He should be. He was a dominant scorer, including eight games of 50 plus points.
2007-04-11 14:54:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
Excuse me, Mike B - what the hell did Dominique Wilkins ever win, for instance?
2007-04-11 15:08:05 · update #1
He most definitely should.
2007-04-14 08:08:23 · answer #1 · answered by Hi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In King's case, it probably comes down to (1) missing too much time with injuries and (2) not having a lot of postseason success.
He was a great, great player, no doubt about it. I don't agree with a previous post who said he wasn't a leader. He most certainly was. And while he averaged 22.5 ppg during his career, he upped that slightly in the playoffs, averaging 24.5 ppg in the postseason, including over 34 ppg in 12 playoff games in 1984.
With 19,655 points, King unfortunately missed the 20,000 point mark entirely because of his injuries. And even though 345 points isn't a whole lot when we're talking about a 14 year career, it's amazing how differently a player is viewed by history when they just miss these milestones, as opposed to actually reaching them. In baseball, Sam Rice retired with 2,987 career hits, and retired in 1934...he was not elected to the Hall of Fame until 1963.
King never reached the NBA finals, or even a conference final, and I think that probably hurt his chances as well. The 83 and 84 Knicks made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs, but most of the teams he played on had losing records (he played on 10 losing teams in his 14 year career, although in one of those years he only played 6 games).
A guy like Dominique Wilkins only had one year during his prime in which he missed significant time with injury, so he was a lot more durable than King was. Also, Wilkins scored over 26,000 points, so he's on a totally different level, and about 7,000 points ahead of King on the scoring list. When you add his spectacular aerial abilities, he's definitely a Hall of Famer, with or without a championship. And, if you tack on another 7,000 points to King's career total, he's a no-questions-asked Hall of Famer as well.
Even if King is considered the best player to come out of Tennessee (and he probably is), that's not really saying all that much...The four best players to come out of Tennessee are King, Allan Houston, Dale Ellis and Tom Boerwinkle. But I wouldn't exactly call it a basketball factory. Grunfeld was over-rated, but the fact that his first name rhymed with "Bernie" made him much more famous than he otherwise would have been...
(see http://www.basketball-reference.com/colleges/tennessee.html for a list of all Tennesee players who played in the NBA).
I really don't think King will ever make the Hall of Fame...however, if he were to be selected, I certainly don't think he'd lower the standards at all. .King loved playing the game, and man, I give him a lot of credit for coming back from a couple of injuries that would have ended the careers of most players...
2007-04-12 03:21:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The hall is for college and pro careers. King didn't have to lift a hoop ball - less than 900 games in 14 years, due to injuries - in the pros to have the cred; the late 1970s Tennessee team was known as the "Ernie & Bernie Show" (Ernie Grunfeld and King) and is viewed as the golden age of Vols hoops. 'Nuff said.
2007-04-11 22:15:47 · answer #3 · answered by Zombie Birdhouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah Bernard King is a dominant scorer. so is Alex English & Adrian Dantley.
2007-04-14 22:05:23 · answer #4 · answered by schnooks17 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a great scorer, but stats don't guarentee you a spot in the hall of fame. I mean, you have to be known for winning something. A championship or an MVP or something like that. He wasn't a leader either.
2007-04-11 22:06:37 · answer #5 · answered by mike b 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i agree.i don't think he will be, but he was the knicks before ewing.
2007-04-11 21:58:32 · answer #6 · answered by Greg L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-04-11 21:59:25 · answer #7 · answered by chris b 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋