|
Post by jlafavor on Aug 1, 2010 20:56:13 GMT -6
|
|
josh
2nd Rounder
1979 ITP Champs
Posts: 2,730
|
Post by josh on Aug 1, 2010 22:32:42 GMT -6
As I vote every year, it's a yes on King. Only MJ has come along as a better SG HOF option over the last 12 seasons. That alone should speak volumes about King's impact when he was in the league.
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Aug 2, 2010 8:37:04 GMT -6
Im still a no, he was pretty good for a few years but in the end he just doesnt seem to be what a HOF'er in the ITP is to me.
|
|
Doogie
1st Rounder
Spurs GM...."Jusssssst a bit outside!"
Posts: 6,182
|
Post by Doogie on Aug 2, 2010 18:06:05 GMT -6
still a no
|
|
|
Post by jlafavor on Aug 2, 2010 21:50:25 GMT -6
still yes.
|
|
voker84
College Starter
Posts: 2,401
|
Post by voker84 on Aug 3, 2010 15:23:52 GMT -6
still a no for me, I like his ppg and the one title; but doesn't have anything else to put him in imo.
|
|
|
Post by yourkers15 on Aug 3, 2010 18:53:10 GMT -6
still a yes
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Aug 7, 2010 11:46:36 GMT -6
I was converted to a yes a few seasons ago, and I'm sticking with the yes vote.
|
|
greeme
Starting player
Posts: 9,172
|
Post by greeme on Aug 8, 2010 3:32:05 GMT -6
A resounding NO. His stats, except for scoring, are not even average. The few years that he played should also be held against him. He wasn't a particularly good defender and he turned the ball over a lot.
|
|
|
Post by rwest4mvp on Aug 8, 2010 9:17:33 GMT -6
I say no, Looking at his stat line it isn't very eye popping and was only a 2 time all-star. Not enough hardware and statistic line for him to be a HOF for me.
|
|
nyk2013
Starting player
Blazers 2000 ITP CHAMPS
Posts: 8,860
|
Post by nyk2013 on Aug 8, 2010 19:53:00 GMT -6
yes, said the same last yr.
|
|
josh
2nd Rounder
1979 ITP Champs
Posts: 2,730
|
Post by josh on Aug 8, 2010 22:48:10 GMT -6
A resounding NO. His stats, except for scoring, are not even average. The few years that he played should also be held against him. He wasn't a particularly good defender and he turned the ball over a lot. Sigh... I know it's totally fine for guys that are brand new to the league to vote on all the HOF candidates, but it's pretty clear that you have absolutely no perspective on what this league looked like in the first 4-5 seasons. King's stats other than scoring were DEFINITELY average...6 rebounds, 3 assits and 1.7 steals for his career at SG? How many SGs average more rebounds/assists than that? Not a ton...That's for sure. As for King not being a very good defender, he was on the second best league defense in 1984 and the best league defense in 1985. His defense rating was never amazing to look at, but he rarely got burned and averaged nearly 2 steals for his career. There are guys in this league with A-/A defense that weren't as effective as King. The other side of this is the 5-6 draft classes in the late 80s-early 90s that we've still not recovered from. Guys came in WAY inflated, then camping got crazy, and we had a league of super players that have totally watered down the stats. I'm not sure if King was ever camped, ever, yet he posted 23ppg for his career. Imagine King with 2 inside/scoring/outside camps and 2 defense camps. That's the reality for a lot of the "superstars" in the league now, and if the same had been true for King, he would have easily averaged 26-28 points for his career. Finally, it's not King's fault that he was older when the league started...He had 8 very productive seasons and that's the body of work we have to look at, nothing more. Sorry to jump on you, it's just really tough to compare King to players in the league now when you weren't around since the beginning.
|
|
greeme
Starting player
Posts: 9,172
|
Post by greeme on Aug 9, 2010 3:13:00 GMT -6
In the end statistics are the only way to compare players. One could compare them to the league averages of their era but I looked and the difference is minimal. One could also adjust for the pace of the team because a player on a team playing a very fast pace will have better stats. Again I looked and it doesn't seem that it would help King. King's numbers are a function of the amount of minutes he played and the amount of shots that he took. That is all. He is pretty much Dell Curry except that King played 36 minutes and Dell played 29. King had better fg and ft %s but they were offset by a big advantage in Curry's favor in 3pt %. The only major difference in their per minute averages was turnovers which was very much in Curry's favor. King did score at a better rate per minute but that was mostly because of the number of shots he talk. Their scoring efficiency ratings were similar with King having a slight edge. I don't buy the camping argument. Some players get more camps, some players get more shots. ces't la vie. We can only vote based on who the player turned out to be. Similarly the argument that certain players have better ratings doesn't hold water. This is the ITP hall of fame and the players are who the are. Why someone is better than someone else is irrelevant.
|
|
josh
2nd Rounder
1979 ITP Champs
Posts: 2,730
|
Post by josh on Aug 9, 2010 8:58:29 GMT -6
In the end statistics are the only way to compare players. One could compare them to the league averages of their era but I looked and the difference is minimal. One could also adjust for the pace of the team because a player on a team playing a very fast pace will have better stats. Again I looked and it doesn't seem that it would help King. King's numbers are a function of the amount of minutes he played and the amount of shots that he took. That is all. He is pretty much Dell Curry except that King played 36 minutes and Dell played 29. King had better fg and ft %s but they were offset by a big advantage in Curry's favor in 3pt %. The only major difference in their per minute averages was turnovers which was very much in Curry's favor. King did score at a better rate per minute but that was mostly because of the number of shots he talk. Their scoring efficiency ratings were similar with King having a slight edge. I don't buy the camping argument. Some players get more camps, some players get more shots. ces't la vie. We can only vote based on who the player turned out to be. Similarly the argument that certain players have better ratings doesn't hold water. This is the ITP hall of fame and the players are who the are. Why someone is better than someone else is irrelevant. Ummm...If you're going to compare Bernard King to Dell Curry, then uh. Wow. Curry's per 36 points average for his career is 17.4. If you think that's anywhere near 23, then that's just nuts. Clearly there is more that separates them than just 7 minutes per game. My main point is that you've seen one season's worth of ITP stats and players, and you have zero clue what the league looked like the first few seasons. Sure, there are differences in players and ratings and camps, but my point stands: When a wave of super players come into a league, it changes the dynamic of the standards for scoring/rebounding/stealing etc. That is the single most impressive thing about some of these guys that were around from the beginning. They didn't get an artificial leg up or a bunch of help along the way, and we're still talking about how their achievements stack up against players today.
|
|