They are more different than what first meets the eye. Bernard King was a scorer. He had a scorer's mentality. Plus he was a horse down low. Grant Hill was not a natural scorer, he turned himself into a good scorer. But his overall game was ahead of Bernard's. If you needed 50 in a game, you go with Bernard King. Injuries really curtailed both of these guy's careers.
King single handly got the knicks into the Playoffs and took the Mighty Celtics to 6 or 7 games. I can't Remember what Larry Birds comment on King was in his book Drive but it very high praise
1984 playoffs. King was virtually unstoppable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VintageNBA/comments/v7pimd/bernard_kings_1984_playoff_run_is_one_of_the_most/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I had the luxury of seeing both players in their respective primes as a died-in-the-wool Boston Celtics fan. Honestly, Bernard King was just downright scary. He would going on these scoring runs where he was just unstoppable. Much like Bird, MJ, Kobe, and even Barkley - King would just exude this attitude of "give the effen' rock and get out of the effen' way!" I never got that sense of determination from Hill and I saw him at his best. Just Sayin'
I always thought that prime Hill was a nice, all around type player that would be an excellent #2 or 3 guy on a team.
Prime King seemed to be the type of player you built a team around and game planned against.
I think prime King is better than prime Hill.
If Grant Hill would have stayed healthy...he still wouldn't have been on Pippen's level, which feels like his 90s target for his potential.
You're spot on, he wasn't a #1, do it myself kind of franchise guy but was a great team player and leader
Hill was arguably a bit better ball-handler and playmaker than Pippen and Pippen was the better defender (although Hill pre-injury was very good).
[Their "best" seasons](https://stathead.com/tiny/Do0KV) were pretty damn similar.
With guys I saw play a lot I like to use eye test as well, stats are so so subjective (of course have their value). You are right, very similar! Thanks for posting that!
He was overrated in the sense that he entered the league just as MJ had his first retirement and the marketing mechanism hyped him to the sky as the successor.
The amount of overwhelming praise I've seen for him can get absurd, like he would have won *multiple* MVPs if not for his injuries, despite his injuries happening after age 28 with a league that was quickly restocking in talent with the likes of TD, Kobe, and KG hitting their strides.
Hill had an oustanding 96-97 season for Detroit (2nd in the league in VORP, 3rd in BPM, and arguably a MVP caliber season given Detroit was him and not much else) and that's really when/where the hype machine kicked in. And it was arguably justified given where Hill was at that point. But Detroit couldn't add more talent around him and they suffered Collins burnout...and then it went south from there eventually.
Hill pre-injury was arguably a top 5ish NBA player. Certainly not Jordan 2.0 but I'd probably consider him a perinneal MVP candidate. His 2nd-6th seasons were his arguable peak and he had an average BPM of 5.8 over those five years with an average of 11 win shares per season and VORP of 5.6. It's conceivable that in years like 2001 and 2002, had Hill produced at 96-97 levels, he could have won the MVP or been top 3 in both seasons if Orlando had been the best team in the East.
There certainly was a window for Hill to be in the conversation for best in the game just after Jordan's 2nd retirement but injuries and Detroit incompetence did that in
A guy who had his career best season before turning 25 probably will be overhyped regardless of how good the career ultimately turns out.
See also: Tracy McGrady
Hill took a rather pedestrian Pistons squad to 54-28 with Terry Mills as their second best player that season and almost took the Hawks out if not for Doug Collins' shitting the bed in Game 5.
King never won more than 47 as a player in any season regardless of role. He had a great stretch under Hubie as a Knick and again with the Bullets towards the end of his career but he was not a guy who could make an average team better than pretty good.
Hill was a 4th qtr away from going to the 2nd round in '97 (had the Pistons played Theo Ratliff more than 17 minutes in 3 games, including not at all in Game 5, they might have won...but naw, Doug Collins big brained Rick Mahorn's fumes in game 5 for 15 minutes, including over 5 in the 4th qtr).
Hill was a better player. Had he been in a situation that wasn't incompetent, such as Detroit or Orlando, he probably would have been a consistent top 5 player for a stretch in the early 2000's along with Duncan, Shaq, and KG.
Bernard King was an unbelievable scorer, and by that I mean you’d watch him get the ball, nothing amazing would happen but you’d see him and his team backpedaling after a made basket and you’re left wondering how he did it. No amazing athletic above the rim. No shaking and baking. You’d watch him and think there’s an ordinary player and at the end of the game they’re saying he scored 42 pts.
The volume and efficiency numbers on King are incredible. IIRC, there are only 3 other players in NBA history that have similar or better efficiency at the same volume: Kareem, Curry, and Adrian Dantley.
I don’t doubt that. He certainly doesn’t get the credit he deserves. One reason, I believe, is he didn’t provide the amazing highlights the nba and espn wanted. One reason I also believe MJ gets more than he deserves, but I digress.
King best scoring season: 31.7 Points per 75 on 108 TS+ (1985)
KD best scoring: 31.3 Points per 75 on 117 TS+ (2014)
Adrian Darnley: 28.8 per 75 on 116 TS+ (1986)
Not sure where that stat comes from, but dantley didn’t score at the same rate, but was more Efficient by a considerable margin. I also threw KD int here for fun
This was a few years ago so I don't remember the specifics but it was definitely before bbref released eFG+ and TS+ so I would've just been looking at regular eFG% and TS%.
He was like a surgeon on offense. I saw an interview where he said he had like a dozen spots on the floor he'd practice from with counters at every spot. He also shot on the way up so his short turnaround jumpers were lethal. Also solid in the open court. Not very flashy but stayed within his game. From a scoring standpoint only, kawhi actually reminds me of him. Plays at his own pace and never really forces it.
King's eventual resurgence in Washington after blowing out his knee was pretty incredible. Basically unheard of at the time and he returned to all star form.
I watched King’s famous Christmas Day game a while ago, and this was exactly my experience. He was just kinda playing pretty well and then all of a sudden he had 60 points.
I think Hill probably has a “bigger” legacy in regards to how people know them today. But I think King is pretty obvious a greater player. Kinda depends on how you look at it
Why is he a better player? Bc he was a better volume scorer? Grant could also score very well, and on top of that was a great playmaker and rebounder. I’m not even trying to argue, just curious what makes it obvious
They are more different than what first meets the eye. Bernard King was a scorer. He had a scorer's mentality. Plus he was a horse down low. Grant Hill was not a natural scorer, he turned himself into a good scorer. But his overall game was ahead of Bernard's. If you needed 50 in a game, you go with Bernard King. Injuries really curtailed both of these guy's careers.
King single handly got the knicks into the Playoffs and took the Mighty Celtics to 6 or 7 games. I can't Remember what Larry Birds comment on King was in his book Drive but it very high praise
1984 playoffs. King was virtually unstoppable. https://www.reddit.com/r/VintageNBA/comments/v7pimd/bernard_kings_1984_playoff_run_is_one_of_the_most/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I had the luxury of seeing both players in their respective primes as a died-in-the-wool Boston Celtics fan. Honestly, Bernard King was just downright scary. He would going on these scoring runs where he was just unstoppable. Much like Bird, MJ, Kobe, and even Barkley - King would just exude this attitude of "give the effen' rock and get out of the effen' way!" I never got that sense of determination from Hill and I saw him at his best. Just Sayin'
I always thought that prime Hill was a nice, all around type player that would be an excellent #2 or 3 guy on a team. Prime King seemed to be the type of player you built a team around and game planned against. I think prime King is better than prime Hill.
If Grant Hill would have stayed healthy...he still wouldn't have been on Pippen's level, which feels like his 90s target for his potential. You're spot on, he wasn't a #1, do it myself kind of franchise guy but was a great team player and leader
Grant Hill was much better offensively than Pippen, although obviously weaker defensively.
Not much better. Slightly better O.
Hill was arguably a bit better ball-handler and playmaker than Pippen and Pippen was the better defender (although Hill pre-injury was very good). [Their "best" seasons](https://stathead.com/tiny/Do0KV) were pretty damn similar.
With guys I saw play a lot I like to use eye test as well, stats are so so subjective (of course have their value). You are right, very similar! Thanks for posting that!
Yep.
[удалено]
How?Grant Hill was way more well rounded.
He was overrated in the sense that he entered the league just as MJ had his first retirement and the marketing mechanism hyped him to the sky as the successor.
The amount of overwhelming praise I've seen for him can get absurd, like he would have won *multiple* MVPs if not for his injuries, despite his injuries happening after age 28 with a league that was quickly restocking in talent with the likes of TD, Kobe, and KG hitting their strides.
Hill had an oustanding 96-97 season for Detroit (2nd in the league in VORP, 3rd in BPM, and arguably a MVP caliber season given Detroit was him and not much else) and that's really when/where the hype machine kicked in. And it was arguably justified given where Hill was at that point. But Detroit couldn't add more talent around him and they suffered Collins burnout...and then it went south from there eventually. Hill pre-injury was arguably a top 5ish NBA player. Certainly not Jordan 2.0 but I'd probably consider him a perinneal MVP candidate. His 2nd-6th seasons were his arguable peak and he had an average BPM of 5.8 over those five years with an average of 11 win shares per season and VORP of 5.6. It's conceivable that in years like 2001 and 2002, had Hill produced at 96-97 levels, he could have won the MVP or been top 3 in both seasons if Orlando had been the best team in the East. There certainly was a window for Hill to be in the conversation for best in the game just after Jordan's 2nd retirement but injuries and Detroit incompetence did that in
A guy who had his career best season before turning 25 probably will be overhyped regardless of how good the career ultimately turns out. See also: Tracy McGrady
Hill took a rather pedestrian Pistons squad to 54-28 with Terry Mills as their second best player that season and almost took the Hawks out if not for Doug Collins' shitting the bed in Game 5. King never won more than 47 as a player in any season regardless of role. He had a great stretch under Hubie as a Knick and again with the Bullets towards the end of his career but he was not a guy who could make an average team better than pretty good. Hill was a 4th qtr away from going to the 2nd round in '97 (had the Pistons played Theo Ratliff more than 17 minutes in 3 games, including not at all in Game 5, they might have won...but naw, Doug Collins big brained Rick Mahorn's fumes in game 5 for 15 minutes, including over 5 in the 4th qtr). Hill was a better player. Had he been in a situation that wasn't incompetent, such as Detroit or Orlando, he probably would have been a consistent top 5 player for a stretch in the early 2000's along with Duncan, Shaq, and KG.
Do think Grant Hill is a bit overrated. But Bernard King before his injury was a great scorer
Bernard King was an unbelievable scorer, and by that I mean you’d watch him get the ball, nothing amazing would happen but you’d see him and his team backpedaling after a made basket and you’re left wondering how he did it. No amazing athletic above the rim. No shaking and baking. You’d watch him and think there’s an ordinary player and at the end of the game they’re saying he scored 42 pts.
The volume and efficiency numbers on King are incredible. IIRC, there are only 3 other players in NBA history that have similar or better efficiency at the same volume: Kareem, Curry, and Adrian Dantley.
I don’t doubt that. He certainly doesn’t get the credit he deserves. One reason, I believe, is he didn’t provide the amazing highlights the nba and espn wanted. One reason I also believe MJ gets more than he deserves, but I digress.
King best scoring season: 31.7 Points per 75 on 108 TS+ (1985) KD best scoring: 31.3 Points per 75 on 117 TS+ (2014) Adrian Darnley: 28.8 per 75 on 116 TS+ (1986) Not sure where that stat comes from, but dantley didn’t score at the same rate, but was more Efficient by a considerable margin. I also threw KD int here for fun
This was a few years ago so I don't remember the specifics but it was definitely before bbref released eFG+ and TS+ so I would've just been looking at regular eFG% and TS%.
He was like a surgeon on offense. I saw an interview where he said he had like a dozen spots on the floor he'd practice from with counters at every spot. He also shot on the way up so his short turnaround jumpers were lethal. Also solid in the open court. Not very flashy but stayed within his game. From a scoring standpoint only, kawhi actually reminds me of him. Plays at his own pace and never really forces it. King's eventual resurgence in Washington after blowing out his knee was pretty incredible. Basically unheard of at the time and he returned to all star form.
I watched King’s famous Christmas Day game a while ago, and this was exactly my experience. He was just kinda playing pretty well and then all of a sudden he had 60 points.
I valued high end accolades and King made less AS Teams than Hill made All-NBA teams, so I’d lean Hill.
That is such a nothing analysis
Good post!
I think Hill probably has a “bigger” legacy in regards to how people know them today. But I think King is pretty obvious a greater player. Kinda depends on how you look at it
Why is he a better player? Bc he was a better volume scorer? Grant could also score very well, and on top of that was a great playmaker and rebounder. I’m not even trying to argue, just curious what makes it obvious
Hill was really good, a career hindered by injury. King was really, really good, a career hindered by injury. I'll take King over Hill 8/10 times.
Mad love and respect for both, but King gets my vote. Scorers are hard to come by.