Single season peak of this great scorers in the '80s

[Odinn21]

How would you rank the following players at their best?

Adrian Dantley (1983-84, age 28)
Alex English (1982-83 or 1984-85, age 29 or 31)
Bernard King (1983-84, age 27)
Dominique Wilkins (1987-88, age 28)
George Gervin (1978-79 or 1981-82, age 26 or 29)

You don't have to necessarily rank those versions. Just providing some simplicity.

How would you rank these great players?

[70sFan]

Dantley peaked in 1983-84 season and I don't think it's arguable at all.

Gervin peaked either in 1977-78 or 1978-79.

I would rank them this way:

1979 George Gervin
1984 Adrian Dantley
1984 Bernard King
1985 Alex English
1988 Dominique Wilkins

[E-Balla]

1984 Bernard King
1979 George Gervin
1986 Dominique Wilkins
1985 Alex English
1984 Adrian Dantley

[Odinn21]

Dantley peaked in 1983-84 season and I don't think it's arguable at all.

Gervin peaked either in 1977-78 or 1978-79.

I would rank them this way:

1979 George Gervin
1984 Adrian Dantley
1984 Bernard King
1985 Alex English
1988 Dominique Wilkins

Curious about your reasoning for Dantley over King in 1983-84.
King forced a game 7 against the Celtics and Bird had to play arguably his best playoffs series to get that win against King. He had one of the best playoff series ever against the early Bad Boys. One of handful players that averaged 40+ in a series. He was so damn hot in that season. Also the Knicks were 3rd in SRS and xW.

Watch on YouTube

[penbeast0]

All were pretty dominant. A few things I noticed, particularly looking at the playoff stats.

(1) All were really efficient volume scorers except Nique, his efficiency numbers are a good 100 points below most of these others . . . in a player who provided little to really move the needle other than scoring. He has nice turnover efficiency but I just can't see ranking him anywhere but last when I look at this.
(2) King, quite possibly the top peak here, really stands out as an outlier playoff stretch. The playoff performance for the others all fits pretty well into their normal pattern, even their normal playoff pattern, King really only has that one year that compares although, as I said, statistically it is quite probably the best playoff run here.

[O_6]

I would put them in tiers like this in terms of full seasons.

1980 Gervin ---- 33.4 PPG -- .587 TS% (+5.6%)
1984 Dantley --- 30.6 PPG -- .652 TS% (+10.9%)
1984 King ------- 26.3 PPG -- .619 TS (+7.6%)

1986 English ---- 29.8 PPG -- .562 TS% (+2.1%)
1988 Wilkins ---- 30.7 PPG -- .534 TS% (-0.4%)

English/Wilkins had impressive longevity, but they didn't peak quite as impressively as the other 3 did. They are clearly the bottom two. Wilkins might have had a better season in '93 than any he had in the 80s though. Gervin vs. Dantley comes down to me preferring Gervin's scoring style over Dantley's, despite the efficiency edge for Dantley.

But this is a trick question, because the answer is that Bernard King from the All-Star break of the 1984 season until he tore his ACL in 1985 peaked on level above even Gervin or Dantley. He only played 55 games in 1985, otherwise that would be the answer to this question.

Kind of like Jason Tatum this year, King seemed to "level up" as a scorer mid-season in 1984. He averaged 23.1 PPG on .606 TS% in 42 games before the All-Star game in 1984, but then averaged 30.1 PPG on a .631 TS% over 31 games after the break. 1984 King's post-AS break stretch run was so mesmerizing that he finished 2nd in the MVP voting to Larry Bird and even got 11 1st place votes, he finished ahead of an in-his-prime Magic.

And then he obliterated the Isiah Thomas-led Pistons by averaging 42.6 PPG on a .644TS% in a 5 game 1st round series. He dropped 4 straight 40 point games to end the series including 44 points (17-26 shooting) in a winner-take-all Game 5 OT thriller. And then after murdering the Pistons, he takes the eventual Champion Boston Celtics to 7 games averaging 29.1 PPG on a .597 TS%. After finishing 2nd in the MVP voting, destroying the Pistons singlehandedly, and pushing Larry Bird and a superior Celtics team to 7 games; you could argue that King was considered the 3rd best player in the sport after Bird/Magic. He follows it up by 32.9 PPG on a .585 TS% but in only 55 games that ends with a career-altering knee injury.

If you combine his post AS-break 1984 regular season, 1984 playoffs, and 1985 regular season...

102 games -- 32.2 PPG -- .604 TS% (+6.0 TS%)

Just a ridiculously dominant stretch. Gervin and Dantley both still have arguments statistically but when you watch them play King just looks incredible. His turn-around jumper was unstoppable when he was feeling it. He wasn't nearly as much of a ball-stopper as Dantley either, which people might not realize without looking at more than the stats.

Over their entire careers, King is likely the worst scorer. But this run from '84-'85 from King was more or less that era's version of '03 T-Mac, where the supernaturally gifted scorer just puts it all together for an outlier stretch of awesomeness. Obviously King's playoff success and T-Mac's passing ability mean it's not an exact comparison, but just in terms of how for one brief time in their career they belonged in the convo with Bird/Magic/Duncan/Kobe.

[70sFan]

1984 Bernard King
1979 George Gervin
1986 Dominique Wilkins
1985 Alex English
1984 Adrian Dantley

I hate your hate of Adrian Dantley!

[70sFan]

Dantley peaked in 1983-84 season and I don't think it's arguable at all.

Gervin peaked either in 1977-78 or 1978-79.

I would rank them this way:

1979 George Gervin
1984 Adrian Dantley
1984 Bernard King
1985 Alex English
1988 Dominique Wilkins

Curious about your reasoning for Dantley over King in 1983-84.
King forced a game 7 against the Celtics and Bird had to play arguably his best playoffs series to get that win against King. He had one of the best playoff series ever against the early Bad Boys. One of handful players that averaged 40+ in a series. He was so damn hot in that season. Also the Knicks were 3rd in SRS and xW.

Watch on YouTube

Knicks were good because of their elite defense. They finished 1st in the league defensively, that's the reason of their relative success. Of course, King ability to score was very important for them, but King wasn't a good defender.

1984 Pistons were not "early Bad Boy" Pistons, they were mediocre defensively then and King wad guarded by Tripucka. This performance is still unbelievable scoring effort from King, I don't want to deny that.

Celtics series is great but again, Knicks won mostly due to their defense. Besides, Celtics outscored Knicks by a margin of 9 points - this series wasn't as close as 7 games indicate.

Dantley was just as good scorer as King in this season, he was better passer and comparable defender. When I think about it now, both are on the same level basically.

[euroleague]

George Gervin (1978-79 or 1981-82, age 26 or 29)
Bernard King (1983-84, age 27)
Dominique Wilkins (1987-88, age 28)
Alex English (1982-83 or 1984-85, age 29 or 31)
Adrian Dantley (1983-84, age 28)

In that order. Gervin pretty clearly the best...

[70sFan]

I don't get how can you take Nique over Dantley.

[Odinn21]

Knicks were good because of their elite defense. They finished 1st in the league defensively, that's the reason of their relative success. Of course, King ability to score was very important for them, but King wasn't a good defender.

1984 Pistons were not "early Bad Boy" Pistons, they were mediocre defensively then and King wad guarded by Tripucka. This performance is still unbelievable scoring effort from King, I don't want to deny that.

Celtics series is great but again, Knicks won mostly due to their defense. Besides, Celtics outscored Knicks by a margin of 9 points - this series wasn't as close as 7 games indicate.

Dantley was just as good scorer as King in this season, he was better passer and comparable defender. When I think about it now, both are on the same level basically.

Yeah, I went overboard with that underlined part. Was focusing on what was to come, not what was there.
King wasn't a good defender but the team relied his scoring power and it wasn't like he failed to deliver. I think it was like Iverson's 2000-01 season in that way, a good defensive team built around a single fire power.

I am not a fan of point differentials in playoffs. Winning a game what matters in the playoffs. I mean if King scored 40 instead of 44 in game 6 and the Knicks went out a game earlier with 7.2 ppg gap, would that be better? (BTW, I believe it was 8 ppg margin, not 9.)

BTW, I'm not saying King was better. Riding along, I'm yet to have a list among them. Just feel like Nique and English weren't as good as the other 3. Gervin, King and Dantley were better.

[70sFan]

Knicks were good because of their elite defense. They finished 1st in the league defensively, that's the reason of their relative success. Of course, King ability to score was very important for them, but King wasn't a good defender.

1984 Pistons were not "early Bad Boy" Pistons, they were mediocre defensively then and King wad guarded by Tripucka. This performance is still unbelievable scoring effort from King, I don't want to deny that.

Celtics series is great but again, Knicks won mostly due to their defense. Besides, Celtics outscored Knicks by a margin of 9 points - this series wasn't as close as 7 games indicate.

Dantley was just as good scorer as King in this season, he was better passer and comparable defender. When I think about it now, both are on the same level basically.

Yeah, I went overboard with that underlined part. Was focusing on what was to come, not there.
King wasn't a good defender but the team relied his scoring power and it wasn't like he failed to deliver. I think it was like Iverson's 2000-01 season in that way, a good defensive team built around a single fire power.

I am not a fan of point differentials in playoffs. Winning a game what matters in the playoffs. I mean if King scored 40 instead of 44 in game 6 and the Knicks went out a game earlier with 7.2 ppg gap, would that be better? (BTW, I believe it was 8 ppg margin, not 9.)

BTW, I'm not saying King was better. Riding along, I'm yet to have a list among them. Just feel like Nique and English weren't as good as the other 3. Gerving, King and Dantley were better.

Yeah, some good points taken here.

In my opinion Gervin is clearly the best player here. Then you have King/Dantley comparison when you can pick either side. English has solid case, because he was the most well-rounded player among them (the best passer and defender) but it's tough to me to judge him under Doug Moe Nuggets run and gun style. Nique is the last to me - I love watching him play (such a unique scoring repertoire and unreal athleticism) but he's the worst defender here, the worst shooter and the worst scorer. He had nice turnover economy and was a decent rebounder, but that's not enough to me.

[Owly]

Knicks were good because of their elite defense. They finished 1st in the league defensively, that's the reason of their relative success. Of course, King ability to score was very important for them, but King wasn't a good defender.

1984 Pistons were not "early Bad Boy" Pistons, they were mediocre defensively then and King wad guarded by Tripucka. This performance is still unbelievable scoring effort from King, I don't want to deny that.

Celtics series is great but again, Knicks won mostly due to their defense. Besides, Celtics outscored Knicks by a margin of 9 points - this series wasn't as close as 7 games indicate.

Dantley was just as good scorer as King in this season, he was better passer and comparable defender. When I think about it now, both are on the same level basically.

Yeah, I went overboard with that underlined part. Was focusing on what was to come, not there.
King wasn't a good defender but the team relied his scoring power and it wasn't like he failed to deliver. I think it was like Iverson's 2000-01 season in that way, a good defensive team built around a single fire power.

I am not a fan of point differentials in playoffs. Winning a game what matters in the playoffs. I mean if King scored 40 instead of 44 in game 6 and the Knicks went out a game earlier with 7.2 ppg gap, would that be better? (BTW, I believe it was 8 ppg margin, not 9.)

BTW, I'm not saying King was better. Riding along, I'm yet to have a list among them. Just feel like Nique and English weren't as good as the other 3. Gerving, King and Dantley were better.

Winning a series is dependent on outscoring opponents. W-L makes for a spectacle giving a decisive victor on the night. Margin is the better marker of who is better. Fwiw, even game to game that Celtics margin holds up, closest Celtics win is by 14 based on the series as it was (rather than replaying it and Knicks occasionally coming out on top despite being the worse team) there's no way to think of it as close "but for ..." because of the volume of those margins.

And whilst I see the perverse retrospective incentive point (better to lose in fewer games, turn close win to close loss if the latter turns out to be a blowout) it would be better for the Knicks perception if we didn't have more evidence of them getting outclassed and a narrow win isn't cause to junk the additional data (which is what you argue for if you don't want differentials. Plus if you want to say win the game is what "matters" (to the advancing/winning - not as a measurement) then one could just as well say Knicks lost the series and no such thing as close, just a binary L, which is just taking the game argument to the next level (and losing a lot less data).

Tournament structure has those perverse incentives (in retrospect) for the same reasons that it's a flawed way of measuring the best team (rather than league formats where all play the same schedule - bar playing themselves- larger samples etc) but that's not a good reason to junk useful data.

It's enough just to say King had a great playoffs, which he certainly did.

[Owly]

Given Dantley is towards the bottom for many where Gervin near the top and Dantley often maligned as low to negative impact ...

ElGee's WoWR scores have them tied for career (Dantley perhaps very, very,very marginally ahead on unpublished decimals? It's not alphabetical) and Dantley quite a bit ahead and ranking significantly higher for prime.

Worth raising at least, I think, given most interpretations have been harsher on Dantley's impact (including Taylor himself in his earlier written book - a good and easy read).

[E-Balla]

1984 Bernard King
1979 George Gervin
1986 Dominique Wilkins
1985 Alex English
1984 Adrian Dantley

I hate your hate of Adrian Dantley!

Maybe if he wasn't so trash...

Spoiler:

[E-Balla]

I don't get how can you take Nique over Dantley.

Nique was 2nd in MVP voting before. Dantley led a +1.4 ORTG team with good offensive support and his teams routinely performed at the same level whether or not he was in the lineup.

As for Owly's post George Gervin didn't miss anywhere enough games for WOWY to even be reliable. From 78-82 he only missed 9 games, that's hardly as reliable a without sample as the 113 games Dantley missed from 80-86.

[cecilthesheep]

I don't get how can you take Nique over Dantley.

Nique was 2nd in MVP voting before. Dantley led a +1.4 ORTG team with good offensive support and his teams routinely performed at the same level whether or not he was in the lineup.

As for Owly's post George Gervin didn't miss anywhere enough games for WOWY to even be reliable. From 78-82 he only missed 9 games, that's hardly as reliable a without sample as the 113 games Dantley missed from 80-86.

doesn't it also account for joining and leaving teams, maybe also minutes increases? Any stat like that is inherently fuzzy but I don't think it's necessarily missing a whole ton of Gervin data. If anything it should maybe underrate him since the one big switch (getting sold to the Spurs) happened well before he peaked. But I don't really know in any great detail how WOWY does its thing.

[penbeast0]

...He wasn't nearly as much of a ball-stopper as Dantley either, which people might not realize without looking at more than the stats....

I keep hearing this but there are two problems with it:

(1) When I watch Dantley, he isn't holding the ball for long stretches, he looks like about as much of a ball stopper as Dwyane Wade . . . an extra fake or juke more than the average high scorer but not like a Charles Barkley pounding the ball or backing his man down for serious seconds off the shot clock.

(2) When you look statistically at average time to get off a shot in prime Dantley offense (didn't do this myself, read it on APBR post from someone who had done the work), his offenses were generally quick hitting and high scoring. The average shot clock time was less than Nique or King's offense (though longer than English in that Denver setup).

I know it's "accepted wisdom," I just think people say it without having looked into it and then adding "without looking at more than the stats." What stats do you have showing Dantley to be a "ball stopper" to an extent greater than Bernard King who like to get into that midpost and bump his defenders before shooting?

[E-Balla]

I don't get how can you take Nique over Dantley.

Nique was 2nd in MVP voting before. Dantley led a +1.4 ORTG team with good offensive support and his teams routinely performed at the same level whether or not he was in the lineup.

As for Owly's post George Gervin didn't miss anywhere enough games for WOWY to even be reliable. From 78-82 he only missed 9 games, that's hardly as reliable a without sample as the 113 games Dantley missed from 80-86.

doesn't it also account for joining and leaving teams, maybe also minutes increases? Any stat like that is inherently fuzzy but I don't think it's necessarily missing a whole ton of Gervin data. If anything it should maybe underrate him since the one big switch (getting sold to the Spurs) happened well before he peaked. But I don't really know in any great detail how WOWY does its thing.

It accounts for injuries during the season and players that might've missed games at the same time you did. For Gervin since he only missed 9 games in his best 5 year stretch there's only a sample of 9 games to see how San Antonio played without him and all of those 9 games might not be included because it's completely possible there were other players also out of the lineup.

One thing WOWY doesn't account for is offseason team switches, but it does account for midseason trades.

[70sFan]

I don't get how can you take Nique over Dantley.

Nique was 2nd in MVP voting before. Dantley led a +1.4 ORTG team with good offensive support and his teams routinely performed at the same level whether or not he was in the lineup.

As for Owly's post George Gervin didn't miss anywhere enough games for WOWY to even be reliable. From 78-82 he only missed 9 games, that's hardly as reliable a without sample as the 113 games Dantley missed from 80-86.

I know that he was 2nd in 1986, he didn't deserve that though. Nique led Hawks team to +0.7 rORtg with Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman and Kevin Willis. This is weak result with decent supporting cast.

Dantley didn't have good offensive help in 1984. He had nice player in Griffiths and decent playmaker in Richie Green but he also played with the worst offensive starter in the league (Mark Eaton) and weak bench. That's nothing to dream about.