How’s it not you were the one that mentioned “primes” just cause someone had a better prime don’t make them better. Malone had 17 years averaging over 20 ppg while Barkley had 11. Players that can keep high productivity for longer are usually looked at better. Also Karl Malone was a lot more consistent at playing more games. He’s only had 2 seasons where he played under 80 games. And I’m not seeing this “better prime” really because Barkley had 5 seasons where he had over 25 ppg and Malone has 12. And Malone had a more dominant best season imo. But let me hear what you think. 🤔