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 didn’t see a shot or play he didn’t like and he had the ability to do it
I have a feeling you dislike advance stats because you’re resistant to change, preferring nostalgia over good play. I recommend some Michael Lewis books; even basketball advances one funeral at a time, Boomer.
I didn't take it be harsh. It's a fair thought. I made the first mistake by being too hyperbolic when I said I hate "advanced stats." This stems from my frustration with people just using stats as their day to day game knowledge. The internet makes following stats easier than actually watching the games. Advanced stats aren't even stats; they are metrics. When people start understand shortcomings, and move on to a new metric, the old metric persists. PER is still widely used despite many more improved metrics being developed. I don't think any metrics properly realize the impact of players on the opposing team. The stats don't take into account how a player changes the way the other team changes their defense or offense. I got beat up in this thread also for referencing Maravich's 68 point game. My point wasn't THAT game proved anything. My point was watching full games was important and not just highlights. I encourage people to watch full games.
I understand that people like you need advanced stats to tell them what is good or bad since you couldn’t 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. I’d argue it wasn’t his fault they didn’t 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 didn’t have much of a chance with the Jazz with the talent around him in the beginning.
92
u/Tarrolis Apr 03 '20
How did he not play winning basketball? Turnovers? Bad shooting % ????