Blazers writer about Barkley: "let's not praise him too much"

I just think this guy was willing to stand up and say what noone else will. Most people just buy into the media hype. This is what I've been saying all along about Barkley but everyone else refuses to see it. He's never made the Rockets better, he's always been too selfish and petty to coexist with anyone who calls him on his B.S. (see Mario Elie and Clyde Drexler) and he spends most of his time talking trash instead of just playing ball.

He's a master of always saying the right things. But, what does he have to show for it? A torn up body and a career of almosts.

Look at Karl Malone. He's in a similar boat. A great player, but a thug. He's hated by most players around the league. And he'll never win a ring because he doesn't play clean. Whenever the game is on the line and he can't manufacture a foul or get away with a flop or a cheap shot, he can't pull thru.

All that said, I still like Barkley enough to miss his antics. He's an entertainer, for sure and a good player on top of that. BUT, don't buy into all the hype. That's all...

 

Gosh, my memory must be failing me.

I thought I remembered Houston going 48-34 and being swept by the Sonics in 1996, then acquiring Barkley and winning 57 games the following year.

I thought I remembered us being a fluke Stockton three away from the NBA Finals in 1997.

I wish clutchcity.net had a history section so we could look up such information and see if the team really did improve after adding Barkley....

------------------
Nothing but NET--

http://www.clutchcity.NET

Don't Fight the Future

 

Moonbus.

Please don't insult our intelligence by quoting Barkley's assist figures as a way of disproving that he wasn't selfish. Try to understand that him being selfish has little to do with numbers but more to do with him being the center of attention of the time. That includes being the center of attention on offense and being the center of attention off the court as well.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

To tell the truth, of all the "anti" people, such as anti-Rudy, anti-Olajuwon, anti- Barkley, the anti-Barkley group are the stupidest I have seen. They don't really have any argument except for homemade baloney, nor do they care the fact that the Rockets won 3 straight with CB and lose 3 straight withour him. Rotweilers bite and don't let go, I am tired to argue with rotweilers.

 

Here's my letter;

Hi, I think your article on Charles Barkley was really silly. Charles
Barkley is a loud, and excitable man. That's true. He has also done bad
things, he sleeps around, but the real Charles, the sum of his behavior on
and off the court proves him to be a really wonderful person. Michael Jordan
is notorious for being a real jerk around Nike, and his mistresses?? UY! I
have a friend who worked at Nike and she said that whenever Michael was on
the Nike Campus he smoked cigars (even though it was a non smoking facility)
that you could smell it all over the campus. He never said hi to any of the
employees. When other NBA players came to visit him my friend said the
nicest one was always Charles Barkley who spent almost all his free time
there playing with children at the Nke store. This happened multiple times.
I talked to the Rocket's buss driver recently and he said the nicest Rocket
was Charles. When I saw him in practice, afterwards Hakeem went STRAIGHT to
the bus, and Charles stayed and gave piggy back rides to the children.

Every person I've ever heard of having personal contact with Charles
Barkley has said he is one of the nicest guys in the NBA. On TV you might be
right. Maybe you found him unpleasant, but the fact is a lot of other
players just have the world fooled into thinking their nice guys. Example;
why would Jake O'donnel give up his career as a ref just to unfairly eject
Clyde Drexler? Because Clyde Drexler is a big jerk!!!! I love him, but he is
the most notorious ref talker ever. Charles fooled people into thinking he
was a bad guy. Scottie Pippen is another example of a person with no
character. He's a back stabber.

As for your theories on his playing, I'll take the opinions of Wilt
Chamberlain, and Bill Russell who both have openly said they would have like
to have had Charles on their team. I don't see how it could be possible that
they are both wrong, and in fact you, a person who I could probably take in
a game of one on one I imagine, could be right.

That would be nonsense, and your article is therefor, nonsense.


[This message has been edited by fromobile (edited December 14, 1999).]

 

Barzilla,

So you are saying that his assists are meaningless? He just happens to find a player who just happens to score? Well, I guess I can call Stockton a selfish player since he hasn't win a title either.

How is Barkley's center of attention on offense can be consider selfish? Is Hakeem selfish? Is Jordan selfish? They are the center of attention on offense and Hakeem has a lot less assist than Barkley. I have #s (assist total) to backup my statement. How is Vance's and your blanket statement that he is selfish more meaningful than my.

Do you truely believe his off-court acts affects how his teammates play? If it does, then it is the teammates fault. They are paid to play their game, not to watch others and react to others.

MJ was the attention both on and off the court, how many people call him selfish. Is it because he has rings, thus he is not selfish? If that is the case, everyone that does not have a ring is selfish.

You can complain about Charles poor defense (which I totally agree), but don't call him a selfish player because that's how you feel.

Insulting intelligence? My comments can not make you or others smarter or dumber than you/they really are.

 

Thought ya'll might want to see this exchange. I don't agree with the man on this issue but I respect the fact he took the time to answer my e-mail. Jim Rome certainly didn't. I guess he also doesn't think Clyde, Malone or Stockton are "great" either.

From me:
I am not hear to personally insult you but to say I think your article was unbalanced.

First, Charles performed much better in the NBA finals than Clyde, Porter, Kersey, Williams, Malone, Stockton, Payton, Kemp and Ewing ever did when they had their chances (at least until Clyde had Hakeem behind him). In fact Charles played MJ pretty much close to even in that series, while Majerle, KJ (everyone but Ainge, who also saved the Blazers bacon a few times too) went a-wall in a tight series. So if you say not winning a ring against Jordon or Hakeem in the 90's makes him selfish, than he is in awfully good company there. The fact is a lot of great players never wing rings because of timing, Charles at least has accepted his fate like man and recognizes how blessed of life he has because he can play a game pretty well.

Second, all you need to know about Charles is the reaction in Phoenix. To this day he is that city's #1 hero. This despite the falling out he had with the Suns toward the end of his years there. And Phoenix is not exactly a liberal town who immediately welcomed his persona with open arms, it shows how many people he impacted in a personal way.

Finally, I would much rather see a guy who truly is a fans-star, who calls social problems like he see's it regardless if it is PC or PG-13, who gives a lot to charity in money and effort, who battles to the end on the court, who appreciates all he is given, and who commits and better yet admits his mistakes and failings, than an overpaid, uncompetitive, cold, and withdrawn PC athlete who only looks after his wallet and commercial-making image (most of them). But this is my opinion, and I try not to let that taint my basketball observations even if I don't have a good impression of a particular players personal side from the little I can ascertain. It seems to me your personal issues with him crossed the line in your interpretations of him as a player, and that I believe is wrong.
Sincerely,

(from Ken)
I don't think I said he wasn't a very good player. I don't know how many guys
I deterine to be "great'' players, but probably not enough to include Charles
in that group but that's not an insult because it's a very exclusive club.
The bottom line to my column is that I think a lot of people have the wrong
impression of Charles. I don't think he's evil. I don't even think he's
Latrell Sprewell, who I really don't like. I just don't think he's as good a
player or a person as everyone else, who find him so refreshing they are
willing to overlook a few things that I'm not. Yours was a very good e-mail.
I would never try to change your mind. I only share with you what's on mine.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

Ken

 

And about this "Team Player" business, I just don't think it holds water. When he came hear he was tearing up the boards to help us win. He took a nominal salary to get a player here that he thought would help us win. Further, if you use the no-championship not-a-team-player argument, I guess Malone, Stockton and Moses (before he was traded to Phily) just weren't team players. I think that is bull, except for the trully amazing players (MJ, Hakeem), for everyone it is all about timing and having the right supporting cast. In fact for those guys it is a little bit that way too, Jordon won nothing w/o Pippen + a fine PF (Grant/Rodman) and Hakeem only made to the finals 2 years of about the 10 years he was the best player in his conference.

 

So, basically, you're saying that we had worse luck than Dr. Richard Kimball the year before Barkley arrived, and that the only reason we improved the following year was because suddenly, all of our problems disappeared, with no involvement from Barkley at all.

That's not how I remember it. We've had injury problems every year since 1995. The difference in 1997-- the most successful season of those since 1995-- was that we had three stars who were still close enough to their primes to make Houston a winner.

Scarface, you can deny it if you'd like, but the fact is that the Rockets improved (temporarily) after acquiring Barkley. It was only after he and Hakeem's game dropped off precipitously that the Rockets lost their stature as an elite team.

 

Final,

I'm not even going to address the "stupidest people I have ever seen" comment and the lack of reasons to back it up. Unfortunately, you're the only idiot here.

Brian,

I find the history section really enlightening. You might want to take a closer look at before you start blasting posters for their obvious lack of knowledge.

1993-1996: Before Barkley

Regular Season: 153-93 Pct: .622
Playoffs: 33-20 Pct: .623

1996-1999: With Barkley

Regular Season: 129-85 Pct: .603
Playoffs: 12-13 Pct: .480

Now, I would be stupid to say that all of the decline was Barkley's fault. We probably would be no better had we not made the trade. Unfortunately, there is really no evidence that we would have been worse off had we not made the trade. Great players are supposed to make players around them better. Barkley has not done that. I'm not going to sit here and say the Rockets will take off without him, but he isn't as huge a loss as people have been making him out to be.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

Barzilla,
So what are you saying? That we would have been a better team with Dream, Drexler, Cassell, Elie, and Chucky Brown?!

Do you foolishly belive that 1996 was an off year or something?

As great as we were in 94 and 95, Seattle had our number big time and we were VERY fortunate that we didn't have to face them. 1996 was no off year. 1996 was reality catching up to us. The Bulls we could have handled, but not Seattle. They owned us and they are the team that proved that Dream could indeed be guarded effectively.

Maybe I missed something but it appears that you are trying to say that we could have been a better team had we not made the Barkley trade.

No way can I agree with that.

That win/loss stat that you threw out means nothing. It only measures wins and losses. It doesn't take into account that the rest of the Western Conference grew into a powerhouse league.

It's not Barkley's fault that he, Clyde, Dream, Elie, and just about everyone else at some time, had injuries.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.....

------------------
SpaceCity of
RocketFuel

 

Hm...let's see, Barzilla, you dismissed my comment regarding "stupidity" and said there is a lack of reasons to back it up. Then you called me the same thing I called the anti-Barkley people without further illustration, so where is the "reasons to back up" your accusation? That's quite contradictory behavior in my point of view. Not to mention there is reason in my post to back it up.

 

Ok guys, let's put two isolated facts together and see what we find.

Number one

The Phoenix columnists blasts Barkley for lack of practice preparation and conditioning. After the Chuckster leads the Suns to the NBA Finals they plummet back to what they were before he arrived. In fact, in his entire tenure there they finish with one more regular season victory then what they had in the four year prior to him coming.

Number Two

After Charles leads the Rockets into one additional round the Rockets suffer two first round defeats and have a lower winning percentage in the three years he was with us than the three years before.

I think I spot a trend here. Barkley is extremely effective in his first year with the club, but fades after that. Why would I say this is the case. Well, let's take a look at what people have said about Barkley and how it pertains to the Rockets.

Cause: Barkley has been lambasted by a lot of different NBA experts about his lack of practicing and conditioning.

Effect: Charles continually breaks down as he gets older. Barkley supporters fail to see the connection.

Cause: The Rockets go to a team built around defense to a team built around Charles and Dream in the low post.

Effect: The Rockets experience regular season success, but their post season winning percentage falls under .500 when defense becomes paramount. (It was exactly the same as the regular season average the three years prior)

Cause: The Rockets were a more versatile team in the title years. They had good three point shooters, but also had guys who could slash like Sam Cassell, Clyde Drexler, and Mario Elie. Then, with the double post the driving lanes are taken away, so the Rockets become a two dimensional team (post-three pointers)

Effect: The Rockets attack becomes predictable allowing defenses to rotate faster and cut into the passing lanes. The lack of movement in the offense also makes it easier on defenders giving them more energy on offense.

Now folks, these are the exact same reasons those of us have quoted before when bringing up negatives for Barkley. Somehow, these are ignored and we become "idiots". Someone who continually denies that these points have been made is an idiot.

Of course, then people mischaracterize my argument and say I believe we would have been better without Barkley. This is not the case. My argument is we would have been just as good with or without Barkley. Can anyone deny that this team would have been first round fodder the last two years with Cassell, Horry, Bryant, and Brown? Are you saying we would have been a lottery team without Charles? Making this argument also assumes this is a zero sum game. It isn't a fact of Charles or those four games. Just seeing the number of times that Cassell, Horry, and Bryant have been traded proves there is a market for them. So we don't necessarily know what we could have gotten for them in a trade for something else.

I will go on record as supporting the general premise that Vance and his Phoenix counterpart put forth. Charles Barkley is overrated. I'm not saying that he's not a good player or that I agree with the way those gentlemen chose to voice their opinion.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

Gosh.... No better yet dangit


Dangit my memory must be failing me now but I could have sworn everone on the Rockets was injured in the 95-96 season except for Sam Mack, Chucky Brown, and Mark Bryant. Everyone else on the Rockets was injured for an extended period of time. Mario's wrist fell victim to Jalen Rose, thus requiring surgery. Sam Cassell's elbow also required surgery, Clyde got injured ironicaly by Charles Barkley when they ran into each other center court in the Phoenix game, once again surgery, Dream was out with something that I can't remember (irregular heartbeat again?) basicaly we got all our players back just before the playoffs started. We had no chemistry going since almost our whole team was still adjusting to playing right after surgery, which is VERY difficult to do. Mario's, Sam's, and Clydes shots were all off, Dream still to this day hasn't figured out how to play against Seattle add that to him not playing for a while and then our only scorers where pretty much non factors.


Stocktons three was not a fluke he has done it too many times to the Rockets to be a fluke he also did it against Sacramento last year too so it was not a fluke, also that was a game 6, so I really doubt that we were a John Stockton 3ptr away from the Nba Finals. The fact is we did nothing more with Barkley then we did before we aquired him. I never wanted Broccli on this team, but with that being said I don't think this thread should be talking about that.

P.S. This guy from the Portland paper is a joke. In my life I have come across a few of these guys and I have kept a mental note to myself who these clowns are. The list is as follows: Houstons very own Dale, Larry Woody of the Nashville Tennessean, and my personal favorite is Dave Newhouse of the Fremont Argus a generic run of the mill Newspaper here in the bayarea. These guys are just here to eiether make some cash on what they say, or have a personal grudge that stems from a run-in with one of these athletes. These journalists/reporters are not even worth 5 seconds of my life, I consider their comments much to the same effect as ones own defecation. Except defecation is at least usefull in some terms and can be constructive to society so these guys don't deserve a label since most things you compare them to have a positive effect in some way in society.

------------------
"We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day

[This message has been edited by Scarface (edited December 14, 1999).]

 

Barzilla, maybe if you wouldn't ignore the posts I'm making, you'd have a clearer picture of my opinion here.

You can compare Houston's record from 1993-1996 with the record we've compiled cumulatively since, but as I said in my last post, Barkley improved the Rockets in the short term.

The fact is that Houston was going nowhere fast with the cast of players who compiled a 48-34 record and were swept by Seattle in 1996. They were injury-prone and predictable, and I seriously doubt that they could have won 57 games the following year without taking a gamble.

Which they did.

We acquired Barkley, and despite being injury-prone and still predictable the following year, won 57 games and came within a hair's breadth of making the NBA Finals.

As age began to take its toll, the team's overall talent level regressed. We remained injury-prone, but even when Hakeem, Clyde, and Barkley were healthy in 1998, they were no longer as effective as they had been.

If this is entirely Barkley's fault, well, I'm going to start praying to him instead of God.

I think it's highly incongruous for you to say that Barkley should receive no credit for the team's improvement in 1997, (in the short-term, as I am claiming) but should receive the lion's share of the blame for Houston's decline in the following two seasons.

------------------
Nothing but NET--

http://www.clutchcity.NET

Don't Fight the Future

 

Ok Brian,

I am willing to concede that Barkley helped in the short term, but that also belittles the contributions of other additions like Kevin Willis. Being that as it may, I will concede the shorterm argument. However, do we realize what we are saying? Aren't we saying that we acquired Barkley to win the championship in the first year knowing fully that his contributions would slide after that? Aren't we then saying that the Barkley trade was a failure?

Incidentally, I think the Scottie Pippen trade was a huge mistake for much the same reason (beyond all the other stuff). I think the mistakes that teams like us make is that they don't know when to start retooling. Boston has been retooling since the early 90s because they held on too long. I think the Barkley and Pippen deals are examples of that as well.

It was the only the great fortune of having Steve Francis fall in our lap that will keep us from the same fate.

But if we are going to say that the Barkley deal was a success because it made us better for that one season then I'm going to have to disagree. Short of winning a championship, deals like that are usually never good.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

Barzilla -

According to your theory, the Rockets should have never made the Drexler trade. I guess that trade was okay, since we won the championship?

The Rockets happen to have a pretty good track record as far as blockbuster trades in the 90s. Better than any other team in the NBA, as a matter of fact.

 

What I initially took exception to, Barzilla, was Axeman's statement that Barkley "never made the Rockets better".

The evidence indicates two things:

1, Houston improved immediately upon acquiring Chuckles;

and 2, Charles' decline as a player was one of literally a half-dozen reasons Houston has slipped in Lottery Land.

I'm not necessarily debating the merits of the trade. I am disagreeing with the notion that Barkley was of no help to Houston. He made the team better in the short term, and then through aging and the disastrous acquisition of Pippen, we slid to the point we are now.

Which is a game and a half back of the damned Dallas Mavericks.

 

No1 said that Barkley did not help us, hell when Dream got injured the following year Broccli carried us for a while, the point I'm making is you are underestimating that Rockets team of 95-96 season greatly if you could look at the starting lineup of our team that year each game you would laugh your @ss off at who the starting lineup was for half of the season. That team some of the worst luck I have ever seen as a pro team, at one point all 5 starters and Cassell were injured for 2 weeks or more, thus giving us our first glimpse of Sam Mack who scored something like 47 on Golden State. As a talent standpoint the Barkley trade was a huge success but chemistry is the key and we lost that.

------------------
"We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day

 

Scarface,

I remember that year all to well. I remember going to a game where Robert Horry and Tim Breaux were the offensive focal point. It was definetely embarassing and probably a good reason why some people would just as soon forget that.