Charles Barkley will NOT be in NBA 2K19

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gosens6

Fair enough. I can definitely respect your opinion and I know many others who feel that way. Growing up watching him play, he had that killer instinct that a lot of so called “superstar” players lacked. He was willing to put his team on his back and i saw him carry the pacers to victory on more than one occasion. To me, he deserves all the praise and his HOF nod. Still though, I completely understand your point. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Oh he's definitely an all time great competitor and has had numerous moments where his clutch performances have been nothing short of amazing. I just think far too often people classify basically his entire career of being those moments. If that was the case I wouldn't be here making this argument lol.

I think it's somewhat comparable to what happened with Hakeem. He was a great player his whole career, but once he had that moment against David Robinson in the playoffs we completely reclassified basically where he ranked as a player and also where Robinson ranked as a player.

[BA2929]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Don't get me wrong I would love to have a 90's Pacers team, or even early 2000's team, and would also love to see Reggie on the All-Time Pacers squad as well.. I just don't agree at all with the notion that he's some all-time great legend of a player. He's your typical fringe all-star level player who also had a good, long, healthy career.

I don't have a horse in this race because I'm not a fan of any one particular player or team, but I did grow up in the 80s and 90s so I watched a lot of NBA in that era:


Reggie Miller was, hands down, one of the best offensive players in NBA history. Go look at his stats. He's in the top two of every 3 point stat (held the records until Ray Allen showed up) and top 10 of nearly every other offensive stat. His offensive rating is 2nd only to Chris Paul in NBA history. The rest he's in the top 35 and he's in the top 50 of steals. Those are of all time.



That's why people think he's an all time great.





He wasn't an all-star because he was in the Eastern Conference and his teams were trash.



You might check out who was on those All Star teams. They were literally filled to the brim with future Hall of Fame players or guys who were having career years. Plus, he had to deal with going against Jordan, Pippen and Grant Hill for the fan vote for the majority of his prime. You just aren't going to get voted in against either of them then it's up to big numbers to get one of the final 3-5 guard spots (which were usually given to guys like Joe Dumars).

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

The year they finally made the finals Jalen Rose was a better all around player for them than Reggie was.

You might check out the stats. Reggie was 34, out of his prime completely, and had nearly identical stats to Jalen Rose throughout the season, who was in his prime and 27. And Reggie outscored him in the playoffs.



But anyway, back on topic:


Barkley is free to do what he wants, but he's essentially holding 2k hostage for $1 million. 2k pays each old school player in the game the same amount and if they succumb to Barkley's demands, then more players will follow suit and it'll spiral out of control.



I'd rather have a game without him in it at this point and be assured we keep everyone else.

[jfsolo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Oh he's definitely an all time great competitor and has had numerous moments where his clutch performances have been nothing short of amazing. I just think far too often people classify basically his entire career of being those moments. If that was the case I wouldn't be here making this argument lol. I think it's somewhat comparable to what happened with Hakeem. He was a great player his whole career, but once he had that moment against David Robinson in the playoffs we completely reclassified basically where he ranked as a player and also where Robinson ranked as a player.

I really like this point. It's another one of those areas that you can't have a good discussion about with a lot of people, because the euphoria in their memories of the high profile situations block the chance for any reevaluation of their hierarchy.

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

I don't have a horse in this race because I'm not a fan of any one particular player or team, but I did grow up in the 80s and 90s so I watched a lot of NBA in that era: Reggie Miller was, hands down, one of the best offensive players in NBA history. Go look at his stats. He's in the top two of every 3 point stat (held the records until Ray Allen showed up) and top 10 of nearly every other offensive stat. His offensive rating is 2nd only to Chris Paul in NBA history. The rest he's in the top 35 and he's in the top 50 of steals. Those are of all time. That's why people think he's an all time great. He wasn't an all-star because he was in the Eastern Conference and his teams were trash. You might check out who was on those teams. They were literally filled to the brim with future Hall of Fame players or guys who were having career years. Plus, he had to deal with going against Jordan, Pippen and Grant Hill for the fan vote for the majority of his prime. You just aren't going to get voted in against either of them then it's up to big numbers to get one of the final 3-5 guard spots (which were usually given to guys like Joe Dumars). You might check out the stats. Reggie was 34, out of his prime completely, and had nearly identical stats to Jalen Rose throughout the season, who was in his prime and 27. And Reggie outscored him in the playoffs. But anyway, back on topic: Barkley is free to do what he wants, but he's essentially holding 2k hostage for $1 million. 2k pays each old school player in the game the same amount and if they succumb to Barkley's demands, then more players will follow suit and it'll spiral out of control. I'd rather have a game without him in it at this point and be assured we keep everyone else.

Now, I have to go look him up, lol. I knew there were arguments about who was the better scorer between him and Jordan. For the record, it's Jordan easily due to his one-on-one skills as much as I hate to admit it. Miller went through screens after screens after screens after screens after screens. I think defenders just gave up after a while, because they got tired of getting shoulder checked by them Davis Boys, lol.

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76

Now, I have to go look him up, lol. I knew there were arguments about who was the better scorer between him and Jordan. For the record, it's Jordan easily due to his one-on-one skills as much as I hate to admit it. Miller went through screens after screens after screens after screens after screens. I think defenders just gave up after a while, because they got tired of getting shoulder checked by them Davis Boys, lol.

I must ask, with respectfully curiosity, who in the world was ever arguing about whether Michael Jordan was a better offensive player than Reggie Miller?

I'm fine with cherry picking certain aspects of offense and giving the edge to Miller (for instance, Miller was a superior 3-point sharpshooter in a time when 3-point shooting was more compartmentalized and specialized) but was there honestly ever really a debate about overall offensive ability between those two?

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

I don't have a horse in this race because I'm not a fan of any one particular player or team, but I did grow up in the 80s and 90s so I watched a lot of NBA in that era: Reggie Miller was, hands down, one of the best offensive players in NBA history. Go look at his stats. He's in the top two of every 3 point stat (held the records until Ray Allen showed up) and top 10 of nearly every other offensive stat. His offensive rating is 2nd only to Chris Paul in NBA history. The rest he's in the top 35 and he's in the top 50 of steals. Those are of all time. That's why people think he's an all time great. You might check out the stats. Reggie was 34, out of his prime completely, and had nearly identical stats to Jalen Rose throughout the season, who was in his prime and 27. And Reggie outscored him in the playoffs.

I watched him as well. He's ranked highly in most of those because he played for so long, he stayed healthy, and as an off-ball player his game aged tremendously well. I'm more so speaking on how good he was on the court, not necessarily how his career totals look after playing for 20 seasons when most player don't make it that long.

He wasn't a tremendously great offensive player, he was a tremendously great shooter and mover without the ball. Offense entails more than that, he was never a great ball handler, great finisher at the rim, great play-maker, etc.. He was solid all around, but you expect better than "solid" when his name is brought up with guys like Jordan, Magic, Barkley, Malone, etc.

He was out of his prime that year, which is part of the reason why Jalen was better. Nobody said he was still in his prime?

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

I must ask, with respectfully curiosity, who in the world was ever arguing about whether Michael Jordan was a better offensive player than Reggie Miller? I'm find with cherry picking certain aspects of offense and giving the edge to Miller (for instance, Miller was a superior 3-point sharpshooter in a time when 3-point shooting was more compartmentalized and specialized) but was there honestly ever really a debate about overall offensive ability between those two?

It was one of many "stat-heads" articles that I read....IIRC, I think the biggest "pro" for Miller was his PPG relative to his usage and touches.

To me, you can make any player "great" with the correct stats.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

You might check out who was on those All Star teams. They were literally filled to the brim with future Hall of Fame players or guys who were having career years. Plus, he had to deal with going against Jordan, Pippen and Grant Hill for the fan vote for the majority of his prime. You just aren't going to get voted in against either of them then it's up to big numbers to get one of the final 3-5 guard spots (which were usually given to guys like Joe Dumars). .

I also think this is a bit overstated. I think earlier in his career it was a bit of a tougher feat, but I don't consider the mid-late 90's or the early 2000's to be filled with HOFs. I actually think that was a pretty low point for the league as a whole, at least probably the lowest in my lifetime. More so the early 2000's.

But anyways, some guards who made All Star games over Reggie. BJ Armstrong, Mookie Blaylock, Kenny Anderson, John Starks, Mark Price, Terrell Brandon, Tim Hardaway, Jerry Stackhouse, Allan Houston, Michael Adams, Ricky Pierce, Alvin Robertson, Hersey Hawkins..

So it's not like only future HOFs were knocking him out. Those are all really good players for the most part, a couple likely better than Reggie even, but to my initial point which of those players are held to his regard when people look back on that era of hoops? That's basically the class of players he's more closely lumped with, yet his name is mentioned with the Jordan, Hakeem, Barkely, group rather than that group.

Regardless I don't think making an All-Star game means much. That doesn't make you a good/bad player in my book. I was just stating that he was a fringe All-Star guy, not a superstar status type who was a lock every year.