Nikos

Bernard in 1985 scored about as effectively as anyone in NBA history. Only other player who scored more efficiently was Michael Jordan in 1987. Kobe was about the same last year. This is strictly in terms of scoring output, efficiency, and relative to teams output.

Gives you an idea of how great of a scorer Bernard was in his limited prime. About as good of a scorer the NBA has ever seen for a specific season.

BadBaronRudigor

Two things . . . first, Nance was still putting up 18/8 on 55% from the field even as a third option and playing great defense . . . and he was better in Phoenix.

Second, I got that from when Bernard came to the Bullets from comments he said and his second contract negotiation. I enjoyed watching him a great deal, he was terrific, but never got the impression that he had any loyalty to the Bullets and their organization. I may have been spoiled by stars like Wes Unseld and Phil Chenier growing up who both gave the impression that they were Bullets to the core, but I do remember the gunslinger comment and Bernard's post game interviews being more about how he did than whether the team won a few times.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

PauloCatarino

His peak was very limited.

And he played for losing teams.

So, not much to begin with...

__________________
(...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)

kflo

golden state won 45 games with him in '82, 30 without him in '83. knicks won 33 without him in '82, 44 with him in '83, and 47 in '84, taking the celts 7 games in the 2nd round after a historic 1st round performance. the '85 knicks, as motley a collection of players you'll ever see, lost their last 12 games after king went down, and most of the the other 15 games he missed that year (they also won 23 and 24 games the following 2 years with the addition of ewing without king).

but yes, his peak was limited.

EHL

His peak being limited isn't terribly important, few were better than King at his best. If being at your peak for a huge stretch of years was vital criterion for greatness, Karl Malone and John Stockton would be top 5 HOF'ers. Neither cracks my all time top 10.

Pioneer10

How is Nance that much different then Shawn Marion? They are rated as they should be good players who didn't need the ball to be effective who could rebound and defend. Guys who will be at best the second best player on championship clubs

__________________

PauloCatarino

It is.

Karl cracks my all-time top-10. Or maybe he is #11 or #12. Stockton's peak years were nothing to gloat about while discussing great point guards.

__________________
(...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)

BadBaronRudigor

I love Shawn Marion . . . if he keeps it up consistently for 10 years plus, I'd support him for HOF . . . and already I'd say I'd take him over King just assuming he won't suck for the rest of his career.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Pioneer10

Shawn Marion is not a HOF

__________________

JPSeraph

Well, Nash is two times MVP, so you never know!

__________________
On a given day, in a given circumstance, you think you have a limit...

kflo