2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #17

[Y2K]

Agreed, and as I said earlier, the all-time great you're going up against has more impact too.

Durant has lost to Dirk/Kidd....Lebron/Wade....Duncan/Parker (9 titles combined).

Curry beat Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and James Harden (0 titles combined) before beating Lebron's depleted as fuck Cavs.


CONTEXT GOD DAMN IT!!!

Dirk beat KD to to get to the finals and win that title. If Dirk lost that series to the Thunder in 2011, then Dirk is ringless and his legacy is Barkley if not worse.

All you proving to me, is that Durant wasn't good enough to beat these players.

To be the best you have to beat the best. You play who's in front of you and beat them.

Durant still has time and i think he'll break through eventually. But he hasn't gotten it done up to this point.

No, you don't. Not all paths are equal.

See Olajuwon, Hakeem or Curry, Stephen

Bird in 1981 also.

[AbeVigodaLive]

To be fair Rob... Kidd was a shell of himself. Personally, I think that Suns team was better... but Dallas got hot at the right time.

And Jason Terry answered the bell... where Kevin Johnson wilted under the spotlight in Games 1 and 2 of the 1993 Finals.

[Robceltsfan]

A title is a title. Plain and simple. A champion is a champion. I dont hold it against magic for playing trash in the west all those years or Hakeem winning when Jordan retired, or the 04 pistons beating a lakers team full of strife and locker room issues or russell playing in 8 teams league's winning titles. None of that matters. You play who's in front of you. You control what you can control.

And Barkley had a whole damn career to win, not just his early years in Philly. Prime years in phoenix and laters years in Houston.

Great, thanks for that. At least you can admit that you have no rationale for your overzealous use of a ring as the end-all/be-all of player evaluation. Context doesn't matter to you, just the accomplishment. You've admitted that context doesn't matter at all to you, which ends our conversation. Stats matter a little.....rings matter a whole lot......and context can play hide-and-go-fuck-itself.

No, context matters but if it mattered as much as you think it does, we could put every title in nba history in major "context" and put an asterisk next to every single one. The same asterisk put next to the warriors title is something i could easily do for any title winner in any sport ever.

I'm not trying to asterisk anything, but saying Curry won "X" title making player "Y" rank behind him despite vastly superior stats and accolades is silly IMO.

I place great value in teams/players that have sustained success year-in/year-out. If Curry can maintain this level of excellence of being a contender for another 3 or 4 years then yes, he's cemented his place. If he wins a second title, now we're talking about true greatness. Players who win one title, while an amazing accomplishment, don't make much of a difference for me in my all-time rankings. One hot run is all it takes sometimes. One "fortunate" draw in the playoffs. One key injury to the other team. ONCE can happen almost any time. But that's just me...

[elmouse03]

Sometimes, people tend to avoid discussions with me.

Probably a smart move.

you tend to talk to yourself too often.

you mean bush?

[elmouse03]

Phoenix in 93 really didn't have anybody to guard MJ which is why he was able to average 41ppg.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Phoenix in 93 really didn't have anybody to guard MJ which is why he was able to average 41ppg.

That series was lost after Kevin Johnson shat the bed in Games 1 and 2 in Phoenix.

11 points. 2 asts. 5 TOs in Game 1.
4 points. 6 asts. 4 TOs in Game 2.

Barkley went for 42 / 13 / 4 / 62% fg in Game 2. Choke!

[elmouse03]

Phoenix in 93 really didn't have anybody to guard MJ which is why he was able to average 41ppg.

That series was lost after Kevin Johnson shat the bed in Games 1 and 2 in Phoenix.

11 points. 2 asts. 5 TOs in Game 1.
4 points. 6 asts. 4 TOs in Game 2.

Barkley went for 42 / 13 / 4 / 62% fg in Game 2. Choke!

Barkley only averaged 27 13 5.5apg and 1.2spg in that series.

[Y2K]

Phoenix in 93 really didn't have anybody to guard MJ which is why he was able to average 41ppg.

That series was lost after Kevin Johnson shat the bed in Games 1 and 2 in Phoenix.

11 points. 2 asts. 5 TOs in Game 1.
4 points. 6 asts. 4 TOs in Game 2.

Barkley went for 42 / 13 / 4 / 62% fg in Game 2. Choke!

Richard Dumas tho....

[elmouse03]

We all know about Ewing's lack of scoring in the 94 finals. Hakeem 26.9 to Ewings 18.9 but Ewing averaged 3 more rebounds then Hakeem and more bpg in the 94 finals.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Phoenix in 93 really didn't have anybody to guard MJ which is why he was able to average 41ppg.

That series was lost after Kevin Johnson shat the bed in Games 1 and 2 in Phoenix.

11 points. 2 asts. 5 TOs in Game 1.
4 points. 6 asts. 4 TOs in Game 2.

Barkley went for 42 / 13 / 4 / 62% fg in Game 2. Choke!

Richard Dumas tho....

Promising player. Too bad he was a druggie.

[elmouse03]

That series was lost after Kevin Johnson shat the bed in Games 1 and 2 in Phoenix.

11 points. 2 asts. 5 TOs in Game 1.
4 points. 6 asts. 4 TOs in Game 2.

Barkley went for 42 / 13 / 4 / 62% fg in Game 2. Choke!

Richard Dumas tho....

Promising player. Too bad he was a druggie.

Oliver Miller

[AbeVigodaLive]

Richard Dumas tho....

Promising player. Too bad he was a druggie.

Oliver Miller

Promising player. Too bad he ate Richard Dumas.

[elmouse03]

Promising player. Too bad he was a druggie.

Oliver Miller

Promising player. Too bad he ate Richard Dumas.

[Y2K]

Oliver Miller

Promising player. Too bad he ate Richard Dumas.

[elmouse03]

I always heard Stockton hated when Karl Malone relied on those jumpers and fadeaways in games and situations when he should have been more aggressive.

[876Stephen]

Great, thanks for that. At least you can admit that you have no rationale for your overzealous use of a ring as the end-all/be-all of player evaluation. Context doesn't matter to you, just the accomplishment. You've admitted that context doesn't matter at all to you, which ends our conversation. Stats matter a little.....rings matter a whole lot......and context can play hide-and-go-fuck-itself.

No, context matters but if it mattered as much as you think it does, we could put every title in nba history in major "context" and put an asterisk next to every single one. The same asterisk put next to the warriors title is something i could easily do for any title winner in any sport ever.

I'm not trying to asterisk anything, but saying Curry won "X" title making player "Y" rank behind him despite vastly superior stats and accolades is silly IMO.

I place great value in teams/players that have sustained success year-in/year-out. If Curry can maintain this level of excellence of being a contender for another 3 or 4 years then yes, he's cemented his place. If he wins a second title, now we're talking about true greatness. Players who win one title, while an amazing accomplishment, don't make much of a difference for me in my all-time rankings. One hot run is all it takes sometimes. One "fortunate" draw in the playoffs. One key injury to the other team. ONCE can happen almost any time. But that's just me...

"One time" couldn't happen to just anyone. I forget the saying, but it was something about the lucky one's are always the best. WE don't win a title at any level in any sport with just "luck". Sure it can play a role. Warriors were "lucky" that Irving went down in game 1(a game that the warriors won anyway). The Warriors weren't just lucky. They won 67 games in a brutal conference and faced 3 50 win teams and every member of the all-nba first team on the way. They earned it.

And your in the minority for thinking that one title doesn't change perception and legacy. Not just on this board but in general. See Dirk and Kg as the most obvious examples.

Last thing i'll say about this before i go to work. I agree context is important in some cases. Like blaming KG for not making the playoffs in minny or Lebron for not winning in cleveland. Those teams were trash so context should be used there.

But in Barkley's case it's seems the context is that he was always great, never underwhelmed in the postseason, always stepped in big moments and the only reason he never won was because he never had enough help. That appears to be what's going on.

[Y2K]

I always heard Stockton hated when Karl Malone relied on those jumpers and fadeaways in games and situations when he should have been more aggressive.

Mailman got a lot of heat for it but it was just part of his limitations as an offensive weapon. He was a finisher, not a playmaker.

[Robceltsfan]

No, context matters but if it mattered as much as you think it does, we could put every title in nba history in major "context" and put an asterisk next to every single one. The same asterisk put next to the warriors title is something i could easily do for any title winner in any sport ever.

I'm not trying to asterisk anything, but saying Curry won "X" title making player "Y" rank behind him despite vastly superior stats and accolades is silly IMO.

I place great value in teams/players that have sustained success year-in/year-out. If Curry can maintain this level of excellence of being a contender for another 3 or 4 years then yes, he's cemented his place. If he wins a second title, now we're talking about true greatness. Players who win one title, while an amazing accomplishment, don't make much of a difference for me in my all-time rankings. One hot run is all it takes sometimes. One "fortunate" draw in the playoffs. One key injury to the other team. ONCE can happen almost any time. But that's just me...

"One time" couldn't happen to just anyone. I forget the saying, but it was something about the lucky one's are always the best. WE don't win a title at any level in any sport with just "luck". Sure it can play a role. Warriors were "lucky" that Irving went down in game 1(a game that the warriors won anyway). The Warriors weren't just lucky. They won 67 games in a brutal conference and faced 3 50 win teams and every member of the all-nba first team on the way. They earned it.

And your in the minority for thinking that one title doesn't change perception and legacy. Not just on this board but in general. See Dirk and Kg as the most obvious examples.

Last thing i'll say about this before i go to work. I agree context is important in some cases. Like blaming KG for not making the playoffs in minny or Lebron for not winning in cleveland. Those teams were trash so context should be used there.

But in Barkley's case it's seems the context is that he was always great, never underwhelmed in the postseason, always stepped in big moments and the only reason he never won was because he never had enough help. That appears to be what's going on.

Please note where I used the term "luck" anywhere in any post I've made in this thread. I talked about hot runs and timely injuries. Yes, Kyrie went down this past year (their second best player) and that played a potential role in the outcome of the series. If the Bulls second best player went down in 92-93 (Pippen), do you think that would have affected the outcome of that series? If the Warriors had to go through the Clippers or Spurs this postseason, would Jordan/Griffin or Duncan have eaten them alive???

And my perception of KG didn't change much with the title. He was great before, and he was great after.

With Barkley, yes, in almost every conceivable way I think that's the case. His stats in the playoffs are as good or better than in the regular season. We've gone over the Philly experience with him and why nothing was won there (no, not even as a rookie). His team in Phoenix was "good", but by no means great. Thunder Dan Majerle as your #3 scoring threat isn't exactly the creme de la creme. And as noted, KJ laid an egg in Finals, coupled with nobody being able to handle Jordan (no, that's not Barkley's assignment). Then the aged men in Houston.....with a core of 33+ year olds.

Anyways. Some players transcend the need for a fortuitous run. Players with multiple titles (lead dogs) can't be argued much with that in basketball. The Warriors, during Curry's tenure, have won 5 playoff series in 5 years. Four of them came in one season and it yielded a title. That's great, and it's the beginning of laying the groundwork for a legacy, but it's not written yet. If they can't even make the WCF's in the next 2-3 years then the title season will look more like a "fortuitous run", and less like an all-time great putting a notch in his legacy belt. Only time will tell.

[Y2K]

So Barkley not carrying Doc and Moses to a title his rookie year as well as winning with Moses injured the next two years = Barkley's fault

Barkley not winning with KJ as his #2 and (haha) Dan Majerle as his #3 = Barkley's fault (Jordan & Pip had nothing to do with this)

Barkley not winning with Hakeem and Drexler when they were all 33+ years old = Barkley's fault


Great, thanks for all the context.

It's no just Barkley's but when your the best player or one of the best player's on your team and you continually fall short your entire career, that's telling. Especially when all those other guys have won titles before. Erving, Malone, Hakeem, Drexler etc. Why is Barkley the only one to not win.

It's never Barkley's fault for not winning i guess. There's lot's of players that have actually won, that can use the not enough help excuse. Dirk's team in 2011 wasn't anything to right home about it. What about Kg in 08? He played with garbage in minny, and even he's broken through with players who were past their prime in pierce and allen.

Im not giving Barkley the excuse of terrible teammates. Very few star players in nba history get that excuse because their impact is gretaer individually than any other player on their roster or in sports.

In year 1 together Hakeem, Barkley and Drexler were 33, 33 & 34. Pierce, Garnett and Allen were 30, 31 & 32. Pretty large difference. Can you name ANY team in history where their 3 best players were 33+ and they won a title?

Dirk had DPOY Chandler and an all-time great PG in Kidd. An arguably better cast than anything Barkley had in Phoenix.

Also, featured on that 1996-97 Rockets team was:

33 year old Mario Elie
34 year old Kevin Willis
35 year old Sedale Threatt
38 year old Eddie Johnsom

[Y2K]

Barkley's 76ers
-----------------

1989: Lost 3-0 as a 7 seed
1990: Lost to Jordan's Bulls
1991: Lost to Jordan's Bulls
1992: missed playoffs as team was blown up

Barkley's Suns
--------------------

1993: Lost to Jordan's Bulls
1994: Lost to Dream's Rockets
1995: Lost to Dream's Rockets
1996: Lost as a 7 seed
1997: Lost to the Jazz
1998: Lost as an 8 seed
1999: Lost to Shaq's Lakers

That's not exactly a clear cut path to a championship.