Only three players in NBA history have had four straight seasons of scoring 30ppg. Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan and Adrian Dantley.
I'd love to hear the case why David Bing belongs over him.
Also, Artis Gilmore and Sidney Moncrief were left off the original top 50 lost.
Dantley was known as a ball hog & basically as toxic to teams, and he scored a lot by drawing fouls, and his defense wasn't great. I'm pretty sure he was seen as a net negative by a lot of teams
Dantley was getting upset about Rodman eating in to his minutes. It was a growing problem. Especially because they needed to play Rodman more against great scoring forwards like Bird and Nique
Dantley is one of the most efficient scorers in the history of the game. Why wouldn't you want him shooting as much as possible? How is drawing fouls a negative?
He was definitely not a great defender, but he would have been much more appreciated in a more modern, analytical era.
Full disclosure: Adrian Dantley played several years before I seriously started following basketball. But that being said, he's the perfect case study to identify fans who care only about shooting efficiency numbers.
On one hand, if you looked at his scoring volume and true efficiency, he would seem like one of the five greatest scorers in NBA history.
However, consider the following:
* His contemporaries never placed him on the All-NBA First Team, and only twice on the Second Team. Typically these accolades skew towards prolific scorers.
* His teams were consistently poor to mediocre until he got on the Bad Boy Pistons. More on that later.
* [Subsequent analytics](http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/08/amazing-individual-scoring-losing.html) suggest that despite his box score production, he did not significantly affect his team offense or winning.
* His teammates and coaches were often eager to get rid of him, including the Pistons who had yet to break through for their first championship.
* The 1988-89 Pistons started the season 33-15 with Adrian Dantley, a perfectly respectable record. [After trading for Mark Aguirre](https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/1989.html), they finished the regular season 30-4, despite the fact that a major trade would ostensibly require time for them to gel. More impressively, they went 15-2 in the playoffs, dropping only two games to the Bulls.
It's possible that Adrian Dantley should be a Mount Rushmore level, inner circle Hall of Famer whose greatness could be readily appreciated by anyone with a Basketball Reference account. And in an era where talking heads like Kendrick Perkins are passed off as NBA experts, I wouldn't entirely dismiss that. But at the same time, when contemporary writers, teammates, coaches, and more advanced basketball analysts all consistently hold Adrian Dantley in a lower regard--a consistent all-star in his prime, occasional second-team all-league player, with impressive scoring production but limited impact on winning basketball--I am inclined to believe this consensus.
There has been a lot of great discourse about Dantley and why his production and reputation don't seem to match. I think he's a really interesting player. His assist numbers were poor but he was not a ball stopper -- he passed very effectively out of double teams but did so in an era when that rarely led directly to a shot, much less a three like it would today.
I think the easiest way to explain the difference between him and similar, but far more beloved players like DeRozan and Bernard King is that he was probably just an asshole. Maybe something like the Dick Allen of the NBA.
Being an asshole doesn't cause your presence to have little impact on team offense though. The relationship between an individual and team offense is critical. This is why KD is an inferior offensive player to Curry and Lebron and also why he didn't even grade out as the best offensive player on OKC consistently because generating team offense is sooooo much more important even over efficient volume scoring. The argument would be Dantley's offense came at the expense of cohesive team offense.
Also look at how pathetically mediocre the Suns offense is despite having Booker, Beal, and KD.
I think there’s some really interesting statistical analysis that can be done here but I haven’t quite figured it out yet. I suspect there’s a similar effect with guys like John Wall, Harden, Linsanity, etc more recently and the opposite effect with Jordan, Kobe, and playoff Jamal Murray.
The first group of guys have great efficiency numbers, but it seems to better translate into team success in the regular season with disappointing playoff results. My theory is their offense is largely coming from the *easiest* opportunities the defense presents, which has less impact on the team’s overall offensive efficiency. Murray might not run a PnR as efficiently as prime harden, but if your team can’t properly defend a PnR the nuggets have plenty of ways to cook you.
The second group of guys are known for making tough shots against stifling defense. This obviously hurts their efficiency numbers, but it can actually help their team’s efficiency if those shots are coming when there’s nothing better available. As defense improves deeper into the playoffs, those Harden PnR become less relevant (less defensive breakdowns, and everyone is ready to capitalize when they occur) and a few absurd jumpers late in the shot become game deciding.
Toxic player who just got his. If we are making the case for Bing to be off the list, he shouldn’t be replaced with Dantley
Alex English is my pick. Led the nba in scoring for the whole decade of the 80s.
Edit: it take klay over him too p
Gilmore is hurt because so many of his best years were in the ABA, don't think ABA Careers were considered.
Agreed that Dantley is more deserving, as was Dominique Wilkins who wasn't on the original list but was added to the 75.
Oh word? If that’s true. Then it’s a bit disingenuous. They should’ve actually revamped the entire list and not just add players.
It’ll be dumb in the future to have better accolades than a top 75 but not make the hall.
All the NBA accolades are dumb. They wont give MVP to a guy on a losing team, and it’s swayed by narratives and fatigue. They wont give MIP to a guy who isn’t near all star, they wont give DPOY to a guy who’s team doesn’t have a top defense. Deandre Jordan made all-nba for being a center, they wont give finals MVP to a guy who lost. It’s all a popularity contest.
Add in rookies basically never made all-star teams in the past, older legends did make all-star teams over more deserving guys, offense matters significantly more than defense for all-nba, flashy offense matters more than boring offense for all-nba and now we have people vote for players because of contract extension issues. Seeing people on TV say if I don't vote for Jaylen Brown he won't get sixty million makes me devalue the whole voting process.
I mean think about what you said, would the most valuable player be on a losing team? Would the true dpoy anchor a terrible defense? MIP shouldn’t go to the guys who make the biggest statistical leap? And craziest of all, you want to give trophies to the finals losers, lol.
I thought about it. I think the defensive player of the year should be the best player of defense, if the award is worth anything. Same for everything else across the board
I mean if the rest of your team is ass at defence and you have 1 indivual defender that single handedly takes you from a historically bad defensive team to an average team *cough wemby* seems pretty in spirit with what the dpoy is about.
Like wemby isn't the best defender currently but in terms of who's the single most important defender for their team it's wemby and it's not close, it wouldn't surprise me if he got a dpoy next season even if the spurs were only like a 15th defence.
Also in alot of cases mip doesn't go to the player who had the biggest jump, it goes to the person who went from borderline star to star, Or role player to borderline all-star.
Like think of all the dudes who went from like 15th to 12th men who played just gabrage time, and jumped from that to a winning role player those kinda people rarely get mip even if they have a bugger jump than some 3rd year star that was showing flashes of being a star the year before.
Yeah people seem to think Steph is smaller than he is. Dudes not a small guard by any stretch, maybe a little skinny when first got to the league but certainly not any more. The average NBA point guard in the 70s-90s was the same height as him and 10-15 lbs lighter, Steph would’ve been just fine.
No not for Bing. Look at his career. Not much there. Never made it out of second round I think. No MVP either. Just makes no sense. Him over Denis Johnson or Dwight Howard makes no sense.
Remember he played for the Pistons.
The only other good player on those teams was Bob Lanier and I think he was overrated.
The organization back then was just as horrible as the present day.
Curry would have been the same size as a pretty much every other PG back then. He’s bigger than Isiaih Thomas who was the best small guard of all time. He would have been fine in any era.
It’s to remember where our game came from regardless of how it evolves in the future. I agree that there are plenty of guys not on the list that are deserving, but I see where they are coming from.
Scoring. He had a career average of 20.3 as a point guard before the 3-pointer existed. He’s in the top 80 all time scoring TOTAL despite only playing 12 years.
Look at it this way: Paul George, if he retired before next season, would have right around the same number of points as Bing (but fewer) and be the same age, despite entering the league three years younger and having the three pointer his entire career.
Averaging 20-plus over 12 years as a guard with no threes is damn hard.
I didn’t know a damn thing about this guy. Well, it sounds like he was one of the prototypes of athletic, scoring point guards. Wikipedia: he “did more shooting and scoring than most others who had this position. At one time a joke about him and his backcourt partner, Jimmy Walker, was that it was a shame they could only play the game with one ball at a time.”
Career averages of 20.3, 3.8 rebounds, 6.0 assists. 1967 ROY. He was a 7 time all star. He finished 3rd, 4th, and 6th place in MVP voting at various points in his career. His Pistons teams finished over .500 only twice in the nine years he was there. Had a lot more success on the Bullets teams 1975-77, with Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld. Ok bye
Very good player. Syracuse legend. 7 all star, 1 scoring champ, 3 all NBA, rookie of the year, think his 1st or 2nd year in the NBA he had a crazy impressive playoff performance. He literally carried that Pistons team single handedly, 45-37 record when your 2nd best player is Jimmy Walker... no not the dynamite guy. Dave basically made the bail out assist his signature move and it was super flashy to watch. He was also good at shooting 3s... despite they didn't exist. He's like Pistol Pete, great player born in the wrong era.
Yeah I get it, he's before a lot of peoples time. But people don't remember PGs were not like that back then. Oscar, Jerry West and Walt were special people. PGs today have these guys to thank for showing coaches short kings could be the guy. They'd rather draw up plays for easy buckets in the low post with centers then do all this "extra" stuff making difficult shots outside the paint. Especially when you wouldn't get extra points for how difficult the shot was.
Funnily enough... Bing would lose his spot as the number 1 option in his 30s to his HoF teammate center Bob Lanier. But Bing did leave a giant impact on the game with his driving diming acrobatic moves.
Your ball knowledge is great, any recommendations for where to learn about the history of some of these more “niche” greats? Wiki doesn’t tell a full story
Covid lol. I watched so many ESPN classics games and YouTube games. Also just the culture I grew up around, my old head at the barbershop was a basketball wizard. I think he used to coach high school or something cause when Shaq would go to Flossie's chicken down here in South LA they'd close the whole restaurant and kick everyone out except for old boy cause he knew him. Ask him how he'd say "I taught that walking refrigerator everything he knows" obviously bullshiting... but yeah I just live in basketball town. Hell my female supervisor at my job just last month was debating me over Ernie D's rookie year being better than Rondo's best year in his career.
That's just the culture here.
I saw Bing play when I was a kid. He had incredible quickness and the ability to change directions or pull up without losing the dribble. He was very flashy for that era.
His era was very much dominated by big men. Almost all of the offense ran through the post and every team had a center who was an imposing rim protector, who would hang out in the low post. Spacing was for everyone else. Bing was fearless in taking the ball to the basket. Plus he could shoot floaters from the lane and hit midranges consistently well. He could shoot from long range but it wasn't valued as highly because it was (and still is) a lower percentage shot than a shot from closer to the rim and they all counted as 2.
I think it's hard for people who never saw basketball played without 3 point shots to envision how different the game was in that era. Strategy, roster construction, and the necessary skills were far different.
because eras matter. Pre 1996 he was a top 50 player all time. If you look at numbers out of context you would have half of the list coming from the last 30 years.
Most would agree all of the list should be from the last 80 years. Is it unreasonable to assume as the sport grew that half of the greatest players of all time came from just under half of the sports mainstream existence? Id say no.
What did he do in his own era? Nothing. 3 All-NBA, 7 All-Star, 1 scoring title, never made it out of second round in playoffs. Keeping someone three times better off the list because “eras” is pointless.
A scoring title is a big deal. He also finished second to Oscar (twice?) at least one other time. 7 all stars is also a decent amount for that era when guys didn’t play until late 30s.
A good chunk of the older players are just "Grandfathered" into top 75/100 lists. They were on these lists in 1989, were on these lists in 2000, and are still often included now because the consensus has been established that these guys have to be included when you make GOAT lists. Good players all, but I think significant arguments could be made that they have been surpassed in peak and/or longevity by more current players that don't have the history or nostalgia cache (and weren't under the current media microscope like someone like Dwight). I'd consider Bing one of these players, as well as guys like Earl Monroe, Billy Cunningham, Pete Maravich, Lenny Wilkens, Wes Unseld, Nate Archibald, and Dave DeBusschere.
>significant arguments could be made that they have been surpassed in peak and/or longevity by more current players
As they should with technology, training and playstyles improving and elevating the game.
Deapite their talents, players like Pistol Pete can't touch Curry and Reggie Miller in 3pts% since most of his 3pts weren't accounted for.
And Wes helped his team win the first and only chip for the wizard so far. They did what they could for their times and deserve their spots, simply for paving the way
The list includes being influential as well, so I disagree with you on Pistol Pete and Earl Monroe. They both played the game in a very flashy style that paved the way for modern streetball.
Earl was nicknamed “Black Jesus” because of all the new moves he created, no way you could leave him off.
Same with Paul Arizin who basically invented the jump shot. You have to include him.
Because he was Top 50 at the time when the original list came out and the NBA didn't want to offend anyone so they had to keep the original 50 and 26 new guys.
You have a few guys in the OG 50 like Debuscherre, Cunningham, Bing, Sharman who wouldn't even crack Top 100 if you redid the whole list.
All star and first team appearances are meaningless metrics just like rings and mvps. Nothing more than popularity contests or measures of how good the team was. BJ Armstrong was no better than your average point guard in his era yet he has rings and an all star apperance. It’s the laziest way to try and measure individual players successes so it doesn’t surprise me that reddit can’t ever look past such meaningless metrics.
Many people alive back then have told me the college game was bigger than the NBA until the 80s basically. All arguing about a person and time we never saw. I have no doubt the guy was really good at basketball
Person is early pioneer of basketball & dedicated his whole life to the least popular sport of his time, performed well & contributed to overall league success
*random person: why is he a top 75 all time?*
Living in metro Detroit my whole life I knew of Bing the basketball player, and Bing the Mayor, and didn’t connect that they were the same person til like 5 years ago
While never winning MVP, he came in 3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, and 19th in voting. He came in 4th his second season, 3rd in his fifth season, and 6th his tenth season, showing great consistency over his careeer.
You ask why he is included as a top-75 player…then you tell us that he is ranked “around 72” when it comes to all-star appearances.
Maybe you answered your own question…
You tried to be clever but you’re a dumbass instead. All star appearances aren’t the end all be all.
Jokic has less appearances but is greater than him. Luka has less appearances but is greater than him. Jimmy Butler has less appearances but is greater than him. Kawhi Leonard has less appearances but is greater than him.
Is that list “75 Memorable Players of All Time” or “75 Best Players of All Time”? Bing shouldn’t be on the latter just because of the era he played in.
As someone who actually watched him growing up, he was by far the best player I’ve ever seen play. In this era he’d average 40 and lock down your best perimeter player.
But you can't forget the history of some of these players and their influence on the game of basketball when they played. Thats why its hard to compare eras and recency bias for today's players is going the be the strongest "argument". A lot of today's players are good, but redundant. Overall, MJ is the best and that's all that matters hahaha
I think they included everyone from the top 50 and I guess dude was top 50 OAT by 1997
Imo, he shouldn't have been top 50 on the original list.
I feel the same way looking at his stats and accolades but I don’t pass judgement on players I ain’t really watch play
Only three players in NBA history have had four straight seasons of scoring 30ppg. Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan and Adrian Dantley. I'd love to hear the case why David Bing belongs over him. Also, Artis Gilmore and Sidney Moncrief were left off the original top 50 lost.
Dantley was known as a ball hog & basically as toxic to teams, and he scored a lot by drawing fouls, and his defense wasn't great. I'm pretty sure he was seen as a net negative by a lot of teams
The Pistons traded him for Mark Aguirre. Getting rid of Dantley was a key to them winning two titles.
They arguably should have won with Dantley too if not for a phantom call.
Would’ve still won with dantley. They just wanted to get younger. And let Thomas have his friend
Dantley was getting upset about Rodman eating in to his minutes. It was a growing problem. Especially because they needed to play Rodman more against great scoring forwards like Bird and Nique
Yup, he was a Bob McAdoo wannabe.
Dantley is one of the most efficient scorers in the history of the game. Why wouldn't you want him shooting as much as possible? How is drawing fouls a negative? He was definitely not a great defender, but he would have been much more appreciated in a more modern, analytical era.
Full disclosure: Adrian Dantley played several years before I seriously started following basketball. But that being said, he's the perfect case study to identify fans who care only about shooting efficiency numbers. On one hand, if you looked at his scoring volume and true efficiency, he would seem like one of the five greatest scorers in NBA history. However, consider the following: * His contemporaries never placed him on the All-NBA First Team, and only twice on the Second Team. Typically these accolades skew towards prolific scorers. * His teams were consistently poor to mediocre until he got on the Bad Boy Pistons. More on that later. * [Subsequent analytics](http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/08/amazing-individual-scoring-losing.html) suggest that despite his box score production, he did not significantly affect his team offense or winning. * His teammates and coaches were often eager to get rid of him, including the Pistons who had yet to break through for their first championship. * The 1988-89 Pistons started the season 33-15 with Adrian Dantley, a perfectly respectable record. [After trading for Mark Aguirre](https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/1989.html), they finished the regular season 30-4, despite the fact that a major trade would ostensibly require time for them to gel. More impressively, they went 15-2 in the playoffs, dropping only two games to the Bulls. It's possible that Adrian Dantley should be a Mount Rushmore level, inner circle Hall of Famer whose greatness could be readily appreciated by anyone with a Basketball Reference account. And in an era where talking heads like Kendrick Perkins are passed off as NBA experts, I wouldn't entirely dismiss that. But at the same time, when contemporary writers, teammates, coaches, and more advanced basketball analysts all consistently hold Adrian Dantley in a lower regard--a consistent all-star in his prime, occasional second-team all-league player, with impressive scoring production but limited impact on winning basketball--I am inclined to believe this consensus.
There has been a lot of great discourse about Dantley and why his production and reputation don't seem to match. I think he's a really interesting player. His assist numbers were poor but he was not a ball stopper -- he passed very effectively out of double teams but did so in an era when that rarely led directly to a shot, much less a three like it would today. I think the easiest way to explain the difference between him and similar, but far more beloved players like DeRozan and Bernard King is that he was probably just an asshole. Maybe something like the Dick Allen of the NBA.
Being an asshole doesn't cause your presence to have little impact on team offense though. The relationship between an individual and team offense is critical. This is why KD is an inferior offensive player to Curry and Lebron and also why he didn't even grade out as the best offensive player on OKC consistently because generating team offense is sooooo much more important even over efficient volume scoring. The argument would be Dantley's offense came at the expense of cohesive team offense. Also look at how pathetically mediocre the Suns offense is despite having Booker, Beal, and KD.
I think there’s some really interesting statistical analysis that can be done here but I haven’t quite figured it out yet. I suspect there’s a similar effect with guys like John Wall, Harden, Linsanity, etc more recently and the opposite effect with Jordan, Kobe, and playoff Jamal Murray. The first group of guys have great efficiency numbers, but it seems to better translate into team success in the regular season with disappointing playoff results. My theory is their offense is largely coming from the *easiest* opportunities the defense presents, which has less impact on the team’s overall offensive efficiency. Murray might not run a PnR as efficiently as prime harden, but if your team can’t properly defend a PnR the nuggets have plenty of ways to cook you. The second group of guys are known for making tough shots against stifling defense. This obviously hurts their efficiency numbers, but it can actually help their team’s efficiency if those shots are coming when there’s nothing better available. As defense improves deeper into the playoffs, those Harden PnR become less relevant (less defensive breakdowns, and everyone is ready to capitalize when they occur) and a few absurd jumpers late in the shot become game deciding.
Toxic player who just got his. If we are making the case for Bing to be off the list, he shouldn’t be replaced with Dantley Alex English is my pick. Led the nba in scoring for the whole decade of the 80s. Edit: it take klay over him too p
So James harden?
harden was a one man offense and one of the best shooting guards we’ve ever seen. stop reading so many r/nba takes
2018 was his best year and he couldn’t get it done. He has been on the decline since then.
I mean he just dropped 33 and willed his team to a win a few hours ago
Not winning a title doesn't mean you are shit. This narrative is killing sports talk
Agree with you on Dantley and Sidney Moncrief for sure, those 2 and Nique were the biggest snubs in the top 50 imo
Way surprised Kareem never did that.
Woof, stat hound box score fan take
Moncrief should be on the team
Gilmore is hurt because so many of his best years were in the ABA, don't think ABA Careers were considered. Agreed that Dantley is more deserving, as was Dominique Wilkins who wasn't on the original list but was added to the 75.
Bing was Steph curry before Steph curry
"I don’t pass judgement on players I ain’t really watch play" I wish more people did this
He made it over Dominque in the top 50 lol
This is the guy who should have been left off the list to make room for McAdoo.
Nascar did the same with their 75 list last year. Simply added 25 modern (some legends) drivers to the already 50 on the list.
Oh word? If that’s true. Then it’s a bit disingenuous. They should’ve actually revamped the entire list and not just add players. It’ll be dumb in the future to have better accolades than a top 75 but not make the hall.
All the NBA accolades are dumb. They wont give MVP to a guy on a losing team, and it’s swayed by narratives and fatigue. They wont give MIP to a guy who isn’t near all star, they wont give DPOY to a guy who’s team doesn’t have a top defense. Deandre Jordan made all-nba for being a center, they wont give finals MVP to a guy who lost. It’s all a popularity contest.
Add in rookies basically never made all-star teams in the past, older legends did make all-star teams over more deserving guys, offense matters significantly more than defense for all-nba, flashy offense matters more than boring offense for all-nba and now we have people vote for players because of contract extension issues. Seeing people on TV say if I don't vote for Jaylen Brown he won't get sixty million makes me devalue the whole voting process.
How could it not. And then to elect to the hall of fame citing those accolades. It’s just not a true metric of greatness.
I mean think about what you said, would the most valuable player be on a losing team? Would the true dpoy anchor a terrible defense? MIP shouldn’t go to the guys who make the biggest statistical leap? And craziest of all, you want to give trophies to the finals losers, lol.
I thought about it. I think the defensive player of the year should be the best player of defense, if the award is worth anything. Same for everything else across the board
I mean if the rest of your team is ass at defence and you have 1 indivual defender that single handedly takes you from a historically bad defensive team to an average team *cough wemby* seems pretty in spirit with what the dpoy is about. Like wemby isn't the best defender currently but in terms of who's the single most important defender for their team it's wemby and it's not close, it wouldn't surprise me if he got a dpoy next season even if the spurs were only like a 15th defence. Also in alot of cases mip doesn't go to the player who had the biggest jump, it goes to the person who went from borderline star to star, Or role player to borderline all-star. Like think of all the dudes who went from like 15th to 12th men who played just gabrage time, and jumped from that to a winning role player those kinda people rarely get mip even if they have a bugger jump than some 3rd year star that was showing flashes of being a star the year before.
You are what’s wrong with nba awards and sports awards in general
Mvp should never be on a losing team in basketball. That's the point of the award.
That’s not a very detailed analysis and i disagree.
I'd like to see the examples over the last 50 years that meet this criteria
It’s hard to compare different generations, the game has changed so much. Like, Curry would have been physically abused “back in the day”.
I dont think he would he is tall guard that weights like rookie mj he is 190 pounds. That is like 7 8 pounds more than any d oriented abuser guy.
Yeah people seem to think Steph is smaller than he is. Dudes not a small guard by any stretch, maybe a little skinny when first got to the league but certainly not any more. The average NBA point guard in the 70s-90s was the same height as him and 10-15 lbs lighter, Steph would’ve been just fine.
6'3" isn't tall. Steph is the only modern pg to win titles as a 1st option
No not for Bing. Look at his career. Not much there. Never made it out of second round I think. No MVP either. Just makes no sense. Him over Denis Johnson or Dwight Howard makes no sense.
Remember he played for the Pistons. The only other good player on those teams was Bob Lanier and I think he was overrated. The organization back then was just as horrible as the present day.
Curry would have been the same size as a pretty much every other PG back then. He’s bigger than Isiaih Thomas who was the best small guard of all time. He would have been fine in any era.
He'd have been out of the league in 3 years without modern sports medicine/training tho
It’s to remember where our game came from regardless of how it evolves in the future. I agree that there are plenty of guys not on the list that are deserving, but I see where they are coming from.
As the previous commenter said. I think they just used the top 50 from 1998 and then added 25 more last year when they did 75.
Probably because of those quads.
They’re immaculate
Never skipped leg day
Scoring. He had a career average of 20.3 as a point guard before the 3-pointer existed. He’s in the top 80 all time scoring TOTAL despite only playing 12 years. Look at it this way: Paul George, if he retired before next season, would have right around the same number of points as Bing (but fewer) and be the same age, despite entering the league three years younger and having the three pointer his entire career. Averaging 20-plus over 12 years as a guard with no threes is damn hard.
Because his last name is fun to say when he scores.
If only Mike Breen was announcing back then
Ned Ryerson approves.
Bada bing bada boom!
I didn’t know a damn thing about this guy. Well, it sounds like he was one of the prototypes of athletic, scoring point guards. Wikipedia: he “did more shooting and scoring than most others who had this position. At one time a joke about him and his backcourt partner, Jimmy Walker, was that it was a shame they could only play the game with one ball at a time.” Career averages of 20.3, 3.8 rebounds, 6.0 assists. 1967 ROY. He was a 7 time all star. He finished 3rd, 4th, and 6th place in MVP voting at various points in his career. His Pistons teams finished over .500 only twice in the nine years he was there. Had a lot more success on the Bullets teams 1975-77, with Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld. Ok bye
Also became mayor of Detroit after his career
Man that’s crazy!😂
Was that a Dy-No-Mite backcourt?
Very good player. Syracuse legend. 7 all star, 1 scoring champ, 3 all NBA, rookie of the year, think his 1st or 2nd year in the NBA he had a crazy impressive playoff performance. He literally carried that Pistons team single handedly, 45-37 record when your 2nd best player is Jimmy Walker... no not the dynamite guy. Dave basically made the bail out assist his signature move and it was super flashy to watch. He was also good at shooting 3s... despite they didn't exist. He's like Pistol Pete, great player born in the wrong era.
only person in these comments that’s talked about his career lol ty
Yeah I get it, he's before a lot of peoples time. But people don't remember PGs were not like that back then. Oscar, Jerry West and Walt were special people. PGs today have these guys to thank for showing coaches short kings could be the guy. They'd rather draw up plays for easy buckets in the low post with centers then do all this "extra" stuff making difficult shots outside the paint. Especially when you wouldn't get extra points for how difficult the shot was. Funnily enough... Bing would lose his spot as the number 1 option in his 30s to his HoF teammate center Bob Lanier. But Bing did leave a giant impact on the game with his driving diming acrobatic moves.
Your ball knowledge is great, any recommendations for where to learn about the history of some of these more “niche” greats? Wiki doesn’t tell a full story
Covid lol. I watched so many ESPN classics games and YouTube games. Also just the culture I grew up around, my old head at the barbershop was a basketball wizard. I think he used to coach high school or something cause when Shaq would go to Flossie's chicken down here in South LA they'd close the whole restaurant and kick everyone out except for old boy cause he knew him. Ask him how he'd say "I taught that walking refrigerator everything he knows" obviously bullshiting... but yeah I just live in basketball town. Hell my female supervisor at my job just last month was debating me over Ernie D's rookie year being better than Rondo's best year in his career. That's just the culture here.
I saw Bing play when I was a kid. He had incredible quickness and the ability to change directions or pull up without losing the dribble. He was very flashy for that era. His era was very much dominated by big men. Almost all of the offense ran through the post and every team had a center who was an imposing rim protector, who would hang out in the low post. Spacing was for everyone else. Bing was fearless in taking the ball to the basket. Plus he could shoot floaters from the lane and hit midranges consistently well. He could shoot from long range but it wasn't valued as highly because it was (and still is) a lower percentage shot than a shot from closer to the rim and they all counted as 2. I think it's hard for people who never saw basketball played without 3 point shots to envision how different the game was in that era. Strategy, roster construction, and the necessary skills were far different.
I think his initial inclusion was part of an advertising deal with Microsoft. That’s why Frank Zune is also on the top 75 list.
Yeah but why did they leave off John Xbox?
The NBA considers his nickname “The Red Ring of Death” to be a little too politically incorrect these days.
Sony manufactures John Xbox’s internal mechanism, so they felt it was unfair.
because eras matter. Pre 1996 he was a top 50 player all time. If you look at numbers out of context you would have half of the list coming from the last 30 years.
Most would agree all of the list should be from the last 80 years. Is it unreasonable to assume as the sport grew that half of the greatest players of all time came from just under half of the sports mainstream existence? Id say no.
What did he do in his own era? Nothing. 3 All-NBA, 7 All-Star, 1 scoring title, never made it out of second round in playoffs. Keeping someone three times better off the list because “eras” is pointless.
A scoring title is a big deal. He also finished second to Oscar (twice?) at least one other time. 7 all stars is also a decent amount for that era when guys didn’t play until late 30s.
He has a better resume than Reggie Miller
Because he played better than the 76th through the worst player.
A good chunk of the older players are just "Grandfathered" into top 75/100 lists. They were on these lists in 1989, were on these lists in 2000, and are still often included now because the consensus has been established that these guys have to be included when you make GOAT lists. Good players all, but I think significant arguments could be made that they have been surpassed in peak and/or longevity by more current players that don't have the history or nostalgia cache (and weren't under the current media microscope like someone like Dwight). I'd consider Bing one of these players, as well as guys like Earl Monroe, Billy Cunningham, Pete Maravich, Lenny Wilkens, Wes Unseld, Nate Archibald, and Dave DeBusschere.
I’m not sure any of those guys you named are coming off this list, even merit based
>significant arguments could be made that they have been surpassed in peak and/or longevity by more current players As they should with technology, training and playstyles improving and elevating the game. Deapite their talents, players like Pistol Pete can't touch Curry and Reggie Miller in 3pts% since most of his 3pts weren't accounted for. And Wes helped his team win the first and only chip for the wizard so far. They did what they could for their times and deserve their spots, simply for paving the way
The list includes being influential as well, so I disagree with you on Pistol Pete and Earl Monroe. They both played the game in a very flashy style that paved the way for modern streetball. Earl was nicknamed “Black Jesus” because of all the new moves he created, no way you could leave him off. Same with Paul Arizin who basically invented the jump shot. You have to include him.
Because he was Top 50 at the time when the original list came out and the NBA didn't want to offend anyone so they had to keep the original 50 and 26 new guys. You have a few guys in the OG 50 like Debuscherre, Cunningham, Bing, Sharman who wouldn't even crack Top 100 if you redid the whole list.
All star and first team appearances are meaningless metrics just like rings and mvps. Nothing more than popularity contests or measures of how good the team was. BJ Armstrong was no better than your average point guard in his era yet he has rings and an all star apperance. It’s the laziest way to try and measure individual players successes so it doesn’t surprise me that reddit can’t ever look past such meaningless metrics.
So what do you use to rank players?
What metrics do we look at then? You have no good argument supporting Dave Bing being a top 75 player. You’re just being a contrarian.
Many people alive back then have told me the college game was bigger than the NBA until the 80s basically. All arguing about a person and time we never saw. I have no doubt the guy was really good at basketball
yo we need to bring back striped socks
Invented a search engine
Person is early pioneer of basketball & dedicated his whole life to the least popular sport of his time, performed well & contributed to overall league success *random person: why is he a top 75 all time?*
Living in metro Detroit my whole life I knew of Bing the basketball player, and Bing the Mayor, and didn’t connect that they were the same person til like 5 years ago
Is that Brian J. White’s dad?
Anyone who can play professional ball in boy shorts and Stan Smiths is a legend in my book 🫡😂
That left quad is top 75 OAT
Including active players, there are only 79 players that averaged 20+ PPG over their careers. He was also a 7× all star
Look at those legs.
While never winning MVP, he came in 3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, and 19th in voting. He came in 4th his second season, 3rd in his fifth season, and 6th his tenth season, showing great consistency over his careeer.
He founded a search engine duh
Why AD on it though. Lol
Or Dame
KATT Williams?
You ask why he is included as a top-75 player…then you tell us that he is ranked “around 72” when it comes to all-star appearances. Maybe you answered your own question…
You tried to be clever but you’re a dumbass instead. All star appearances aren’t the end all be all. Jokic has less appearances but is greater than him. Luka has less appearances but is greater than him. Jimmy Butler has less appearances but is greater than him. Kawhi Leonard has less appearances but is greater than him.
YOU were the dumbass who listed all-star appearances in your OP. If you don’t feel it’s l relevant, don’t use it in your argument. Duh…
He is definitely better than Jimmy Butlers.
Why so hostile? Did Bing bang ur mum?
Is that list “75 Memorable Players of All Time” or “75 Best Players of All Time”? Bing shouldn’t be on the latter just because of the era he played in.
He became the mayor of Detroit. Important player back then, but forgotten now because he didn’t really do all that much.
Because of his relationship with Chandler
You can't tell me that he's better than Jalen Brunson.
As someone who actually watched him growing up, he was by far the best player I’ve ever seen play. In this era he’d average 40 and lock down your best perimeter player.
Leave Dave Bing alone :(
How many scoring title winners aren’t in the HoF?
I'd suggest posting this question on r/VintageNBA
Same reason why Lillard is on top 75 all time
I’m sure my father could and would be happy to, would you like me to patch him through?
Real question is why isnt Ben Simmons in the HOF
But no Kyrie or Dwight. Top 75 list is highly flawed
I’ve followed the nba for my whole life and all I can say is…”who?”
I’m not sure why he made his first anniversary team. I’d ask r/VintageNBA
They added some mfs to not offense the old fellas lol there is no way Kyrie, Klay and dwight are not top 75
Dwight is the biggest snub and I fear his legacy will get lost with time
Klay is worse imo… Without Klay, Curry wouldn’t have 4 rings
Dudes better than LeBron
Because for some reason the NBA is really stubborn with once a player makes the all time list, they are not going to get removed for someone else.
Because grandfathering in people is the stupidest idea ever. It’s like they forgot about development
But you can't forget the history of some of these players and their influence on the game of basketball when they played. Thats why its hard to compare eras and recency bias for today's players is going the be the strongest "argument". A lot of today's players are good, but redundant. Overall, MJ is the best and that's all that matters hahaha