Knicks · What is the difference in Bernard King - Carmelo Anthony when it comes to scoring? (page 4)

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:King came here and resurrected a promising career that was in trouble because of his off court legal problems.

Melo was a "star" in college and was a promoted "star" in the NBA who forced his way to NY.

The trade was more than just "gallo".

He was "coming home" and has been sold to fans as "mooby": to be worshipped and celebrated without merit.

King was aquired for much less and was not a "savior'.

Thus, he blew us away!

and it was a very small window.

"Melo forcing his way here" is the view of some one who has lost something in Melo coming here...Did DWill "force" his way to the Nets...Did Bron "force" his way to Miami...Who ever heard a fan base objecting to a better player wanting and coming to their city to play ball??

All the Knick fans on this site who are consistently told that the "assets" we traded away were for a next to nothing, zero-sum player.

Bonn1997 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

playa2 wrote:In a day when most of you judge players by rings.

Neither of them made their teammates better and neither of them won rings in the association.

Bernard was very athletic and the players in his day were not like they are today. I heard Jordan say the greatest defender he faced wasn't Bruce Bowen of Gerald Wilkins, but Mitch Richmond!

The more athletic the league the more you tend to be hindered trying to score, so Bernard although great had a lil advantage there.

My question had to do with scoring, both of those players excelled at scoring when their teammates just watched them go to work.

They both had the ability to take over games and put fear in those who tried to defend them.

As far as scoring I see no difference.

Again the question was What is the difference in Bernard King - Carmelo Anthony when it comes to SCORING?

Nothing was different compared to today standards

Both got No rings and their teammates just watched them score the basketball.

So you start a thread. There are 50 replies. But the only person you reply to is yourself?!

Because people are thick, the question had nothing to do with all the DIFFERENT CATEGORIES PEOPLE ARE BRINGING UP, IT HAD TO DO WITH SCORING.

We already have a gazillion threads on all those categories mentioned about Melo.

They are identical in scoring, the league was physically weaker back when Bernard played.

No, they're very similar in PPG, not in scoring. Clearly, if one guy is hitting 55% and the other is hitting 45%, they're not scoring at an equally effective rate. Highlight films don't show missed shots. So you're only going to confirm your initial belief that they're very similar if you watch highlight films. The naked eye during games probably isn't even going to notice if one player is shooting 9 for 20 and the other 9 for 17 unless you keep written play by play notes.

They are identical IN SCORING where everybody else ON THE TEAM just got out of the way. LOL

playa2 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

playa2 wrote:In a day when most of you judge players by rings.

Neither of them made their teammates better and neither of them won rings in the association.

Bernard was very athletic and the players in his day were not like they are today. I heard Jordan say the greatest defender he faced wasn't Bruce Bowen of Gerald Wilkins, but Mitch Richmond!

The more athletic the league the more you tend to be hindered trying to score, so Bernard although great had a lil advantage there.

My question had to do with scoring, both of those players excelled at scoring when their teammates just watched them go to work.

They both had the ability to take over games and put fear in those who tried to defend them.

As far as scoring I see no difference.

Again the question was What is the difference in Bernard King - Carmelo Anthony when it comes to SCORING?

Nothing was different compared to today standards

Both got No rings and their teammates just watched them score the basketball.

So you start a thread. There are 50 replies. But the only person you reply to is yourself?!

Because people are thick, the question had nothing to do with all the DIFFERENT CATEGORIES PEOPLE ARE BRINGING UP, IT HAD TO DO WITH SCORING.

We already have a gazillion threads on all those categories mentioned about Melo.

They are identical in scoring, the league was physically weaker back when Bernard played.

No, they're very similar in PPG, not in scoring. Clearly, if one guy is hitting 55% and the other is hitting 45%, they're not scoring at an equally effective rate. Highlight films don't show missed shots. So you're only going to confirm your initial belief that they're very similar if you watch highlight films. The naked eye during games probably isn't even going to notice if one player is shooting 9 for 20 and the other 9 for 17 unless you keep written play by play notes.

They are identical IN SCORING where everybody else ON THE TEAM just got out of the way. LOL

Riiiiight. Actually, Carmelo is better at overcoming the home-court disadvantage effect. I don't know how so many people have overlooked this.

Maybe the problem is just that what you mean by "scoring" is vague. Did you mean simply, are their PPGs similar? That amounts to nothing more than asking whether the number "25" is similar to the number "25."

One is looked on as a can't miss ball player(King)and Melo like a non team player.

Both didn't make others on the team better while scoring so they are identical. Oh by the way I wasn't talking about ppg.

playa2 wrote:One is looked on as a can't miss ball player(King)and Melo like a non team player.

Yes, you're correct that they're looked at differently.

Both didn't make others on the team better while scoring so they are identical. Oh by the way I wasn't talking about ppg.

OK, PPG is off-topic. Will you ever tell us what you were talking about, or what the range of ideas that fall within your thinking for the topic is? People keep expressing their views and all you're doing is telling them what they're saying is off-topic. You haven't clearly stated what the topic is, though. It seems like everything that could possibly differentiate the two players is simply "off-topic."

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:King came here and resurrected a promising career that was in trouble because of his off court legal problems.

Melo was a "star" in college and was a promoted "star" in the NBA who forced his way to NY.

The trade was more than just "gallo".

He was "coming home" and has been sold to fans as "mooby": to be worshipped and celebrated without merit.

King was aquired for much less and was not a "savior'.

Thus, he blew us away!

and it was a very small window.

"Melo forcing his way here" is the view of some one who has lost something in Melo coming here...Did DWill "force" his way to the Nets...Did Bron "force" his way to Miami...Who ever heard a fan base objecting to a better player wanting and coming to their city to play ball??

"Forced his way" is not a bad thing. but it raised expectations as we paid a price. The question is not relevant to Dwill or Lebron. Lebron took a pay cut and risk. DWill Im not sure wanted Jersey/Brooklyn as much as wanted out of Utah. He is not a "star" on the level of Melo and expectations were not high.

I think the question is why is King revered and melo not?

I also think the legend of King grew over the years. He was here only 2.5 years and its not like we got to the finals.

He carried the team when nobody expected. Melo had much higher expectations coming in.

The knicks haven't had a scoring go to guy so versatile since Bernard King, this is why he was revered not necessarily him having higher expectations coming in.

playa2 wrote:The knicks haven't had a scoring go to guy so versatile since Bernard King, this is why he was revered not necessarily him having higher expectations coming in.

I enjoyed the spree/ Houston years much more..

tkf wrote:

playa2 wrote:The knicks haven't had a scoring go to guy so versatile since Bernard King, this is why he was revered not necessarily him having higher expectations coming in.

I enjoyed the spree/ Houston years much more..

I bet you did, unfortunately those two are another thread.

playa2 wrote:

tkf wrote:

playa2 wrote:The knicks haven't had a scoring go to guy so versatile since Bernard King, this is why he was revered not necessarily him having higher expectations coming in.

I enjoyed the spree/ Houston years much more..

I bet you did, unfortunately those two are another thread.

TKF didn't realize that anything that disagrees with you is off-topic

playa2 wrote:The knicks haven't had a scoring go to guy so versatile since Bernard King, this is why he was revered not necessarily him having higher expectations coming in.

That makes no sense.

Bonn1997 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

tkf wrote:

playa2 wrote:The knicks haven't had a scoring go to guy so versatile since Bernard King, this is why he was revered not necessarily him having higher expectations coming in.

I enjoyed the spree/ Houston years much more..

I bet you did, unfortunately those two are another thread.

TKF didn't realize that anything that disagrees with you is off-topic

ah, I forgot... haha

playa2 wrote:One is looked on as a can't miss ball player(King)and Melo like a non team player.

Both didn't make others on the team better while scoring so they are identical. Oh by the way I wasn't talking about ppg.

Let's just look at scoring. Take 5 random plays where both players score, you should be able to tell the difference. One scores within the offence, the other forces the offense to go through him to score.

You can make an argument that Bernard didn't make his teammates better either, but Melo has a tendency to take his teammates OUT of the offense. Bernard didn't do that.

Playa2 is completely unraveling here - coming apart at the seam. What's happening?

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:King came here and resurrected a promising career that was in trouble because of his off court legal problems.

Melo was a "star" in college and was a promoted "star" in the NBA who forced his way to NY.

The trade was more than just "gallo".

He was "coming home" and has been sold to fans as "mooby": to be worshipped and celebrated without merit.

King was aquired for much less and was not a "savior'.

Thus, he blew us away!

and it was a very small window.

"Melo forcing his way here" is the view of some one who has lost something in Melo coming here...Did DWill "force" his way to the Nets...Did Bron "force" his way to Miami...Who ever heard a fan base objecting to a better player wanting and coming to their city to play ball??

"Forced his way" is not a bad thing. but it raised expectations as we paid a price. The question is not relevant to Dwill or Lebron. Lebron took a pay cut and risk. DWill Im not sure wanted Jersey/Brooklyn as much as wanted out of Utah. He is not a "star" on the level of Melo and expectations were not high.

I think the question is why is King revered and melo not?

I also think the legend of King grew over the years. He was here only 2.5 years and its not like we got to the finals.

He carried the team when nobody expected. Melo had much higher expectations coming in.

So colluding to form a totally stacked team with another top 5 superstar at the time and his star pet dinosaur "is taking a risk"? It's the complete opposite of a risk, it's trying to guarantee yourself a championship.

Dagger wrote: So colluding to form a totally stacked team with another top 5 superstar at the time and his star pet dinosaur "is taking a risk"? It's the complete opposite of a risk, it's trying to guarantee yourself a championship.

Risk in the sense he was taking less than max money. At least Lebron's final goal was winning a championship. On the face of it Melo's final goal was to get the most money, regardless of whether the team he was going to was gutted or not.

I think this scenario gives good insight into their respective mindsets.

knickstorrents wrote:

Dagger wrote: So colluding to form a totally stacked team with another top 5 superstar at the time and his star pet dinosaur "is taking a risk"? It's the complete opposite of a risk, it's trying to guarantee yourself a championship.

Risk in the sense he was taking less than max money. At least Lebron's final goal was winning a championship. On the face of it Melo's final goal was to get the most money, regardless of whether the team he was going to was gutted or not.

I think this scenario gives good insight into their respective mindsets.

It's not a risk taking a 2 mil cut per year in salary knowing that if u win a Championship or two, the cost to sign an endorsement deal just went up 10 mil to 20 mil per...A move to win Championship is a financial move as well...Its not a risk when u announce you are going to win 7 Championships...Also, are u willing to tell your boss you will take less money for the good of the company??.

Can't disagree with your logic here, which makes Carmelo's move to me even more puzzling. If he really wanted the most money he should have thought longer term about what the impact of his move was. The most money isn't necessarily the highest guaranteed salary.

It turned out to be in the Knicks favor to have traded all those pieces for Melo...If we had to resign Gallo, the Mayor and Felton, we would have been maxed out when to also consider Amare's contract...We would not have been able to add a Chandler per se...Chandler, JR, KMart are better than Gallo, Mayor, and Moz...We got Felton back at half the price...The pieces we added were cheaper and better...

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:you can't look at bernard king's career numbers alongside anthony's.

his first few years king developed substance abuse issues and found himself out of the league. he was an inefficient scorer much like melo remains.

however, while out of the league he got clean and was taken on by pete newell as a project-- the same pete newell whose big man's camp walton, olajuwon, and shaq attended. (ewing, by the way, refused to attend and his underachievement as a center is due directly to his spurning the opportunity to actually develop a post game, where he could actually become something of a quarterback and facilitator.)

when king came back, he had the footwork necessary to dominate in the post and he became a superlatively efficient scorer, posting a TS% of 59.7 over a five-year period, which is truly elite.

unfortunately he blew out his knee late in the 84-85 season and was never quite the same player. too bad this was before arthroscopy as he could have made another comeback.

I was at home watching that game, in my apt in the bronx.. when he went down, I knew it was over.. I actually had tears in my eye...... LOL.. no lie man... I was such a fan of this dude...

nothing like watching guys with actual footwork play this game. not too many players with genuine footwork skills.

watching dudes palm and travel is not fun.

This is true its out of control in this league. Somehow guys go from the 3 point line to the rim without dribbling and palming isnt even called its just part of the game

Bonn1997 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

knickscity wrote:

playa2 wrote:In a day when most of you judge players by rings.

Neither of them made their teammates better and neither of them won rings in the association.

Bernard was very athletic and the players in his day were not like they are today. I heard Jordan say the greatest defender he faced wasn't Bruce Bowen of Gerald Wilkins, but Mitch Richmond!

The more athletic the league the more you tend to be hindered trying to score, so Bernard although great had a lil advantage there.

My question had to do with scoring, both of those players excelled at scoring when their teammates just watched them go to work.

They both had the ability to take over games and put fear in those who tried to defend them.

As far as scoring I see no difference.

Injuries killed Kings career, not the player he played with, and the competition he played against was vastly greater.

Would you seriously compare the 80's Celtics in which King helped force a game 7 as equal to getting knocked out in 6 with HCA by the Pacers?

Players dont fear Melo, they know they have a pretty good shot of holding him to below 45%, he can actually do it on his own ungarded.

Players absolutely feared King because his playoff performances were always BETTER than the regular season.

What amazes me with this convo, is it's obvious who's seen Bernard play and who hasn't.

Melo and Bernard are nothing alike.

You're right, I should've put their playoff numbers up as well.

King's numbers on the left, Melo's on the right.

Games Played - 28; 66

PPG - 24.5; 25.7

FG% - 55.9; 41.7

3PT% - 25% on four shots; 32%

FT% - 72.9; 82.6

Reb - 4.3; 7.3

Asst - 2.3; 2.8

TS% - 60.2; 51.3

eFG% - 56; 44.2

ORating - 119; 105

DRating - 113; 108

PER - 22.2; 20

Total WS - 3.4; 5.7

WS/48 - 0.173; 0.106

In the playoffs it's no contest, King was much better than Melo.

Very true although if those numbers where reversed it would be about Melo not doing the little things. I didn't realize the lack of playoff games for King.

LOL your right . It would be look less assists and rebounds he doesnt do anything but score

That would be a valid comment. Bernard was 1 dimensional and deserves criticism for it but he still was better at that dimension than Melo was.

I will have to take your word for it he was right before my time. I dont know if a few games and highlights count as seeing him play