How good could have Bernard King have been if he hadn't injured his knee

[migya]

Bernard King not a knee injury in 1985, missed the following season and was never the same again. He did have a great season with 28.4pts in 1991 before another knee injury had him miss another season and he retired one season after. In 1985 he got 32.9pts at 53fg%. From his first season iin New Jersey in 1978 to 1985 on the Knicks, before the injury, he had 23.7pts, 53.8fg% and 6.6rebs. He was a superstar in his era and had some great performances in the playoffs as well.

How good would his career have been if he hadn't gotten injured in 1985?

He could've been a scorer on par with Dantley, similar to Durant, slightly more than Bird. Definitely a player that was ruined by injury.

[tsherkin]

Interesting question.

From what I've seen of him (and really, only so much), he had a nice pull-up in transition, a bunch of moves in the post (especially that classic, quick turnaround) as did so many of the notable SFs in the 80s, and he mixed it up right at the rim a lot. I liked Dominique's remark about him, that he was "relentless." You watch him in retrospect and he seems very upright and a little flailing, but then he has these lower drives and this footwork and just this strength about him as he bumped and grinded in the post. You could see him doing that sort of thing in basically any era. And if he hadn't injured himself and lost years of his prime, if he'd made it to that 20,000-point mark on his career and beyond, you know? He would have at least been remembered more regularly with the other pure scorers. I think in basic concept, he's a lot like KD in the sense that he brings you scoring and rebounding and enough ball movement that he doesn't get in the way. And if you pair him with a proper high-end guard, you've got something really dangerous to work with, because he could really get after it offensively.

[penbeast0]

Not on par with Dantley as a scorer as he still won't have the freaky efficiency, but on par with English as a scorer ahead of Nique and Aguirre. No injury, he's probably top 10 SF of all time.

[TrueLAfan]

Interesting question.

From what I've seen of him (and really, only so much), he had a nice pull-up in transition, a bunch of moves in the post (especially that classic, quick turnaround) as did so many of the notable SFs in the 80s, and he mixed it up right at the rim a lot. I liked Dominique's remark about him, that he was "relentless." You watch him in retrospect and he seems very upright and a little flailing, but then he has these lower drives and this footwork and just this strength about him as he bumped and grinded in the post. You could see him doing that sort of thing in basically any era. And if he hadn't injured himself and lost years of his prime, if he'd made it to that 20,000-point mark on his career and beyond, you know? He would have at least been remembered more regularly with the other pure scorers. I think in basic concept, he's a lot like KD in the sense that he brings you scoring and rebounding and enough ball movement that he doesn't get in the way. And if you pair him with a proper high-end guard, you've got something really dangerous to work with, because he could really get after it offensively.

Good analysis. One thing I remember from the 1984 playoffs is that King truly came into his own and blossomed. That spin move, the first step--they were blindingly fast. And he was big too--he came at you hard on offense. He was terrifyingly dominant against the Pistons, and carried the Knicks to a seventh game against the Celtics. I remember Bird at the time saying, essentially, that Bernard was unstoppable. You look at that Knicks team, which was Bernard King, Bill Cartwright, a declining Ray Williams, and mainly role players and journeymen—and you wonder how they did anything. They were well coached (Hubie Brown)—and they what amounted to an relentless, driving asset. The 1984 Celtics were, by any definition, a great team. When a team like that essentially says—forget it, he’s going to get his 30; just shut down everyone else, it’s a testament to excellence.

I always felt bad for King in 1985. Cartwright was out the whole year. Williams was gone. They had nothing, just nothing, in their lineup. King had reached the stratosphere—he was crushing the league in scoring, and everyone else was mediocre to horrible. the Knicks were clearly tanking in the Patrick Ewing Sweepstakes. But nobody told Bernard, and nobody protected him; he played every game, often 38 or more minutes. In the last two months he played—his final 2 games—he played 39 mpg, and averaged 35-6.5-4 with awesome efficiency. This was the old days, when players logged minutes and didn’t miss games. Still—39 minutes a game on that Knicks team? No games off? He was a force of nature that year—but nature catches up to everyone eventually, and it caught up to Bernard (way) too early.

Not much D at all--but his offensive repertoire and drive were beyond reproach. He was clearly at his peak in that final year, and he outscored Bird and Jordan by over 4 a game--and it wasn't like there was anyone else on the Knicks you had to worry about. Don't think he could have made the top 5 or 6 SFs, but he'd probably head up the second tier. He was great.

[tsherkin]

Interesting question.

From what I've seen of him (and really, only so much), he had a nice pull-up in transition, a bunch of moves in the post (especially that classic, quick turnaround) as did so many of the notable SFs in the 80s, and he mixed it up right at the rim a lot. I liked Dominique's remark about him, that he was "relentless." You watch him in retrospect and he seems very upright and a little flailing, but then he has these lower drives and this footwork and just this strength about him as he bumped and grinded in the post. You could see him doing that sort of thing in basically any era. And if he hadn't injured himself and lost years of his prime, if he'd made it to that 20,000-point mark on his career and beyond, you know? He would have at least been remembered more regularly with the other pure scorers. I think in basic concept, he's a lot like KD in the sense that he brings you scoring and rebounding and enough ball movement that he doesn't get in the way. And if you pair him with a proper high-end guard, you've got something really dangerous to work with, because he could really get after it offensively.

Good analysis. One thing I remember from the 1984 playoffs is that King truly came into his own and blossomed. That spin move, the first step--they were blindingly fast. And he was big too--he came at you hard on offense. He was terrifyingly dominant against the Pistons, and carried the Knicks to a seventh game against the Celtics. I remember Bird at the time saying, essentially, that Bernard was unstoppable. You look at that Knicks team, which was Bernard King, Bill Cartwright, a declining Ray Williams, and mainly role players and journeymen—and you wonder how they did anything. They were well coached (Hubie Brown)—and they what amounted to an relentless, driving asset. The 1984 Celtics were, by any definition, a great team. When a team like that essentially says—forget it, he’s going to get his 30; just shut down everyone else, it’s a testament to excellence.

I always felt bad for King in 1985. Cartwright was out the whole year. Williams was gone. They had nothing, just nothing, in their lineup. King had reached the stratosphere—he was crushing the league in scoring, and everyone else was mediocre to horrible. the Knicks were clearly tanking in the Patrick Ewing Sweepstakes. But nobody told Bernard, and nobody protected him; he played every game, often 38 or more minutes. In the last two months he played—his final 2 games—he played 39 mpg, and averaged 35-6.5-4 with awesome efficiency. This was the old days, when players logged minutes and didn’t miss games. Still—39 minutes a game on that Knicks team? No games off? He was a force of nature that year—but nature catches up to everyone eventually, and it caught up to Bernard (way) too early.

Not much D at all--but his offensive repertoire and drive were beyond reproach. He was clearly at his peak in that final year, and he outscored Bird and Jordan by over 4 a game--and it wasn't like there was anyone else on the Knicks you had to worry about. Don't think he could have made the top 5 or 6 SFs, but he'd probably head up the second tier. He was great.

Nice to see you, True

Yeah, everything I've seen from Bernard King was that he was a powerhouse physical specimen. And certainly he was crushing it in the early and mid 80s. A shame he was cut down.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Maybe a top 10 scorer ever, assuming he could have gotten to the PS a bit more and shown he was legit?

Bernard King in the 79, 83, and 84 averaged an inflation adjusted 31.5 pts per 75 possessions on an outrageous rTS% of 8.3%

(Keep in mind 79 was well off from his peak).

I mean those numbers stack up historically pretty well against just about anyone, however it is only a 20 game sample size. He was potentially very much still ascending, and had more to offer.

[trex_8063]

Not to be the wet blanket, but I am going to throw just a little cold water on the praise, by way of the oft-forgotten aspect of offensive efficiency: turnovers.

In '84 and '85 combined, King had an Ast:TO ratio <1 [somewhat rare for a SF]. He averaged 29.1 ppg and 2.8 apg, but 3.0 topg between the two seasons.
Still an amazing scorer, but jsia (it warrants mentioning when his efficiency is being praised).

Things I remember most about him: that lighting-quick pull-up in transition [or drive]. Seemed like he had barely left the ground, but the ball was already leaving his fingers.
I feel like he was pretty good transition finisher in general, too, no?
Quick first step, nice spin move. Not as much of a whirling dervish as Nique, but nice. That's about all I remember.

[Ursusamericanus]

Top 10 SF. I wonder how a Ewing-King tandem could have done, had he stayed healthy.

[migya]

Top 10 SF. I wonder how a Ewing-King tandem could have done, had he stayed healthy.

By 88 definite contender. Certainly a nice tambem. Both players with bad teams littering their careers.

[migya]

Not to be the wet blanket, but I am going to throw just a little cold water on the praise, by way of the oft-forgotten aspect of offensive efficiency: turnovers.

In '84 and '85 combined, King had an Ast:TO ratio <1 [somewhat rare for a SF]. He averaged 29.1 ppg and 2.8 apg, but 3.0 topg between the two seasons.
Still an amazing scorer, but jsia (it warrants mentioning when his efficiency is being praised).

Things I remember most about him: that lighting-quick pull-up in transition [or drive]. Seemed like he had barely left the ground, but the ball was already leaving his fingers.
I feel like he was pretty good transition finisher in general, too, no?
Quick first step, nice spin move. Not as much of a whirling dervish as Nique, but nice. That's about all I remember.

That's what generally happens when a star is on a bad team. He has noone to pass to and gets turnovers with having the ball and having to score so much.

[HeartBreakKid]

It's easy to look into his heroics and awesome scoring numbers, but he was a really one dimensional player. Unless his game branched out a lot (not likely), he wouldn't have been any better than what he was.

An advantage he would have over Dantley though is that he plays for the Knicks - which is why he is more well known than Dantley anyway despite having a tiny prime.

Dantley was actually a bit more versatile than King, which given Dantley's criticisms is a bit concerning.

[70sFan]

Not to be the wet blanket, but I am going to throw just a little cold water on the praise, by way of the oft-forgotten aspect of offensive efficiency: turnovers.

In '84 and '85 combined, King had an Ast:TO ratio <1 [somewhat rare for a SF]. He averaged 29.1 ppg and 2.8 apg, but 3.0 topg between the two seasons.
Still an amazing scorer, but jsia (it warrants mentioning when his efficiency is being praised).

Things I remember most about him: that lighting-quick pull-up in transition [or drive]. Seemed like he had barely left the ground, but the ball was already leaving his fingers.
I feel like he was pretty good transition finisher in general, too, no?
Quick first step, nice spin move. Not as much of a whirling dervish as Nique, but nice. That's about all I remember.

That's what generally happens when a start is on a bad team. He has noone to pass to and gets turnovers with having the ball and having to score so much.

Warriors weren't untalented offensively though when King played for them.

[kcktiny]

Yeah, everything I've seen from Bernard King was that he was a powerhouse physical specimen. And certainly he was crushing it in the early and mid 80s.

Also - from 1987-88 to 1990-91 playing for the Washington Bullets King scored the 3rd most total points among the league's SFs (only Dominique Wilkins and Chris Mullin scored more) when the ages of 30-33.

Not bad for a player who suffered a torn ACL at a time when many did not come back strong from that kind of injury - and after having missed almost two entire seasons (1985-86 and 1986-87).

[falcolombardi]

was not king a player criticized for not passing to teammates? or i am mistaken here?

[tsherkin]

Yeah, everything I've seen from Bernard King was that he was a powerhouse physical specimen. And certainly he was crushing it in the early and mid 80s.

Also - from 1987-88 to 1990-91 playing for the Washington Bullets King scored the 3rd most total points among the league's SFs (only Dominique Wilkins and Chris Mullin scored more) when the ages of 30-33.

Not bad for a player who suffered a torn ACL at a time when many did not come back strong from that kind of injury - and after having missed almost two entire seasons (1985-86 and 1986-87).

In era, that return was amazing due to where medicine was at the time, and the basic nature of the injury. His actual efficacy as a scorer post-surgery is a little more up for debate because of his notable drop-off in efficiency. 87-91, he was like a 99-103 TS+ guy after peaking around 115. Food for thought.

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't see it as how good. We saw how good he was in 84 and 85 when he was close to being a top 5 player and had a great playoffs in 84. Its more I think how high he could be ranked had he stayed healthy to which I'd say maybe in the 45-60 range. Maybe higher if he and Ewing win a ring or two together and Kings wins a fmvp.

[asindc]

Top 10 SF if he had stayed healthy. Regardless of what you thought of his overall game, when BK was on he was among those players who were simply unguardable.

[70sFan]

Top 10 SF if he had stayed healthy. Regardless of what you thought of his overall game, when BK was on he was among those players who were simply unguardable.

I mean, the same thing can be said about Adrian Dantley and he's usually not ranked inside top 10. Why would it be any different with King?

[Cavsfansince84]

Top 10 SF if he had stayed healthy. Regardless of what you thought of his overall game, when BK was on he was among those players who were simply unguardable.

I mean, the same thing can be said about Adrian Dantley and he's usually not ranked inside top 10. Why would it be any different with King?

I think you could argue that King accomplished more as a volume scorer than Dantley did(taking the Celtics to 7 games in the ecf almost single handily). Dantley also did it in very up tempo systems(top 3 in pace) while King did it on very slow ones(bottom 3) which often carries over to the playoffs better. King also placed much higher in mvp voting though its possible being in ny had something to do with that.

[70sFan]

Top 10 SF if he had stayed healthy. Regardless of what you thought of his overall game, when BK was on he was among those players who were simply unguardable.

I mean, the same thing can be said about Adrian Dantley and he's usually not ranked inside top 10. Why would it be any different with King?

I think you could argue that King accomplished more as a volume scorer than Dantley did(taking the Celtics to 7 games in the ecf almost single handily). Dantley also did it in very up tempo systems(top 3 in pace) while King did it on very slow ones(bottom 3) which often carries over to the playoffs better. King also placed much higher in mvp voting though its possible being in ny had something to do with that.

It's more of a narrative than reality though. Knicks offense wasn't good in that series and in fact, it wasn't nearly as close as some may believe when you look at point differential.

That's the whole problem - we assume that King had no help similary to how Iverson had no help in 2001. King had elite defensive team around him with excellent coach. We shouldn't focus too much on volume scoring. This team was literally the best defense in the league that year.

The reality is that both players went to Conference Semis and Dantley also played very well against the Suns. If you go by pace, the difference isn't big either:

King:

- 36.8 points per100 on 61.9 TS% in RS
- 42.4 points per100 on 62.0 TS% in RS

AD:

- 37.1 points per100 on 65.2 TS% in RS
- 37.3 points per100 on 60.4 TS% in RS

Sure, King peaked higher in playoffs but his playoffs averages are inflated by his Pistons series when he faced all-offense and no defense Pistons in the first round. His scoring numbers against Celtics looks much more normal.

Then again, I could be wrong but I feel that Dantley gives you a little more outside of scoring. He was better offensive rebounder, more willing passer, better shooter and I don't think there is a huge difference on defense either (I'd actually take Pistons Dantley over King, but he was a bit lazy on that end in Utah).