Better Pure Scorer - Mark Aguirre or Bernard King

[Phillip]

go :wakeup

[lefty]

King

[Phillip]

King

why

[m>s]

hard to really say since 95% of the board would just be looking at numbers on basketballreference.com

i was like barely born the dude's last year in dallas

[lefty]

why

Because he was unstoppable one on one.

But Aguirre could be stopped one on one

[ambchang]

King by a mile. King required little effort in his game. Can pull up for that mid range, run the court and post up. While Aguirre was a better post up player, he didn't have the repertoire of moves nor the quickness of King.

King was like melo, only better offensively. Aguirre's game was more like artest, but obviously better by a few miles.

[spurraider21]

hard to really say since 95% of the board would just be looking at numbers on basketballreference.com

i was like barely born the dude's last year in dallas
:lol troof bomb

[spurraider21]

King, because his youtube highlights show a much more polished overall game

[elmanutres]

Wow a serious basketball discussion thread. Haven't seen this in while in this cesspool. Anyways I would say king.

[lefty]

Shit can't find that picture of Bernard posing as a King with Magic and Bird next to him


Respect

[Killakobe81]

King by a mile. King required little effort in his game. Can pull up for that mid range, run the court and post up. While Aguirre was a better post up player, he didn't have the repertoire of moves nor the quickness of King.

King was like melo, only better offensively. Aguirre's game was more like artest, but obviously better by a few miles.

Aguirre is a tough comparison to Ron artest. Both are undersized power post players but Aguirre's game far more refined offensively. Artest a beast on defense and was pretty good scorer (though his game was ugly) in his prime.

Bernard pre-knee injury was lighting up the league on a tear I have only seen a handful of players since get on ... MJ (obviously) Kobe, TMac, Nique and for shorter stretches Wade and Lebron.

Right before that knee tear he was on a string of 40 ad 50 point games IIRC. I was young but remember seeing the highlights. Amb is right buttery smooth mid range game a quicker than you expect first step and a effective post game. Not much of a defender though ...

[RsxPiimp]

hard to really say since 95% of the board would just be looking at numbers on basketballreference.com

i was like barely born the dude's last year in dallas




Correct answer

[Phillip]

King by a mile. King required little effort in his game. Can pull up for that mid range, run the court and post up. While Aguirre was a better post up player, he didn't have the repertoire of moves nor the quickness of King.

King was like melo, only better offensively. Aguirre's game was more like artest, but obviously better by a few miles.

By a mile?

While I agree it would be King, I think it is closer than you suggest. Aguirre as you said, had a better post game, and he also had much better shooting range. I think Aguirre arguably had a wider skillset than King. OTOH, while King had a smaller skillset, the skills he did have were pretty hard to stop and he worked them to perfection.

Funny, this argument reminds me a bit of MJ vs. Kobe, since all the Kobe lovers want to say "Kobe has more range and moves than MJ did, he is way better!!!!!!!", not realizing that even though those facts may be true, that he didn't use them to score as efficiently or effectively as MJ, and it was basically irrelevant because MJ didn't NEED those extra moves or range - he was the most dominant scorer ever without those things, and was highly efficient unlike Kobe.

[Killakobe81]

By a mile?

While I agree it would be King, I think it is closer than you suggest. Aguirre as you said, had a better post game, and he also had much better shooting range. I think Aguirre arguably had a wider skillset than King. OTOH, while King had a smaller skillset, the skills he did have were pretty hard to stop and he worked them to perfection.

Funny, this argument reminds me a bit of MJ vs. Kobe, since all the Kobe lovers want to say "Kobe has more range and moves than MJ did, he is way better!!!!!!!", not realizing that even though those facts may be true, that he didn't use them to score as efficiently or effectively as MJ, and it was basically irrelevant because MJ didn't NEED those extra moves or range - he was the most dominant scorer ever without those things, and was highly efficient unlike Kobe.

Fair analysis, Phillip. agree with a lot of what you are saying even the Kobe criticism. I often point to shot selection (ego) as his greatest weakness because offensively he has none. But he takes such bad shots at least 2 or 3 times a game and often twice that.

[Killakobe81]

Also Aguirre is cool cat met him at church group in Mckinney cool, cat. did not BIG time us ...

[Phillip]

Fair analysis, Phillip. agree with a lot of what you are saying even the Kobe criticism. I often point to shot selection (ego) as his greatest weakness because offensively he has none. But he takes such bad shots at least 2 or 3 times a game and often twice that.

I LOVE watching Kobe work his opponent to score. I think it is one of the most entertaining things in basketball. I enjoy watching him go at an opponent more than I ever enjoyed watching MJ. But as you said, several times a game, he will just ruin that ability he has, by taking retarded shots that he has no reason to take. I don't get why he does that. If he would simply focus on high percentage shots, and utilizing those circus shots only when absolutely necessary, then he would be without a doubt, the greatest scorer of all time, and perhaps even be looked at as the best player ever, as I think they would have beat Detroit in 04, and maybe even Boston in 08 if he had a better offensive mindset. It baffles me sometimes, especially knowing that he is a player that possesses a very high IQ, but resorts to the types of shots that he does.

[Killakobe81]

I LOVE watching Kobe work his opponent to score. I think it is one of the most entertaining things in basketball. I enjoy watching him go at an opponent more than I ever enjoyed watching MJ. But as you said, several times a game, he will just ruin that ability he has, by taking retarded shots that he has no reason to take. I don't get why he does that. If he would simply focus on high percentage shots, and utilizing those circus shots only when absolutely necessary, then he would be without a doubt, the greatest scorer of all time, and perhaps even be looked at as the best player ever, as I think they would have beat Detroit in 04, and maybe even Boston in 08 if he had a better offensive mindset. It baffles me sometimes, especially knowing that he is a player that possesses a very high IQ, but resorts to the types of shots that he does.

I don'y like taking anything away from those teams. (Det and Boston) MAYBE Lakers could of won if Kobe were more efficient but I doubt it. As I have said many times before 2004 was horrible season. Kobe's rape trial and his feud with Shaq and Shaq's fued with Buss (extension) and Gp's with Phil (triangle) all played a larger role in their failure, at least more than Kobe's shot selection. Kobe's shot selection has always been shitty so how did he help win 5 rings?

But I do agree he (kobe) is both beautifult o watch play and frustrating because his ego negates his high basketball IQ. in fact, because he is so smart and so skilled ...the fact he takes JR Smith level of bball IQ shots is more damning. kobe's my 2nd favorite player all-time but he has frustrated me more than the rest of my top 5. He is the "anti Magic" tbh ...

[Buddy Mignon]

King could give you more. I always felt like Aguirre never played to win while in Dallas... much like Amare while in Phoenix.

[AchillesHeel]

Bernard King is a fucking legend, Aguirre was the 1st pick of the draft and wasn't even the best player, Isiah, the 2nd pick from the very same draft, got Aguirre his 2 rings when he was already role player status 8 years after being drafted.

King didn't win championships, but he was the more consistent player and had longetivity, also a much better all-around player. Averaged 28 ppg at 34 years old, only MJ has done that.

[spurraider21]

I don'y like taking anything away from those teams. (Det and Boston) MAYBE Lakers could of won if Kobe were more efficient but I doubt it. As I have said many times before 2004 was horrible season. Kobe's rape trial and his feud with Shaq and Shaq's fued with Buss (extension) and Gp's with Phil (triangle) all played a larger role in their failure, at least more than Kobe's shot selection. Kobe's shot selection has always been shitty so how did he help win 5 rings?

But I do agree he (kobe) is both beautifult o watch play and frustrating because his ego negates his high basketball IQ. in fact, because he is so smart and so skilled ...the fact he takes JR Smith level of bball IQ shots is more damning. kobe's my 2nd favorite player all-time but he has frustrated me more than the rest of my top 5. He is the "anti Magic" tbh ...
Don't feed me the "04 was a horrible situation" crap. You made the finals and were favored to stomp Detroit and Kobe had one of the worst individual finals series of this era while shaq was begging for more touches

[Killakobe81]

Don't feed me the "04 was a horrible situation" crap. You made the finals and were favored to stomp Detroit and Kobe had one of the worst individual finals series of this era while shaq was begging for more touches

I dont give two shits who was favored. That team was horrible, chemistry wise. We started great but as the charges coverage of Colorado mounted, Shaq feuded with Kobe, GP hated the triangle, the team frayed. We started great. But if not for Fisher we dont even make the Finals. Remember

Lebron's Cavs made the Finals ..so what? So did OKC. Im just saying in teh end the better "team" won. I believe that 90% of the time. Detroit was better on defense, healthier and tbh had better coaching. Might of been Phil's worst job allowing Kobe/Shaq fued to boil over.

I watched that team for over 100 games, read the beat writer stories etc. You do NOT know more about that team than I do imho. Plus i stil lived in LA at the time. HORRIBLE year. Only last year was worse tbh ...

[Killakobe81]

And by no means do I not think kobe's ego, Colorado or his part in the Shaq feud are excused ... I just think to say we should of stomped Detroit is disrespectful. When, Tim in his prime could not stomp Detroit the very next year ...

[spurraider21]

I dont give two shits who was favored. That team was horrible, chemistry wise. We started great but as the charges coverage of Colorado mounted, Shaq feuded with Kobe, GP hated the triangle, the team frayed. We started great. But if not for Fisher we dont even make the Finals. Remember

Lebron's Cavs made the Finals ..so what? So did OKC. Im just saying in teh end the better "team" won. I believe that 90% of the time. Detroit was better on defense, healthier and tbh had better coaching. Might of been Phil's worst job allowing Kobe/Shaq fued to boil over.

I watched that team for over 100 games, read the beat writer stories etc. You do NOT know more about that team than I do imho. Plus i stil lived in LA at the time. HORRIBLE year. Only last year was worse tbh ...
I've lived in LA all my life and as a result have probably watched more Laker games than Spurs games over the course of my basketball fanhood. All the circus media and GP not likin the triangle or whatever had zero to do with Kobe jacking up a ridiculous number of shots game after game at an embarrassingly low clip while shaq was predictably dominating as he always did in the Finals for the lakers. Kobe's desire to win a finals MVP fucked the lakers hard

[ambchang]

C'mon #Killakobe81, I can see you trying to make the point that the 04 Lakers didn't maximize its potential, which we can all agree on, but you cannot possibly blame the Finals loss on GP not liking the triangle, or the Shaq/Kobe feud, or other team chemistry problems, those things were happening ALL YEAR, not just the finals. The Lakers still got by in the earlier rounds because Kobe wasn't hellbent on showing the world that he is Batman instead of Robin, despite the fact that he WAS Robin.

The ONLY things that changed in the finals against the earlier rounds were:
a) Kobe's rape charges, which he brought upon himself, being more and more visible; and
b) Kobe's indiscriminant shot selection (even more so than earlier).

As you can see, both concerns Kobe.

[Killakobe81]

C'mon #Killakobe81, I can see you trying to make the point that the 04 Lakers didn't maximize its potential, which we can all agree on, but you cannot possibly blame the Finals loss on GP not liking the triangle, or the Shaq/Kobe feud, or other team chemistry problems, those things were happening ALL YEAR, not just the finals. The Lakers still got by in the earlier rounds because Kobe wasn't hellbent on showing the world that he is Batman instead of Robin, despite the fact that he WAS Robin.

The ONLY things that changed in the finals against the earlier rounds were:
a) Kobe's rape charges, which he brought upon himself, being more and more visible; and
b) Kobe's indiscriminant shot selection (even more so than earlier).

As you can see, both concerns Kobe.

Amb.
Absolutely. I agree. never said they were NOT key issues. In fact I say that they were primary factors along with the things I mentioned. Im just saying that the narrative that we SHOULD of STOMPED Detroit. A team playing great team ball, well coached, elite defense. IS silly. To say that Kobe single handedl lost that series is crazy Just like it would be crazy to claim Kobe single handedly repeated in 2009-2010.He desrves a huge chunk of the blame in 2004 and 2008 as well as praise for "5". I just absolutely HATE that 2004 team Kobe included.

spurraider. So I lived in Sa for 3 years. Saw a lot of Spur games but obviously did not follow the team with the passion that Spur fans did. I saw plenty of games but it's diffrent when you are fan.

Ask many long time Laker fans. I am sure many blame Kobe for 2004 whether it was Fihgting with Shaq, his shot happy finals etc. I'm just saying that if Kobe shoots his normal 45-46% instead of his abysmal numbers he shot in 2004 ... I think they STILL lose. Detroit does not get enough credit for that title. When their run was actually more impressive (playoffs/regular season combined) than what the 2008 Celts did (defensively). Celts struggled every series except Lakers while Pistons kicked ass and took names.

Also fisher's shot and our dominant start (pre-injuries) masked so many flaws in that 2004 squad.
I know it doesnt fit in perfectly in the narrative you spin but as Amb said either way a great deal of the blame falls on kobe regardless. I just think that team was overrated.

Yall cant convince me on this. And no it's not based on stats or media hype. I have watched my team for over 30 years that team disgusted more than any other until MAYBE last year. Only difference is much of the chemistry issues werent made public until after ...and last year's team wasnt talented enough to mask it.

[Killakobe81]

BTW way to turn a good thread in to another Kobe session.

Aguirre and King two great scorers from the 80's ... glad i got to see both play as a youngster. Would of loved to have seen Aguirre in college i heard he was a beast at Depaul.

[Phillip]

BTW way to turn a good thread in to another Kobe session.

Aguirre and King two great scorers from the 80's ... glad i got to see both play as a youngster. Would of loved to have seen Aguirre in college i heard he was a beast at Depaul.

I had a feeling I would regret this, because it was my post that started the Kobe chat again haha

[ambchang]

Amb.
Absolutely. I agree. never said they were NOT key issues. In fact I say that they were primary factors along with the things I mentioned. Im just saying that the narrative that we SHOULD of STOMPED Detroit. A team playing great team ball, well coached, elite defense. IS silly. To say that Kobe single handedl lost that series is crazy Just like it would be crazy to claim Kobe single handedly repeated in 2009-2010.He desrves a huge chunk of the blame in 2004 and 2008 as well as praise for "5". I just absolutely HATE that 2004 team Kobe included.

spurraider. So I lived in Sa for 3 years. Saw a lot of Spur games but obviously did not follow the team with the passion that Spur fans did. I saw plenty of games but it's diffrent when you are fan.

Ask many long time Laker fans. I am sure many blame Kobe for 2004 whether it was Fihgting with Shaq, his shot happy finals etc. I'm just saying that if Kobe shoots his normal 45-46% instead of his abysmal numbers he shot in 2004 ... I think they STILL lose. Detroit does not get enough credit for that title. When their run was actually more impressive (playoffs/regular season combined) than what the 2008 Celts did (defensively). Celts struggled every series except Lakers while Pistons kicked ass and took names.

Also fisher's shot and our dominant start (pre-injuries) masked so many flaws in that 2004 squad.
I know it doesnt fit in perfectly in the narrative you spin but as Amb said either way a great deal of the blame falls on kobe regardless. I just think that team was overrated.

Yall cant convince me on this. And no it's not based on stats or media hype. I have watched my team for over 30 years that team disgusted more than any other until MAYBE last year. Only difference is much of the chemistry issues werent made public until after ...and last year's team wasnt talented enough to mask it.

I think I agree with you to an extent. I would say that if Kobe didn't go all me me me mode in 2004, the Lakers have a chance of coming out on top, and it will be a very competitive series. Afterall, the Lakers have one weapon the Pistons cannot stop - Shaq. Shaq, despite all the talk about the Wallace brothers "shutting him down" back in the day, was shooting 60% from the field. The only thing that really stopped him was Kobe jacking up these idiotic shots for no reason. If Kobe shot his normal 45/46%, and transfer more shots to Shaq for his 60% shooting, the Lakers may have won. I am not sure if they will, but they have a decent chance.

As for Fisher's shot, even if he missed that one, the Spurs will lose anyways. The Spurs lost in 6 games, not 7 games, and even after that shot, the Spurs still had a chance to tie up the series. The key was that KFC figured out a way to stop the Spurs, and that is pack the lane and make it impossible for Duncan to score and Parker to penetrate, the Spurs had no answers for that, and promptly lost the series.

But back to topic, I really think there isn't much comparison between King and Aguirre in terms of scoring ability. King was miles ahead, and you are talking about a guy who cannot be stopped, who was pretty much Jordan before Jordan in terms of pure scoring abilities. Aguirre was never in the same level. Like I said, King was like melo on roids, Aguirre was like Artest (offensively, and I am using Artest because I can't find another guy similar off the top of my head) on roids. The difference is about that wide.

[Killakobe81]

I think I agree with you to an extent. I would say that if Kobe didn't go all me me me mode in 2004, the Lakers have a chance of coming out on top, and it will be a very competitive series. Afterall, the Lakers have one weapon the Pistons cannot stop - Shaq. Shaq, despite all the talk about the Wallace brothers "shutting him down" back in the day, was shooting 60% from the field. The only thing that really stopped him was Kobe jacking up these idiotic shots for no reason. If Kobe shot his normal 45/46%, and transfer more shots to Shaq for his 60% shooting, the Lakers may have won. I am not sure if they will, but they have a decent chance.

As for Fisher's shot, even if he missed that one, the Spurs will lose anyways. The Spurs lost in 6 games, not 7 games, and even after that shot, the Spurs still had a chance to tie up the series. The key was that KFC figured out a way to stop the Spurs, and that is pack the lane and make it impossible for Duncan to score and Parker to penetrate, the Spurs had no answers for that, and promptly lost the series.

But back to topic, I really think there isn't much comparison between King and Aguirre in terms of scoring ability. King was miles ahead, and you are talking about a guy who cannot be stopped, who was pretty much Jordan before Jordan in terms of pure scoring abilities. Aguirre was never in the same level. Like I said, King was like melo on roids, Aguirre was like Artest (offensively, and I am using Artest because I can't find another guy similar off the top of my head) on roids. The difference is about that wide.

Amb,
Winning in 6 games is decisive. But winning on Tim Duncan's shot, very well could of changed that series. Like I said the team was already fracturing. GP came out publicly and criticized Shaq's pnr defense (which was still an issue in the finals since Chauncey was on fire and why i think they don't win). And KFc began to rely on fisher more. He does that and they lose ...more friction. But it is all hypothetical. Also remember, as banged up as the Lakers were another game does not help. Like i said before that "team" was FARRR from great. The minny team we played was KG, Cassell and spare parts. So of course we were favorites by the media going in to the finals ...we are THE LAKERS. But if you watched closely us winning in 6 vs. a Spurs team you are conceding was inferior to a flawed Lakers team should of been a huge warning sign.

Anyway. Aguirre is hard to describe he wasnt quite like Dantley (who he was traded for) but they had similar impacts on offense. no modern day player plays like that. Dantley had the better more unrothodox post move si think Mark was a more fluid athlete. the Sf position really has changed. in the 80's it was those two Dantley, Nique English and only wilkins was anything like the modern-day hybrid.

[ambchang]

Amb,
Winning in 6 games is decisive. But winning on Tim Duncan's very well could of changed that series. Like I said the team was already fracturing. GP came out publicly and criticized Shaq's pnr defense (which was still an issue in the finals since Chauncey was on fire and why i think they don't win). And KFc began to rely on fisher more. He does that and they lose ...more friction. But it is all hypothetical. Also remember, as banged up as the Lakers were another game does not help. Like i said before that "team" was FARRR ffrom great. The minny team we played was KG, Cassell and spare parts. So of course we were favorites by the media we are THE LAKERS. But if you watched closely us winning in 6 vs. a Spurs team you are conceding was inferior to a flawed Lakers team should of been a huge warning sign.

The team definitely had too many egos, and I am surprised that Malone was pretty much the only one who understood he was coattailing. I mean, Shaq was the man, and it's obvious to all, I am not even sure what GP was thinking. Did he expect the team to change the entire offense because of him? Didn't he know that the triangle was the Lakers bread-and-butter? I mean, even I knew. And Shaq was bad in pnr defense is as widely known as the earth is roundish, I mean, the Lakers helped some marginal PG talent get huge contracts and undeserved reputations (Bibby), and he was arguing over that?

Sota could have won that year if the entire team was healthy, but it wasn't meant to be. Cassell and Sprewell were the closers and creator, and Garnett was at the top of his game, missing Cassell really hurt that team, pretty much the entire engine that drove that train. As for the Spurs, that was a deeply flawed team, literally all defense, no offense. The perimeter offense on that team was sickeningly bad. If Turko could have nailed wide open shots that year, the Spurs would have been great, but he didn't, and when your top 3 points markman in the playoffs is Tony Parker, your team is done.


Anyway. Aguirre is hard to describe he wasnt quite like Dantley (who he was traded for) but they had similar impacts on offense. no modern day player plays like that. Dantley had the better more unrothodox post move si think Mark was a more fluid athlete. the Sf position really has changed. in the 80's it was those two Dantley, Nique English and only wilkins was anything like the modern-day hybrid.

Well, Dantley was the best low post perimeter scorer (if there is such a thing) in NBA history. The guy was efficient as Cassell is ugly. Dantley was like a 6'5" version of McHale, almost. He had that inside game down pat and can draw fouls like Durant. English was all mid-range jumpers, kind of like Kiki Vandeweghe, but better, or like a Durant with less range. Wilkins was insane, like a large AI who would just attack the rim like Blair after burgers, I honestly can't think of a modern day SF like him though. I mean, Lebron attacks the rim like that, but Lebron is obviously much better in many other aspects of the game. Aguirre, really, can't think of anyone, nobody has that huge butt of his that will just push people out of his way, and that's why I came up with Artest. Artest had a much stronger upper body to get post position, but Aguirre was basically a master of using his butt.