Maurice Stokes

[Gibson22]

If Stokes could have played his full career, would he be a top 100 player ever? Top 50? Top 30? What do you think?
He shot incredibly low percentages but he was a great rebounder and passer and apparently was an all time great defender. He played only 3 seasons where he was always all nba second team

[CumberlandPosey]

true pioneer imo.big man with playmaking skills and true hall-of-famer.the missing player on the power big position together wih the hawk.getting the board and going coast-to-coast.one of the biggest what-ifs in basketball history.prototypical lebron type.coupled with oscar and we wouldnt speak so deprecatingly about the big o.

[Cavsfansince84]

Worth noting that his effiiciency was terrible even by late 50's standards whiich doesn't bode well if he had stayed healthy in the 60's.

[coastalmarker99]

I do believe had he been able to play a full career that the Royals win at least two titles in the 1960s which greatly helps Oscar's legacy.


As his playmaking skills and defence would have made the Royals a truly special team on both sides of the floor.

[penbeast0]

I think he's not a great fit with Oscar, though (like Oscar) a great fit with Jerry Lucas. He liked the ball in his hands and was a great rebounder in addition to his defense. Oscar was also very ball dominant and got in people's faces for taking bad shots; not sure how that works with Stokes and his low for 50s shooting. And do you really want the ball out of Oscar's hands to let Stockes dribble coast to coast? OF course, any time you have an extra great talent it helps, even if fit isn't ideal so it helps the Royals, just not sure how much.

Great guy to think about though. Along with Walton, Connie Hawkins, Len Bias, and Jay WIlliams, one of those players I really wish I'd been able to see playing healthy in the NBA.

[Gibson22]

I think he's not a great fit with Oscar, though (like Oscar) a great fit with Jerry Lucas. He liked the ball in his hands and was a great rebounder in addition to his defense. Oscar was also very ball dominant and got in people's faces for taking bad shots; not sure how that works with Stokes and his low for 50s shooting. And do you really want the ball out of Oscar's hands to let Stockes dribble coast to coast? OF course, any time you have an extra great talent it helps, even if fit isn't ideal so it helps the Royals, just not sure how much.

Great guy to think about though. Along with Walton, Connie Hawkins, Len Bias, and Jay WIlliams, one of those players I really wish I'd been able to see playing healthy in the NBA.

I mean he would have just focused on defense and rebounding and pushing the ball in transition and let oscar shoulder most of the offensive load. It's not like stokes' value was his offense. I think it's a great fit because the royals with O always had the #1 offense but a bottom tier defense

[Johnlac1]

Stoke's low fg pct. seems to be a mystery. He's certainly got excellent athleticism for that time and had a decent looking jump shot. Almost all the jump shooters of the fifties had considerably better fg pcts. than the non jump shooters. Jump shooting Jack Twyman shot close to 45% Stokes's last year, '57-'58 while Stokes shot ten percentage points lower at 35%. And Stokes was bigger and more athletic than Twyman which would have given Stokes an advantage around the basket.
Absent watching him play a full game, the only thing I can think of as to why he shot so poorly from the floor is that he must have been taking a lot of bad shots specifically the running, drifting one handers than were prevalent during the fifties.
I would bet that if he played alongside Robertson, like Twyman, his fg pct. would have jumped. For one thing Oscar wouldn't have tolerated any player taking bad shots. I have to think Stokes would have done what Robertson demanded he do.
A team with Robertson, Stokes, and Jerry Lucas could have given the Celtics a lot more trouble in the early sixties.

[Gibson22]

Stoke's low fg pct. seems to be a mystery. He's certainly got excellent athleticism for that time and had a decent looking jump shot. Almost all the jump shooters of the fifties had considerably better fg pcts. than the non jump shooters. Jump shooting Jack Twyman shot close to 45% Stokes's last year, '57-'58 while Stokes shot ten percentage points lower at 35%. And Stokes was bigger and more athletic than Twyman which would have given Stokes an advantage around the basket.
Absent watching him play a full game, the only thing I can think of as to why he shot so poorly from the floor is that he must have been taking a lot of bad shots specifically the running, drifting one handers than were prevalent during the fifties.
I would bet that if he played alongside Robertson, like Twyman, his fg pct. would have jumped. For one thing Oscar wouldn't have tolerated any player taking bad shots. I have to think Stokes would have done what Robertson demanded he do.
A team with Robertson, Stokes, and Jerry Lucas could have given the Celtics a lot more trouble in the early sixties.

I mean he was a below average free throw shooter, I think he was a mediocre jump shooter, you seem to assume that he had a decent jumper but I think not. I guess he must also have had poor touch, and, like you said, probably took a lot of bad shots. But yeah, I wonder what he would have done with oscar leading the offense and him providing all time great defense and rebounding and occasionally passing and finishing. Probably would have won many rings (oscar led #1 offenses but had horrible defenses, stokes led great defenses but had terrible offenses in bis 3 years), oscar would be ranked even higher and stokes would be considered an all time great. Who knows.