Pistol Pete Maravich vs. Everyone else

ronnymac2 · Post #1 » by **ronnymac2** » Fri Jul 4, 2008 7:46 pm

Pete Maravich is one of the greatest players of all time. He may be the most skilled player ever, in terms of shooting, passing (in any capacity, left-hand, right-hand, bounce pass, fast break, etc.), and dribbling. He was Magic before Magic created Showtime. But Maravich never had anybody close to James Worthy on his team. He had, for his prime, arguably the worst supporting casts any superstar has ever had. Nobody could have done anything with the teams he had. The greatest player he had contact with was Elgin Baylor-as his coach.

In his best season, he averaged over 31 points a game, with over 5 rebounds and 5 assists per game. Those numbers look like jordan or kobe numbers, yet even their worst supporting casts were better than what Maravich had. Maravich, for the crap he had on his team, was pretty efficient as a scorer, all things considered. Allen Iverson had more help on those sixers squads (though not by too much lol), yet couldn't score as efficiently as Maravich.

And Maravich might be the most prolific 3 point shooter ever. They say in his 68 point game, he would have had at least over 75 if there were 3's. He was known for being able to hit 3's from all angles, a la Larry Bird. And in his final season (the past his prime season where he didn't play much, but got to finally play with great players in Bird, Nate Archibald, and Dave Cowens), he hit 10 of 15 3's.

So I ask. Where do you rank Pete Maravich all time? Is he possibly the most underrtaed player ever due to his lack of career accomplishments/team success? Can you compare him to anybody else all time? Or compare him to somebody today?

Post #2 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jul 4, 2008 10:52 pm

He wasn't a Magic/Jordan type, he was a pure offense ball dominant not terribly efficient scorer who was one of the most exciting shows to ever play in the NBA . . . Iverson is the best modern equivalent though Iverson did it longer and has gotten more efficient with the no handcheck rule . . . Whether I'd rather have Maravich or Iverson would depend on whether I needed the outside shooting badly, Pete had more range and size (a PG with 2 guard size rather than the opposite) while Iverson has the edge in consistency, foul drawing and on defense (despite the size thing).

shawngoat23 · Post #3 » by **shawngoat23** » Fri Jul 4, 2008 10:53 pm

He's one of the most skilled players ever, but he didn't help his teams win.

Fencer reregistered · Post #4 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Sat Jul 5, 2008 3:18 am

How was his defense, if any?

Post #5 » by **mojomarc** » Sat Jul 5, 2008 6:15 am

Fencer reregistered wrote:How was his defense, if any?

The "if any" is very appropriate here.

Warspite · Post #6 » by **Warspite** » Sat Jul 5, 2008 7:33 am

Biggest problem with Pistol was that his teammates played worse when he joined the team and played better when he left.
Pistol is one of the 1st cronic underachieveing substance abuse cases. His alcholism + prima donna + horrible coaching by his father (if no coaching=bad coaching which IMHO does) = Flashes of greatness mixed with medicority. Pistol however is a success story because he figured it out and overcame his demons and in his last yr became a role playing defensive player that shared the ball.

I like Red Auerbach truely believe he was a super talent that needed the proper enviorment to succeed. He could have that chance had DrJ signed with the Hawks instead of staying in the ABA. DrJ could have been that leader that Pistol needed. Auerbach and Pistol did a great video about running drills and practicing. Red talks very glowing about him and has said that had he been able to trade for Pistol he could have made him into a GOAT candidate.

I love Pistol and love watching him play. Im however sure I would want to kill him if I was his coach or teammate. the AI comparison is of Penbeats is very valid IMHO. I believe a poor mans MJ 84-87 could have some valididty as well.

Post #7 » by **TrueLAfan** » Sat Jul 5, 2008 2:56 pm

Agree with Warspite and completely disagree with the idea that Maravich was a great player. Maravich was nothing like Magic--NOTHING. Pete Maravich was a turnover machine that didn't work well with other players. He made players worse; nobody wanted to have him around. Outside of trying to shoot, his effort was questioned. That's the opposite of Magic Johnson

And he did have somebody like James Worthy on his team...that would be Lou Hudson. Sweet Lou was a Ray Allen level player--great hops, great range...a top level SG/SF. I'd take Lou over Pete Maravich six days a week and twice on Sunday. And Maravich had other good or even great players as teammates--Walt Bellamy, Bill Bridges, Walt Hazzard, Truck Robinson, Gail Goodrich--and, as Warspite noted, still brought his teams down. IMO, the original premise couldn't be more wrong. I think Pete Maravich is the most overrated player in league history. He was pimped by the NBA as a white equivalent to the "black" play of the ABA and received more credit than he ever should have. Older, more conservative sportswriters bought into it (their was a real undercurrent of racism in the NBA/ABA comparisons before the merger.) Pete Maravich would not make my top 100 players; maybe not my top 200. No D, chemistry killer, too much baggage.

As Warpite notes, Pete Maravich was ruined by another Maravich...his father, Press Maravich. In college, Pete Maravich averaged over 40 points a game. He played no D, learned no team skills, and as a result his team was mediocre. His coach was his father, Press Maravich. Had Pete Maravich learned how to do something than be a star and shoot in college, he would have been a far better player. But he didn't.

Post #8 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Jul 5, 2008 3:06 pm

Warspite wrote: Pistol however is a success story because he figured it out and overcame his demons and in his last yr became a role playing defensive player that shared the ball.

I don't remember him playing any more defense with the Celtics. He quit shotjacking and tried to be a distributor but he was more like White Chocolate in the Heat championship run than a defensive presence in any way, shape, or form.

Baller 24 · Post #9 » by **Baller 24** » Sat Jul 5, 2008 4:01 pm

The guy was a great player, but he was also a turnover MACHINE. And this was towards the end of his career, because the turnover stat didn't come up, think of how much he averaged during his all time high peak, when his usage rate, and ball handling was very high.

Post #10 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jul 6, 2008 4:52 pm

Agree with pretty much all of the responders. He was inefficient as a scorer,he was inefficient as a passer (<1.5 A/TO rating) and he didn't play defense. That makes him absolutely nothing like Jordan or Magic. People need to keep in mind that anyone can jack up low percentage shots. What makes a star is the amount more efficient he makes the club.

The additional aspect of Maravich's lack of team success cannot be dismissed. Saying he made those teams terrible goes too far, but the true greats of the game lift there teams more than that. I'll bring up contemporary Julius Erving. His impact on the Nets quite clearly was the difference between them being 8 games worse than the next worse team in the NBA, and them being an elite level team, and he did so with volume, efficiency, and defensive impact. Maravich just wasn't in that league.

I will say though, if you want to compare him to Iverson I don't have a huge problem. Just keep in mind where Iverson stands in the scope of things. He's maybe a top 40 player, and only on that level because he's got great longevity. Knock off the longevity to approximate Maravich, and you've got a guy who probably isn't worthy of Top 50 all time.

Ryoga Hibiki · Post #11 » by **Ryoga Hibiki** » Mon Jul 7, 2008 8:30 pm

As much as I don't like Iverson, he at least had some team success, while I'm still confused trying to figure out why Maravich is in the HOF.
What the two have in common, imo, is that they've been poorly coached in college, at least on the offensive end in Iverson's case, and that somehow was reflected in their pro career.

Warspite · Post #12 » by **Warspite** » Mon Jul 7, 2008 10:55 pm

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:As much as I don't like Iverson, he at least had some team success, while I'm still confused trying to figure out why Maravich is in the HOF.
What the two have in common, imo, is that they've been poorly coached in college, at least on the offensive end in Iverson's case, and that somehow was reflected in their pro career.

Why is Pistol in the HoF.....

1. Look at his NCAA records.. Alltime scorer and PPG

2. NBA scoring title

3. Finished 2nd in MVP voteing

Again I said that Pistols career is all about moments of greatness surronded by hours of mediocrity. Just because Pistol was always great doesnt mean he was never great. You dont have to be a fan of his game to see that he had game.