# Memory check..



## alphadog

Anybody here remember Toby Knight. I'll elborate after I see how many guys know their Knick history...)


----------



## truth

yeah,notre dame guy who started to look good for the knicks and then blew his knee out...a lefty if i am not mistaken


----------



## Rashidi

This is a Knick board. Why are we talking about non-Knick players?


----------



## alphadog

What is your problem Rashidi? His pro career was as a Knick. Besides, I never said anything about not mentioning non-Knick players...it was others. You are correct Truth. He was looking better than good, though. He was starting to put up some very good numbers. Another Knee casualty...just like Bernard. He was 6'9 sf....lefty...and had a nice midrange game. We have surely had our share of injuries.


----------



## truth

Just like Bernard as far as getting injured..Not to bring up this debate again,but in mu mind Bernard was the best Knick though his career was cut short...

A healthy Bernard and Pat would have been awesome...



> What is your problem Rashidi


LOL....You need to ask????




> This is a Knick board. Why are we talking about non-Knick players?


Numnut,its not like like he posted Toby Knights statline and sarcastically compared him to TT..Only a truly deranged,bitter individual would do that


----------



## alphadog

Yeah...Bernard....all I can say is wow. I agree 100% on this one. He was absolutely the best player in my mind as well. Had he not gotten hurt he would definately been top 50. That roll he got on in Texas was amazing. He scored so much withouot using a 3 pointer as a weapon, nor did he overpower people like Shaq. I really liked the NBA back then and a little before then. Swooping dunks, big afro's, Pistol, Lew Alcindor, Clyde vs. West, Tiny, McAdoo and Ernie D...ah...the good old days.

Ps..I also liked the ABA...they had the greatest nicknames for the players.


----------



## truth

can you name the Nets starting 5,when they won the championship with the good Doctor??


----------



## truth

i think I can,without looking it up..ill type the initials..


BT
JW
LK
JE
BP


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

If the best Knick isn't ewing. Then I hate you.


----------



## truth

i guess factoring longevity its ewing..But over a 3 year period,its bernard


----------



## Rashidi

Reed > Bernard.

How many MVPs did Bernard win again? He led the league in scoring as the scoring SF on a mediocre team, and that was his only contribution, scoring.

Frazier > Bernard too, for what should be very obvious reasons.

And while we're at it, Ewing > Bernard. Ewing was a two way player. I'll take 25/10 with anchor defense at center over 30/5 at SF.


----------



## truth

we had our moster debate on this one...BUt it was pre Alfadog..if he gets it going,Ill join in


----------



## truth

actually it was 33ppg,6 boards and 4 assists vs 24pts,12 boards and 3 blocks..



> He led the league in scoring as the scoring SF on a mediocre team, and that was his only contribution, scoring.


You call 33 pg,6 boards and 4 assists for a small foward "shabby"??????

Off the top of my head,not including Elgin Baylor,thats pretty dam good..Barkley may have posted some sick numbers but i doubt it...

Also i totally disagree with your mediocre team assessment and his scoring..The guy was doubled every night..He was the knicks and everyone knew it..he shot .530 from the floor.....

so once again,are you SURE 33ppg,.530 fg%,6 boards and 4 assists is one dimensional...Go to sleep


----------



## Rashidi

> guy was doubled every night..He was the knicks and everyone knew it..he shot .530 from the floor.....


Are you talking about Ewing or King? The statistics from the 80s and present day are radically different, I'd suggest you adjust your ratios accordingly.

Double teamed? JORDAN invented the double team. Nobody was doubled until Jordan came along. Every hear of the Jordan Rules?



> Detroit Pistons and Coach Chuck Daly started this "Jordan Rules" to stop one man, Michael Jordan.
> 
> Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, John Salley, Dennis Rodman and Bill Laimbeer were instructed to always be aware where Jordan was on the court. The JORDAN RULES consists of 13 separate defensive sets.
> 
> The main strategy is to double team him as soon as he gets the ball and then try "funnelling" Jordan to the middle of the keyway and allow him to take his shots there. By bringing Jordan to the middle, quick defenders like Rodman and Salley could rotate and help take Jordan out.
> 
> Nobody more so than Bill Laimbeer tried to take MJ out physically. If you watch the Eastern Conference semi-final games, you would think that Bill was trying to kill MJ by taking his legs underneath him as soon as he elevates.
> 
> Dangerous, rough and dirty play was the hallmark of the Pistons. They were known as the "Bad Boys" in the league.


It is well known that teams did not play hard defense until towards the end of the 80s, when the Pistons did it and when Riley copied him. Shooting percentages were VERY high until then. 53% is not impressive. You speak as if he were the Shaq of the perimeter.

Does Ewing rank in the top 10 centers of all-time? Yes.

Does Bernard King rank in the top 10 small forwards of all-time? No. I don't even think I'd take him over DeBusschure.


----------



## truth

bernards career was cut short by injury,but in his prime he was m as dominant a small foward as there was

so what you are saying was there were many small fowards who

averaged 33pg, 53%sp,6 boards and 4 assists per game

you must be joking


----------



## dcrono3

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Does Ewing rank in the top 10 centers of all-time? Yes.
> 
> Does Bernard King rank in the top 10 small forwards of all-time? No. I don't even think I'd take him over DeBusschure.


Ewing is a top 10 center, yes, but if he only played for a few seasons he wouldn't be, even if those seasons were some of the best ever. King isn't a top 10 SF because he never played long enough to merit consideration. If he played for at least 12-15 season, at his level of play I would think King would be considered a top 10 SF. You have to admit his numbers were very impressive during his prime. 53% FG doesn't mean the same as it does now, but it is still impressive. 33 pts with 6 boards and 4 assists? good numbers for a SF.


----------



## alphadog

Hey Bub(Rashidi)...I have been watching the NBA since probably before you were born. Although it takes some extension because of the shortness of his career, BK was simply the best player out there at that time...even Bird gave him his props by saying as much. He was an unstoppable force..period. Take away Clyde and Reed wears no rings, nor does he get an MVP. As great the players were from the late sixties and early seventies(and I watched them all), BK was better. His stats don't lie, he boarded as well as scored and would have averaged 5 or 6 assist if he was on a consisitent shooting team. I'll let you in on another secret. If Kiki V doesn't have back problems, he may havebeen an even better offensive player. One of the best shooters ever and he had huge hands, very good hops, and could put the ball on the floor. He and English were the best scoring forwards I have ever seen on the same team. 

BTW, the Celts DID play defense and they couldn't touch Bernard. His career ending injury was a true tragedy.

Yep..you are right, Truth. I remember John Roche, Bill Melchioni(whose son is at Duke, now, I think) as well. Do you remember the St Louis roster? It was like an all star team.


----------



## alphadog

53% from a SF in any era is an excellent, far above average %


----------



## dcrono3

Actually, I have King's stats as a Knick here right now. I was lucky enough to go to a Knicks' Summer B-ball camp a few years ago and I got this wonderful fact book that has almost all of the stats (no 3pt % and turnovers) of all knicks players up to 2000. Bernard King:

3 year average (1982-1985) 
206 games played; 54.3% FG (2141/3941); 76.1% FT (1175/1544); 5.3 rebounds (1069/206); 2.8 assists; 1.2 steals (238/206); 26.5 pts (5458/206)

Last year (1984-54)
55 games played; 53.0% FG (691/1303); 77.2% FT% (426/553); 5.8 rebounds (317/55); 3.7 assists (204/55); 1.3 steals (71/55); 32.9 pts (1809/55)

Ok, so King wasn't exactly 33/6/4, but his numbers are still great. Enough to make the NBA top 50 if he had a longer career IMO. And it should be noted that besides his FG%, which was a amazing 57.2 % in 1983-84, all of Kings stats improved in his 3 years with the Knicks. For example, pts going from 21.9 to 26.3 to 32.9 with a FG% always above 50%.


----------



## truth

I think we were comparing best years as ewing didnt average 24.5 either...Not taking anything away from Ewing,it is just that Bernard was as dominant a player as I have ever seen when healthy...He was as domnant as Jabbar,Jordan and the rest of them and the guy was 6'6"...........

To say he couldnt do anything but score,or the D was soft is just another insane emotional excuse....


----------



## truth

> I remember John Roche, Bill Melchioni(whose son is at Duke, now, I think) as well. Do you remember the St Louis roster? It was like an all star team.


John Roche was a Gamecock,I remember Melchioni,Ladner,Paultz..Was Marvin barnes on St Louis,Ron Boone??


----------



## Rashidi

> He was as domnant as Jabbar,Jordan


Way to kill your credibility. They did a lot more than score.


----------



## truth

Mr rashidi,Once again your pee brain filled with rocks and emotions leads you to where it usually does....NOWHERE

go find me 5 small fowards in the last 20 years who put together years of 33ppg,6 boards,and 4 assists.......What do you want him to do,grab more rebounds than Jabbar???

If thats just scoring you belong with layden..on the unemployment line


----------



## alphadog

Truth., I believe these guys played on the St Louis team in the 2nd year.

Joe Caldwell, Steve"snapper" Jones, Marvin"bad news" Barnes, Maurice Lucas, Freddie Lewis, Fly Williams, Don Chaney, M.L. Carr, Moses Malone, and Ron Boone

Pretty good roster, eh?


----------



## truth

Pretty good roster, eh?


thats an awesome roster....wonder where "bad news" is now?


----------



## truth

BTW ,Rashidi,if you dont think Bernard Kings 1984-1985 seaqson was one of the best ever for a small foward,you should just give it up now....In his prime,the only small fowards who had better comparitive years were Larry Bird,Elgin Baylor,Charles Barkley and possibly TMac..And before you go making up silly stuff regarding shooting %'s,go look at the numbers.... .530 was great back then and its great today

This discussion is officially closed as I have once again caught you hallucinating


----------



## Rashidi

Bernard King
32.9 ppg (led league)
5.8 rpg
3.7 apg
26.80 eff
*24-58 team record*
2nd best player on team: Pat Cummings

32.9 Bernard King ppg
105.2 team ppg
109.8 opponent ppg

.530 Bernard King FG%
.484 Team FG%
.496 Opponent FG%

Tracy McGrady 02-03
32.1 ppg (led league)
6.5 rpg
5.5 apg (top 20 in NBA)
28.80 eff
*42-40 team record*
2nd best player on team: Drew Gooden

32.1 Tracy McGrady ppg
98.5 team ppg
98.4 opponent ppg

.457 Tracy McGrady FG%
.436 Team FG%
. 455 Opponent FG%

Emotional? Nope, sorry. Saying King was dominant is foolhardy. Scoring lots of points on a bad team doesn't impress Rashidi. Maybe if he could have gotten the Knicks to the playoffs scoring all those points I'd have been impressed, but there's a big reason his points went up. King's points went up in large due to an injury to Bill Cartwright. His assists went up because of the subtraction of Ray Williams (though Pat Cummings replaced his scoring). King only had a paltry 2.1 apg the year prior to go with his 26 ppg. That's a HORRIBLE ratio btw, it spells ballhog. How many 25 ppg scorers in the NBA nowadays average 2 assists? Keep in mind that scoring is DOWN now, assists were given out much more back then. 9 assists will lead the league in assists now. Back in those days, 9 assists would land you 4th or 5th on the assist leaderboard. The stats aren't the same from era to era. Speaking of which...

I think this sums up things nicely

.530 Bernard King FG%
.484 Team FG%
.496 Opponent FG%

.457 Tracy McGrady FG%
.436 Team FG%
. 455 Opponent FG%

Clearly FG% is down leaguewide from the 80s. Is King's .530 impressive? In today's NBA it would be, but .530 in the NBA wasn't rare back then. The year prior, when King had a 57 FG%, Bill Cartwright had a 56 FG%. Pat Cummings shot 51% in King's 32 ppg year too. 50% from the field was not uncommon, especially for a front court player. Let's also not forget that the 3pt shot takes AWAYfrom a player's FG% today, and that the 3pt shot is a much bigger part of today's NBA game. But anyway, on to the most damning part of my argument.

32.1 Tracy McGrady ppg
98.5 team ppg
98.4 opponent ppg
*42-40 team record*

32.9 Bernard King ppg
105.2 team ppg
109.8 opponent ppg
*24-58 team record*

McGrady scored a higher percentage of his team's points than King AND he led them to more wins. My math may be a little shaky, but it should be blatantly clear who wins the statistical arguement here. You can take your King emotions off your sleeve now.

Given the circumstances, if McGrady were on the Knicks 20 years ago instead of King, his stats likely would have looked like this

34-35 ppg
6-7 rpg
6-8 apg (Jordan averaged 5.9 apg in 84-85, his rookie season)
.500 FG% at the very least.

Finally, you talk about King's assists and rebounds as if he were more than some one trick pony.

Michael Jordan 84-85
28.2 ppg
6.5 rpg
5.9 apg

Michael Jordan 86-87
37.1 ppg
5.2 rpg
4.6 apg
*team record 40-42*

King's career high in assists (3.7) was lower than what Jordan had in every year of his career, except for 85-86 where he was hurt and only played 25 mpg.

Larry Bird 84-85 (the same season)
28.7 ppg
10.5 rpg
6.6 apg
.522 FG%
*34.39 EFF*
*team record 63-19*

Sorry, but these numbers blow the "King of Versatility" out of the water. Imagine what stats Bird could have put up if his team sucked as badly as King's? He probably would have averaged a triple double.

*This discussion is officially closed as I have once again caught you hallucinating*


----------



## dcrono3

You wanna compare King to this years Magic and McGrady? Wow, what is the Magic's record now? What contributed to this big slide? Where is McGrady leading his team to a respectable record? The Knicks in King's third year had a 24-58 record, but the two years before, they had a 47-35 and 44-38 record. Tell me why the Knicks did so poorly in 1984-85, and tell me why the Magic are so bad this year compared to the last.


----------



## alphadog

Rashidi...for a guy who always tells everyone else to read into the numbers, you don't follow your own advice. Yeah..sure fg% is down compared to the eighties. If you are an astute fan and psuedo researcher you would also realize that players simply do not shoot as well as they used to either. ...and that is on every level, not just the NBA. King was far less a ball hog than you think. Check out the coaches he played for . Hubie allows ball hogs and no defense? Don't think so. And the team's shooting % was high in part to the very fact that you brought up. BK was a very large part of the offense and he shot 53%. Do the math, I am too old and dumb but if he scored about 35% of the points and he shot 53%, what did the team shoot without him? I am guessing about 46 or so. That would not be nearly as bad as you makeit out to be, now would it?


----------



## truth

> Larry Bird,Elgin Baylor,Charles Barkley and possibly TMac.


Gee,you needed a full page of stats to AGREE to what i wrote????
Did I not say Bird,Elgin,Chucky and Tmac had better years???

Why are you agreeing with me??????

You were supposed to counter my point......I dont get you...

Rashidi,get to a doctor and tell them about the voices in your head....First you dispute what i say,just to be argumentative,then you break out a full page of stats solidifying what I said???

Oh,and MJ isnt a small foward,otherwise i would have brought him up.....

So we agree..Other than TMAC BARKLEY BIRD BAYLOR and to make you happy JORDAN,Bernard King had as good and dominant a year as any small foward ever....

Thanks for agreeing and proving my point........You really need help


----------



## son of oakley

I hate to reveal my ignorance but I could have sworn Barkley was a PF. What team/years did he play SF?


----------



## truth

> I hate to reveal my ignorance but I could have sworn Barkley was a PF. What team/years did he play SF?


I wasnt sure how to classify that freak of nature..But when he played for Phoenix,93,94,95 he played with AC Green who is a power foward,which would make barkley a small foward.....

Its amazing what he could do considering he was 6'4".....


----------



## son of oakley

Oh, right, thanks.


----------



## Rashidi

> You wanna compare King to this years Magic and McGrady? Wow, what is the Magic's record now? What contributed to this big slide? Where is McGrady leading his team to a respectable record? The Knicks in King's third year had a 24-58 record, but the two years before, they had a 47-35 and 44-38 record. Tell me why the Knicks did so poorly in 1984-85, and tell me why the Magic are so bad this year compared to the last.


I already mentioned why Knicks lost more games in the post. Look harder. 

As for the Magic, they subtracted Darrell Armstrong and Pat Garrity. Tyronn Lue isn't exactly keeping teams from zoning T-Mac. The other guys could hit threes, in fact without looking at the numbers I can say they hit about 200 last year combined. You can zone TMac now and not worry about getting killed on the perimeter.



> Gee,you needed a full page of stats to AGREE to what i wrote????


The point of my post was to greater emphasize how meaningless King's stats were that year. I can pull up 10 SFs who had better years if you'd like. Dominique Wilkins and Dr J seem to ring a bell. That will make 6.



> Oh,and MJ isnt a small foward,otherwise i would have brought him up.....


MJ wasn't a SF? MJ had a better post game than most PFs. He could have played SF if the team needed it, and he likely did many times when Pippen was injured or on the bench. Furthermore, he was guarded by plenty of SFs. Larry Johnson guarded MJ when Charlotte faced him in the playoffs (JVG was very much correct when he said that LJ was an underrated defender). Jordan could have guarded and outrebounded the likes of Nique, King, etc, but why bother when you've got Scottie Pippen? If MJ wasn't a SF, then neither was Barkley...

Paul Pierce can play SF too, and he did earlier in his career. Does he count as a SF? Vince Carter alternates between SG and SF seemingly every other week. What does he qualify as? Shall I mention Shawn Marion and Andrei Kirilenko? AK is either top 3 or top 5 in the league in both steals and blocks, that's certainly something King never came close to doing, and he's a better rebounder. Of course, AK is doing this out of position at PF, not SF. And how about Lamar Odom? He's at PF this season, but played at SF his first couple years. Same with Kevin Garnett. He came into the league as a SF, and he plays exactly like a SF, the reason he starts at PF is because he's so dominant in the post like a PF that the team can play him there to get other players on the court. Lebron can play PG/SG/SF. How should all these multi-position players be considered? Could King play PF or PG like Odom and KG? 

King had 2 exceptional seasons of one-dimensionalism, and his best season came when the rest of the team sucked. If he led the league in scoring by scoring only around 30% of his team's points, that's really not saying much. Vince Carter averaged 33% of his team's points prior to the Rose trade. He was averaging 25 ppg, and the team was averaging only around 75-78 ppg. That 3% is a lot more significant than you'd think. Stick Vince Carter on the 84-85 Knicks, and how many points does that extra 3% in a higher scoring era equate to? King wasn't exactly a better rebounder/passer/defender than VC either.

The term "Small Forward" is rather flexible. There are plenty of SGs who can play the position, and there are plenty of SFs that go on to become PFs, and vice versa. Ron Artest is a SF, but it wouldn's surprise anybody if he played SG at some point in his career. The reason Artest doesn't play SG is because he doesn't have the ball handling skills of a guard. Pippen had the ball handling skills of a guard, and so did Grant Hill (those are 2 more players who had seasons better than King btw) but they played SF. Not because they couldn't, but because their rebounding skills saw more use in the front court, and because both had players at SG, Jordan and Dumars/Houston. That didn't stop both guys from running the offense as point forwards either.

So really, it's just time for you to step up to the plate, and explain why King scoring 33 ppg is worth more than Glenn Robinson scoring 23 ppg.


----------



## truth

*Somebodys nose is growing*

what have we here????



> The point of my post was to greater emphasize how meaningless King's stats were that year. I can pull up 10 SFs who had better years if you'd like. Dominique Wilkins and Dr J seem to ring a bell. That will make 6.


myMY...This could be called momentary insanity.....
perhaps just very sloppy research
maybe a bold face lie
or just a tiny little fib

Dr J,never had an NBA season like Bernard king..ever..he never scored more tha 27 per game,and pulled down the same # of boards...bad boy Rashidi..bad

tome for a little math lesson..27ppg< 33...you got that???

lets move on...

Dominiques best year ever was not as prolific as Bernard Kings...He scored less,rebounded about the same,but only shot .460...bad bad basketball fib....

mathtime...460<.530....you got that??



> I can pull up 10 SFs who had better years if you'd like. Dominique Wilkins and Dr J seem to ring a bell. That will make 6.


so lets work together class..Rashidi says 6 small fowards had better years than BK...But we know he is not telling the truth on the last 2!!!

math time 6-2 =4.... and 4<5.....Uh oh rashidi,looks like you unwittingly agree with me

And who are the 4?? Bird,Elgin,Tmac and Barkley....Not bad company!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## alphadog

What pisses me off is that Rashidi claims that BK was one dimensional. That is a crock. He rebounded very well for a slender 6'7 and passed pretty decently as well. I wasn't a stopper but he did play defense pretty well. Just curious, Rashidi...how old are you? Did youn actually see him play when you were an adult or are you just looking at stats?


----------



## alphadog

BTW, Truth, I know you are a BK fan. .....Did you know he shot an eye-popping 59% in his 4th year and averaged 22ppg. How is that not great? He was incredibly consistent after he was fully adjusted to the league up until he got hurt. I'd love to have him now.......(like he was then)


----------



## alphadog

I meant HE wasn't a stopper....not I


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> Just curious, Rashidi...how old are you? Did youn actually see him play when you were an adult or are you just looking at stats?


1000:1 odds you will get no reply on that one.

btw, Rashidi not only believes you don't have to have seen a player to know how good he was, he believes you don't have to see a player to know how good he will be.

In fact, he advocated what I've seen starting to occur - the beginnings of a new cult/phenomenon... the blind scouts. 

So if you ever see blind people at games don't assume they are mere fans, they could well be some of Layden's advance men, scouting talent for when he re-emerges in the NBA.


----------



## Rashidi

> r J,never had an NBA season like Bernard king..ever..he never scored more tha 27 per game,and pulled down the same # of boards...bad boy Rashidi..bad


Huh? Same # of rebounds? When did King pull down 7-8 rebounds per game? 5 rebounds for a SF was not a good number in that era. Bird averaged twice that ever year.

# of times Dr J made the All-NBA First team: FIVE
# of times Dr J was MVP: ONE

# of times King made All-NBA First team: TWO
# of times King was MVP: ZERO

Did you bother to put Dr J's steals and blocks into the equation? Both of his lines in those categories are VASTLY, *VASTLY* superior to King's.

King scored 33 ppg ONCE on a **** team. ONCE. How many times did he score close to that on a winning team? For all King's points, there's a reason he only played in 28 career playoff games, and there's a reason the Knicks were his FOURTH team. 

You are just mentally challenged if you cannot figure out that 27 ppg on a 59 win team (that would be Dr J's "subpar" 27 ppg season) that went to the Finals is worth a lot ****ing more than a 33 ppg by a ball hog with scrubs on his 24 win team. How many shots did King average per game?

Dr J in 79-80
Dr J averaged 26.9 ppg
Dr J averaged 20.6 FGA
Dr J averaged 6.8 FTA
*Dr J averaged 7.4 rpg
Dr J averaged 4.6 apg
Dr J averaged 2.2 spg
Dr J averaged 1.8 bpg*
Dr J averaged 36.0 mpg
Dr J played 78 games
Dr J had an EFF of 27.78
Dr J led his team to a 59-23 record
Dr J led his team to the NBA Finals

Dr J scored FEWER points the following year and was named MVP. Go figure. Apparantly there's more to basketball than scoring. Keep in mind that he also spent the first 5 years of his basketball career playing in a different league.

Bernard Queen in 84-85
Queen averaged 32.9 ppg
*Queen averaged 23.6 FGA*
Queen averaged 10.0 FTA
Queen averaged 5.8 rpg
Queen averaged 3.7 apg
*Queen averaged 1.3 spg
Queen averaged 0.3 bpg*
Queen averaged 37.5 mpg
*Queen played 55 games*
Queen had an EFF of 26.80
Queen led his team to a 24-58 record
Queen led his team the lottery

It's easy to score more points when you're taking more shots. The previous year King only averaged 18.0 FGA and 5.6 FTA. It's easy to score more points when you're taking so many more shots per game. Why did King take a whopping 5 more FG and 4 FT per game? BECAUSE HIS TEAM SUCKED. It's that simple.

So far the only flimsy arguement you have presented so far is a dinky number that requires hardly any factual research or basketball knowledge. You have overvalued his stats quite a bit because you let your emotions get the best of you, a trait you often misplacedly accuse me of. You have even contradicted yourself many times, since you have previously professed that "all that matters is the W".

But then again, I never saw King play. Of course, it didn't help that he was always injured. I find it difficult to watch players wearing suits.


----------



## Perennial All Star

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> 1000:1 odds you will get no reply on that one.
> 
> btw, Rashidi not only believes you don't have to have seen a player to know how good he was, he believes you don't have to see a player to know how good he will be.
> 
> In fact, he advocated what I've seen starting to occur - the beginnings of a new cult/phenomenon... the blind scouts.
> 
> So if you ever see blind people at games don't assume they are mere fans, they could well be some of Layden's advance men, scouting talent for when he re-emerges in the NBA.


Layden re-ermerging in NBA? Ahahahahahahaha. 

Rashidi, your reference to Bernard King as "Queen" is not humorous at all. And I think that is your best attempt at humor, which is quite sad.


----------



## Perennial All Star

> So far the only flimsy arguement you have presented so far is a dinky number that requires hardly any factual research or basketball knowledge. You have overvalued his stats quite a bit because you let your emotions get the best of you, a trait you often misplacedly accuse me of. You have even contradicted yourself many times, since you have previously professed that "all that matters is the W".


If the argument is if Dr.J is better than Bernard King, then ofcourse he is. But if were arguing about how good Bernard King is, well then he is a Hall of Famer and top 10 all time center in this league.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

> Originally posted by <b>NYKFan123</b>!
> 
> 
> If the argument is if Dr.J is better than Bernard King, then ofcourse he is. But if were arguing about how good Bernard King is, well then he is a Hall of Famer and top 10 all time center in this league.



Bernard king isn't going to get in the hall, and he sure isn't a center, whom are you referring to?


----------



## Perennial All Star

My bad I meant SF, I got mixed up. And he is a Hall of Famer.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

My bad I meant he wasn't as good as the other people who got into the hall of fame. Wilkens was way better for example but whatever, they guy gave it up for NY. He's awesome.


----------



## son of oakley

Just for the record, King is not in the Hall yet.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

He got voted in but hasn't been inducted right?


----------



## son of oakley

My understanding is that he's on the list of eligible candidates this year, but they haven't voted yet.

I think they will announce who made it on April 5th.

Not really 100% certain...


----------



## Rashidi

He's a borderline Hall of Famer - certainly no lock to be voted in.

10 players who had similar careers to King

Mark Aguirre
World B Free
Rick Barry
Rolando Blackman
George Gervin
John Drew
Walter Davis
Lou Hudson
Earl Monroe
Jeff Malone

Only 3 guys on this list are hall of famers. Barry, Gervin, Monroe. 

Barry averaged 35.6 ppg BEFORE jumping to the ABA (44-37 team record) for 4 years. He scored 18,000 points in 10 NBA seasons and 6,800 in 4 ABA seasons. He played in 31 ABA playoff games and 74 NBA playoff games, and won a championship. Barry made the All-NBA first team in his rookie and 2nd season before the jump. He made the 1st-team a total of 5 times in his career, and hardly missed a game to injury.

George Gervin averaged 33.1 ppg on a 41-41 team in 79-80, and 32.3 ppg on a 47-35 team in 81-82. He made the All-NBA First team 5 times. He played in 25 ABA playoff games, 59 NBA playoff games, and scored 5,800 ABA points and 20,000 NBA points.

Monroe scored 17,000 points in his NBA career. He made the All-NBA team once, played in 75 playoff games, and won a championship.

Bernard King scored 19,000 points in his career, made the All-NBA team twice, and played in only 28 playoff games. His teams lost more regular season games than they won. The best a King team ever did was 47-35 in 83-84.

The odds aren't exactly stacked in his favor.

If you pay any attention to something called the Hall of Fame Monitor...



> And lastly, until the mid 1950's there were a variety of major pro basketball leagues throughout the country. Because of all of this, the basketball hall of fame has a wider variety and more diverse selection of players, coaches and contributors. The formula used for the HOF Monitor is really only valid for players who have played their entire careers in the NBA, ABA or a combination of both. For example, Arvydas Sabonis may make the hall of fame, but it will have more to do with his performance on the Russian National Team than for his play in the NBA.
> 
> The Hall of Fame Monitor is a formula with six components. It is meant to be used as a guide and not as a hard and fast rule. There are some players who do very well according to the formula and are not in the hall of fame, but for the most part this formula is a good scale.
> 
> 75 points for each NBA MVP award
> 15 points for each All NBA First Team selection
> 1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value
> 2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency
> 3.5 points for each NBA Championship
> -20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards
> Formula Explanations
> 
> NBA MVP
> Being an NBA MVP has been the best way to get into the hall. Every NBA MVP who is eligible for the Hall of Fame is in the Hall of Fame. When a player wins an MVP award, its almost as good as getting enshrined.
> 
> All NBA First Team
> Being elected NBA First Team carries some weight with the hall. 80% of players who were All NBA First Team two or more times and are eligible for the hall of fame, are in the hall of fame. The percentage jumps to 96% for players with three or more NBA First Team selections. Being selected to an All NBA First team should be slightly easier for a forward or guard than a center because two forwards and guards are selected as opposed to one center.
> 
> Approximate Value (AV)
> Approximate Value is a statistical calculation that provides an idea of how much a player contributed to his team over the course of a season. The career AV will provide an idea of how much a player contributed to his teams over the course of his entire career. This component gives players credit for long, solid careers. ABA AV is not given as much credit as NBA AV. The AV is also slightly biased towards centers and forwards.
> 
> Efficiency (EFF)
> Efficiency is a measure of a players impact per game. Since it is a per game average, it helps players who had short, but spectacular careers. It is also the only component that can decrease over time. So a player who has a career EFF of 20.1 after five seasons, may fall off and only have a career EFF of 17.3 after 10 seasons. This means that the HOF Monitor score can actually fall for some players over time. EFF is slightly biased towards centers and forwards.
> 
> NBA Championship
> Winning an NBA Championship is a good thing in the eyes of the Hall of Fame voters. It also gives that player some publicity and possibly enhances the perception that he is a great player. Players who play on multiple championship teams have a slightly increased chance of making the Hall of Fame.
> 
> C and F Penalty
> The slight bias towards centers and forwards that AV and EFF have needs to be acounted for with a penalty. Centers are penalized 20 points and forwards are penalized 15 points. Each player in our system has been assigned one single position. This is not ideal, but in most cases works out fine. Players who play multiple positions were given the position that they played most over the course of their career.
> 
> This formula provides a handy guide for rating a players HOF chances. It is not meant to be a way to compare players of different eras. 85% of all players with a HOF Monitor score of 135 or more and are eligible are in the Hall of Fame. 99% of players with a score of 160 or greater and are eligible are in the Hall of Fame. One thing you will notice is that good players tend to jump out to a quick pace. This is because of the player's career EFF score. Keep in mind that the career EFF score will probably not move very much for a player and in most cases will actually drop off as the player becomes older and his skills diminish.


In summary, 85% of players with a score > 135 are in the Hall. 99% of players with a score > 160 are in the Hall. There are a few players < 135 in the Hall.

Bernard King has a score 139, making him very much borderline. I don't doubt he'll make it some day, but I don't think it will be this year.

Bernard King 139
Mark Aguirre 100
World B Free 103
Rick Barry 212
Rolando Blackman 105
George Gervin 215
John Drew 95
Walter Davis 113
Earl Monroe 123
Lou Hudson 101
Jeff Malone 93

King ranks 3rd on this list, ahead of Monroe (who is < 135) and way behind Barry and Gervin who were clearly hall worthy.
Mark Aguirre had 18,000 career points (close to King's total) and a few championship rings. He's not in the Hall. King has a shot because of the two year's he was all-nba first team. But that's pretty much the only thing he has going for him after his points.

By age, here is who King was most similar to (at the same age)

21. Terry Cummings
22. Terry Cummings
23. Larry Johnson
24. Karl Malone
25. Juwan Howard
26. Billy Knight
27. Mark Aguirre
28. Mark Aguirre
30. Billy Knight
31. Kiki Vandeweghe
32. Billy Knight
33. Mark Aguirre
34. Mark Aguirre
36. Walter Davis

Good players all, but the only one worthy of hall enshrinement on that list is Malone.

Who has the highest all-time HoF Monitor scores?
1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar 836
2. Michael Jordan 733
3. Wilt Chamberlain 653
4. Bill Russell 633
5. Magic Johnson 551
6. Larry Bird 530
*7. Karl Malone 505 (active player)*
8. Bob Pettit 465
9. Moses Malone 454
10. Oscar Robertson 412
11. Bob Cousy 365
*12. Tim Duncan 364 (active player)*
13. Hakeem Olajuwon 340
14. Charles Barkley 319
15. Jerry West 319
*16. Shaquille O'neal 313*
17. Elgin Baylor 311
18. Julius Erving 296
19. David Robinson 294
20. John Havlicek 224
21. Wes Unseld 223
22. Bob Mcadoo 222
23. Dolph Schayes 222
24. George Gervin 215
25. Rick Barry 212
26. Elvin Hayes 211
*27. Allen Iverson 207*
28. Dave Cowens 207
*29. Willis Reed 206
30. Walt Frazier 201
31. Jerry Lucas 196*
32. John Stockton 194
33. George Mikan 191
*34. Scottie Pippen 189
35. Isiah Thomas 184*
36. Bill Walton 183
*37. Jason Kidd 172*
38. Nate Archibald 169
39. Billy Cunningham 168
*40. Gary Payton 165*
41. Clyde Drexler 165
42. Bill Sharman 162
43. Neil Johnston 161
*44. Patrick Ewing 160*
45. Robert Parish 155
46. Walt Bellamy 154
47. Paul Arizin 154
48. Dave Bing 152
*49. Kevin Garnett 146*
50. Pete Maravich 146
51. Spencer Haywood 145
52. Dominique Wilkins 143
53. Artis Gilmore 143
54. Kevin Mchale 143
55. Paul Westphal 143
56. Bernard King 139
57. Bob Lanier 138
*58. Kobe Bryant 137*
59. Gail Goodrich 136
60. Dennis Johnson 136
61. Sam Jones 135

What is so scary is how fast Tim Duncan has climbed the list. He truly will rank among the all-time greats once his career is finished. Keep in mind that the monitor is as of 02-03. Duncan is alerady ahead of Cousy, and will probably be 10th once the season is over. If not for nagging injuries this year, he'd probably get another MVP and he'd probably be trailing Karl Malone in the 8th slot. This is only Duncan's 7th season! Barring catastrophic injury, he could even be ahead of Magic and Bird in his 10th season at the rate he's going.

Remember, 99% of players that are > 160 are in the Hall. Ewing has 160 even. That's why he's a first ballot hall of famer. That's why King may not be.

From this list, how many players >135 are NOT in the hall? Most of them are due to age restrictions (must be X amount of years after retirement)

2. Michael Jordan
7. Karl Malone (active)
12. Tim Duncan (active)
13. Hakeem Olajuwon
14. Charles Barkley
16. Shaquille O'Neal (active)
19. David Robinson
27. Allen Iverson (active)
32. John Stockton
34. Scottie Pippen (active)
37. Jason Kidd (active)
40. Gary Payton (active)
41. Clyde Drexler
44. Patrick Ewing
49. Kevin Garnett (active)
*51. Spencer Haywood 145*
52. Dominique Wilkins
*53. Artis Gilmore 143
55. Paul Westphal 143
56. Bernard King 139*
58. Kobe Bryant (active)
*60. Dennis Johnson 136 *

Woah. Notice the bottom? Haywood, Gilmore, and Westphal have been retired a while, and none of them have made the Hall yet. All three are rated above King, which means that King is indeed hardly a lock.

It's hard to believe Gilmore isn't in, but it's likely because he was above average in the NBA, but not the star he was in the ABA where he played until the old age of 27. 

Spencer was a monster when he first came into the league (put up 30/20 in ABA rookie season) but it never amounted to much. His teams sucked. He put up 29/13 on a 26 win team, and his only winning season in Seattle came when Lenny Wilkins was Player/Coach (btw, a big reason he has the record for NBA wins). Spencer only played in 35 playoff games. He was rather average after leaving Seattle, which yes, included 3 years in NY (averagd 40 wins per year). 19.9 ppg, 16.5 ppg, and 13.7 ppg. He started his decline at 26. He won 1 ring as a backup to Kareem after leaving NY, other than that, no playoff success.

Westphal just didn't play enough. He was a backup his first 3 years in the league with Boston, averaged 20+ ppg in 5 years with Phoenix, and then dropped off in Seattle. He averaged 11.7 and 10.0 ppg for 2 seasons in NY, and 7 ppg for the Suns in his final year. However, he did make the All-NBA team three times in Phoenix. He took the Suns to the Finals, and also won a ring in Boston. His prime was bright, but short.

All three of these players have something in common with King, and they also have advantages over him. Westphal made the All-NBA team more times, and did more damage in the playoffs. He's not enshrined. Spencer lost as many games as King, and did nothing in the playoffs on his own, putting up big numbers on bad teams for most of his career. Gilmore has nice career totals, but they were hindered because of absense (in Gilmore's case the ABA, in King's case, injury).

Going down the rest of this list, here's <135.


----------



## Rashidi

The rest of the top 100
*denotes in Hall

*62. Adrian Dantley 133
63. Chris Webber 133 (active)*
64. Hal Greer 132*
65. Lenny Wilkens 132*
66. Nate Thurmond 131*
*67. Tim Hardaway 131*
68. David Thompson 131*
69. Bailey Howell 131*
70. Alex English 130*
71. Ed Macauley 129*
*72. Anfernee Hardaway 127 (active)*
73. Earl Monroe 126*
*74. Reggie Miller 126 (active)
75. Bob Davies 126
76. Jack Sikma 125
77. Larry Nance 124*
78. Dan Issel 123*
79. Buck Williams 123
80. Otis Thorpe 122
81. Horace Grant 122 (active)
82. Kevin Johnson 122
83. Gus Williams 121
84. Alonzo Mourning 120 (active)
85. Dennis Rodman 120
86. Mitch Richmond 120
87. Chris Mullin 119
88. Marques Johnson 119
89. Mark Jackson 119 (active)
90. Reggie Theus 119
91. Ron Harper 118
92. George Mcginnis 118
93. Sidney Moncrief 118
*94. Dave Debusschere 117**
95. Maurice Cheeks 117
96. Chet Walker 117
97. Jeff Hornacek 116
98. Rod Strickland 116 (active)
99. Bill Laimbeer 116
100. Grant Hill 115 (active)

Note how high Penny ranks. He's above Reggie Miller for christ's sake. In all likelyhood, Penny will probably rank ABOVE Bernard at the end of his career. Why? Mainly because of those two All-NBA first team selections and 4 all-star selections so early in his career. It's a credit to how good Penny was, and should have been, and goes to show you he was robbed a lot more than anyone on this list.

Let's all make a mental note that Penny never averaged more than 21.1 ppg or 7.2 apg, but he did win 57 and 60 games the 2 years he was All-NBA first. How does that stack up to Mr. King?

It should be interesting to see how/if Grant Hill climbs this list. Hill was definitely better than Mr. King and has been robbed of 4 years of his prime, 4 years he only would have far surpassed King. He ONLY averaged 20/10/7 in his 2nd year. Is he hall worthy because of the first half of his career? His enshrinement could depend on the playoff successes of his team now, wherever he plays (he'd be a great fit on the Lakers if they want to get creative and get him involved in a Kobe/T'Mac swap).

Hall of Fame monitor stats for other players
*denotes active
Anfernee Hardaway 126*
Buck Williams 123
Mark Jackson 119*
Terry Cummings 110
Latrell Sprewell 113*
Derek Harper 109
Charles Oakley 107*
Stephon Marbury 96*
Glen Rice 95
Doc Rivers 93
Steve Smith 92*
Anthony Mason 91
Larry Johnson 90
Vin Baker 84*
Clarence Weatherspoon 83*
Allan Houston 80*
Antonio McDyess 77*
Herb Williams 74
John Starks 73
Charles Smith 67
Keith Van Horn 57*
Greg Anthony 57
Kurt Thomas 54*
Charlie Ward 52*
Marcus Camby 51*
Chris Childs 51
Chris Mills 51
Shandon Anderson 49*
Tony Campbell 48
Hubert Davis 45*
Howard Eisley 44*
Luc Longley 43
Tim Thomas 39*
Chris Dudley 37
Othella Harrington 36*
Felton Spencer 32
Anthony Bonner 29

Kevin Willis 111*
Shawn Kemp 105
Detlef Schrempf 104
Ray Allen 91*
Vince Carter 90*
Jerry Stackhouse 88*
Danny Manning 84
Michael Finley 81*
Reggie Lewis 81
Dirk Nowitzki 80*
Jalen Rose 80*
Rik Smits 79
Toni Kukoc 78*
Robert Horry 78*
Chuck Person 78
BJ Armstrong 74
Isiah Rider 74
Sean Elliott 72
Mike Bibby 71*
Darrell Armstrong 68*
Baron Davis 66*
Pau Gasol 64*
Steve Kerr 64
Joe Smith 63*
Peja Stojakovic 55*
Drazen Petrovic 55 (In Hall of Fame)
Kenyon Martin 49*
Michael Redd 46*
Danny Ferry 42
Michael Olowokandi 36*
Tyson Chandler 27*

I think that's enough for now....


----------



## Rashidi

And yes, King is eligible but has not been voted in. There are a bunch of other guys who are eligible this year. Not everybody gets voted in.


----------



## alphadog

Rashidi, you remind me of a longer winded version of my son. Loves to twist stats, argue, and antagonize. Can't wait til he gets his drivers license.


----------



## son of oakley

Rashidi, just one comment pertaining to the likes of Hardaway, Duncan, etc. Those monitor scores are geared in a way that favors youth, particularly good starts. While longevity plays an advantageous role in some ways, by allowing more ooportunities for things like allstar appearances, MVPs, championships, etc, it's not totally progressive. Players diminsihed stats, which come from injuries and past peak falloff, can detract from scores.

So Tim Duncan's ascent proabbly wont be linear, Hardawy may drop in relative standings, King was hurt by injuries.

It's not something I'm looking to argue over, it's just a footnote to what you've presented.

And I haven't forgotten about or Utah discussion. I noticed you highlighted certain key players, but not Stockton, look where he ranks with the greats, and Malone. And they are where they are without the championships, which would have pushed them higher... There will be more on this later, just not sure when...


----------



## dcrono3

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> I already mentioned why Knicks lost more games in the post. Look harder.
> 
> As for the Magic, they subtracted Darrell Armstrong and Pat Garrity. Tyronn Lue isn't exactly keeping teams from zoning T-Mac. The other guys could hit threes, in fact without looking at the numbers I can say they hit about 200 last year combined. You can zone TMac now and not worry about getting killed on the perimeter.


Ok, I didn't make myself clear, my fault. But answer me this. Why are we comparing T-Mac's stats last season to King's "best" season? By your own account the Knicks had valuable players leave, so King was the team. Same with Magic, T-MAc is the team right now. Why don't you dig up T-Mac's stast this year and we can compare them to King's again, the Magic seem to be going to have the same record anyway. 



> The point of my post was to greater emphasize how meaningless King's stats were that year. I can pull up 10 SFs who had better years if you'd like. Dominique Wilkins and Dr J seem to ring a bell. That will make 6.


Gee, I guess that if your team sucks and have a bad year your stats are meaningless right? So many great seasons gone to waste, sigh...



> # of times Dr J made the All-NBA First team: FIVE
> # of times Dr J was MVP: ONE
> 
> # of times King made All-NBA First team: TWO
> # of times King was MVP: ZERO





> All three of these players have something in common with King, and they also have advantages over him. Westphal made the All-NBA team more times, and did more damage in the playoffs. He's not enshrined. Spencer lost as many games as King, and did nothing in the playoffs on his own, putting up big numbers on bad teams for most of his career. Gilmore has nice career totals, but they were hindered because of absense (in Gilmore's case the ABA, in King's case, injury).





> Note how high Penny ranks. He's above Reggie Miller for christ's sake. In all likelyhood, Penny will probably rank ABOVE Bernard at the end of his career. Why? Mainly because of those two All-NBA first team selections and 4 all-star selections so early in his career. It's a credit to how good Penny was, and should have been, and goes to show you he was robbed a lot more than anyone on this list.
> 
> Let's all make a mental note that Penny never averaged more than 21.1 ppg or 7.2 apg, but he did win 57 and 60 games the 2 years he was All-NBA first. How does that stack up to Mr. King?





> It should be interesting to see how/if Grant Hill climbs this list. Hill was definitely better than Mr. King and has been robbed of 4 years of his prime, 4 years he only would have far surpassed King. He ONLY averaged 20/10/7 in his 2nd year. Is he hall worthy because of the first half of his career? His enshrinement could depend on the playoff successes of his team now, wherever he plays (he'd be a great fit on the Lakers if they want to get creative and get him involved in a Kobe/T'Mac swap).


You take into account (for your hall of fame posts) that certain players have shortened careers for various reasons. The point is King would have had a much better career if he wasn't injuried! Just like Penny and Hill, injuries took much of their game away. We have taken injury into account:



> Had he not gotten hurt he would definately been top 50.


If you looked at Hill and Penny before they were injuried ppl would have said that they would be locks for the HoF. However, a major injury basically killed the careers of both. If they havn't been injuried, their Hof ratings or whatever would be A LOT higher. Same goes with King. He would have been a great player with suha higher HoF rating IF he wasn't injuried. I'm kind of suprised that he even got to 139. And as you said 85% of ppl above 135 get in. I wouldn't call 85% bordline. I would say that King has a pretty good chance of making it.


----------



## truth

Rashid,you can turn my comments into anything you want...All I ever said is Bernard King,when healthy and in his prime was a dominant a SF as there was...

Unfortunetly,his greatness was cut short by a severe injury..He does not have longeveity on his side and that certainly hurts his credentials..

33ppg .530% 6board pg is as right up there with the all time greats..I fully realise it was not a career avg,so stop coming up with career stats to make a point I never brought up...



> He almost single-handely led the Knicks to a 3-2 first round series win over the Detroit Pistons as he posted over 40 points in four games and 36 in the other. King averaged 34.8 ppg in the entire 1984 NBA Playoffs, before losing in the Eastern Conference Semifinals to the Boston Celtics in seven games.


Sorry Rashidi,if thats not dominance,I dont know what you call it..I assume Larry Bird knows more about Bernard King,since he played against him and you have NEVER seen him play....Bird called him the best playe on the court


----------



## Rashidi

> Rashidi, just one comment pertaining to the likes of Hardaway, Duncan, etc. Those monitor scores are geared in a way that favors youth, particularly good starts. While longevity plays an advantageous role in some ways, by allowing more ooportunities for things like allstar appearances, MVPs, championships, etc, it's not totally progressive. Players diminsihed stats, which come from injuries and past peak falloff, can detract from scores.


Yes, I am taking into account a potential decline by Duncan. An MVP is 75 points, and Duncan has gotten two of those in the last two years. He has made the All-NBA first team every year of his career so far I think. The only other guys that did that was Bird. Duncan is going to make the team again this year, and I don't forsee him falling off that list anytime soon.

Rashidi, just one comment pertaining to the likes of Hardaway, Duncan, etc. Those monitor scores are geared in a way that favors youth, particularly good starts. While longevity plays an advantageous role in some ways, by allowing more ooportunities for things like allstar appearances, MVPs, championships, etc, it's not totally progressive. Players diminsihed stats, which come from injuries and past peak falloff, can detract from scores.



> And I haven't forgotten about or Utah discussion. I noticed you highlighted certain key players, but not Stockton, look where he ranks with the greats, and Malone. And they are where they are without the championships, which would have pushed them higher... There will be more on this later, just not sure when...


Stockton and Malone rank where they do because of longevity. Stockton moreso than Malone. He ranks higher than Isiah Thomas because he played more years than Isiah Thomas. Is this a knock on his durability? No. But it is a further nail in the coffin that Stockton was not as good as Isiah and other PGs, he just played longer. Magic Johnson had to retire at 32, and look where he ranks on the list. If it weren't for HIV, he'd probably be top 3.



> The point is King would have had a much better career if he wasn't injuried! Just like Penny and Hill, injuries took much of their game away. We have taken injury into account:


I am aware of this. However consider that

1. Hill and Penny are still climbing the list, King is not.

2. King wasn't exactly durable before his big injury, he only played 19 games in his 3rd season, and he only played 55 games in his acclaimed 33 ppg season. Grant Hill hardly missed a game until, his 4 years missed, which makes it quite an anomaly, and quite frankly don't compare to King. King missed 2 years and still played at a high level when he returned. Hill has missed twice that amount of time and may never play again.

3. Obviously King would have been a clear hall of famer if he didn't get injured. But both Hill and Penny would likely rank above him had they not gotten injured.



> I wouldn't call 85% bordline. I would say that King has a pretty good chance of making it.


*A 15% dropoff in a 25 point span is VERY significant considering you are still counting all those guys that were > 160.*

Three people above King in his range have not made it. Consider how large the dropoff is. Pretty much everybody > 160 is in the Hall or will get in. In the next 25 points down, there are 3 guys who are not in the Hall, and even more below that number. That's why it would not surprise me to see King miss the Hall at least for this year. What did he really do that sets him apart from Haywood, Gilmore, and Westphal?



> Sorry Rashidi,if thats not dominance,I dont know what you call it..I assume Larry Bird knows more about Bernard King,since he played against him and you have NEVER seen him play....Bird called him the best playe on the court


Bird also complimented Peja Stojakovic earlier in the year. Does that make Peja a bonafide hall of famer? One season does not a hall of famer make. Plenty of players have had great years. John Starks averaged 19 ppg one year. Latrell Sprewell averaged 24/5/6 on a crap Warriors team. David Robinson averaged 29.8 ppg because he scored 71 points in his final game (in a statistically motivated performance where his team dumped him the ball every possession to ensure he'd get the title over Shaq).

Who were the scoring leaders in 84-85 anyway?

1. Bernard King 32.9 ppg
2. Larry Bird 28.7 ppg
3. Michael Jordan 28.2 ppg (rookie)
4. Purvis Short 28.0 ppg
5. Alex English 27.9 ppg
6. Dominique Wilkins 27.4 ppg
7. Adrian Dantley 26.6 ppg
8. Mark Aguirre 25.7 ppg
9. Moses Malone 24.6 ppg
10. Terry Cummings 23.6 ppg

The only thing that distinguishes King from the rest is that he took more shots than everyone else. Who gives a crap what Larry Bird pads King's ego with. Bird would have said the same thing if he were playing Dominique or Jordan, that's how he was. King might have been a better player in one playoff series, but if one playoff series decided a career, then call the hall, and tell them that Troy Hudson is coming for them. Ditto on Allan Houston. He was the best player on the court when he torched Indiana for 10-11 FG in the 3rd quarter en route to the Finals (not en route to a lost playoff series). Houston btw scored more last year because he took more shots, not because he magically turned all-star. There's a reason "stars" on losing teams don't get selected to those teams, and it's not cause they're being snubbed.. King taking 3-5 more shots than everyone else doesn't make him great. It means he took more shots.


----------



## truth

> King taking 3-5 more shots than everyone else doesn't make him great. It means he took more shots.


Rashidi,does the fact that he has a HIGHER shootong % than the other players mean ANYTHING to you?????

You are correct,taking more shots than someone else doesnt make you great...Taking more shots,and MAKING a higher % does make you great....

As for you not giving a crap to what larry Bird says.......
So we should ignore Larry Bird,who played against him ,but Listen to Rashidi,who has NEVER seen Bernard King play,and fails to mention that King scored more and shot better than the others...



> Obviously King would have been a clear hall of famer if he didn't get injured. But both Hill and Penny would likely rank above him had they not gotten injured.


ARE YOU $%^^&&^ JOKING???????????

Why would Hill and Penny rank above him if none of them had gotten injured..Based on What????..Your emotions??You being argumentative???

Grant Hills best year is not better than Kings......He score 8 less per game,shot worse,rebounded slightly better and had more assists

Penny hardaways best year is NOT even close....He scored 12 LESS per game,a lower shooting%,rebounded worse,but had more assists


----------



## Rashidi

> Rashidi,does the fact that he has a HIGHER shootong % than the other players mean ANYTHING to you?????


No, it does not. 

*King was not even top 20 in the league in FG% in 84-85.*

James Donaldson (L.A. Clippers)
351-551 .637

Artis Gilmore (San Antonio)
532-854 .623

Otis Thorpe (Kansas City)
411-685 .600

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (L.A. Lakers)
723-1207 .599

Larry Nance (Phoenix)
515-877 .587

James Worthy (L.A. Lakers)
610-1066 .572

Kevin McHale (Boston)
605-1062 .570

Maurice Cheeks (Philadelphia)
422-741 .570

Magic Johnson (L.A. Lakers)
504-899 .561

Orlando Woolridge (Chicago)
679-1225 .554

Calvin Natt (Denver)
685-1255 .546

Charles Barkley (Philadelphia)
427-783 .545

Robert Parish (Boston)
551-1016 .542

Byron Scott (L.A. Lakers)
541-1003 .539

Alton Lister (Milwaukee)
322-598 .538

Hakeem Olajuwon (Houston)
677-1258 .538

Mike McGee (L.A. Lakers)
329-612 .538

Derek Smith (L.A. Clippers)
682-1271 .537

Rodney McCray (Houston)
476-890 .535

Kiki Vandeweghe (Portland)
618-1158 .534

When you say "other", who exactly are you referring to?


----------



## truth

YOU are a BASKETBALL NUMNUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

try this one.............

Go find the 10 ten scorers and compare FG%..Then come back to me.....

rashid,even you cant be this DUMB..Its just not possible

Argumentative yes....stubborn...yes........

Or try this......How many players in basketball in the last 50 years have AVG 33 points or more and shot over .530 in the same year????


----------



## alphadog

You make me smile..compare apples to apples. Outside of Kiki, there isn't a jump shooter in the bunch. The majority are all post players tht shot layup, dunks, or doinks...give me a break. You obviously never saw him. Ask your buddy IT, he got an upclose view.) But I guess Detroit didn't play D either.


----------



## truth

rashidi,you made me think of something..

All teasing aside,How many players ever,Avg over 30 pPG and shot over 50% in a year????

Withot looking I am guessing


jabbar
Wilt
the big O
Jordan
maybe Dominique
Elgin Baylor
maybe Nate Archibald??
possibly Maravich,but I doubt it

Ill research it..I really think Bernard is in ELITE company


----------



## truth

Dam Alfa,you are right ...KIKI was awesome in his prime..he never scored 30 ppg(29.4) was his high,but he was lights out as a shooter


----------



## truth

WOW.....I checked out most of the greats

Rashidi,I was wrong in saying their were only 4 small fowards who had comparable years to Bernard.I never thoght of Dantley and Gervin.

Check out the only guys to ever average over 30ppg and shoot better tha 50% 

Jabbar
Wilt
Air Jordan
Moses Malone
Karl Malone

and the little guys

George Gervin
Adrian Dantley
andBernard King 

Guys who came unbelievably close were

Shaq
Bird
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Kiki
Elgin
Alex English 

and last but not least,guys who were close

Rick Barry
Dominique
Nate Archibald

The 30 pt,50% club is definetly a very elite club


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

Kiki wasn't a shooter. He was a monster dunker. He could throw it down on anyone.


----------



## son of oakley

Where do you guys find these stats? Are you looking up each player's careers one at a time or are you finding leaders tabulated year-by-year, etc.

I always seem to have to do it the hard way, player by player. Takes too long...


----------



## son of oakley

Wasn't King more of a Dominique type? Or perhpas a blend between a shooter and a Worthy - able to shoot and do acrobatics in the lane and around the rim?

Kiki a moster dunker? I remember his as a Peja type.


----------



## truth

> Kiki wasn't a shooter. He was a monster dunker. He could throw it down on anyone.


KBF,you best retract that statement,before Alfadog jumps you...Kiki was a great shooter..He only shot .370 from 3 point land but did not shoot alot from there.But was deadly inside the arc shootin.525..And he shot .875 from stripe..

I never realised how good he was


----------



## truth

> Where do you guys find these stats? Are you looking up each player's careers one at a time or are you finding leaders tabulated year-by-year, etc.


Do it the hard way....I thought I knew every player that would have done it or was close,and was almost right...

I forgot about Moses Malone,Dantley Karl, and Gervin

Of the group,West and Kiki were the best shooters....Interesting group of players


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> KBF,you best retract that statement,before Alfadog jumps you...Kiki was a great shooter..He only shot .370 from 3 point land but did not shoot alot from there.But was deadly inside the arc shootin.525..And he shot .875 from stripe..
> 
> I never realised how good he was



Watching him as a kid I remember thinking white guys could jump too. If ernest can do it so can I.


I remember Kiki as a powerguard/ forward, with excellent leaping ability. Didn't he go to the slam dunk contest, anyway, he was like a more acrobatic, less accurate version of brent barry.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

Oh and back in that day, few forwards had a horrible FT percentage. They just had better schooling and more committment to the game. ( Now there is a subjective statement).


----------



## alphadog

OK...now we'rt talking about MY NBA... There is no one like Bernard. He was all about mid-range jumpers and the occassional break. He score at will over anyone and could release the shot at different times...sometimes on the way up...the way down..at the peak..really amazing. Dantly's was more like a centers offensive gamein close, hence the high percentage. The only guys comparable I think are English and Kiki. Yeah Kiki was a great dunker. He would get into the lane and go up...and just seem to keep going and hang there. You never even thought he would dunk it because you didn't think he could reach it, but he did....but as a shooter he had few peers. That is why Riley wanted him, even with the back problems. First day in the Knick camp he shoots 45/50 from three. Thats pretty good shooting, KBF. 

Nah, King was nothing like Wilkins. Put some weight on Alex English and he would be the closest, I think. 53% for a career is great but one year the guy shot 59% while averaging 22...in my mind, that has not been equalled by a non post player and may never be


----------



## Rashidi

Magic Johnson and Byron Scott were post players?


----------



## truth

> Magic Johnson and Byron Scott were post players?


you lost me....what about magic and byron???i didnt see a post about them


----------



## alphadog

Actually most of Magic's points were in the paint. He wasn't a decent shooter until late in his career...it was a way that he evolved his game. Scott was an either or player....he either finished a break or shot the three. He was a very good shooter and extremely athletic. In there primes no GM would take Scott for King. Magic is a whole different story....you are talking top 2 or 3 players in the history of the game.


----------



## truth

Byron scott for Bernard King???

How did that come up......

Thats like trading tmac for a lesser version of h20???

Magic was definetly a better ballplayer than bernard,but he is probably the best all around point guard ever,and certainly redefined his position

Byron Scott??????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Rashidi

> Byron scott for Bernard King???
> 
> How did that come up......


When did it come up? I'd suggest actually reading posts before commenting on their alleged content. It's less confusing for you that way.


----------



## truth

if you answered my innocent question it wouldnt be confusing...

or,if you were consistent and didnt change what people said,it would be less confusing....

if your dosage was increased,you would be less cofusing


----------



## Rashidi

> if your dosage was increased,you would be less cofusing


Perhaps you'd care to elaborate more on your various personal insults that stem from nowhere? Or are you to confused to do so?


----------



## truth

Ill elaborate...You posted something about Magic and Byron 



> Magic Johnson and Byron Scott were post players?


I had no idea where that came into the conversation,and asked
politely



> you lost me....what about magic and byron???i didnt see a post about them


Alfa then posted


> In there primes no GM would take Scott for King. Magic is a whole different story....you are talking top 2 or 3 players in the history of the game.


I replied to Alfa
,increduously


> Byron scott for Bernard King???


you then posted your usual sarcastic passive aggressive responce



> When did it come up? I'd suggest actually reading posts before commenting on their alleged content. It's less confusing for you that way.


I responded in kind...all you had to do was fill me in on but chose to sarcastically engage me


----------



## The True Essence

> Isiah Thomas explains: “What he did to us I had never seen before. We caught him in the middle of a three-year stretch where he was playing better than any small forward in the history of the game. It wasn’t like he was scoring 45 points and taking 40 shots, he was scoring 45 on us only taking 22 shots!”
> 
> “From my standpoint, and understand I’m one that believes the game of basketball is all about matchups,” Julius Erving expresses, “Bernard King was the toughest matchup of my career. And I say that from the heart.”
> 
> Bernard King had only three moves in his arsenal,” Mark Aguirre said to a reporter once. “But you couldn’t stop any one of them. He would just kill you, not softly either.”
> 
> “He was unstoppable.” The words of Alex English flow. “I hated to see him coming on the break on the wing because I knew. He was a small small forward but he was so strong. But he also had an inner strength. I believe, myself, Bob McAdoo and Bernard King should not have been left off of the NBA’s 50 Greatest Players. Of all of us, he should have been [on] there.”


http://www.nba.com/inside_stuff/hoop_april2004_king.html

who will you believe... Rashidi, or a bunch of legends?


----------



## truth

wow,penny,that is all anyone needs to hear,,its amazing to me that Rashidi can say things like "I dont give a crap what Larry Bird says......Thats a great article....Maybe this will shake him up a little but i doubt it


----------



## Rashidi

> its amazing to me that Rashidi can say things like "I dont give a crap what Larry Bird says


Players and coaches tend to be biased when they comment on who is better and what not.  Bird said King was better than Bird. That is called Bird being modest and complimentary to a player he played against for 7 games. This does not magically make it fact. Byron Scott played Jason Collins over Dikembe Mutombo. Isiah Thomas has buried Dikembe Mutombo in favor of a center that can't guard Mark Blount. Tracy McGrady thought Kevin Garnett was the MVP last year. Kevin Garnett thought Tim Duncan was the MVP last year. Shaq will only let his kids watch 6 players, Himself, Kobe, Iverson, Pierce, Garnett, and Duncan. Jeff Van Gundy's favorite player is Ewing. I'm sure this had nothing to do with coaching him for a decade. Ricky Davis thinks he's better than Lebron. Ricky probably thinks he's better than Pierce too. Shaq thinks Bibby doesn't deserve olympic recognition.

Kobe possibly raped a girl and definitely cheated on his wife. Magic cheated on his wife too. Jordan cheated on his wife and you think he'll tell US the truth? Chris Webber "Did not accept money in college" and "does not date Tyra Banks". Players are human, please don't confuse yourself into thinking that their word automatically means something.

If we're going to go by player opinion, then let's start off with Tim Thomas. All his former all-star teammates think he's a lazy bum. But you think he's a "clutch performer" based on his playoff stats. Especially his game 5 and 6 stats from last year...


----------



## truth

Rashidi,what is your problem????

We are talking about Bernard King and Legends of the game commenting on his greatness...You obviously have never watched him,dont know what you are talking about,so why dont you stop your ranting..Whjat does TT,kobe's alleged rape,magic cheating and anything else have to do with Benard King???


----------



## truth

> All his former all-star teammates think he's a lazy bum. But you think he's a "clutch performer" based on his playoff stats.


NOT TRUE,mr fabrication

Michael Redd thinks TT is immensely talented and can be as good as TT wants to be???Whats your point,numnut??

Oh yeah,and guess what Psycho boy???

NEWSFLASH ... Kenyon Martin and Jason Kidd think KVH is such a "clutch performer" that they publicly dissed him and got him traded....

Any other Bernard King related topics you want to bring up before your meds kick in????


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

You guys are boring. Shutup. Back and forth with the same old ****. Truth doesn't read into anything Rashidi posts, and Rashidi never gives Truth a complete answer.

Neat. If we make the playoffs you guys better knocks this **** off.


----------



## Rashidi

> NOT TRUE,mr fabrication


Wow. Just wow. Your memory really is as poor as I say if you remember nothing about Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassell ripping the hell out of Tim Thomas. I'm pretty sure George Karl (indirectly) did too.



> NEWSFLASH ... Kenyon Martin and Jason Kidd think KVH is such a "clutch performer" that they publicly dissed him and got him traded....


Even more indicative that you didn't understand the point of my post. How is Kenyon "3-23" Martin an authority on clutch performances? You're just proving my point.


----------



## son of oakley

Rashidi, I thought you were a proponent of blind scouts because all a scout has to do is be able to read in order to assess talent. Now you come and tell us we can't believe anything we read because all the players, coaches, and HOF voters are bullsh!tters.

So all that's left to read are stats. The stats show King was a phenom, as does his consideration and likely induction in the HOF, inspite of a near career ending injury right at the apex of his prime. The year he got injured he averaged:

33 ppg, .530 FG%, 6 RPG, 4 APG, 26.80 EFF.

That's phenomenal however you slice it.

You like to insinuate he averaged so many PPG due to shot attempts on a bad team but he was on 6 different teams in his career and his attempts that season was near his career average.

The stats also show that VH is a dog in the playoffs.

What's a blind Rashidi to do? The players lie, the stats lie, you've not seen King play... 

Then why the hell are you so set on trying to argue him down. What do you trust, your own commitment to argue?


----------



## Rashidi

> The players lie, the stats lie, you've not seen King play...


I've seen quite a bit of him in highlights.

Like I said before, it's hard to see a player play when they spend half their career on the IR.


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>The Blind Rashidis</b>!
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of him in highlights.
> 
> Like I said before, it's hard to see a player play when they spend half their career on the IR.


Nice cop out.

He was in the league 14 years. Here were his yearly game totals (and I ain't lying):

79, 82, 19, 81, 79, 68, 77, 55, 6 , 69, 81, 82, 64, 32 = 874.

874 games should be enough to get an idea. Now if you'd just admit you don't have enough familiaity with him to pass judgement we could all move on. 

Not able to admit that are you?


----------



## truth

> Like I said before, it's hard to see a player play when they spend half their career on the IR.


  

That statement just cements your ignorance and propensity to argue just for the sake of it...

Part of kings greatness was the fact that he came back as an all star after that horrific injury,when medical technology was nowhere what it is today..

if you have just seen highlights of someone,do you really think its in everyones best interest to listen to you BS and make moronic statements like I dont give a crap what Bird,Thomas,Dr J,English and Acguire think???


----------



## truth

> You guys are boring. Shutup. Back and forth with the same old ****. Truth doesn't read into anything Rashidi posts, and Rashidi never gives Truth a complete answer.


if i didnt read into his posts,i wouldnt politely ask what hes referring to...I would just jump him for making ridiculous statements,and being 100% negative all the time..Like other posters do to him...And at this point rightfully so

He has never seen a full game in which King has played,openly admits it,and then comes up with some theory as to why Bird,Isiah,Dr J,English and Acguire are clueless

He then rants on about kobes alleged Rape,magics problem,MJ and to finish he brings up TT and starts his usual nonsense..All in a Bernard King topic

So,KBF,you want the rest of us to "read into" what that numnut has to say???:no: 

Why should we??


----------



## Rashidi

> Now if you'd just admit you don't have enough familiaity with him to pass judgement we could all move on.


Yes, I'm sure I have learned nothing about King by reading about him. I suppose I know nothing about how Wilt Chamberlain played the game. And since I never watch college basketball, I gues it is impossible for me to know anything about a draft class.

Blind people CAN read by the way, which is what I was referring to when I mentioned that a blind person could tell evaluate two players.

How insightful of you to quickly turn that into a joke rather than giving some thought to it.


----------



## Rashidi

> and make moronic statements like I dont give a crap what Bird,Thomas,Dr J,English and Acguire think???


They have their opinions, and I have mine. However, since you can't fathom that somebody might have a different opinion other than YOUR OWN, I can't imagine you dealing with me thinking differently than other players.



> He then rants on about kobes alleged Rape,magics problem,MJ and to finish he brings up TT and starts his usual nonsense..All in a Bernard King topic


Since you are incapable of reading into things, allow me to inform you that it was related to my point. I know jumping from one side of the train tracks to the other, and back again is very difficult for a linear person like yourself, but you've got to start pulling your weight in these replies.


----------



## truth

> They have their opinions, and I have mine.


you are entitled to your opinion..of course..

but when you say you dont give a crap what larry bird says or other all time greats,and you openly admit you have only seen highlights of King,dont you think thats a little ridiculous and you tend to lose a little credability???

there is no shame in saying i dont have an opinion,you know that


----------



## rynobot

Quit the insults on posters or I will lock this thread down. Debate the arguements presented and not the posters bringing them up.


----------



## truth

who are you talking to regarding insults....rashidi didnt insult me,and i didnt insult him...


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure I have learned nothing about King by reading about him. I suppose I know nothing about how Wilt Chamberlain played the game. And since I never watch college basketball, I gues it is impossible for me to know anything about a draft class.
> 
> Blind people CAN read by the way, which is what I was referring to when I mentioned that a blind person could tell evaluate two players.
> 
> How insightful of you to quickly turn that into a joke rather than giving some thought to it.


Give it up Rashidi, this is exactly how you burn your credibility. There are no blind NBA scouts. If you can't figure out why ask me and I'll help you with it.


----------



## rynobot

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> who are you talking to regarding insults....rashidi didnt insult me,and i didnt insult him...


I consider the term "pyscho boy" an insult. Just keep it clean. Debate each other arguements and do not make it personal.


----------



## truth

> And since I never watch college basketball, I gues it is impossible for me to know anything about a draft class.


amen


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> if i didnt read into his posts,i wouldnt politely ask what hes referring to...I would just jump him for making ridiculous statements,and being 100% negative all the time..Like other posters do to him...And at this point rightfully so


If you read into what he was saying you wouldn't have to.


> He has never seen a full game in which King has played,openly admits it,and then comes up with some theory as to why Bird,Isiah,Dr J,English and Acguire are clueless


And you still won't shutup.


> He then rants on about kobes alleged Rape,magics problem,MJ and to finish he brings up TT and starts his usual nonsense..All in a Bernard King topic
> 
> So,KBF,you want the rest of us to "read into" what that numnut has to say???:no:
> 
> 
> Why should we??



So you can form a brief cogent defense and be done with this, not let it drag on for 8 pages.


----------



## truth

> So you can form a brief cogent defense and be done with this, not let it drag on for 8 pages


amen..lets close it..now lets see if my better half can control himself


----------



## Rashidi

> who are you talking to regarding insults....rashidi didnt insult me,and i didnt insult him...


LMAO. A guy named truth is lying.



> Give it up Rashidi, this is exactly how you burn your credibility. There are no blind NBA scouts. If you can't figure out why ask me and I'll help you with it.


No duh there are no blind scouts in the NBA. This does not mean it is impossible for one to know about an NBA player genius. There are other senses besides sight.

THE BLIND CAN READ. EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN'T SEE.

Which means that yes, READING about King's accomplishments, stats, career, etc does not require you to see him. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Not every fan has seen Wilt and Russell, but most would concede that they were among the best players to ever play. I wonder why that is.


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Which means that yes, READING about King's accomplishments, stats, career, etc does not require you to see him. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Not every fan has seen Wilt and Russell, but most would concede that they were among the best players to ever play. I wonder why that is.


You don't hear people, who've never seen Wilt or Russell, arguing against all they've read that they weren't really that good, do you?

Sure Rashidi, reading about someone may give you a vague notion of what their game was like, but no more. Certainly doesn't qualify you to argue against those that have also read of him, and seen him, and in some cases played with and against him.

At best a reader becomes a historian, certainly NOT a talent evaluator. But the credible historians cite the words of those who did see the subject in question. Historians don't know crap, they reference those who do. That's what those who oppose you HAVE done, and you have NOT.


----------



## truth

> LMAO. A guy named truth is lying.



someone give me the strength not to respond..i promised KBF..

you are flying solo,Oak....


----------



## son of oakley

don't let kbf cramp your style man. you know that blue pulsing vein in his forehead is just a put-on.


----------



## truth

#$%^&& KBF.......this is a different topic



> Not every fan has seen Wilt and Russell, but most would concede that they were among the best players to ever play.


and without seeing either play which one was better???

was wilt better than jabbar???Walton in his prime????


----------



## Rashidi

> That's what those who oppose you HAVE done, and you have NOT.


I take a lot of time to reference myself, a lot more than you and your friend do.



> and without seeing either play which one was better???
> 
> was wilt better than jabbar???Walton in his prime????


Walton is in his prime RIGHT NOW.

Walton > Wilt/Russell/Jabbar


----------



## Rashidi

> At best a reader becomes a historian, certainly NOT a talent evaluator.


http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/game/36644.html

Actually, many people have told me that talent evaluation is what I do best. Most people tell me I should work for the developer because of how much better my ratings are.

There are also a couple people begging me to help them re-create a full league of players, specifically players from the 88-89 season. If you'd take the time to actually spend more than 5 seconds reading it and studying the ratings, you just might surprise yourself.


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/game/36644.html
> 
> Actually, many people have told me that talent evaluation is what I do best. Most people tell me I should work for the developer because of how much better my ratings are.
> 
> There are also a couple people begging me to help them re-create a full league of players, specifically players from the 88-89 season. If you'd take the time to actually spend more than 5 seconds reading it and studying the ratings, you just might surprise yourself.


I thought you did work for the developer, as well you should.

Maybe you didn't notice but in weeks past I posted a link to your FAQ and said it was excellent. But perhaps you shouldn't take yourself so seriously. 

First off, even your FAQ gets edited and updated. 

Second, I don't know where you get some of your information from which you make your assessments. For instance, what do you use to rate a players stamina, and DefAwr, and medium game (I've heard at least one of your theories as it relates to SGs and I was less than convinced)?

Third, I don't agree with some of the outcomes of your tabulations. For instance, Baron Davis is the highest rate PG. By this do you assume him to be the best? I see you rank Vujanic, based upon what info? I see you call him the best PG in Europe. I was once laughed out of a thread for calling him that, and I understand he no longer plays that position. Baron Davis gets a higher overall than Michael Jordan?

Fourth, so if I use your info and play the video games it'll tell me who's a better player, as if that is irrelevant of their team, coaches or teammates? Or will it give me the outcome of games? Can I play the Knicks against the Blazers to see who will win? Are you making your assessments of Bernard King based upon video game outcomes?

Fifth, that people tell you talent evaluation is what you do best means they are making a relative and subjective assessment. What does it say about the other things you do?

Look, to a certain extent I'm joking (immediatly above). I'm not trying to take anything away from you or what you do. I defer to your assessments on many arguments and players. But that says more about my knowledge than yours. I wouldn't expect the same from the likes of Bird, Isiah, Dr J, Alex English, et al. Who disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of King.

There is a limit to what your research can tell you about someone without seeing them.

You're a researched and tabulator, you like to rank people, who's opinion do you rank higher:

1) The person who read about a vintage of wine or the one who tasted it and competed against it with theirs.

2) The person who read about a war or the person who orchestrated one?

3) The person who read a couple of movie reviews or the person who read them and saw the movie?

4) The person who's just read about snow or the skier?

5) The person who read a biography or the person who intimately knows the man?

Are you really suggesting you give no credibility to hands on knowledge?

To take your FAQ seriously I really need to know what you use to make your assessments. If it's purely statistical I think it's it's limited, and if it's based on watching players play, that argues against your position in this thread. I'm dying to know... which is it?


----------



## Rashidi

> First off, even your FAQ gets edited and updated.


Based on newly available information. I don't profess to know every player 100%. I also understand about 90% of the rating mechanics set up by the developers. They edited a whole bunch of players in a roster update (including Baron Davis, who I'll get to)



> Second, I don't know where you get some of your information from which you make your assessments. For instance, what do you use to rate a players stamina, and DefAwr, and medium game (I've heard at least one of your theories as it relates to SGs and I was less than convinced)?


Stamina I usually leave as is unless there is something drastic that needs to be changed. Minute freaks like Allen Iverson that play 40+ mpg usually have 99, 36-38 mpg is usually 96, 30-38 is usually 90-95). Bench players do not have low stamina because they come off the bench. Thus you have to take other factors in like what they did during their career (if they were ever a starter), their role, how many minutes they're playing, and their age. Defensive Awareness is a player's actual defensive abiilty, and I try to read up on this in player scouting reports. It has nothing to do with blocks or steals, DefAwr is pretty much staying in front of your man. And I didn't know I had a theory on medium range. The developer pretty much uses this equation for Medium range. If you're a star, you've got an 83. Period. They gave Lebron an 83 in Med in the aforementioned roster update, while they raised Melo from an 83 to an 84. Meanwhile they still have Allan Houston listed at 83. Obviously something wrong there. It's pretty easy when you start at the top and work down. Kobe/McGrady are 94, Pierce 92, Houston 89, Marbury 86, etc.



> Third, I don't agree with some of the outcomes of your tabulations. For instance, Baron Davis is the highest rate PG.


I do not agree with this either, this was one of the developer's drastic changes. However, it really isn't without merit. The problem is Jason Kidd kills his overall by not being a good shooter. His Med is only 75, which is very low for a star player. Kidd with a 75 Med is 94 overall. Kidd with an 83 Med is a 96 overall. That's how important Med is, especially to a guard. Davis only has a 78 himself, but he has a few other things that Kidd doesn't. For one, his dunking. While dunking has a very minimal effect on PG overall, a 75 in dunking does raise overall by about a point. After that, Kidd and Baron are very similar. Don't forget that Baron is averaging 23 ppg (6th in league) 7.6 apg (4th in league) and 2.4 spg (1st in league). Kidd is averaging 7 points fewer, 0.6 fewer steals (actually pretty significant), and 2 more assists. Kidd is averaging 2 more rebounds, but unfortunately rebounding does not have much impact on overall for a PG.



> By this do you assume him to be the best? I see you rank Vujanic, based upon what info? I see you call him the best PG in Europe. I was once laughed out of a thread for calling him that, and I understand he no longer plays that position.


I have not updated my Notes sections for every player, many of them are from last year (when Vujanic was still scoring 25 ppg playing PG). Eurobasket.net is a good place to start for collecting info on foreign players. I am not the only person to rate Vujanic the way I did, another person at http://www.freewebs.com/espn_nba_basketball/index.htm rates him similarly. And while Vujanic is playing SG in Europe right now, it's because he is on the same team as another good PG, one whom is a better distributor. In the NBA, Vujanic is a PG/SG in the mold of Jamal Crawford, Rafer Alston, Dwyane Wade, etc.



> Baron Davis gets a higher overall than Michael Jordan?


A note on all created players - There are hidden ratings in the game that cannot be edited. Clutch Offense, Clutch Defense are the notable ones, and there are a few others. Most players have 50 in these. All created players have 50 in these. Which means yes, even if you make Michael Jordan, you can't give him the clutch rating he deserves. Why is this important? Because all the other stars have 75 or 99 in these ratings, and the difference in overall is significant. Tracy McGrady and Kobe Bryant are similarly rated. In fact, I'd take McGrady's rating set over Kobe's, even though Kobe has a 99 overall (acutally probably in the 100s, it just doesn't go higher), while McGrady has 96. Why is Kobe rated so high? Because he has a 99 in Clutch Offense, while McGrady has a 75. So obviously if Michael Jordan is a 96 overall, and he has a 50 in clutch ratings, his overall rating is misleading. If he had Kobe's clutch ratings, his overall would be even higher than Kobe's.



> Fourth, so if I use your info and play the video games it'll tell me who's a better player, as if that is irrelevant of their team, coaches or teammates? Or will it give me the outcome of games? Can I play the Knicks against the Blazers to see who will win? Are you making your assessments of Bernard King based upon video game outcomes?


You lost me.



> Fifth, that people tell you talent evaluation is what you do best means they are making a relative and subjective assessment. What does it say about the other things you do?


I don't know, you tell me, since you know my real life skill set so well. Furthermore, I hope you are not saying that there would be something bad about being classified as "video game development staff".

Look, to a certain extent I'm joking (immediatly above). I'm not trying to take anything away from you or what you do. I defer to your assessments on many arguments and players. But that says more about my knowledge than yours. I wouldn't expect the same from the likes of Bird, Isiah, Dr J, Alex English, et al. Who disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of King.

There is a limit to what your research can tell you about someone without seeing them.

You're a researched and tabulator, you like to rank people, who's opinion do you rank higher:



> 1) The person who read about a vintage of wine or the one who tasted it and competed against it with theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) The person who read about a war or the person who orchestrated one?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I find this funny given the world situation. I think most people of the world would concur that the "Orchestrator of War" (Bush) knows very little about what he is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really suggesting you give no credibility to hands on knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give it some credibility, but I take it with a grain of salt. King's opponents obviously respected him. Does that mean they are giving a factual assessment? No. Isiah Thomas brought up when he came to NY that he always "beat Jordan, Bird, and Magic". Furthermore, Jordan and Bird hate Isiah for a variety of reasons. Is there any reason to believe that they can fairly assess him? Bird probably thinks King was better than Isiah, and there are plenty of people that would disagree with him, and maybe a couple that would agree with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of weird statements, let's move to Isiah Thomas. We've already touched on our opinions of the the Thomas hiring in New York. Let's now focus on one little tidbit of Thomas' press conference. Isiah put forth this nugget: "There was Magic, Michael and Larry and I think I’m the only guy walking on the face of the earth that can say that I beat them more than they beat me, but you guys still want to call them the best. But, that’s okay." It's great that Thomas takes pride in being part of a team that hung tough with the Celtics, Lakers, and the Bulls but I don't know if he's characterizing his place in history quite correctly.
> 
> On a base level, Thomas and his Pistons playoff series victories against the Big Three is as follows:
> 
> Lakers: 1-1 (Lakers won the 1987-88 Finals and lost the 1988-89 Finals)
> 
> Celtics: 2-2 (I excluded the 1988-89 playoff series that the Pistons won, Bird missed this whole season with heel problems)
> 
> Bulls: 3-1 (Pistons beat the Bulls three years in a row before being sweeping the Pistons in 1990-91)
> 
> So, Thomas' contention is wrong on its face. He split with Boston and the Lakers. He did beat the Bulls three years in a row but some of those wins were against a young building Bulls team. When the Bulls were at full dynasty strength, the Bulls were at least a match to the Pistons. Pistons were quite a good team but they also peaked at a nice sandwich period where the suns was setting on the Lakers and the Celtics and rising on the Bulls. The Pistons were quite a good team and arguably as good as the other three teams. The Pistons do seem a little less tough as the other three. I base this on a number of factors, most notably the fact that the Pistons run was much shorter than the other teams. Basing "run" on the times that these teams made it to at least the conference finals:
> 
> Celtics 1979-80 to 1987-88 (eight years)
> 
> Lakers 1979-80 to 1990-91 (eleven years)
> 
> Bulls 1988-89 to 1997-98 (eight years)(subtracting the two years that MJ didn't play full season)
> 
> Pistons 1986-87 to 1990-91 (five years)
> 
> As you can see, the Pistons' run was much shorter and their best teams had much lower win-loss records than the other three teams. I suspect the Pistons run was shortened by the superiority of these other teams. The Pistons couldn't compete with L.A. or Boston until they aged slightly. In addition, once the Bulls hit full strength, they were a bit too much for the Pistons to handle. I don't mean to denigrate the Pistons but they were just not as good as the other squads.
> 
> Part of the reason is that the Pistons were deep but they did not have anyone as good as Jordan, Bird, or Magic. Isiah was the best player on the Pistons but he was not the player the other three were. Again, this is not meant to denigrate Isiah, a Hall of Fame player, but the other three are the best players at their respective positions. Check the career stats of these four:
> 
> Players Games PPG FG% RPG APG TOPG
> Magic Johnson 906 19.5 0.521 7.2 11.2 3.9
> Larry Bird 897 24.3 0.496 10.1 6.3 3.1
> Michael Jordan 1072 30.1 0.497 6.2 5.3 2.7
> Isiah Thomas 979 19.2 0.452 3.6 9.3 3.8
> 
> I know that raw averages aren't the be all and end all of statistical analysis but it's pretty apparent that Isiah did not function in the same league as the Big Three. You have to love Thomas' confidence about his own abilities but let's be clear neither Thomas nor the Pistons were as good as Isiah's rivals or the teams they played on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There we have it. It's fine and dandy that King's old rivals think highly of him, but again, let's not automatically believe them without question. Players may "experience" things, but they experience them through their own minds, and minds differ from person to person.
> 
> An NBA player usually says 99 times out of 100 that they have the best job in the world, which is clearly an opinionated statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The person who read a couple of movie reviews or the person who read them and saw the movie?
> 
> 4) The person who's just read about snow or the skier?
> 
> 5) The person who read a biography or the person who intimately knows the man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question. You do realize that you are diminishing newspaper/internet editorials by using these as your points, right? Guys like Mike Lupica, Marc Stein, Peter Vescey, Mitch Lawrence, Peter Aldridge, etc didn't play in the NBA. Does that mean we should take them less seriously than say, a guest columnist like John Starks? It's easier to be partial from the outside looking in, not the other way around. Furthermore, the same goes for commentators. Marv Albert has been calling games forever. Does that mean that Walt Frazier, and rookie commentator Steve Kerr know more about the NBA life than Marv does? Further, what makes a good coach? We have all these coaches nowadays who are former players. Who is better at coaching, a coach, or a player turned coach? Lenny Wilkins, Don Nelson, Don Chaney, Isiah Thomas, Phil Jackson, Terry Porter, Byron Scott, Larry Bird, Scott Skiles, Frank Johnson, Nate McMillian, etc played in the NBA. Does this make them better prepared to be NBA coaches than say, Jeff Van Gundy, Stan Van Gundy, Pat Riley, George Karl, Lawrence Frank, Rick Carlisie, etc? Is an NBA player a better coach than a college coach or an upper level high school coach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To take your FAQ seriously I really need to know what you use to make your assessments. If it's purely statistical I think it's it's limited, and if it's based on watching players play, that argues against your position in this thread. I'm dying to know... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both. Which is basically my arguement in the thread. There are too many inconsistencies based on one season of stats, and not every rating is statistically based. Like Handle, Speed, Post ability, Awareness, etc. Eventually I will get around to creating King to see where he ranks among today's greats and past greats.
> 
> I prefer these game's ratings over another game, NBA Live. Their rating system is a bit silly. Overall is the average of ALL ratings. Not all abilities are equal to others. Especially when you throw in frickin ratings like JUMPING. First of all, how do you go about seriously evaluating a player's jumping ability and comparing them to others in the league? And what skill is more important, shooting, passing, or JUMPING? How many times has leaping ability actually impacted a game more than any of the other skills? The game practically is giving an advantage to the athletic scrubs in the league who can't do much after dunking (which is a seperate rating from jumping btw). The only way you'd be able to actually accurately rate jumping is if you were an NBA scout with access to training camp stats like who runs the 100 yard dash best and who has the best agility, vertial leap, horizontal leap, etc. How does one know if the developer got these ratings right? And Allan Houston is having knee problems? Wouldn't this affect his jumping ability? How do you accurately reduce that, especially since his leaping ability will probably vary by the day? It's just one flaw in the system that made me want to avoid working with it.
> 
> And also, intimate details are find and dandy, but it doesn't take intimate detail for a person to acknowledge that Star Wars or Lord of the Rings is a good movie trilogy. However, if you asked fans of both which is better, you'd probably have a lot of Star Wars fans taking sides, and a lot of LotR fans taking sides. A person who is a fan of neither would be best equipped to say which he feels is better.
Click to expand...


----------



## dcrono3

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Actually I find this funny given the world situation. I think most people of the world would concur that the "Orchestrator of War" (Bush) knows very little about what he is doing.
> 
> 
> I give it some credibility, but I take it with a grain of salt. King's opponents obviously respected him. Does that mean they are giving a factual assessment? No. Isiah Thomas brought up when he came to NY that he always "beat Jordan, Bird, and Magic". Furthermore, Jordan and Bird hate Isiah for a variety of reasons. Is there any reason to believe that they can fairly assess him? Bird probably thinks King was better than Isiah, and there are plenty of people that would disagree with him, and maybe a couple that would agree with him.
> 
> 
> There we have it. It's fine and dandy that King's old rivals think highly of him, but again, let's not automatically believe them without question. Players may "experience" things, but they experience them through their own minds, and minds differ from person to person.
> 
> An NBA player usually says 99 times out of 100 that they have the best job in the world, which is clearly an opinionated statement.
> 
> 
> Question. You do realize that you are diminishing newspaper/internet editorials by using these as your points, right? Guys like Mike Lupica, Marc Stein, Peter Vescey, Mitch Lawrence, Peter Aldridge, etc didn't play in the NBA. Does that mean we should take them less seriously than say, a guest columnist like John Starks? It's easier to be partial from the outside looking in, not the other way around. Furthermore, the same goes for commentators. Marv Albert has been calling games forever. Does that mean that Walt Frazier, and rookie commentator Steve Kerr know more about the NBA life than Marv does? Further, what makes a good coach? We have all these coaches nowadays who are former players. Who is better at coaching, a coach, or a player turned coach? Lenny Wilkins, Don Nelson, Don Chaney, Isiah Thomas, Phil Jackson, Terry Porter, Byron Scott, Larry Bird, Scott Skiles, Frank Johnson, Nate McMillian, etc played in the NBA. Does this make them better prepared to be NBA coaches than say, Jeff Van Gundy, Stan Van Gundy, Pat Riley, George Karl, Lawrence Frank, Rick Carlisie, etc? Is an NBA player a better coach than a college coach or an upper level high school coach?


Bush isn't the only Orchestrator of War in history. Maybe Oakley should have rephrased it differently. How aobut this, would a soldier who fought in a war know the horrors of war more or would a reader reading a book written about a war.

Rashidi, you make a lot of good points in your post, but I don't really agree with you on some. Player opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, but when you have so many players all saying basically the same thing, maybe what they say could be true? I think using Isiah as an example would be a bit extreme. IT is known for his supreme self-confidence which is bordering on cockiness. He believes he is probably one of the best who ever played the game. On the other hand Bird and Dr J were usually model citizens who didn't really talk trash like IT. Their statements should be more credible IMO. Just a side note, Isiah says he always beats Magic, Jordan, and Bird. Yet IT acknoledges King's skills, does that say something at all? Basically, I agree with Rashidi that we shouldn't take a players word at glance, but seriously Rashidi, it's not like only one player is praising King. When you have so many ppl saying that King was a great player, maybe we should believe them.

The one big problem I have with you Rashidi is that you believe your opinion is better than others. Hey, everyone does that, even I do, but I just think that you can't disregard the statements of many NBA greats just because you feel differently. Sure Marv Albert probably knows more than Kerr, but are you saying that you are up to Marv's level already? Very rarely do those writers/commentators pop up. How many are in the whole world? I don't think you are up to that level yet Rashidi. I could very well be wrong, but it could also be that Rashidi has the same "extreme self-confidence in his own abilities" like Isiah did. Frankly, I thought that when Isiash made his "I'm always better than Jordan, Magic, Bird..." comments he was being pretty stupid/cocky. Isiah was good, but no one always beats a person, especially three of the best players to ever play the game. Madsen of the Wolves gives Shaq fits whenever he defends Shaq, but Shaq is a much better player. No one player is ever dominate, there will always be times when you are wrong.


----------



## son of oakley

Rashidi, I appreciate your long, sincere, and forthcoming reply. I hope to be able to give your post the same in return. Unfortunately I have a family health matter at hand, so I was only able to give it the quickest of glances.

The only reply I have at the moment is probably the most off topic, but the easiest. GW Bush is not the orchestrator of any war, he is a puppet of the neo-conservatives and the military/industrial warlords. Those entities merely speak to his religious sentimentalities, from which he is imminently receptive. Thus, he is hardly who I was referencing in that instance.

More later...

But not about Bush.


----------



## Perennial All Star

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Based on newly available information. I don't profess to know every player 100%. I also understand about 90% of the rating mechanics set up by the developers. They edited a whole bunch of players in a roster update (including Baron Davis, who I'll get to)
> 
> 
> 
> Stamina I usually leave as is unless there is something drastic that needs to be changed. Minute freaks like Allen Iverson that play 40+ mpg usually have 99, 36-38 mpg is usually 96, 30-38 is usually 90-95). Bench players do not have low stamina because they come off the bench. Thus you have to take other factors in like what they did during their career (if they were ever a starter), their role, how many minutes they're playing, and their age. Defensive Awareness is a player's actual defensive abiilty, and I try to read up on this in player scouting reports. It has nothing to do with blocks or steals, DefAwr is pretty much staying in front of your man. And I didn't know I had a theory on medium range. The developer pretty much uses this equation for Medium range. If you're a star, you've got an 83. Period. They gave Lebron an 83 in Med in the aforementioned roster update, while they raised Melo from an 83 to an 84. Meanwhile they still have Allan Houston listed at 83. Obviously something wrong there. It's pretty easy when you start at the top and work down. Kobe/McGrady are 94, Pierce 92, Houston 89, Marbury 86, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree with this either, this was one of the developer's drastic changes. However, it really isn't without merit. The problem is Jason Kidd kills his overall by not being a good shooter. His Med is only 75, which is very low for a star player. Kidd with a 75 Med is 94 overall. Kidd with an 83 Med is a 96 overall. That's how important Med is, especially to a guard. Davis only has a 78 himself, but he has a few other things that Kidd doesn't. For one, his dunking. While dunking has a very minimal effect on PG overall, a 75 in dunking does raise overall by about a point. After that, Kidd and Baron are very similar. Don't forget that Baron is averaging 23 ppg (6th in league) 7.6 apg (4th in league) and 2.4 spg (1st in league). Kidd is averaging 7 points fewer, 0.6 fewer steals (actually pretty significant), and 2 more assists. Kidd is averaging 2 more rebounds, but unfortunately rebounding does not have much impact on overall for a PG.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not updated my Notes sections for every player, many of them are from last year (when Vujanic was still scoring 25 ppg playing PG). Eurobasket.net is a good place to start for collecting info on foreign players. I am not the only person to rate Vujanic the way I did, another person at http://www.freewebs.com/espn_nba_basketball/index.htm rates him similarly. And while Vujanic is playing SG in Europe right now, it's because he is on the same team as another good PG, one whom is a better distributor. In the NBA, Vujanic is a PG/SG in the mold of Jamal Crawford, Rafer Alston, Dwyane Wade, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> A note on all created players - There are hidden ratings in the game that cannot be edited. Clutch Offense, Clutch Defense are the notable ones, and there are a few others. Most players have 50 in these. All created players have 50 in these. Which means yes, even if you make Michael Jordan, you can't give him the clutch rating he deserves. Why is this important? Because all the other stars have 75 or 99 in these ratings, and the difference in overall is significant. Tracy McGrady and Kobe Bryant are similarly rated. In fact, I'd take McGrady's rating set over Kobe's, even though Kobe has a 99 overall (acutally probably in the 100s, it just doesn't go higher), while McGrady has 96. Why is Kobe rated so high? Because he has a 99 in Clutch Offense, while McGrady has a 75. So obviously if Michael Jordan is a 96 overall, and he has a 50 in clutch ratings, his overall rating is misleading. If he had Kobe's clutch ratings, his overall would be even higher than Kobe's.
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, you tell me, since you know my real life skill set so well. Furthermore, I hope you are not saying that there would be something bad about being classified as "video game development staff".
> 
> Look, to a certain extent I'm joking (immediatly above). I'm not trying to take anything away from you or what you do. I defer to your assessments on many arguments and players. But that says more about my knowledge than yours. I wouldn't expect the same from the likes of Bird, Isiah, Dr J, Alex English, et al. Who disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of King.
> 
> There is a limit to what your research can tell you about someone without seeing them.
> 
> You're a researched and tabulator, you like to rank people, who's opinion do you rank higher:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I find this funny given the world situation. I think most people of the world would concur that the "Orchestrator of War" (Bush) knows very little about what he is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> I give it some credibility, but I take it with a grain of salt. King's opponents obviously respected him. Does that mean they are giving a factual assessment? No. Isiah Thomas brought up when he came to NY that he always "beat Jordan, Bird, and Magic". Furthermore, Jordan and Bird hate Isiah for a variety of reasons. Is there any reason to believe that they can fairly assess him? Bird probably thinks King was better than Isiah, and there are plenty of people that would disagree with him, and maybe a couple that would agree with him.
> 
> 
> 
> There we have it. It's fine and dandy that King's old rivals think highly of him, but again, let's not automatically believe them without question. Players may "experience" things, but they experience them through their own minds, and minds differ from person to person.
> 
> An NBA player usually says 99 times out of 100 that they have the best job in the world, which is clearly an opinionated statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Question. You do realize that you are diminishing newspaper/internet editorials by using these as your points, right? Guys like Mike Lupica, Marc Stein, Peter Vescey, Mitch Lawrence, Peter Aldridge, etc didn't play in the NBA. Does that mean we should take them less seriously than say, a guest columnist like John Starks? It's easier to be partial from the outside looking in, not the other way around. Furthermore, the same goes for commentators. Marv Albert has been calling games forever. Does that mean that Walt Frazier, and rookie commentator Steve Kerr know more about the NBA life than Marv does? Further, what makes a good coach? We have all these coaches nowadays who are former players. Who is better at coaching, a coach, or a player turned coach? Lenny Wilkins, Don Nelson, Don Chaney, Isiah Thomas, Phil Jackson, Terry Porter, Byron Scott, Larry Bird, Scott Skiles, Frank Johnson, Nate McMillian, etc played in the NBA. Does this make them better prepared to be NBA coaches than say, Jeff Van Gundy, Stan Van Gundy, Pat Riley, George Karl, Lawrence Frank, Rick Carlisie, etc? Is an NBA player a better coach than a college coach or an upper level high school coach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both. Which is basically my arguement in the thread. There are too many inconsistencies based on one season of stats, and not every rating is statistically based. Like Handle, Speed, Post ability, Awareness, etc. Eventually I will get around to creating King to see where he ranks among today's greats and past greats.
> 
> I prefer these game's ratings over another game, NBA Live. Their rating system is a bit silly. Overall is the average of ALL ratings. Not all abilities are equal to others. Especially when you throw in frickin ratings like JUMPING. First of all, how do you go about seriously evaluating a player's jumping ability and comparing them to others in the league? And what skill is more important, shooting, passing, or JUMPING? How many times has leaping ability actually impacted a game more than any of the other skills? The game practically is giving an advantage to the athletic scrubs in the league who can't do much after dunking (which is a seperate rating from jumping btw). The only way you'd be able to actually accurately rate jumping is if you were an NBA scout with access to training camp stats like who runs the 100 yard dash best and who has the best agility, vertial leap, horizontal leap, etc. How does one know if the developer got these ratings right? And Allan Houston is having knee problems? Wouldn't this affect his jumping ability? How do you accurately reduce that, especially since his leaping ability will probably vary by the day? It's just one flaw in the system that made me want to avoid working with it.
> 
> And also, intimate details are find and dandy, but it doesn't take intimate detail for a person to acknowledge that Star Wars or Lord of the Rings is a good movie trilogy. However, if you asked fans of both which is better, you'd probably have a lot of Star Wars fans taking sides, and a lot of LotR fans taking sides. A person who is a fan of neither would be best equipped to say which he feels is better.



WTF? Your writing a novel or something?


----------



## dcrono3

> Originally posted by <b>NYKFan123</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? Your writing a novel or something?


NYKFan123 maybe you should get off Rashidi's back for once. Unless you are deliberately fanning th flames and want an arguemnt again.


----------



## alphadog

BTW, Rashidi....Walton, when healthy(which was rare), WAS one of the best ever. Maybe THE best passing center, maybe the best all around defensive center(man to man and team, which includes blocking shots), never took bad shots, GREAT rebounder. Outside of his knees, he had no weakness. His 22/23 games against NCState and David Thompson will never be eclipsed. I watched his career, Jabbar's, and Wilt's, and the tail end of Russell's. He was a better all around player than any of them, although opnly slightly better than Jabbar. His health issues force him down the list.


----------



## truth

> Walton is in his prime RIGHT NOW.





> Walton > Wilt/Russell/Jabbar


i assume you are serious about that...just out of curiousity,what makes you say that as walton was injured so often..i am curious


----------



## alphadog

Coming out of college Waltons knees were already a mess. I was wrong aboout NCState being the foe...it was Memphis with Larry Kenon and Finch, I think. The best explanation of his career and injuries is on NBA.com. Click on players...legendary players and then Walton. Read his complete bio...he was absolutely awesome. He averaged 19rpg his first 7 games and then the injuries started. Its a very good write up.


----------



## truth

alfa,i remeber the memphis stae game with dr k and finch...I was curious to rashidis view on walton.....i would have to say he was all around the best,perhaps second behind wilt..wilt was very impressive..obviously


----------



## truth

guys,i just checked the numbers.let me revise my opinion..Walton had a great all around game..But he was no Jabbar and certainly no Wilt...Wilt is an unfair comparison as he was a giant amongst men back in his heyday...


----------



## Rashidi

Bernard King
Overall ?
Close 97
Med 94
3pt 58
FT 77
Layup 90
Dunk 70
Handle 80
Pass 60
PostOff 75
PostDef 70
Block 60
Steal 70
RebOff 70
RebDef 75
Speed 80
Stam 94
Dur 70
DefAwr 75
OffAwr 90

I came up with that in about 5 mins. The only thing I need to do is check what his overall would be when I get home. The only rating that I can see toggling is maybe the rebounding, I need to compare it to a few other players but it wouldn't change much from where I have it now.

Fyi, my Larry Bird ended up being a 96 overall (same as the Jordan). I can already tell King won't break 90. He's pretty much inferior or equal in nearly every area but speed and I think handle. He's more swingman than Bird, but Bird was essentially a point forward that would have played PF if it weren't for Kevin McHale.


----------



## truth

so if i may read into what you posted and i have not read all your post,you are saying BK was a 90,or slightly less,and that includes him plaaying on one leg and all his injuries???

is that fair


----------



## Rashidi

No. That's gauging him pre-injury.

Post injury obviously his speed suffered. His defense and rebounding did too, and obviously his scoring ability went down across the board as well. His FT shooting did go up though, and all but 4 of his 23 career threes came after the injury, though I'd attribute that to the increased importance of the three point shot as interior defenses tightened up, not to a significant boost in his shooting ability. He was only a 17% career shooter, and he had 21% (8-37) and 28% (2-9) his final 2 years.


----------



## truth

nice research!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fordy74

Anyone that watched King play and witnessed him leading a team of scrubs like Marvin Webster, Ray Williams, Ernie Grunfeld, Rory Sparrow etc. to the playoffs knows just how good he was. Back to back 50 plus point games in the playoffs?? are you kidding me? that is unprecedented. his well over 50 percent FG percentage is amazing considering the type of shots he used to take. alot of them were high degree of difficlulty. Anyone who had the pleasure of witnessing the brilliance of Bernard King would just laugh in the face of someone trying to minimalize what King accomplished and what kind of player he was. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## truth

i agree fordy...this debatee has been raging on..but i think his true greatness came 5 years later after those horrific injuries and he changed his game,avg 28 points per and made the all start team


----------



## Rashidi

> avg 28 points per and made the all start team


You mean on ANOTHER 30 win team? How impressive. Without King the following year, they only won 5 fewer games.

King took just as many Field Goal attempts that year as he did in his 32 ppg season. Now THAT's impressive...

He took 23.6 FGA in both seasons. 90-91 coincidently was the first season since 84-85 he was healthy enough to play 37 minutes. Not surprisingly, he had to sit out the following year again after playing such rigourous minutes.

And still not surprisng, King's shot attempts increased from the previous year due to the subtraction of Jeff Malone (led team with 24 ppg the previous year). Not because he "got back his game" back.


----------



## truth

> King took just as many Field Goal attempts that year as he did in his 32 ppg season. Now THAT's impressive


yeah,and he still shot a repectable .472...maybe now it will sink in how good he was the year he shot .530 and scored 33 per game..



> Not because he "got back his game" back.


rashidi,other than video bball,have you ever played basketball competitively???do you have any idea how difficult it is to recuperate and come back from the inuries king sustained??

honetly rashidi,you say some unbelievably silly things...life is not a video game


----------



## Rashidi

Bernard King (pre-injury)
Position SF - Pure Shooter
*Overall 86*
Close 97
Med 94
3pt 58
FT 77
Layup 90
Dunk 75
Handle 85
Pass 60
PostOff 75
PostDef 70
Block 60
Steal 70
RebOff 70
RebDef 75
Speed 85
Stam 94
Dur 70
DefAwr 75
OffAwr 90

Larry Bird
Position SF - Pure Shooter
*Overall 94*
Close 97
Med 96
3pt 90
FT 92
Layup 90
Dunk 70
Handle 80
Pass 80
PostOff 80
PostDef 75
Block 70
Steal 80
RebOff 75
RebDef 90
Speed 75
Stam 96
Dur 80
DefAwr 85
OffAwr 95

I tweaked both a bit. I will probably make a Bernard King "post-injury" CAP.

Allan Houston
Position SG - Pure Shooter
*Overall 83*
Close 94
Med 89
3pt 90
FT 92
Layup 80
Dunk 60
Handle 80
Pass 60
PostOff 70
PostDef 60
Block 50
Steal 55
RebOff 50
RebDef 60
Speed 80
Stam 95
Dur 80
DefAwr 70
OffAwr 85

Last year, in Allan Houston's 10th season he scored an impressive career high 22.5 ppg. Imagine what he could have done if he were the main option on a 35 win team when he was younger. The "Hall of Fame" is based on career accomplishments. King hardly ever made the playoffs, but he did score a lot on bad teams. Allan Houston was usually the 2nd or 3rd option on his team, sometimes even 4th. Forget the NBA Finals, Houston was actually able to get out of the 2nd round, and did so more than once. 

Would Houston be more of a hall of famer if he took King's career path, and put up big numbers on bad teams, instead of being part of a good team that made noise in the playoffs?

King reminds me of Vince Carter - an overhyped superstar who has yet to lead his team to anything, in part because injuries have impacted his career. Is Vince Carter on a beeline to the hall of fame? Depends on who you ask. I wouldn't even rank VC among the top 5 SGs in the league.

Jerry Stackhouse averaged 29 ppg and was 2nd in the league in scoring that year. He hasn't done anything remarkable in his career other than score on bad teams. I don't think anybody has him on their top 5 list either. 

Same with Glenn Robinson, though Robinson never had a big scoring year, mostly because he had to share the ball with Ray Allen and Sam Cassell.


----------



## Rashidi

> rashidi,other than video bball,have you ever played basketball competitively???do you have any idea how difficult it is to recuperate and come back from the inuries king sustained??


Yep. And no, I've never gotten injured. Nor do I know of anyone who torseriously injured themselves while playing basketball. Pros play through injuries because they have to, basketball is their paycheck. And King DID sit out 2 years, so he had plenty of time to recuperate. Keep in mind that he was a SHOOTER. King's injuries may have been serious, but I don't think his situation was more dire than Antonio McDyess, Grant Hill, and Penny Hardaway. King could shoot. Shooting was the weakness of the aforementioned 3 guys. If Penny COULD shoot, he'd still be great, because that's pretty much all he does now, shoot from 16-24. King was obviously better at hitting that shot, and that's the difference.


----------



## alphadog

You are mistaken in a couple of thoughts. King was good shooter but what he really was, was a scorer, which is a whole 'nother animal. He drove, he finished breaks, he posted, he spotted up(but rarely), and he drew fouls. Second, the kind of injury that he suffered had never NOT ended a bball career at that time. Norman Scott said the inside of his knee looked like spagetti. The fact that he was out two years meant nothing....the fact that he was the first to come back from the kind of injury that he had speaks volumes. According to your numbers, Houston and King are similiarly valuable? There is not one GM at any time that would pick H2O over King if he was starting a team. Have your "video game"(please....) analysis, but I have reality.


----------



## Rashidi

> According to your numbers, Houston and King are similiarly valuable? There is not one GM at any time that would pick H2O over King if he was starting a team. Have your "video game"(please....) analysis, but I have reality.


No, King is clearly better than Houston. But not by much. Houston was never the #1 option on his team until last year. How many points do you think he'd score taking 23.6 FGA per game? What I was saying is King's career numbers look good because he was always the best player on a bad team, while Houston was busy being the 3rd best player on his team and hitting clutch shots year in and year out in the playoffs.

If Allan Houston put up 24 ppg on a 30 win team every year, would he be hall of fame worthy? Everybody would consider him on par with Mitch Richmond if he did that. And Mitch is probably going to the hall, even though he played in 23 career playoff games, and led the Kings to the playoffs once in seven years.

Then again, let's go back to that player similarity list.

Players most similar to Mitch Richmond
Similar Players (Career)
Glen Rice (841)
Chris Mullin (815)
Hersey Hawkins (809)
Reggie Theus (799)
Joe Dumars (796)
Latrell Sprewell (792)
Mark Aguirre (791)
World Free (781)
Detlef Schrempf (769)
Bernard King (768)

Do you see any Hall of Famers on this list? The only thing King has going for him is the all-nba 1st team selections, Mitch never got those because he played in the Jordan era. He was "considered" the 3rd best SG in the league (after MJ and Drexler). But what merit was that based on? Nobody remembers MJ for his 37 ppg season, they remember him for his 6 championships.

What will Allan Houston be remembered for? His two 50 point games, or his playoff heroics? I get the feeling that a lot more people remember King for his 32 ppg season than for his playoff heroics, which says a lot about their 2 respective careers. 

Who had the better career, Steve Kerr (5 rings, many big playoff shots) or a guy that averaged 16 ppg in the regular season every year and had one career playoff appearance? I guess the King fans would lean towards column B.

I've got another question. If King was so good, then why was he only a 4 time all-star? Not including the year he played 6 games, he scored at least 20 ppg 10 times in 14 seasons. You think coaches didn't realize that points scored on 30 win teams don't mean much? Allan Houston was only a 2 time all-star, and he didn't even score 20 ppg until AFTER his 2 all-star appearances.



> King was good shooter but what he really was, was a scorer, which is a whole 'nother animal


I'm aware of this, but the fact is he could shoot. Vince Carter can shoot too. He doesn't go to the rim nearly as much as he used to since his knee problems, but he still doesn't have trouble scoring. If he couldn't shoot, then he'd be in trouble.


----------



## truth

> Pros play through injuries because they have to, basketball is their paycheck


NOT TRUE....dont say stuff like that...Its absurd

rashidi your video stats are really cool and i am sure its fun,but give it up..



> No, King is clearly better than Houston. But not by much


QUOTE]If King was so good, then why was he only a 4 time all-star[/QUOTE] 



Are you joking????

I wont address the H20 joke..its embarrassing....
I know you arent an athlete and computer nerds like you PISS me off...Do you have any idea,what it like to have as severe an injury that King had,at the time he had it??..Do you have any idea what kind of rehab,how grueling that process is????Obviously,you are clueless,and its really sad..



> If Penny COULD shoot, he'd still be great


Did you ever watch Penny in his prime???Obviously not in depth....Penny has completely lost his explosiveness,quickness,and leaping ability......

Rashidi,How old Are You ????

Clearly you are of the computer,tech world .......
Rashidi,basketball and sports is not a video game as much as you geeks would like to believe....Enjoy your simulations,sit in front of your screen,but please,spare the athletes of the world you video geek BS


----------



## truth

> King reminds me of Vince Carter


i am gald king reminds you of carter..Is that in reality or on one of your video games....

you havent seen king play except on playstation yet you feel qualified to debate larry bird..Isiah...dr J....Alex English...

Amazing the insight playstation can provide one with


----------



## alphadog

Having seen them both, King is absolutely NOTHING like Carter. Lets be clear about something else as well.....Houston doesn't shoot the % he does now if he is the #1 option on a 30 win team. The "d" would focus on him and you would see him shrink. King saw the maximun defense every night and was simply unstoppable...what is your code for unstoppable? 

Tell you what....grab a partner and pick your team and I will grab Truth. You do your computer analysis while Truth and I duke it out over the intangibles and then our team will eat your teams lunch..)


----------



## Rashidi

> I know you arent an athlete


Actually I played basketball today. And I'm hopefully going to play in my brother's summer league this year. I don't play basketball every day anymore, but please, limit your baseless comments and biased attempts to attack me to a minimum.



> and computer nerds like you PISS me off...


You spend even more time posting on this message board than I do, so really, be careful with the term "computer nerd". Feel free to ignore that this "internet message board" (definitely not the gathering place of computer nerds) was created by a person(s) that likely spend a lot of time on said computer and internet message board. I always find it humorous and hypocritical when somebody on the INTERNET calls someone else a nerd. If you're so cool, what are you doing on the internet? A real jock like yourself wouldn't even bother to waste their time responding to me, and wouldn't bother arguing with everything I say. REAL MEN have better things to do than talk about basketball on the internet. Like hang with the guys, have sex with females, drink alcoholic beverages, and generally, a lot of activities not related to posting on an internet message board.

And it pleases me that a computer nerd like myself torments your tiny little jock mind so much. Maybe that is why so many of your responses to me seem like I've got a plastic bag over your head and your arms are flailing around.

You know where REAL MEN talk about sports? *In a sports bar*. NOT on the internet.



> Do you have any idea,what it like to have as severe an injury that King had,at the time he had it??..Do you have any idea what kind of rehab,how grueling that process is????Obviously,you are clueless,and its really sad..


I'd imagine it's a helluva lot easier when you've got 2 years of free time to rehab it, especially when you're being paid 7 digit figures.



> Houston doesn't shoot the % he does now if he is the #1 option on a 30 win team.


Houston had a FG 44% last year, a very high number not only for a jump shooter, but for a SG in general in today's era. He did that as the #1 option on a 30 win team. While your analogy might apply to the Jalen Roses, Allen Iversons, Jerry Stackhouses, Latrell Sprewells, Carmelo Anthonys, Lebron James and Ricky Davises of the world, it doesn't apply to Houston. Those other guys need to handle the ball more. Houston just recieves it in a set position and goes to work. A lot more methodical than driving inbetween 3 defenders.

And since when do jump shooters get doubled anyway? When have Peja Stojakovic, Glen Rice, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, etc ever goten double teamed? Haven't you ever heard of a screen? The guys who get doubled are the ones who try to play one on one all the time.



> NOT TRUE....dont say stuff like that...Its absurd


Not true? How Naive.



> Penny has completely lost his explosiveness,quickness,and leaping ability......


Well no duh Captain Obvious. That's why if he COULD shoot he'd still be good. He doesn't have anything left in the athletics department. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, other than reinforce my original point.



> Clearly you are of the computer,tech world .......


Nope. I am in neither the athletic jock world, nor the computer tech world.



> Rashidi,basketball and sports is not a video game as much as you geeks would like to believe....


When did I say that sports were a video game?



> Enjoy your simulations,sit in front of your screen


Actually I don't play the game, I just edit the ratings. I don't even simulate or play games, I just edit the ratings, I'm more interested in making the players as realistc as possible for compartive purposes. Why do I do this? Mainly because I find it fun.



> spare the athletes of the world you video geek BS


Sorry, but the world belongs to more than steaming pieces of elephant feces like yourself. Don't like it, don't post. Go play some basketball ball you dumb monkey arch-rival of nerds, instead of wasting hours of your life typing about it on an internet message board. Did YOU play basketball today like I did?

You know what I think is funny?

Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 1414
Posts Per Day: 2.25 

You were never a regular until I started posting here. Looks like the nerd has turned you into a nerd. You better get back to athletics before your stretched out muscles turn to slop, son.

You know what I think? I think that you're bitter because your sports career was ended by injury. That's probably why you spend all day posting on an internet message board, because you CAN'T play basketball anymore, doctor's orders. If that's the case, spare me the venom, and BOO-HOO.


----------



## Rashidi

> Tell you what....grab a partner and pick your team and I will grab Truth. You do your computer analysis while Truth and I duke it out over the intangibles and then our team will eat your teams lunch.


Huh? Are you talking about a real game or something? I don't get it.

And a lot of my posts mention quite a lot of stuff that isn't "computer simulated". So please, if you don't care about any data I present, then get back to giving your new found college friend fellatio as he tells you stories about his Syracuse playing days.


----------



## Rashidi

> but please,spare the athletes of the world you video geek BS


It just occurred to me. When did I use any of my video game data in an arguement? All I did was present it. Jocks, go figure. You mention something related to requiring more than a peanut sized brain, and they go on the offensive.


----------



## truth

> then get back to giving your new found college friend fellatio as he tells you stories about his Syracuse playing days.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!that is too $%$^& funny!!!!!!!!!!!

see,unlike you,i appreciate good comebacks like that...

if you would eliminate your sarcasm and stick to busting balls,this would be much more fun!!!


----------



## truth

> You know what I think? I think that you're bitter because your sports career was ended by injury. That's probably why you spend all day posting on an internet message board, because you CAN'T play basketball anymore, doctor's orders. If that's the case, spare me the venom, and BOO-HOO.


Not correct..Fortunetly,I was lucky,but I have many buddies who have had serious injuries..You have no idea how tough it is to come back from major injuries,physically and emotionally..And since you dont you shouldnt say stupid things..Its just not right

Athletes dont necessarily play for just money and paychecks..and you dp realise pro athletes get paid injured or not..

Do you have any idea what jay Williams is going to have to go thru in hopes of coming back???

Do you know what kind of motivation and internal fortitude it takes to rehab and sit out for 2 years in hope of coming back??


----------



## Rashidi

> Athletes dont necessarily play for just money and paychecks..and you dp realise pro athletes get paid injured or not..


I'm sure they do it for the companionship as well.



> Do you have any idea what jay Williams is going to have to go thru in hopes of coming back???


Months of agonizingly slapping himself in the face for breach of contract? I would imagine he's going through the same thing Bobby Hurley was. Injuries are hard. You know what else is hard? Life. He'll adjust, that's nature. Will he like it? No. Does he have a choice? No. That's why pro athletes get paid what they do, because there's a high likelyhood they will do permanent damage to their bodies. Who is the last pro athlete to live to 100? You don't think this has something to do with the physical punishment of everyday life? Since most sports players retire at 35-40, not 65, I guess somethings are worth it.

Even if Jay-Will can't come back, he's all but guaranteed a spot working in basketball anyway, be it in the Bulls organization, or as a commentator/writer. Hurley on the other hand is coaching, he's about to become the coach at some college according to the radio. Keep in mind Hurley is in his young 30s, that's quite young for a head coach, especially since he's a former player. Not too bad a situation at all.


----------



## truth

you are truly hopeless....you dont like the Knicks,you arent into athletics,you are a very odd person


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> No. That's why pro athletes get paid what they do, because there's a high likelyhood they will do permanent damage to their bodies.


They get paid a lot because sports is big business and players who either win, or put fans in seats, are in high demand in a highly competitive market.

In bygone days, before sports was the profit machine that it is today, players risked their bodies to an even greater degree than they do today (you've seen the Converse HighTops they wore in the 70's, and leather football caps of the mid-century) for much, much less money. Even today, in college, and in some of the minor leagues, they risk their limbs for pocket change, or for the love of the game.


----------



## Rashidi

> you dont like the Knicks,you arent into athletics,


Hmm, let's see. Wrong and wrong.


----------



## dcrono3

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm, let's see. Wrong and wrong.


I dunno, you never have anything positive to say about the Knicks, so it really does seem that you don't like them.


----------



## son of oakley

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> If Allan Houston put up 24 ppg on a 30 win team every year, would he be hall of fame worthy? Everybody would consider him on par with Mitch Richmond if he did that. And Mitch is probably going to the hall, even though he played in 23 career playoff games, and led the Kings to the playoffs once in seven years.
> 
> Then again, let's go back to that player similarity list.
> 
> Players most similar to Mitch Richmond
> Similar Players (Career)
> Glen Rice (841)
> Chris Mullin (815)
> Hersey Hawkins (809)
> Reggie Theus (799)
> Joe Dumars (796)
> Latrell Sprewell (792)
> Mark Aguirre (791)
> World Free (781)
> Detlef Schrempf (769)
> Bernard King (768)
> 
> Do you see any Hall of Famers on this list?


God, I wish I had the time to tear apart this thread. There is some wild stuff going on in here.

First off Rashidi, you start spinning theories and comparisons left and right. Why are you making comparisons to players of different eras, like Houston and Richmond, then calling up Richmond's basketballreference comparisons -- it's all a confusing messs to distract from the reality -- when you could just stick with King:

HOF Monitor:_139 (Likely HOFer > 135)

Similar Players (Career)
Mark_Aguirre (883)
World_Free (871)
Rick_Barry* (869)
Rolando_Blackman (854)
George_Gervin* (853)
John_Drew (837)
Walter_Davis (835)
Lou_Hudson (831)
Earl_Monroe* (831)
Jeff_Malone (830)


*In Hall of Fame

There we see him in the company of three Famers: Barry, Gervin, Monroe.

Barry:
10 NBA Season Totals
23.2 ppg .449 FG% 6.5 RPG 5.1 APG

Gervin:
10 seasons
26.2 .511 4.6 2.8

Monroe:
13 seasons
18.8 .464 3.0 3.9

King:
14 seasons
22.5 .518 5.8 3.3

As you can see, his numbers compare favorably to all of them, injury or not.

Now isn't half this thread about the fallacy of making strong assumptions about players one has never seen? Then you post this as some sort of evidence:



> Bernard King (pre-injury)
> Position SF - Pure Shooter
> Overall 86
> Close 97
> Med 94
> 3pt 58
> FT 77
> Layup 90
> Dunk 75
> Handle 85
> Pass 60
> PostOff 75
> PostDef 70
> Block 60
> Steal 70
> RebOff 70
> RebDef 75
> Speed 85
> Stam 94
> Dur 70
> DefAwr 75
> OffAwr 90


Please show your resources for making these assumptions. Sure, there's stats for things like FT, 3pt etc. but most of that stuff can only be assertained by seeing a player: Speed, handle, pass (you can make some assumptions from turnovers, but offensive fouls are also involved in turnovers) Post off, post def, defawr, offawr, etc.

I still haven't but scanned your prior post which explains some odd defaults that the developer makes etc, so I appologize if I'm making double duty for you, but it sure seems a lot of this is just your gut instinct, which isn't fair for having not seen a player. I see this as an example of what you do, but I don't see it as evidence of accuracy. Please provide backup as proof.


----------



## Rashidi

> As you can see, his numbers compare favorably to all of them, injury or not.


I already posted about King's similarity list awhile ago. To basically sum things up, Gervin and Barry were can't miss HoFers, King is very much on the bubble.


Bernard King (pre-injury)
Position SF - Pure Shooter
Overall 86
Close 97
Med 94
3pt 58
FT 77
Layup 90
Dunk 75
Handle 85
Pass 60
PostOff 75
PostDef 70
Block 60
Steal 70
RebOff 70
RebDef 75
Speed 85
Stam 94
Dur 70
DefAwr 75
OffAwr 90

Close 97
The highest Close rating. Pretty much all stars have it.

Med 94
The 2nd highest Med rating, on par with the likes of Peja, Kobe, T-Mac.

3pt 58
King just wasn't good from that range. Even if he could shoot them in practice and such, he didn't shoot them in games, and he didn't have a good accuracy when doing so.

FT 77
King's career FT% is 73. He started off as a poor shooter and was an 80% shooter at the end of his career. He was around 75-77% during his prime, which is what I was basing the CAP on.

Layup 90
2nd highest layup rating. King wasn't Iverson.

Dunk 75
King dunked a little, but he wasn't an explosive dunker like Dr J or Dominique. 75 is better than it sounds, the NBA was a different game back then, fewer dunkers.

Handle 85
King had the handle of an above average SG. It was certainly better than Allan Houston's.

Pass 60
Average for his position. Passing wasn't his strong suit.

PostOff 75
King was 6'7 and around 210 pounds. Allan Houston has a good post game at 6'6, 200 pounds (his rating is 70) so I figured I'd give King the benefit of the doubt here. Kobe/McGrady/Pierce have 75's in this area as well.

PostDef 70
The norm for a 6'7 SF.

Block 60
King didn't average many blocks. The lowest rating for a SF is often 55.

Steal 70
King only averaged around a steal per game, sometimes more, sometimes less. That's sort of Allan Houston like considering the era and minutes he played, but I was feeling generous, probably could have given him a 65 here. If he had more than 1 per game in the 32 year, that's probably why I gave him 70.

RebOff 70
Looked up his offensive rebound numbers. He didn't grab that many. Don't forget King would be a guard in today's NBA.

RebDef 75
I forgot to compare his numbers to other SFs. Might be either 75 or 78, I wouldn't put him at 80. I check more than rebound numbers, I check rebound rates for this stuff too.

Speed 85
Very good speed for a SF, average speed for a good SG. There isn't a SF with a higher rating than 85, and all the 85 guys are former SGs like Corey Maggette.

Stam 94
This is just based on the 32 ppg season I think. He probably deserves a little lower considering he only played 37 mpg in his career twice. But that's nitpicking, Stamina has no effect on Overall rating.

Dur 70
Dur = Durability. Durability = Resistance to injury. I don't think this requires an explanation. Dur also has no effect on Overall rating.
Please show your resources for making these assumptions. Sure, there's stats for things like FT, 3pt etc. but most of that stuff can only be assertained by seeing a player: Speed, handle, pass (you can make some assumptions from turnovers, but offensive fouls are also involved in turnovers) Post off, post def, defawr, offawr, etc.

DefAwr 75
Average defender. King never made any defensive teams, he was never noted for his defense. 75 is actually making him a good defender, few bench players have higher than 70, and few players in general have higher than 80. Richard Jefferson has a 75.

OffAwr 90
Guys like Jordan, Stockton, Bird, Kidd, Magic, Marbury, etc are 95. Allan Houston is 85. I think that's all you need to know to see where King lies. The only SG/SFs with 90 in OffAwr are Kobe, McGrady, and Mashburn. The only 95's in todays NBA are Kidd, Marbury, and Iverson. OffAwr is not just knowing where to be on offense, it's being able to set up your teammates too. Now that I actually bring up those numbers to look at them, I might have actually overrated King in this area. Then again, there are very few scoring SFs in the league right now, which is probably why Mash is the only one on the list. Dominique would have been a 90 too.



> but it sure seems a lot of this is just your gut instinct, which isn't fair for having not seen a player.


When you evaluate many players things tend to stand out at you. Also realize that this isn't precision, this is a base range. Many of the ratings are in multiples of 5, making it easy to see which group a player belongs to. The fact is though, a lot of it has to do with position. King was a swingman, he had the body of a swingman, and the game of a swingman. He is already ranking on the high end of many categories for a SF. *There isn't a single SF in the NBA today * with better Close, Med, Layup, Handle, Speed, or OffAwr than King. I'm sure most of those ratings are the ones you're speculating I'd have to see him to rate, but it comes with the position. You don't need to see King to know that he had worse handle than Iverson (95) and Kidd (90). He was a SF, not a PG.


----------



## The True Essence

His overall rating would be higher if he was a shooting guard right? Cause 86 looks a little too low with what you gave him.


----------



## Rashidi

King as a SG is actually an 85 overall...

As a PG he's 83 overall
As a PF he's 81 overall
As a C he's 78 overall

So SF was definitely his best position, though he could swing to SG in today's NBA with a minimal problem. In fact that would probably be his preferred position in the NBA today since Kobe, McGrady, and Pierce are bigger than him. I don't see King outrebounding any SF in the league today (except maybe Spree) and that includes Tim Thomas. Of course his offense would probably suffer a bit, because he wouldn't have the quickness advantage that he has over slower SFs. And he'd definitely need to develop 3pt range to successfully make the switch.


----------



## Rashidi

Kobe Bryant
Overall 99
Close 97
Med 94
3pt 78
FT 84
Layup 90
Dunk 90
Handle 90
Pass 75
PostOff 75
PostDef 75
Block 70
Steal 80
RebOff 72
RebDef 78
Speed 85
Stam 99
Dur 90
DefAwr 90
OffAwr 95

However, remember what I said about the hidden ratings? Kobe ranks very high in those, while all created players have 0 in those ratings. So let me create Kobe, which would give a clean overall rating.

Ok, Kobe created is a 93 overall. So that's still a significant difference between himself and King.


----------



## The True Essence

Not to take away from bernard, but his lack of shooting threes probably helped his field goal percentage ALOT.

Lets take a look at Tracy McGrady, one of the better players of this decade:

00-01: 77 Games
788-1,724 FGM/FGA which is .457 percent shooting
59-166 3pm/3pa which is.355 percent shooting


01-02: 76 Games
715-1,586 which is .451
103-283 which is .364

02-03: 75 Games
829-1,813 which is .457
173-448 which is .386

03-04: 67 Games
653-1,566 which is .417
174-513 which is .339

Notice how each year he shot more threes. In 04 he shot over 500 threes in just 67 games, his career high. Notice how his field goal percentage overall plummeted. now lets subtract his 3s made and attempted each year and see his field goal percentages:

00-01:
729/1558 or .467 up 1% from 45

01-02: 
612/1303 or 47 percent. up 2 from 45 %

02-03:
656/1365 or .480. up 3 from 45 %

03-04:
479/1053 or .455. up 4 from 41 %

this is also why i always thought mcgrady was better on offense then Kobe. Since they are usually around the same field goal percentage, Kobe always took way less threes, which made his fg% rise. but thats another story. lets see what happens with antoine walker

Antoine Walker 02-03
38% FG
32% threes
without the threes hes shooting 43 percent, a 5 percent change.

Still we see that Kings 53 percent is still ridiculously high that even todays leading scorer isnt even close without his three point attempts.


----------



## Rashidi

> Still we see that Kings 53 percent is still ridiculously high that even todays leading scorer isnt even close without his three point attempts.


*COUGHS IN PEJA STOJAKOVIC'S GENERAL DIRECTION*


----------



## Rashidi

Larry Bird
86-87
28.1 ppg
.525 fg%
.400 3pt%
225 threes attempted

87-88
29.9 ppg
.527 fg%
.414 3pt%
237 threes attempted

Please calculate Bird's 2pt% and compare it to King's 53%.

Danny Ainge
87-88
.491 fg%
.415 3pt%
357 threes attempted

Please calculate Ainge's 2pt% and compare it to King's 53%.


----------



## dcrono3

Just a question, but how did we get to comparing Larry Bird's 2pt% to King's 2pt%? Bird might have a higher one, but hey, he is Larry Bird. I don't think anyone here thinks King is better than Bird. That is pretty elite company anyway. And as a side note, King did shoot 57% the year before his 33pt season. Does anyone know Bird's FG% the seasons he scored the most?


----------



## alphadog

Also a big difference in comparing Ainge and Rashidi knows it, if he is as smart as he thinks he is. Ainge was pretty much a spot up shooter and break finisher. Nobody left Bird or McHale or Parish to worry about him. Lots of open looks because of who he played with....even with Phoenix. King, on the other hand had everybody's attention on d.


----------



## truth

> King, on the other hand had everybody's attention on d.


thats a very good point...King was the NY knicks and to beat the Knicks you just had to hold Bernard to under 55....And i am fairly serious about that,as he singlehandedly beat the Pistons and almost the Celts..

Bird is one of the greatest,but he did have Mchale,Parrish Ainge DJ and others,so doubling Bird was not a great option


----------



## alphadog

Here's an interesting thought...what if King had been switched with Magic or Bird? How would their careers had been different if they had to play on the same Knick team as Bernard? Jordan? There would have been no titles, for sure. Would they still be top of the heap?


----------



## truth

in my opinion there is not a player under 7 feet that would have made much more of an impact than Bernard...The guy scored 33 ppg and shot .530,double teamed most of the time...how much better could any one individual have done????

Look at the Big O.He was a walking trible double yet he couldnt do a dam thing until he had Kareem and by then Oscar was a shell of his former self...


----------



## Rashidi

> Does anyone know Bird's FG% the seasons he scored the most?


I just listed them.



> Ainge was pretty much a spot up shooter and break finisher. Nobody left Bird or McHale or Parish to worry about him. Lots of open looks because of who he played with....even with Phoenix. King, on the other hand had everybody's attention on d.


Yes, because as we all know, the screen wasn't invented until 1992.

Allan Houston had all the other team's attention on D too. Didn't exactly stop him, did it? Same with Reggie Miller.


----------



## Rashidi

> Look at the Big O.He was a walking trible double yet he couldnt do a dam thing until he had Kareem and by then Oscar was a shell of his former self...


He was a walking triple double because his team sucked. When guards grab 10 boards a game, it's cause their team sucks. Jason Richardson was doing it earlier in the year. Why? Because the only other player on the team that could grab a board was Dampier. Murphy and Foyle were out with injuries, and Cliff Robinson is the worst rebounding PF in the league (notice Ben Wallace's boards are down now that Cliff is gone).

*Bob Sura* is averaging 17 ppg, 10 rpg, and 5 apg in 11 starts with the Hawks. *BOB SURA.*

LIKE I SAID, big numbers on bad teams don't mean as much as they would on good teams. Jason Kidd could most definitely average 20/10/10 if he wanted to, but that's not helping his team win. Kidd has won everywhere he's gone.

Besides, Oscar Robertson's "triple double" season average means JACK because this was the same era as when Wilt and Russell were averaging 20+ and would pull down 30+ frequently. A triple double doesn't mean nearly as much back then as it does today.

Who were the leading rebounders on this team?
Wayne Embry *6'8" CENTER* (13.0 rpg)
Oscar Robertson 6'5" SG (12.5 rpg in 44 minutes)
Bob Boozer 6'8" PF (10.2 rpg))
Jack Twyman 6'6" SF (8.0 rpg)

This was a badly undersized team, which also means you can hardly fault Oscar for doing "Nothing" until he had Kareem. This team was 43-37 (FOURTH in the league) in the era of Russell, Wilt, Pettit, and Bellamy. This was the same year Wilt scored 50 ppg. The only teams ahead of Oscar were a stacked Celtics team with the league MVP (Russell), a Laker team led by Elgin Baylor and Jerry West that saw the two combine for 69.1 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 10.0 apg, and a Warriors team led by Chamberlain in his career year. Robertson led his badly undersized team to be the 4th best team in the league.


----------



## alphadog

I guess you didn't watch many Celtic games, huh? They didn't exactly design plays for Ainge. In fact, I'd have to say he was either the 4th or 5th option, so when he shot, he was open. He also didn't have the ball when the clock was running down...guess who did. His job was to piss and moan while keeping teams honest. He never even quite averaged 16...close but not quite. Alan Houston was the focus of the defense? When was that? Ewing years? Spreewell? He may have been the BEST offensive player, but he was hardly without help.


----------



## truth

*YOU MUST BE JOKING*



> He was a walking triple double because his team sucked. When guards grab 10 boards a game, it's cause their team sucks


if the team sucked so bad,why did they play 12 playoff games in 62-63 and 10 in 63-64??????????????? Are you sure they "sucked"??



> Besides, Oscar Robertson's "triple double" season average means JACK because this was the same era as when Wilt and Russell were averaging 20+ and would pull down 30+ frequently. A triple double doesn't mean nearly as much back then as it does today.


That statement has got to be your DUMBEST statement and you lead the league in dumb statements...if it doesnt mean JACK,why was he the ONLY one to EVER do it???Why wasnt everyone doing it if it was so easy???GIVE US ALL A BREAK!!!

You are downright scary


----------



## truth

> When guards grab 10 boards a game, it's cause their team sucks


BTW,Birdbrain,check out the 81-84 lakers,you know the great teams that won close to 70% of their games..With players like
Kareem,Worthy,Byron Scott,Jamal Wilkes, Michael Cooper,Macadoo and a point guard named Magic Johnson???

And guess who led them in rebounding with close to 10 per game???

Thats right .Magic..their point guard..case closed


----------

