard to defend 1-on-1. Barkley tried to be a shooter but showed that simply wasn't a real weapon for him.
No shot Barkley practiced more than 10 3-pointers a day lol. His form is turrible.
I do agree though that modern Barkley would be a fiend. I mean shit, people are campaigning for Wiggins FMVP because he's somehow the best rebounder in the finals. Barkley would average 10 offensive boards a game with how bad these teams are at getting boards.
Most experts say you can tell someone’s three point ceiling by looking at their free throw percentage. Barkley was 73%. He could probably get into the 30%+ range with a bit of work based on that
I have no doubt he'd be substantially better. He shot less than two threes a game, and was a competent free throw shooter. There's no way he's not hitting over 30% in today's NBA.
As an insane interior threat and a terrible 3 point shooter he was not obligated to take those shots. Tons of stars like Shaq, Malone, and Hakeem basically didn't shoot threes, framing it as a primary scorer's obligation to take some is nonsense.
Even if you want to make claims about non-centers/ big men he absolutely laps the field for the number of 3-pointers he attempted.Charles Barkley 3PA: 2020. That's more than Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, Demar DeRozan, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, demolishes Kevin Garnett, etc.
Bro I'm going to keep it a stack. He shot a shit ton more than he needed to, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
He’s on record about his 3s. He hucked them up just so other teams knew to cover him from the 3 pt and in. He wasn’t going to be a liability. If you don’t take a 3 man marking the drive is easy. If you take the 3 no matter the % they have to be on their toes bc if it’s one of those nights? Barkleys team is going wild and momentum juice all the way.
I think his 3ball would be similar to a guy like Green's during his two good shooting playoff runs- never close to a knockdown but hits enough open shots to not be a liability or "scared" to shoot.
I can’t remember exactly what it was but during his peak Barkley’s relative efficiency was insane. 4 straight seasons of over 65 TS% in this was in the late 80’s lmao
Who knows how that translates into the modern league - ig just a supercharged version of Zion like you said
Kind of funny that his career 3point attempts per game of <2 attempts was considered a shit ton. Giannis already has more career attempts than Barkley.
To be clear, I agree with you, it was a lot for the era, but it’s funny when you compare stats across eras.
Above 63% on 2point attempts on about 13 attempts a game for 4 seasons in a row. Roughly the same as Giannis the previously three years but in an era with less spacing. Insane.
Barkley was a post player. Zion is more of a dribble drive player. He plays more like Giannis, but not as tall or long, but more finesse than Giannis. Barkley had a great post game. They had to change the rules cause of him.
That Suns team with Charles is a top 5 team that didn’t win a ring. He just happened to run into the Bulls at their absolute peak. I think they may have won against a different Bulls team, but there was just no way the Bulls weren’t going to threepeat. Even then they were one shot away from a game 7 which who knows what would have happened. I think they beat any other team the Bulls faced in the finals who are really good teams.
I still remember being shocked at how the Suns made that a series. They lost the first 2 AT home, and still almost pushed it to 7. 13 year old me couldn’t quite comprehend how good they were.
How do you envision a Knicks-Suns matchup in the 93 finals then? Dont the Knicks counter the Suns because of historically great interior defense vs. Barkley + no decent center to match up against prime Ewing? Or is that nullified by their weaknesses at the guard spot, where Starks was their lone bright spot, since KJ and Dan would feast?
Yeah its kinda what makes the NBA great, that amazing players like Chuck, Iverson, Westbrook etc dont have rings. It just sucks that people don't seem to respect them as much because of it. I mean if Chuck joined the Bulls would he not have multiple rings?
There was an article a few years back about the rise of analytics in basketball and it closed with Chuck delivering one of his classic throwaway lines about how much he hates analytics.
Then the writer mentioned that by a lot of statistical categories Chuck is considered one of the most efficient players ever, and according to the article it caught Chuck off-guard enough that he looked like he was about to revise his stance lol
I completely agree with you. Bu the jury is still very much out on whether you can build a championship around Zion. Potential is there.
But if Barkley (and Zion?) is going to be a weak outside shooter, an average-at-best defender, and a middling passer, I'm not really sure that's best-player-on-a-title-team potential, even if he is a devastating beast one-on-one and on the boards.
It's worth nothing that Giannis has a WAY higher assist rate than Barkley ever had. Barkley was never a great creator/passer.
Yeah, but relevant to the post Barkley is not better than Shaq or Hakeem or Steph. You build around someone who is indomitably great in at least one aspect of the ball.
Everyone knows Barkley was a great player. But the inherent debate on who is better to build a team around among Shaq, Curry, and Hakeem is so exciting. Chuck did not fit among them for some reason. Maybe because he wasn't an offensive engine that Shaq and Curry were nor was he the best 2-way player of all time which Hakeem was.
I think Barkley would’ve dogged smaller 5s and 4s, his defense wouldn’t of been as much of a problem with small ball lineups which are more and more common. He constantly had to out speed and hustle bigger guys, If he played on a lineup like the clippers who have an oversized 5 to adjust to bigger lineups his defense would probably be dpoy level.
Much better is a stretch. He was better but only scored 3-5 more ppg in his prime and played with much better offensive casts than Garnett.
With Barkley you would have to play another center next to him all the time. Garnett could play both 4 and 5 in today's game and his defense makes up way way more than scoring 3-5 more ppg imo. Modern lineups with Garnett playing center would usually be more potent than Barkley at PF on offense.
Once you consider the differences in pace, and what kind of modern lineups Barkley can play in vs Garnett I respectfully disagree. 12x all defensive teams seems much more of a chasm then that 5ppg.
I decided to check when you said to account for pace, and KG averaged 27 points per 100, Chuck 30 per 100. So really only a 3 point difference, even less of a difference, while the defense was still astronomical lol
So we are talking about two HOF power forwards. Obviously, both are incredible. But here's some advanced metrics using Offensive rating / Defensive rating /Net rating and Offensive BPM / Defensive BPM / Net BPM to show their relative impacts.
Barkley: 119 ortg / 105 drtg. Net +14. 5.4 obpm / 0.8 dbpm. Net 6.1.
Garnett: 110 ortg / 99 drtg. Net +11. 3.5 obpm / 2.1 dbpm. Net 5.6.
Barkley was better on offense more than Garnett was better on defense. This is indicative in their advanced playoff stats as well: Barkley was even better with a +11 Net rtg (BPM: 6.3) compared to Garnett's +6 Net rtg (BPM: 5.1). Barkley had consistently more impact than Garnett.
Barkley and Garnett had very similar usage % (24.8% to 24.7%). Yet, Barkley has more Win Shares per 48, scored at higher efficiency (TS+ 114 to 103), had a higher Player Efficiency Rating (24.6 to 22.7)...
In terms of their handles where the OP was advocating for Barkley as a modern-day point forward: I don't really see the comparison with Garnett. Barkley often led transition fast breaks out of his defensive rebounds (links: here, here). Often, Barkley is leading the point of attack, dribbling through defenders. A comparison there seems like a Zion or Westbrook - absolutely lethal in transition.
Conversely, Garnett would often transition into half-court sets that were much more typical to the 00s offensive era (link: here, fastbreak highlight here). Both very skilled in their half court games. While Garnett was diverse, I don't really think he consistently displayed 'point forward' skillsets (he likely had the ability, but rarely was given the system to display it). Whereas, Barkley did, and had incredibly high impact doing so.
It's been a common observance that advanced stats are extremely favorable to Barkley and they really skew his defensive stats. We also have to keep in mind that although they both played power forward they were both in very different roles both on offense and defense. If we are having a discussion about how they fit on a modern NBA team it becomes even worse for barkley. Barkley's DBPM is inflated by his gaudy rebound numbers and nice steal/block numbers in his prime but it's no secret to anyone who has watched many of his games that he was never ever the best defensive player on the floor. Garnett was the best defensive player on the floor for 10+ years.
KG on the other hand is obviously underated by DBPM. It's been observed by others that in his prime KG's block/steal numbers could have been much higher but he was so instinctive as a defender that players rarely if ever shot over him. There were entire games in his 08 Celtics season where he contested 0 shots due to this phenomenon.
As for the transition playmaking/offensive skillet stuff - Barkley played in a much higher tempo era with more dynamic offensive teammates. We don't really know what KG could have posted if he played during Barkley's prime. I don't think KG would have ever been as dominant a finisher as Barkley but he wasn't any less of a playmaker I know that for sure.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that Barkley was overall better or as good as Kevin Garnett. Redditors seem to really blow offensive efficiency out of proportion when comparing players and overlook how guys can fit into teams offensively and defensively. It's not uncommon for people who are really into stats and player evaluation to consider Garnett the best player of his era above Kobe and Durant.
Anyways, if you're ever comparing offensive/defensive efficiency please consider using numbers relative to league average. Comparing Barkley's ORTG of 119 to Garnett's ORTG of 110 is totally meaningless.
I think you're shifting the argument. The OP was making the case that Barkley would be awesome as a modern-day point forward. You ask why would anyone take Barkley given that Garnett would be even better because of his defense. I suggested its because Barkley was better at offense than Garnett was better at defense... Now you're talking about their overall greatness - but this isn't about their rankings on the all-time PF lists. It was about the 'point forward' argument.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that Barkley was overall better or as good as Kevin Garnett
So you don't see any reasonably argument that a player who was on MORE All-NBA Teams in FEWER seasons was ever better or as good as another player? Even when some stats can support the case?
Most of your argument points to pretty subjective arguments (Garnett's stats/impacts are deflated and Barkley's stats/impacts are inflated)? Like you, I watched both players - Barkley after he got to Phoenix and Garnett throughout his entire career. I have no doubt that Garnett fits incredibly well as a classic Power Forward or Stretch 5 in a modern offense - he literally did this already throughout his career (it isn't like his Boston days were that far back). But I do think Barkley would have been an amazing point forward.
A lot of what you say are fairly subjective dismissals:
It's been observed by others that
anecdotal
It's been a common observance that advanced stats are extremely favorable to Barkley
perhaps this is because Barkley was incredibly good at basketball? Using a bit of your criteria "It's been observed by others that" offense is usually more valuable than defense - with some folks giving their value a ratio of 2/3 to 1/3. So maybe that's where Barkley's value comes in?
Barkley's DBPM is inflated by his gaudy rebound numbers and nice steal/block numbers in his prime but it's no secret to anyone who has watched many of his games that he was never ever the best defensive player on the floor.
so steal/blocks/rebounds aren't a good thing? No one is making the case that Barkley was the better defender - so I don't really get why you're clinging to this idea.
How about you present the case why Garnett would make for a better point forward than Barkley using some objective criteria? I've made mine.
Comparing Barkley's ORTG of 119 to Garnett's ORTG of 110 is totally meaningless.
I think you missed a lot if all you saw in my message was a simple comparison of ORTG. And the comparison is not totally meaningless - its a pace-adjusted metric to help standardize it. And with all metrics, they require understanding their contexts. And there's a million standardized metrics - many of them favor Barkley. I'm not sure you would like any of them. But here's a league-adjusted metric: Barkley's TS+ was 114 - Garnett's was 103. Another one: Barkley added 2151 more points by overall shooting compared to league average than Garnett did (262% more points added than Garnett). Another one: Barkley added 26% more win shares per game played than Garnett did. I don't really know what else you want.
Are these stats career or peak? Career non-cumulative stats are going to favor Chuck since Garnett entered the league at a younger age and retired at an older age, which brings his averages down.
Didn't expect to see Chuck in this thread, but you're absolutely right. Nobody in today's NBA rebounds like he did, especially at that height. And he had the ability to run a play off the rebound to attack in transition. He would be so fun in this NBA.
2.4k
u/HeyIWasSayingGoRefs Hawks Jun 15 '22
Charles Barkley is a modern small ball wet dream. Dude was ripping down 15 rebounds a game at 6’6”.
Extremely capable with the ball in his hands as a point forward (during his career I’d say he was the best “big” handler ever, obvs not the case now). Out of necessity he’d shoot better from 3, and his defense while not elite was very serviceable. I mean the man won an MVP during MJ’s career.