While I agree with the gist of the article, I gotta disagree with the writers openly campaigning for Dick Barnett over Bernard King.
King deserves to be in the Hall. PERIOD. Barnett was a mere role player on the Knicks Championship squads.
Its the BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME not the "knicks hall of fame".
Barnett’s absence is an injustice decades old that reflects a time when black players were not only ignored but excluded. Besides starring on three straight N.A.I.A. championship teams in the late 1950s at what was then Tennessee A&I — and before desegregation drained talent from the smaller or historically black schools — Barnett was a key scorer and strong on-ball defender for four of the five N.B.A. championship series teams he played on.He sacrificed numbers to meld with the likes of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor in Los Angeles and with Willis Reed, Walt Frazier and the others in New York. (He also won a title for George Steinbrenner’s Cleveland Pipers of the short-lived American Basketball League.)
Barnett was a spare part by the Knicks’ second title, having surrendered his backcourt post to Earl Monroe, with Dean Meminger as the third guard. Barnett never got the credit Monroe deservedly received for assimilating his transcendent one-on-one skills into the Knicks’ democratic approach and, most germane to the 1973 title, sitting on the bench for the last three quarters of the signature playoff victory that season, Game 7 of the conference final in Boston./quote]
His career was very significant outside of his knick days.
Be that as it may, the fact that BK's #30 isn't retired just ain't right.
Nalod wrote:Its the BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME not the "knicks hall of fame".
Wait, you're not saying King doesn't deserve to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame right?
Because if James Worthy is in the Hall with lesser numbers, than King definitely belongs in there with greater ones. You can't count rings as the tiebreaker, because anybody can win championships next to Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
ChuckBuck wrote:Nalod wrote:Its the BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME not the "knicks hall of fame".
Wait, you're not saying King doesn't deserve to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame right?
Because if James Worthy is in the Hall with lesser numbers, than King definitely belongs in there with greater ones. You can't count rings as the tiebreaker, because anybody can win championships next to Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
The writer thinks Barnett should be in. He starred in 3 N.A.I.A champinship teams!!!!! Thats before segregation so it carries a lot of weight. some players are in the BASKETBALL HOF becaue of thier accomplishments in college alone!
Add it up: college, pro, finals, length.......Barnett had hell of a career. King was a prolific scorer who had a long career but not all of it was great. His first few years he was a sulking selfish player. He matured and figured it out. Does he belong in the Hall? Not before Barnett and not before Spencer Haywood. Spencer was olympic hero at age 19, and changed the game because he wes the first to jump from college to the pro's before his senior year! ABA MVP and rookie of the year in the same year, and multiple year all star with Seattle! His early career might have move cred than Kings.
Im not saying King is not deserving, but there are these two that should go in.
Worthy? NCAA champoinship (was on a great team, but don't championship teams have great players?)as well?
Played 12 years, made allstar team 7 times, went to 8 finals and won in 4. He is well deserving of HOF status.
He's advocating Barnett over Bernard because of the team aspect, not saying benard shouldn't be in, just that barnett should be first.
I dont disagree with the article, although his premise is wrong.....it takes both to win.
Bernard was in an era of good scorers and he had very good statistics. He had three incredible years which he was first team NBA and 3 time all star. His playoff game total is low.
If he did not get hurt and played two more years at that level I think he was a shoo in. Its incredible that he got hurt at age 30 and came back and at age 34 put up 28per game getting his 3rd all star nod!
Like I said, his numbers were there but the era had a fair amount of prolific scorers. He was not on many good teams. His numbers might have been lower like Worthy's if he was on some great teams. But we just don't know.
He was a great player and I get why others might be considered ahead of him.
Nalod wrote:Bernard was in an era of good scorers and he had very good statistics. He had three incredible years which he was first team NBA and 3 time all star. His playoff game total is low.If he did not get hurt and played two more years at that level I think he was a shoo in. Its incredible that he got hurt at age 30 and came back and at age 34 put up 28per game getting his 3rd all star nod!
Like I said, his numbers were there but the era had a fair amount of prolific scorers. He was not on many good teams. His numbers might have been lower like Worthy's if he was on some great teams. But we just don't know.
He was a great player and I get why others might be considered ahead of him.
Besides the obvious('Nique and Bird), the other SF's in comparison of his era were Adrian Dantley and Mark Aguirre. Dantley has the best numbers of this bunch, and is deservedly in the Hall. King falls between AD and Aguirre. So King is right there on the threshold, of "should be in the hall".
I do agree that if he doesn't get hurt, he definitely is a First Ballot shoo in.
Then again, if he doesn't get hurt, maybe he and Patrick would've hoisted a couple of trophies too!
Rick Barry, Dr J, Gervin, Thompson, english, Drexler,, Mullin........
Not sure you just go by position.
Mullin: Career Highlights
Five-time NBA All Star, 1989-93
Big East Player of the Year, 1983, 1984, 1985
Consensus First Team All-America, 1985
Olympic Gold Medal, 1984, 1992
worthy:Career Highlights
Helms Foundation National Player of the Year, 1982
7-time NBA All-Star, 1986-1992
MVP of NBA Finals, 1988
NBA 50th Anniversary All-Time Team, 1996
Go play here: http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
I think he should be in, but I get the article and agree Barnett had a significant career. I have also followed Spencer Haywoods status and he is more deserving then King also. Its subjective so there is nor real formula. Its not just Numbers.
Haywood did some real special things. Sinces its not just the NBA, one has to consider olympic, ABA, NBA and college acomplishments. King got numbers, but not much else. ON numbers alone, he should be in.
