RealGM

How good was he actually? Results and stats seem underwhelming for his rep but those may always be wrong

Turnover-prone, injury-prone, low-efficiency gunner. Classic model of how not to play, though he was a pioneer in a lot of ways. A model for players with better ability upon which to build in later eras. He was ahead of his time as a ball-handler, and had the green light too much and too early in his career. We see guys like him a lot forward into the NBA timeline, he just didn't do it all that well. In 74 and 76, he was a little better. Still not that great, particularly given the overall weaknesses in his game, but he at least wasn't flat league-average in efficiency, but a decent 103-104 TS+.

Maravich was more... important and entertaining, than actually good for winning.

Pete Maravich is always going to be an overrated player because of the insane urban legends that surround his name combined with his pretty good raw box numbers at a first glance but I think he’s a pretty solid player

He has pretty clear floor raising capabilities and we have pretty solid WOWY samples with the Jazz in the mid to late 70s (what is considered his peak) that show the Jazz’s offense falling apart without him (which makes sense since they weren’t a very good team outside of him). He was a high volume scorer and while he was inefficient he didn’t have much help from the Jazz and defenses could focus on him a fair amount and he was a high volume jump shooter. He’s a good not great playmaker and while he was a good ball handler and a flashy passer he didn’t have very good passing vision but he could make the occasional advanced read and had the ball enough to get decent assists numbers. He was a great spacer for the 70s but didn’t move very much off the ball from what I’ve seen. Defensively he isn’t good but I don’t think he was some All time bad defender. His motor wasn’t terrible and he wasn’t exploitable on the ball. I think his screen navigation and off ball awareness is what makes him a - defender

Overall I think Maravich was an all star caliber player and good enough to make an offense high caliber thanks to his scoring capabilities combined with solid playmaking

All-Nba level for about the 5-6 years at best.

tsherkin wrote:Turnover-prone, injury-prone, low-efficiency gunner. Classic model of how not to play, though he was a pioneer in a lot of ways. A model for players with better ability upon which to build in later eras. He was ahead of his time as a ball-handler, and had the green light too much and too early in his career. We see guys like him a lot forward into the NBA timeline, he just didn't do it all that well. In 74 and 76, he was a little better. Still not that great, particularly given the overall weaknesses in his game, but he at least wasn't flat league-average in efficiency, but a decent 103-104 TS+.

Maravich was more... important and entertaining, than actually good for winning.

Yeah, this.

I'll add:

Maravich in Atlanta was a horror show, but he was set up to fail.

He got drafted on to a team with a good offense led by a Black lead guard that worked well together, with the owner decreeing that he didn't care about anything else but featuring his great white hope. Even without the social landscape, you're going to end up hurting the team with your presence when your presence means the team stops doing what works and starts just following your lead unless you're really, really, really good.

I think in NO you get a better sense of what a team looks like where Maravich is good enough relative to his teammates as an offensive leader that it made sense for him to be the team star, and there he was able to lead the team's offense to something slightly better than the worst in the league. They'd have been worse without him there for a little while - only place that was likely true in his NBA career - but definitely a case where "floor raising" is pretty literal.

As I say all of this: I do think it's entirely possible that Maravich had the capacity for more scalable play. I just think that we're talking about a guy whose sense of efficiency never really developed because he got so much praise for just doing what came natural.

Doctor MJ wrote:Maravich in Atlanta was a horror show, but he was set up to fail.

Yes, though there is a limit to how much that matters. I mean, in terms of setting context and understanding the WHY of it, surely it's relevant. Ultimately, though, in answering the idea of his impact, there is mostly just "good," "bad" or "mediocre."

I think in NO you get a better sense of what a team looks like where Maravich is good enough relative to his teammates as an offensive leader that it made sense for him to be the team star, and there he was able to lead the team's offense to something slightly better than the worst in the league. They'd have been worse without him there for a little while - only place that was likely true in his NBA career - but definitely a case where "floor raising" is pretty literal.

75: 1st in pace, last in league ORTG
76: 8th in pace, 16/18 on O
77: 11th in pace, 19/22 on O
78: 8th in pace, 21/22 on O

Basically, they were horrific in NO. Sub-.500 every year, and switching to Elgin Baylor as a HC didn't help either.

As I say all of this: I do think it's entirely possible that Maravich had the capacity for more scalable play. I just think that we're talking about a guy whose sense of efficiency never really developed because he got so much praise for just doing what came natural.

Efficiency consciousness is surely a newer thing, but so too is the understanding that volume scoring has a utility limit, right? Like, it's taken a half century and more and people still don't understand why there's pushback against Wilt as the GOAT and what have you. In Maravich's case, even if you try to acknowledge team composition and coaching and whatever other external variables, it's pretty clear that the style of basketball he played was not conducive to good team offensive efficiency, in part because of how many possessions he was wasting as a poor volume scorer but also overall. He was kind of the anti-Nash/Paul, if you like.

Like, the Jazz were essentially ugly chunder during his tenure there, he didn't really do anything to help that except do some cool stuff on the floor that looked awesome, and put up some raw box score numbers that fans could get into, and that's.. eh. I dunno how much space there is to look at that environment and say "yeah, they'd have been meaningfully worse without him over that entire stretch."

tsherkin wrote:78: 8th in pace, 21/22 on O

Basically, they were horrific in NO. Sub-.500 every year, and switching to Elgin Baylor as a HC didn't help either.

78 must have been some kind of miracle season

wojoaderge wrote:

tsherkin wrote:78: 8th in pace, 21/22 on O

Basically, they were horrific in NO. Sub-.500 every year, and switching to Elgin Baylor as a HC didn't help either.

78 must have been some kind of miracle season

I mean, they were 26-24 with him that season. Maybe it would have been their first .500 season had he played more than 50 games, yes.