Melo vs King: Who was better?

[DickGrayson]

King was a better player overall! Defense and leadership, 2 qualities Melo lacks!

By any account, he wasn't very good at that end of the floor. With a career mark of 2.63 DWS/3K (average is 3.07), King's subpar defense has to be accounted for in any Hall of Fame discussion regarding the prolific scorer.

What leadership do you talk about here? King never had a long career with the Knicks and he took the Knicks far, their roster wasn't good yet and there were superior teams in the 80s. He was great against the Pistons in 84 in the first round, but we fell one game short to the Celtics. Other than that season, there isn't much of a resume of "Leadership".

I'm tired of people who have no idea what they're talking about desperately trying to take a shot at Melo for whatever reason it may be.

Bernard King was a great player and great Knick, but he was only a Knick for 4 seasons. In his 4th season, he only played 6 games. King played more games with the Bullets than the Knicks. It's always this sack of crap argument that matches up the old generation player with the new one, and you have some dude who never did his research picking the old gen player because it feels "right". Melo is going on his 5th season with the Knicks and has about 3-5 more left. He'll retire as one of the best to sport the Knicks jersey. Just like Melo, King's Knicks only won 44 games and 48 games, the next two seasons only won 26-28 games apiece.

Melo is better than King.

King didn't take 3pt shots, thus him having a higher FG% is evident. Especially in the 80s where there was only 2 teams that played defense the entire season.

These people are harping back to when they were 8-12 years old and easily influenced. Blinded by nostalgia. At the age, most of these fans didn't even understand what was going on the court, they just were entertained by the play.

an inflated FG% isn't something that makes player A better than player B.

skill set wise, Melo edges King. Melo has more range, more moves offensively.
Isolation, Melo is a 6"8 240lbs SF/PF who can face or post up against the best in the NBA. King was 6"7 and 205lbs.

Teams in the 80s were averaging 110-120ppg on 48-50% shooting. Lakers shot 55% as a team in 1985. That was the norm. Defense got tougher with the Bad Boys and then with Chicago and the Knicks of the early 90s. But, in general defense in the NBA in the 1980s wasn't as tough as it later became. The whole King > Melo because of FG% is a joke. Calling Melo "inefficient" is comedy and a disrespect to anyone who calls himself a NBA fan.

The reason why teams shot higher percentages and scored more points is because the players were better shooters and more sound fundamentally. Think of all the great SFs playing back then that Bernard had to defend. Bird, Erving, Wilkins, Alex English, Keith Wilkes, Mark Aguirre, Adrian Dantley, Junior Bridgeman, Marques Johnson. Players like Calvin Natt, Larry Drew, Eddie Johnson and Bernard's brother, Albert, were also no slouches at SF and could put up at least 20 points on most nights. Also, hand-checking was allowed back then. It was outlawed in '94 or '95, way before Melo came into the league. So Melo never had to deal with that. Also, there are seven more teams (30 vs. 23) today than in '83-84, so the talent pool is slightly more diluted.

Were you alive in 1984? You've never even watched any of these guys play back then, have you?

Bernard's game also fits in much better on a team that, um, passes the ball. Bernard was a slightly better passer than Melo is and he made quicker and decisive moves when he got the ball. He didn't hold onto it and jab-step 5 times and then dribble between his legs 5 times, while his teammates stood around, before hoisting up a fall-away jumper. You're analysis about the shooting %s is a mess as well. Bernard would still shoot a much higher FG% than Melo today because he was able to get his shots close to the basket. His post moves were far superior to Melo.

The talent of the league was more condensed due to there being less teams but don't mistake that for parity. The 80s is as top heavy as any other era you'll find. The Showtime Lakers were not just the best franchise in the 80s: The Showtime Lakers dominated the 80s. People forget that they won 5 titles in 9 years in the 80s. Most teams in the 80s played defense like the 06 Raptors.


League Average eFG%

'80s: .491
'90s: .488
'00s: .484

League Average PPG

'80s: 109.3
'90s: 101.0
'00s: 96.9

% of Points from the Freethrow line

'80s: 20.3
'90s: 19.8
'00s: 19.5

"best defensive team from the 80s.

Opponents stats
87-88 Pistons: 104.1 PPG/46.7 FG%
88-89 Pistons: 100.8 PPG/44.7 FG%
89-90 Pistons: 98.3 PPG/44.7 FG%

13-14 Bucks: 103.7 PPG/46.8 FG%

"The reason why teams shot higher percentages and scored more points is because the players were better shooters and more sound fundamentally. "

Ray Allen, Peja, Kyle Korver, Stephen Curry, Dirk, Steve Nash, Kevin Durant...most of those guys I listed are top 10 all time pure shooters. The best shooters of all time can be found in the 00s Era. If the average team shot 49% FG on 110 PPG. can you imagine how inflated Allen, Peja, Korver, Curry, Dirk, Nash and Durant's stats would be?

Fundamentally...this era has KG, Nash, Duncan, Roy, ....even C level players like DIaw had crazy skills.

"Bernard was a slightly better passer than Melo is and he made quicker and decisive moves when he got the ball."

You have no evidence of that.

"He didn't hold onto it and jab-step 5 times and then dribble between his legs 5 times, while his teammates stood around, before hoisting up a fall-away jumper."

If this is a generic offensive play by Melo, then you're being outrageously ignorant.

"Bernard would still shoot a much higher FG% than Melo today "
Poor theory.
Bernard was the size of Tim Hardaway Jr. He would be the smallest NBA SF and his numbers would go down from the slower place and playing against bigger players. The league has evolved. However, King gets credit for being the strongest 205lb guy of all time.

"His post moves were far superior"
Since when Melo doesnt command Both guys have great post moves. Using words "Far superior" just means you like King more and it becomes a matter of preference. Not information. If you actually sit down and watch Bernard footage, I invite you tally up and count how many times he is doubled or tripled team.

[DickGrayson]

By the way just to be clear, scoring with finesse and efficiency is the holy grail for a scorer. Think Kareem, Olajuwon, Bird, Durant, Jordan

You trying to tell me Olajuwon is a better scorer than Wilt because he had more finesse? That's ludicrous.

The winner of the game is the team that scored MORE points, not who scored in a more diverse way or with more finesse. That is all that matters. Get the ball in the hoop. Get buckets. No matter how it looks.

That's like saying the winner of boxing is the guy with the most wins on his record, even if he fights mostly tomato cans and scrubs.

Defense wasn't a priority in Wilt's day. No athlete today no matter how much skill and dominance he has could average 50 PPG or 25 RPG. Every player in the NBA player is more athletic and focussed on defense. Wilt Chamberlain was simply too much for his competition to handle. The only thing the puny big men of the 60's could do was foul him. And Wilt, who couldn't hit the side of a barn with a baseball from the FT line, would jump over the line and basically lay it in to the basket. He was never successful until he stopped shooting the ball, and passing it to his teammates. After all this domination and putting up insane numbers, he only won two championships throughout his whole career, and they required him to tone down his posession of the ball. He averaged 24 and 14 ppg in those seasons, showing that he couldn't win games by just being dominant. For him to be effective, he had to rebound and play defense, and pass the ball on offense. Wilt had Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham carry the scoring load in the season of his first championship, and Jerry West and Gail Goodrich carried the Lakers to the championship in 72. Wilt only averaged 14 ppg that year. Are you telling me the greatest center in history couldn't win with the ball in his hands?

Hakeem had a pretty prolific career. He didn't average 50 ppg, but he turned around the Houston franchise. They totalled 29 wins the season before they drafted him, and during his rookie year Hakeem helped the Rockets to 48 wins. He led the Rockets in scoring the first 10 years of his career (would've been more if not for injury) and in that span they went 584 - 400, winning 2 championships and robbed by the Jazz of one more. He had the best collection of post moves in history, and could block, rebound, steal, pass, shoot and scream for the ball in the clutch. He was arguably the greatest offensive and easily the greatest defensive force bigger than 7 ft, and he did this all against the likes of David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Mutumbo, Shaquille O'Neal (taught him how to play basketball) and the Rockets were the only team to have a winning record against the Bull's in the 90s.

Hakeem Olajuwon was undisputedly the greatest biggie of all time.

There's no doubt that Wilt revolutionized the game, and was the cause of many rule changes. But the competition just wasn't close to what the centers of the 90's had to face. Big men became more and more athletic. Defense was the key to success. If I was given the choice, I'd take Hakeem over Wilt any day.


COMPETITION >>>>>>>>>> padded stats.

I got NBA TV, and watched game 4 of the 1967 EC Finals, Philly vs Boston.

I knew basketball had evolved quite a bit since then, but I was in no way prepared for how terrible these players really were.

Forget about how unathletic and out of shape everybody was (players walked up the court most of the time), nobody had the slightest conception of some of the most basic basketball fundamentals - most notably, dribbling with your off hand and the freaking bounce pass.

Chamberlain shot his free throws UNDERHANDED.

The guy was a shotblocker, but at least at this point in his career, had no offensive skill whatsoever. When he did manage to get the ball in the post (no bounce pass, all lobs that got deflected and stolen half the time ), he would simply attempt to bowl over Russell or whoever his defender was and literally throw the ball at the basket. We rip on Shaq for simply being a brute, using all strength and no skill - he's a freaking acrobat compared to 1967 Wilt.

The 1967 Wilt would struggle to be an average center in today's game.

I realize that today's players had plenty of advantages that Wilt didn't have, but if you simply look at the player Wilt was at that time and compare him to today's players, there's no way he would star in 2004.

BTW, John Havlicek was the most impressive player out there. He wouldn't stand a chance today because he's freakin slow, but he could nail jumpshots off the dribble like nobody's business. Probably the only guy out there who attempted to play the game like it's played today. "ahead of his time", you could say.

Don Nelson was out there also, and Matt Goukas was the point guard for the sixers.

[Sark]

By the way just to be clear, scoring with finesse and efficiency is the holy grail for a scorer. Think Kareem, Olajuwon, Bird, Durant, Jordan

You trying to tell me Olajuwon is a better scorer than Wilt because he had more finesse? That's ludicrous.

The winner of the game is the team that scored MORE points, not who scored in a more diverse way or with more finesse. That is all that matters. Get the ball in the hoop. Get buckets. No matter how it looks.

That's like saying the winner of boxing is the guy with the most wins on his record, even if he fights mostly tomato cans and scrubs.

No it's not like that at all, since you can't compare a team sport like basketball with objective scoring with boxing which is scored subjectively by judges. It's more like comparing a football team that scored 5 field goals vs a team that scores 2 touchdowns. I'll take the 15 points over the 14 points every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

[DickGrayson]

You trying to tell me Olajuwon is a better scorer than Wilt because he had more finesse? That's ludicrous.

The winner of the game is the team that scored MORE points, not who scored in a more diverse way or with more finesse. That is all that matters. Get the ball in the hoop. Get buckets. No matter how it looks.

That's like saying the winner of boxing is the guy with the most wins on his record, even if he fights mostly tomato cans and scrubs.

No it's not like that at all, since you can't compare a team sport like basketball with objective scoring with boxing which is scored subjectively by judges. It's more like comparing a football team that scored 5 field goals vs a team that scores 2 touchdowns. I'll take the 15 points over the 14 points every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

so you're more impressed with someone dropping 81 points on the 06 raptors than someone dropping 60+ points on a top 3 defense on the NBA?

Wheres the challenge?

Are you the kind of guy to play fighting/sports games and put the difficult on "Beginner" to get easy Ws and points?

[Sark]

I'm not even going into the Wilt vs Hakeem comparison. They played a common opponent in KAJ, and Wilt fared far better than the Dream. The game isn't as removed as you make it out to be across the generations.

[DickGrayson]

I'm not even going into the Wilt vs Hakeem comparison.

I invite you to buy NBA TV and watch the games. Study them and observe. I use to think like you before. Research is an amazing thing.

[Sark]

That's like saying the winner of boxing is the guy with the most wins on his record, even if he fights mostly tomato cans and scrubs.

No it's not like that at all, since you can't compare a team sport like basketball with objective scoring with boxing which is scored subjectively by judges. It's more like comparing a football team that scored 5 field goals vs a team that scores 2 touchdowns. I'll take the 15 points over the 14 points every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

so you're more impressed with someone dropping 81 points on the 06 raptors than someone dropping 60+ points on a top 3 defense on the NBA?

Wheres the challenge?

Are you the kind of guy to play fighting/sports games and put the difficult on "Beginner" to get easy Ws and points?

81 > 60. Doing something that only 1 person has ever done is more impressive than something lots of people have done.

[Sark]

I'm not even going into the Wilt vs Hakeem comparison.

I invite you to buy NBA TV and watch the games. Study them and observe. I use to think like you before. Research is an amazing thing.

I'm sure I've done more than you if you think Hakeem is better than Wilt. I don't even think Hakeem would dare say he's better than Wilt.

[DickGrayson]

No it's not like that at all, since you can't compare a team sport like basketball with objective scoring with boxing which is scored subjectively by judges. It's more like comparing a football team that scored 5 field goals vs a team that scores 2 touchdowns. I'll take the 15 points over the 14 points every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

so you're more impressed with someone dropping 81 points on the 06 raptors than someone dropping 60+ points on a top 3 defense on the NBA?

Wheres the challenge?

Are you the kind of guy to play fighting/sports games and put the difficult on "Beginner" to get easy Ws and points?

81 > 60. Doing something that only 1 person has ever done is more impressive than something lots of people have done.

I'm not even going into the Wilt vs Hakeem comparison.

I invite you to buy NBA TV and watch the games. Study them and observe. I use to think like you before. Research is an amazing thing.

I'm sure I've done more than you if you think Hakeem is better than Wilt. I don't even think Hakeem would dare say he's better than Wilt.

[img]

How many Wilt games have you sat down and watch? Be honest with yourself.

Hakeem was CLEARLY more impressive against real competition. He dominated and was a step ahead Robinson, and at least two ahead of Ewing. Neither player was up to the challenge of beating an Olajuwon-led team, and this was proven repeatedly. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't have a very clear memory of the ball being played in the early to mid 90's.

Olajuwon also made Shaq look downright foolish on multiple occasions early in his career. It's not fair to hold that against Shaq because he was in his first couple of seasons in the league, so I would put Hakeem and Shaq on the same level. Drob a step below, Ewing and Mourning another step below that.

Olajuwon has better scalps. When you watch a game, you want to see a guy be challenged and go against the best.
Ali was one of the best boxers because of who he faced, the top heavyweights of all time. It doesn't matter if we're comparing a team sport to an individual sport. Competition is competition. You have to accept that. No one here is dumb enough to say heavyweights of today are better than what they were in the 60s, 70s and 90s.

Dominance against elite competition > dominance against no challenge.

[NOOB77]

From King's basic stats, you don't truly get a feel for his defensive shortcomings. Here are his career defensive numbers

Season Ag Tm G Min trDRtg
------+----+------+-------+--------+--------
1978 21 NJN 79 3092 107.3
1979 22 NJN 82 2859 105.6
1980 23 UTA 19 419 113.4
1981 24 GSW 81 2914 112.1
1982 25 GSW 79 2861 109.8
1983 26 NYK 68 2207 103.1
1984 27 NYK 77 2667 105.1
1985 28 NYK 55 2063 110.2
1987 30 NYK 6 214 114.5
1988 31 WSB 69 2044 109.5
1989 32 WSB 81 2559 110.7
1990 33 WSB 82 2687 111.8
1991 34 WSB 64 2401 110.7
1993 36 NJN 32 430 107.4

By any account, he wasn't very good at that end of the floor. With a career mark of 2.63 DWS/3K (average is 3.07), King's subpar defense has to be accounted for in any Hall of Fame discussion regarding the prolific scorer.

What leadership do you talk about here? King never had a long career with the Knicks and he took the Knicks far, their roster wasn't good yet and there were superior teams in the 80s. He was great against the Pistons in 84 in the first round, but we fell one game short to the Celtics. Other than that season, there isn't much of a resume of "Leadership".

I'm tired of people who have no idea what they're talking about desperately trying to take a shot at Melo for whatever reason it may be.

Bernard King was a great player and great Knick, but he was only a Knick for 4 seasons. In his 4th season, he only played 6 games. King played more games with the Bullets than the Knicks. It's always this sack of crap argument that matches up the old generation player with the new one, and you have some dude who never did his research picking the old gen player because it feels "right". Melo is going on his 5th season with the Knicks and has about 3-5 more left. He'll retire as one of the best to sport the Knicks jersey. Just like Melo, King's Knicks only won 44 games and 48 games, the next two seasons only won 26-28 games apiece.

Melo is better than King.

King didn't take 3pt shots, thus him having a higher FG% is evident. Especially in the 80s where there was only 2 teams that played defense the entire season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _1985.html

Teams averaging 120 ppg and the best defense was 104 ppg.






These people are harping back to when they were 8-12 years old and easily influenced. Blinded by nostalgia. At the age, most of these fans didn't even understand what was going on the court, they just were entertained by the play.

an inflated FG% isn't something that makes player A better than player B.

skill set wise, Melo edges King. Melo has more range, more moves offensively.
Isolation, Melo is a 6"8 240lbs SF/PF who can face or post up against the best in the NBA. King was 6"7 and 205lbs.

Teams in the 80s were averaging 110-120ppg on 48-50% shooting. Lakers shot 55% as a team in 1985. That was the norm. Defense got tougher with the Bad Boys and then with Chicago and the Knicks of the early 90s. But, in general defense in the NBA in the 1980s wasn't as tough as it later became. The whole King > Melo because of FG% is a joke. Calling Melo "inefficient" is comedy and a disrespect to anyone who calls himself a NBA fan.

I think I just fell in love

I think you just fell in love with Mitch

These posts are too long and too much data in them to be from Mitch. Poster seems like a hybrid of Mitch and Computer.

[DickGrayson]

Hakeem, the better defensive player, isn't that much behind on his glass, is more devastating low post offensive player due to him being more skilled, found the balance in his scoring and passing better while being a guy you could rely better. Plus, he didn't play for stats. Wilt on the other hand was called out for being selfish. Olajuwon wasn't a darling either.. but between the two, he's definitely a better guy to play with.

His game impact might be better too. Still, it's arguable. Edit: I forgot about the all-around game. Hakeem has an edge there.

Wilt is often ranked higher by some people simply because he's more legendary. He's the first great two-way center, he set unbreakable scoring and rebounding records, and many tall tales about his strength and ability have been passed on in basketball lore.

Wilt is a better rebounder and passer, Hakeem a better defender. If I had to build a team, I would take Hakeem though and I wouldn't have to think twice. Olajuwon was a much better playoff scorer, he was a clutch player which is a rarity for a center, and he played better within the framework off a team. Olajuwon arguably is the most complete big man to ever play the game. He was a killer offensive player with a seemingly endless list of moves around the basket and a nice jump shot. On top, he had a sense for the big moment. On the defensive end of the floor, i don't think anyone besides Bill Russell influenced the game more than Hakeem did. He was a great shot blocker, stole the ball like a point guard and had such awesome timing and footwork. And he was as smart a player can get.

He made it to the Finals in only his second year, turning around a devastated (after Moses left) Rockets team very quickly. But due to cocaïne and the fall of Ralph Sampson, that team never fully capitalized on it's talents. He had to wait for a couple of years before he got some kind of team around him and then went nuts from '93-'95, and doing it against pretty tough competition (Ewing, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Shaq, Kemp...)

Wilt meanwhile...well he was pretty scary. He is the greatest stats sheet stuffer of all time and also a very good defensive player. The difference is Wilt never had that defensive impact that Hakeem (and Russell) had because he never wanted to foul out, off course to save his stats. Off course, Wilt also won two rings and did it in pretty dominating fashion. But Wilt could have won so much more if only he had the feeling for a team game instead of putting his individual play first all the time. And he did fail more often than not on big moments.

[HarthorneWingo]

Hi Mars. Remember the good ol' days?

[Greenie]

From King's basic stats, you don't truly get a feel for his defensive shortcomings. Here are his career defensive numbers

Season Ag Tm G Min trDRtg
------+----+------+-------+--------+--------
1978 21 NJN 79 3092 107.3
1979 22 NJN 82 2859 105.6
1980 23 UTA 19 419 113.4
1981 24 GSW 81 2914 112.1
1982 25 GSW 79 2861 109.8
1983 26 NYK 68 2207 103.1
1984 27 NYK 77 2667 105.1
1985 28 NYK 55 2063 110.2
1987 30 NYK 6 214 114.5
1988 31 WSB 69 2044 109.5
1989 32 WSB 81 2559 110.7
1990 33 WSB 82 2687 111.8
1991 34 WSB 64 2401 110.7
1993 36 NJN 32 430 107.4

By any account, he wasn't very good at that end of the floor. With a career mark of 2.63 DWS/3K (average is 3.07), King's subpar defense has to be accounted for in any Hall of Fame discussion regarding the prolific scorer.

What leadership do you talk about here? King never had a long career with the Knicks and he took the Knicks far, their roster wasn't good yet and there were superior teams in the 80s. He was great against the Pistons in 84 in the first round, but we fell one game short to the Celtics. Other than that season, there isn't much of a resume of "Leadership".

I'm tired of people who have no idea what they're talking about desperately trying to take a shot at Melo for whatever reason it may be.

Bernard King was a great player and great Knick, but he was only a Knick for 4 seasons. In his 4th season, he only played 6 games. King played more games with the Bullets than the Knicks. It's always this sack of crap argument that matches up the old generation player with the new one, and you have some dude who never did his research picking the old gen player because it feels "right". Melo is going on his 5th season with the Knicks and has about 3-5 more left. He'll retire as one of the best to sport the Knicks jersey. Just like Melo, King's Knicks only won 44 games and 48 games, the next two seasons only won 26-28 games apiece.

Melo is better than King.

King didn't take 3pt shots, thus him having a higher FG% is evident. Especially in the 80s where there was only 2 teams that played defense the entire season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _1985.html

Teams averaging 120 ppg and the best defense was 104 ppg.






These people are harping back to when they were 8-12 years old and easily influenced. Blinded by nostalgia. At the age, most of these fans didn't even understand what was going on the court, they just were entertained by the play.

an inflated FG% isn't something that makes player A better than player B.

skill set wise, Melo edges King. Melo has more range, more moves offensively.
Isolation, Melo is a 6"8 240lbs SF/PF who can face or post up against the best in the NBA. King was 6"7 and 205lbs.

Teams in the 80s were averaging 110-120ppg on 48-50% shooting. Lakers shot 55% as a team in 1985. That was the norm. Defense got tougher with the Bad Boys and then with Chicago and the Knicks of the early 90s. But, in general defense in the NBA in the 1980s wasn't as tough as it later became. The whole King > Melo because of FG% is a joke. Calling Melo "inefficient" is comedy and a disrespect to anyone who calls himself a NBA fan.

I think I just fell in love

I think you just fell in love with Mitch

I liked Mitch.