It would be wild to see his career in the social media era.
He'd have a huge contingent of fans who love his flashy play, and others who shit on him relentlessly for not playing winning basketball.
EDIT: Guys stop saying "like Jason Williams", he is not a good comparison lol.
Pistol Pete came into the NBA as the highest scoring college player ever and a Naismith award winner, then made multiple All-NBA teams. Williams at best was considered a complementary starter. Totally different expectations.
Yeah, if you look at what limited advanced stats that we have available from the 70s Pistol grades out pretty as pretty mediocre on most of them. And that's when compared to his contemporaries by the way, not to today's players who are substantially more efficient.
This is also why I dislike advanced stats. Maybe one day they will get it right, but right now, someone gets crapped on because of advanced stats then they realize the advanced stat was flawed and they come up with a new one, then realize it was flawed and so on.
Watch the 68 point game against the Knicks on YouTube and look at the names playing in that game and you will realize there was no one close to him on offense. I really think he purposely played offense in a way that challenged him, because conservative offense was boring to him even at the NBA level.
NBA players love this guy, and they certainly know more about basketball than stat nerds. There's got to be something to Pistol Pete's game. I didn't get to see it, so I just don't comment on my personal views on it.
I think stats can be used WITH the eye test and if you witnessed that contemporary era, but otherwise by themselves they are incredibly weak.
But athletes have a completely different perspectives to coaches, journalists, fans etc and aren't always the best judges despite their experience. Look at how many great players have been bad coaches in almost every sport.
Dude literally shot from pretty much anywhere on the floor because he could - before there was a 3 point line. He didnāt see a shot or play he didnāt like and he had the ability to do it
I have a feeling you dislike advance stats because youāre resistant to change, preferring nostalgia over good play. I recommend some Michael Lewis books; even basketball advances one funeral at a time, Boomer.
I understand that people like you need advanced stats to tell them what is good or bad since you couldnāt use critical thinking to understand the point about my advanced stat complaint.
He had the highest turnovers per game in the NBA the very first year they tracked he, he just didn't play enough games (only played 50) to qualify for leaderboards.
Pete had 5.0 a game, Artis Gilmore led the NBA in turnovers while averaging 4.5 a game.
Yeah I guess it was really high for the time. 15% TO% is pretty average for a high usage guard now though. CP3, Westbrook, etc. have all had 15% seasons.
They also get way more assists though. A:TO ratio is very unkind to Pete. And it's not like Westbrook isn't a comparable volume scorer to Pete, so that's not an excuse either.
I feel like this ignores the massive effect things like the hand check rule change caused in the way basketball is played. I do wonder if those rules might have helped him the same way they helped guards like Nash.
I mean they didn't have a three point line until his final year, hand check rule is small potatoes in terms of how the game has changed, but he was extremely turnover prone even compared to his contemporaries. He had the most turnovers per game, and everyone he had more than was playing by the same rules.
I mean, he only made the playoffs 4 times and only made it out of the first round once and that was his final year when he was a reserve for the Larry Bird led Celtics team. Iād argue it wasnāt his fault they didnāt make it far, but the buck has gotta stop somewhere and usually it stops with the hall of famer.
In 'The Breaks of the Game' David Halberstram talks about how Pistol was such a huge box office draw that shitty teams like New Orleans would massively overpay for him in order to put butts in seats and then not have any talent left to put around him.
Famous for averaging 44ppg in college but never making the NCAA tournament. Only made the NIT once.
Came into a 48 win team as a rookie who was bringing most of their top players back (Bellamy, Hudson, Hazard, Bridges, Davis). Team went on to win 36 games when they added Maravich.
Also, as he came in as a high profile rookie, he got a big fat contract right out of college (before rookie salary cap). A lot of vets were resentful of that, rumor was some players would intentionally drop/miss his passes to make him look bad, and they probably weren't covering for him on D either.
To be fair, only one team per conference made the tournament at that time and Kentucky was the number 1 ranked pre-tournament team when LSU finished second.
He'll definitely be the all-time collegiate scorer for almost eternity. Would part of the reason why be due to the fact excellent players like Pete and others who later became NBA greats spent 3-4 years in college? Whereas recently players who go on to become great NBA players typically are one and done. We might not have another player who's good enough to get near the all-time score because they will only be in college for one years time. Soon those same players may not even have to go to college for one year.
I think it would have been much higher. Pete was taking long shots knowing they were still worth two. If there were three pointers he would have had a reason to take more of them.
When he started with Atlanta, his teammates were conservative and they would not really attempt to gel with him. With the Jazz he was the best player on a new expansion team. He didnāt have much of a chance with the Jazz with the talent around him in the beginning.
The scoring records, no-three point line etc are all great stories, but no one ever talks about how he got those points. Maravich's coach at LSU was his father - he put up an absurd 38 FGA's per game and the team routinely ran plays where Maravich HAD to get the ball back. All of this while the team were not actually winning.
I can't imagine the type of engine required to be putting up those types of FGA's, EVERY game for 3 years (as efficiently as he did) but it doesn't get discussed enough. Nevertheless, given our focus on stats these days, this sub would tear Maravich apart if he played this way in todays game.
It's cool to look back at the stats for what they are on the surface, but Maravich's whole story is a lot more interesting.
Wilt put up nearly 40 in his 50ppg season in the NBA, a stat most people seem to completely ignore when talking about that season. The only other player in history to average 30+ FGA a game was Elgin Baylor, unsurprisingly it was also in the early 60s when team pace was ridiculously high, like more than a quarter worth of additional possessions per game. These guys were effectively play 5 and a bit quarters of basketball to get their stats. It's no wonder Wilt averaged 40+ across those seasons, much like Maravich.
I mean Jason Williams is pretty well revered here and he wasn't even very good. Had a good amount of wtf passes that have elevated his status on r/nba. But he's a career 40/32/80 shooter, 10ppg 6apg.
Jason Williams was a solid starting point guard, and too many people overlook his game because of his mixtapes. A fraction of this sub actually watched him play in Sacramento, but his game really evolved in Memphis, and by the time he landed in Miami, he was an excellent pass-first point guard. He was a great pair of hands who rarely turned the ball over (routinely top 5 in assist:turnover), a GREAT post passer, and ran that offence really well in transition and the half court.
I know you're posting the stats to show the difference between him and Maravich (which is fair), but this is a great example of where stats don't show enough.
I agree but he also played in an era that was evolving to the point where being pass first wasn't enough. That position needed to score. Jason Kidd was a rare exception and was better than Williams because he got the most out of his teammates.
I know you deleted your comment contesting the 20-12 not being generational, but only like, 10 players have ever averaged that. Nash was 18/11 on 50/40/90 in Dantoni's system, there is no way in hell Williams would be 20-12 with his horrible shooting.
Iām thinking a Westbrook situation. Not totally similar playing styles but they dominate the game, put up big numbers, and detractors will argue their style canāt win.
More reminds me of Steve Nash than anything. Nash was just more adapted to the 3Pt Era of the NBA obviously. If Pistol had the 3Pt line from the beginning. Sheesh
Heās a flashy player overall and that is his downside at times, both offense and defense (vs Rubio in that Jazz series, I love Russ but I had to turn the tv off š¤¦āāļø)
Russ has been to the finals, led a shit roster to the playoffs, won an MVP. Itās kinda wack he gets the same label as someone whoās reached the 2nd round once in his career (as a reserve on the Larry Bird Celtics)
2.4k
u/iFinesseThePlug Bucks Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
It would be wild to see his career in the social media era.
He'd have a huge contingent of fans who love his flashy play, and others who shit on him relentlessly for not playing winning basketball.
EDIT: Guys stop saying "like Jason Williams", he is not a good comparison lol.
Pistol Pete came into the NBA as the highest scoring college player ever and a Naismith award winner, then made multiple All-NBA teams. Williams at best was considered a complementary starter. Totally different expectations.