The King of New York

It's not hard to understand why Bernard King isn't celebrated in the endless cavalcade of NBA retrospectives. He wasn't lovable. He was smart and articulate, but he was also a scowler. He couldn't match Magic's charisma, Dr. J's cool, or Larry Bird's pigmentation. And while he was respected, he wasn't exactly feared - his teams were never good enough for that. Still, New York loved him, and not without reason:



One way to think about it is whether you'd improve a team by swapping Bernard King in for their current small forward. In my opinion, he would improve almost any team you put him on - then or today. In his own era, I can only think of two teams where that would not be true: the Celtics and 76ers. The Celtics had Bird, who, before Jordan, was justifiably the most feared player who ever lived.

The comparison with Erving is instructive. If you compare King with Doctor J - admittedly a player five years older and nearing the end of his career - King looks very good. King certainly had the better perimeter game, with dazzling spin moves and a legendary turnaround jumper that he could hit from almost anywhere. He wasn't an aerialist, but he could post up effectively and get to the line.

Some stats illustrate both King's and Erving's claims to fame:

• Height: King 6-7, Erving 6-6 -
  
• Field goal % ('83-'84) : King 57%, Erving 51% - Erving was great, but was never a great shooter. King could shoot the lights out.
  
• Points per 36 minutes ('83-'84): King 27, Erving 23 - King shot about as much as Erving that season (19 FGA/36 vs. 18), but scored more four more points per 36.
• Free throw attempts: King 5.9, Erving 6.5 - Both men got to the line and converted.
• Rebounds " " : King 5.3, Erving 7.1 - Erving was inside more, and a better leaper.
• Assists " " : King 2.2, Erving 3.9 - Erving looked to pass, and had more people to pass the ball to.
• Blocks " " : King 0.2, Erving 1.9 - I watched Erving almost every night that year, and he always seemed to get a block or two helping out inside. In my book he was one of the best defenders of all time. King wasn't bad especially under Hubie Brown in '83-'84, but was not in Erving's class.
  
• Turnovers " " : King 2.7, Erving 3.1

In short, King was certainly Erving's equal as an athlete, and was, at this moment in time, the greater offensive force. By contrast, Erving had adjusted his game - he put more emphasis on defense, rebounding, and passing the ball. One way to say it - a little unfairly - is that King did the things a great player on an average team has to do, while Erving did the things a great player on a great team has to do.

Here's an endorsement of Bernard's game from an eminent authority:



The Man may disrespect you Bernard, but we remember.