Pete Maravich

[Goudelock]

Watch on YouTube

I've begun preliminary research on him for my video (pretty much just youtube videos at this point), and one thing that stands out to me is how high-risk, high-reward his game was. He had a lot of flashy plays but also a lot of turnovers. An excellent shooter as well, but took a lot of questionable shots. In a way, he reminded me of a Manu Ginobili/Jamal Crawford/Kyrie Irving hybrid.

If anyone else has some interesting or helpful things to say about him, it would be much appreciated (I'm looking at you, Tsherkin, Quotatious, and penbeast0). What did people think about him when he was actually playing? He has been mythologized post-mortem, but he seems like a player that would've been called an "empty stats" guy by fans.

[tsherkin]

Flashy, exciting, early example of developing handles. Bad approach, fostered by his college days and going to a crap team, I guess. Not a guy who played winning basketball, though he was quite talented. The sort of player a casual fan would enjoy: Big scoring numbers, a scoring title, flashy passer, limp backing stats, inefficient scorer, had a decent run in the 74 playoffs but that's about it.

High-risk, a little sloppy. Kind of a shame, I think, because with a more focused mindset, he certainly had the talent to be an interesting and high-level player.

[Quotatious]

He was an amazing talent as a shooter, passer and ball-handler, but he didn't take advantage of those talents in a way that would help his teams win. He famously said: "they don't pay you a million dollars for two-hand chest passes", which sums up his mentality pretty well - he was more about flash than substance, raw stats more than efficiency, and he never played fundamentally sound defense, he was a huge gambler from what I've seen of him (a lot like Iverson defensively, but didn't have the same kind of crazy motor that AI had).

Some interesting quotes from Pistol, being highly critical of himself:

"Most of my career was negative".

"I got by on talent. That was my fatal mistake".

So, while he had a fine career (I mean - not too many guys average 24/4/5 for 10-year career, make 5 All-Star appearances and 4 All-NBA teams, and finish 3rd in MVP voting at their peaks), he clearly didn't maximize his potential. Not even close. He really had the potential to be a smaller, slightly worse version of Larry Bird, but he didn't have Bird's intangibles and willingness to put winning above everything else.

I think Manu Ginobili is like Maravich with much better efficiency, team-first approach and two-way game. Both are extremely skilled and capable of doing things that very few players have the audacity to do.

It's amazing how many NBA greats speak so highly of him, though:

Spoiler:

“I modeled myself after him, (and) he was only a couple years older than me. He was so far ahead of the game as far as ball-handling and creativeness. Back then it was like, ‘Oh, that’s showboating.’ No, he took the game to another level.”–Mike D’Antoni

“All those things that made him a great player, they were also his curse. It was hard for him to blend his game with other players. He had been groomed to see how many points he could score rather than how many games he could win. That’s the enigma of Pete Maravich.”–Paul Westphal

“We’re all doing things he did first.”–Steve Nash

“Pistol Pete is a legend to all who understand the history of basketball.”–Jason Kidd

“Pete was ‘The Man.’ I’d just sit there and shake my head and say to myself: ‘How’d he do that?’”–Magic Johnson

“Oh my. He did things with the basketball that players - still today - can’t do. If Maravich was playing today, he’d be a god.” — Isiah Thomas

“(Oscar) Robertson was the best guard I ever played against. Jerry West was the best I ever played with. And Pete is the best I’ve ever seen.”–Elgin Baylor

“I’ve got a lot of Pistol Pete in my game.”–Steve Nash

“Like a master chess player, Pete Maravich saw things that nobody else did.”–Bill Walton

“He was the greatest ball handler I’ve ever seen in my life. He could do things with the basketball that were unbelievable.”–Rick Barry

“A lot of guys break the laws of gravity. Pete breaks the laws of physics.”–Red Auerbach

“I learned all my tricks from Pete Maravich.”–Kobe Bryant

“The stuff that Pistol did with the ball was the breaking ground for what we can do today.”–Jason Kidd

“You talk of Jerry West or Oscar Robertson or any of those great ones who scored and passed so well. Maravich is better. He’s a show.”–Lou Carnesecca

“The best showman of all time? I’d probably have to say Pistol Pete.”–Isiah Thomas

“He was one of the truly great players that could fill an arena. He was an excellent player. He could dribble with both hands, shoot with both hands, and see the whole court. I enjoyed playing with Pete. His biggest influence to my mind was his ability to pass. When he stepped on the court, it was like a warning sign: ‘Watch out. I know how to play this game.’”–Larry Bird

“Through following basketball and enjoying his flair for the game, I feel as though I knew him. He was a great scorer and a great passer at the same time. The passes he made were unbelievable. He was so ahead of his time.”–Magic Johnson

“Pistol was a big influence on me. I’ve often tried his moves on the basketball court. What he did on the court are things that players today still can’t do.”–Isiah Thomas

“He was the original. When you talk about ‘Showtime,’ you talk about creativity, and bringing a whole different concept to the game of basketball. Pete was the original. He opened the minds of a lot of players as to how the game should be played. What he could do with the basketball at full speed was incredible. He was the best ball handler I ever saw. Ever.”–Pat Riley

“The way Pete played transcended the game. He was an artist. His canvas was the floor and his brush was the basketball. Only one guy got to be Elvis. And only one guy got to be Pistol Pete.”–Paul Westphal

“He was a startling player. One of a half dozen I’ve ever seen who I’d buy a ticket to see play. He was as dazzling a passer and as great a ball handler as I’ve ever seen. He was like a great singer with a style all his own, a pacing that was different, a flair for the unusual.”–Chick Hearn

“He was unstoppable. It’s as if they had melted down all 12 Harlem Globetrotters and then filled up this skinny 6-6 white frame with everything they had.”–Ralph Wiley, ESPN

“He personified why I love basketball; why I enjoy watching it; writing about it; why sports itself is such an important part of human existence.”–Curry Kirkpatrick, Sports Illustrated

“He was to basketball what the Sgt. Pepper album was to pop music: revolutionary and liberating.”–Bob McEwen, Rochester Times Union

“Today’s game is about spacing, drawing double teams, and shooting off the pass. No one in the history of the game was better at that than Pete. He could do more things with the ball than anyone who ever played, and do them all well.”–Alvin Gentry

[SlowPaced]

Incredibly talented and creative. His style wasn't efficient and didn't translate to winning but he was a pioneer for the game without question.

I think he'd be fantastic in today's game with the right coaching.

[wojoaderge]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

[70sFan]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

Consistently around league average, sometimes better or worse than that. He's not efficient when you factor how much more he could have been. With his shooting touch, size and amazing skills he could be one of the best scorers in the league. That's what he has never been, unfortunately.

[dautjazz]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

I think he shot a lot of mid-range shots, and beyond. He went 10/15 in threes during his last season, when the 3PT shot came to the NBA. He probably would of excelled in today's game shooting 3pters.

[lorak]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

Not that much, -1,0 TS% over whole career and in Atlanta he was actually above league average, however Jazz days were much worse. But his turnovers were bigger problem than his scoring efficiency and while we don't know for sure how often did he turn the ball over we can make educated guess it was around 4-5 TPG, what is awful considering he had just 5-6 APG.

[Johnlac1]

He was an amazing talent as a shooter, passer and ball-handler, but he didn't take advantage of those talents in a way that would help his teams win. He famously said: "they don't pay you a million dollars for two-hand chest passes", which sums up his mentality pretty well - he was more about flash than substance, raw stats more than efficiency, and he never played fundamentally sound defense, he was a huge gambler from what I've seen of him (a lot like Iverson defensively, but didn't have the same kind of crazy motor that AI had).

Some interesting quotes from Pistol, being highly critical of himself:

"Most of my career was negative".

"I got by on talent. That was my fatal mistake".

So, while he had a fine career (I mean - not too many guys average 24/4/5 for 10-year career, make 5 All-Star appearances and 4 All-NBA teams, and finish 3rd in MVP voting at their peaks), he clearly didn't maximize his potential. Not even close. He really had the potential to be a smaller, slightly worse version of Larry Bird, but he didn't have Bird's intangibles and willingness to put winning above everything else.

I think Manu Ginobili is like Maravich with much better efficiency, team-first approach and two-way game. Both are extremely skilled and capable of doing things that very few players have the audacity to do.

It's amazing how many NBA greats speak so highly of him, though:

Spoiler:

“I modeled myself after him, (and) he was only a couple years older than me. He was so far ahead of the game as far as ball-handling and creativeness. Back then it was like, ‘Oh, that’s showboating.’ No, he took the game to another level.”–Mike D’Antoni

“All those things that made him a great player, they were also his curse. It was hard for him to blend his game with other players. He had been groomed to see how many points he could score rather than how many games he could win. That’s the enigma of Pete Maravich.”–Paul Westphal

“We’re all doing things he did first.”–Steve Nash

“Pistol Pete is a legend to all who understand the history of basketball.”–Jason Kidd

“Pete was ‘The Man.’ I’d just sit there and shake my head and say to myself: ‘How’d he do that?’”–Magic Johnson

“Oh my. He did things with the basketball that players - still today - can’t do. If Maravich was playing today, he’d be a god.” — Isiah Thomas

“(Oscar) Robertson was the best guard I ever played against. Jerry West was the best I ever played with. And Pete is the best I’ve ever seen.”–Elgin Baylor

“I’ve got a lot of Pistol Pete in my game.”–Steve Nash

“Like a master chess player, Pete Maravich saw things that nobody else did.”–Bill Walton

“He was the greatest ball handler I’ve ever seen in my life. He could do things with the basketball that were unbelievable.”–Rick Barry

“A lot of guys break the laws of gravity. Pete breaks the laws of physics.”–Red Auerbach

“I learned all my tricks from Pete Maravich.”–Kobe Bryant

“The stuff that Pistol did with the ball was the breaking ground for what we can do today.”–Jason Kidd

“You talk of Jerry West or Oscar Robertson or any of those great ones who scored and passed so well. Maravich is better. He’s a show.”–Lou Carnesecca

“The best showman of all time? I’d probably have to say Pistol Pete.”–Isiah Thomas

“He was one of the truly great players that could fill an arena. He was an excellent player. He could dribble with both hands, shoot with both hands, and see the whole court. I enjoyed playing with Pete. His biggest influence to my mind was his ability to pass. When he stepped on the court, it was like a warning sign: ‘Watch out. I know how to play this game.’”–Larry Bird

“Through following basketball and enjoying his flair for the game, I feel as though I knew him. He was a great scorer and a great passer at the same time. The passes he made were unbelievable. He was so ahead of his time.”–Magic Johnson

“Pistol was a big influence on me. I’ve often tried his moves on the basketball court. What he did on the court are things that players today still can’t do.”–Isiah Thomas

“He was the original. When you talk about ‘Showtime,’ you talk about creativity, and bringing a whole different concept to the game of basketball. Pete was the original. He opened the minds of a lot of players as to how the game should be played. What he could do with the basketball at full speed was incredible. He was the best ball handler I ever saw. Ever.”–Pat Riley

“The way Pete played transcended the game. He was an artist. His canvas was the floor and his brush was the basketball. Only one guy got to be Elvis. And only one guy got to be Pistol Pete.”–Paul Westphal

“He was a startling player. One of a half dozen I’ve ever seen who I’d buy a ticket to see play. He was as dazzling a passer and as great a ball handler as I’ve ever seen. He was like a great singer with a style all his own, a pacing that was different, a flair for the unusual.”–Chick Hearn

“He was unstoppable. It’s as if they had melted down all 12 Harlem Globetrotters and then filled up this skinny 6-6 white frame with everything they had.”–Ralph Wiley, ESPN

“He personified why I love basketball; why I enjoy watching it; writing about it; why sports itself is such an important part of human existence.”–Curry Kirkpatrick, Sports Illustrated

“He was to basketball what the Sgt. Pepper album was to pop music: revolutionary and liberating.”–Bob McEwen, Rochester Times Union

“Today’s game is about spacing, drawing double teams, and shooting off the pass. No one in the history of the game was better at that than Pete. He could do more things with the ball than anyone who ever played, and do them all well.”–Alvin Gentry

Pretty much on target. From the neck down, except for maybe strength, Maravich had it all to be a great, big pg....speed, skills, but he didn't have the head game.
It's not like Pete had a lousy career...it's just that he never quite learned to play the game the right way. Much of that could be attributed to his father who let him get away with and/or promoted Pete's ball hog/gunner, college game. There was no reason for Pete to take 40 shots a game.
Nevertheless, Pete had a good pro career which could have been a great one with more discipline. The peak of Pete's career might not have been his leading the league in scoring one year but his third year when he and Lou Hudson took the Celtics to six games in the '73 playoffs. The Celtics were probably the best team in the NBA that year. Pete had two or three 30+ point games in that series. A year or two later he was shipped out of Atlanta. Few teams wanted him. A shame for a player with that much talent, but it's nobody's fault but him and his father's.

[Quotatious]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

He usually hovered around league-average in terms of TS%, he was a little above average for about a half of his career and a little below average for the other half, which is not that bad, but he was hugely turnover prone. We don't have turnovers for pre 1977-78 NBA, but we know that he averaged 5.0 tpg in '78, when he was still in his prime. That's terrible, and doesn't fit the profile of any real offensive superstar that we know about. For example a guy like James Harden turns the ball over a ton, but he makes up for a lot of that with his very efficient scoring. Iverson was similar to Maravich in terms of scoring efficiency, but he was a relatively low turnover guy for someone who carried such a huge offensive burden for his teams basically his entire prime. I mean - Iverson in his biggest statistical year in 2005-06 averaged only 3.4 tpg, while putting up 33 points and 7.4 assists per game. Maravich averaged 5 turnovers per game while putting up 27 points and 6.7 assists in 1978. 27 and 33 points per game might not seem like that big of a difference, but a lot of players average 27 ppg, while only a select few ever averaged 33, so it really is a significant difference.

That being said, I think he would be better today, like SlowPaced said. With good coaching and 3-pt line, his efficiency would go up and I think the better spacing today would help him, too. He would be a regular guest in top 10 highlight reels, Smitty's top 5 plays under the rim as well as Shaqtin a Fool (for some of his stupid turnovers resulting from unnecessarily flashy passes). That's a unique combination.

[Johnlac1]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

He usually hovered around league-average in terms of TS%, he was a little above average for about a half of his career and a little below average for the other half, which is not that bad, but he was hugely turnover prone. We don't have turnovers for pre 1977-78 NBA, but we know that he averaged 5.0 tpg in '78, when he was still in his prime. That's terrible, and doesn't fit the profile of any real offensive superstar that we know about. For example a guy like James Harden turns the ball over a ton, but he makes up for a lot of that with his very efficient scoring. Iverson was similar to Maravich in terms of scoring efficiency, but he was a relatively low turnover guy for someone who carried such a huge offensive burden for his teams basically his entire prime. I mean - Iverson in his biggest statistical year in 2005-06 averaged only 3.4 tpg, while putting up 33 points and 7.4 assists per game. Maravich averaged 5 turnovers per game while putting up 27 points and 6.7 assists in 1978. 27 and 33 points per game might not seem like that big of a difference, but a lot of players average 27 ppg, while only a select few ever averaged 33, so it really is a significant difference.

That being said, I think he would be better today, like SlowPaced said. With good coaching and 3-pt line, his efficiency would go up and I think the better spacing today would help him, too. He would be a regular guest in top 10 highlight reels, Smitty's top 5 plays under the rim as well as Shaqtin a Fool (for some of his stupid turnovers resulting from unnecessarily flashy passes). That's a unique combination.

The problem with Maravich after he left the Hawks was that he was playing for a lousy team, the Jazz. If Pete had managed to get to a team with other good players, as he matured as a player he might have turned out to be the great pg many people thought he would be when he entered the league. His last year in the league was his best year as far as fg. pct. shooting close to 50%. He never shot as much as 46% in all the other seasons. But he was playing on Larry Bird's team, and Bird would not tolerate selfish, unfocused players.
With all his physical ability and his skills, Pete should have shot at least 50% from the floor for his career while getting 8-10 apg. But he loved long jumps over taking it to the basket as much as he should have. And with all his tremendous passing and ballhandling skills he never averaged as much as seven assists a game.
Today, of course, with the three point line Pete's love of long jump shots would pay off better than when he did play.

[Goudelock]

Thank you so much for all of these detailed write ups. You guys are the best!

On a slightly related note, would you guys be ok with me including some of his LSU footage in the video too? There's actually a few games that I could use.

[wojoaderge]

Just how inefficient was he for his era?

He usually hovered around league-average in terms of TS%, he was a little above average for about a half of his career and a little below average for the other half, which is not that bad, but he was hugely turnover prone. We don't have turnovers for pre 1977-78 NBA, but we know that he averaged 5.0 tpg in '78, when he was still in his prime. That's terrible, and doesn't fit the profile of any real offensive superstar that we know about. For example a guy like James Harden turns the ball over a ton, but he makes up for a lot of that with his very efficient scoring. Iverson was similar to Maravich in terms of scoring efficiency, but he was a relatively low turnover guy for someone who carried such a huge offensive burden for his teams basically his entire prime. I mean - Iverson in his biggest statistical year in 2005-06 averaged only 3.4 tpg, while putting up 33 points and 7.4 assists per game. Maravich averaged 5 turnovers per game while putting up 27 points and 6.7 assists in 1978. 27 and 33 points per game might not seem like that big of a difference, but a lot of players average 27 ppg, while only a select few ever averaged 33, so it really is a significant difference.

That being said, I think he would be better today, like SlowPaced said. With good coaching and 3-pt line, his efficiency would go up and I think the better spacing today would help him, too. He would be a regular guest in top 10 highlight reels, Smitty's top 5 plays under the rim as well as Shaqtin a Fool (for some of his stupid turnovers resulting from unnecessarily flashy passes). That's a unique combination.

See, if he had the 3 point line, his TS% would have been much higher. Just think of how many well regarded scoring guards today shoot equal or less than his FG%. Also, during that era coaches didn't harp that much over turnovers and emphasized pace. In 1977-78, the Jazz finished 2 games out of a playoff spot, and that was with their first option missing 30 games, their second option shooting 44%, and the starting lineup featuring at least 3 or 4 noted bad defenders. Ahh, the 70s . . .

[Quotatious]

See, if he had the 3 point line, his TS% would have been much higher. Just think of how many well regarded scoring guards today shoot equal or less than his FG%. Also, during that era coaches didn't harp that much over turnovers and emphasized pace. In 1977-78, the Jazz finished 2 games out of a playoff spot, and that was with their first option missing 30 games, their second option shooting 44%, and the starting lineup featuring at least 3 or 4 noted bad defenders. Ahh, the 70s . . .

Yeah, I said as much myself (3-pt line boosting his efficiency). You asked how bad it was "for his era", though. And it was not good for his era. Paul Westphal was a better SG at the time when Maravich put up those big statistical seasons (Westphal was so much more efficient than Maravich, while being capable of 25 points per game when needed, and if we're talking about two offense-first players, scoring efficiency matters a lot, plus Westphal was plenty capable as a playmaker, too, without as many turnovers as Pete).

[penbeast0]

At the time I thought of him in much the same way I though of Iverson during his career. Flashy, trashy, played the game the wrong way. Better shooter and creator than Iverson, but not as great a scorer, more turnover prone, and even worse defensively. A guy who can make a bad team better and win you games you shouldn't win but one who can also make a good team worse and can lose you games you should have won. I remember a comp I ran here comparing the two. An Iverson fan complained in the first few posts that every time Iverson got compared to any great guard, the PC board liked the other guy better . . . Maravich was the exception.

[Johnlac1]

See, if he had the 3 point line, his TS% would have been much higher. Just think of how many well regarded scoring guards today shoot equal or less than his FG%. Also, during that era coaches didn't harp that much over turnovers and emphasized pace. In 1977-78, the Jazz finished 2 games out of a playoff spot, and that was with their first option missing 30 games, their second option shooting 44%, and the starting lineup featuring at least 3 or 4 noted bad defenders. Ahh, the 70s . . .

Yeah, I said as much myself (3-pt line boosting his efficiency). You asked how bad it was "for his era", though. And it was not good for his era. Paul Westphal was a better SG at the time when Maravich put up those big statistical seasons (Westphal was so much more efficient than Maravich, while being capable of 25 points per game when needed, and if we're talking about two offense-first players, scoring efficiency matters a lot, plus Westphal was plenty capable as a playmaker, too, without as many turnovers as Pete).

Westphal had the head game, Maravich didn't. Westphal had excellent physical attributes, but Maravich was actually quicker, faster. And although Westphal was noted for his acrobatic dunks, Maravich could do a 360 as testified to by a friend who saw him do it in a gym in the off season. The moral of the story is: no matter how much talent you have, you have to have the head game to be a great player.
Speaking of Westphal, he is one the more underrated (or untalked about) great guards in NBA history. It's weird that he polished the bench for Boston most of his three years there, got traded to Phoenix, and almost beat the team, Boston, that got rid of him. If Phoenix had won the title in '76, I think a lot of heads would have rolled. I'd like to say Red Auerbach's, but as a Boston legend, he probably had too much pull in Boston to lose his GM job. One of his biggest mistakes. But then again, with Westphal Boston might not have been in position to draft Bird.

[Joao Saraiva]

I think a comparison with Allen Iverson is quite fair for Pistol Pete.

Reading some posts here he might have been a good candidate for the thread about players from the past who could be superstars in other eras. I think he'd benefit from a small ball system and more 3 point shooting.

[Goudelock]

Flashy, exciting, early example of developing handles. Bad approach, fostered by his college days and going to a crap team, I guess. Not a guy who played winning basketball, though he was quite talented. The sort of player a casual fan would enjoy: Big scoring numbers, a scoring title, flashy passer, limp backing stats, inefficient scorer, had a decent run in the 74 playoffs but that's about it.

High-risk, a little sloppy. Kind of a shame, I think, because with a more focused mindset, he certainly had the talent to be an interesting and high-level player.

I just got finished watching one of his college games, and good lord, its a freak show. He's dominating the ball to a degree that I've never seen before, and I've seen some of Kobe's really ball-hoggy games. Every possession revolves around Pete getting the ball and either shooting it or passing it for an assist. He had the brightest, biggest, most neon green light of all time.

[Johnlac1]

Flashy, exciting, early example of developing handles. Bad approach, fostered by his college days and going to a crap team, I guess. Not a guy who played winning basketball, though he was quite talented. The sort of player a casual fan would enjoy: Big scoring numbers, a scoring title, flashy passer, limp backing stats, inefficient scorer, had a decent run in the 74 playoffs but that's about it.

High-risk, a little sloppy. Kind of a shame, I think, because with a more focused mindset, he certainly had the talent to be an interesting and high-level player.

I just got finished watching one of his college games, and good lord, its a freak show. He's dominating the ball to a degree that I've never seen before, and I've seen some of Kobe's really ball-hoggy games. Every possession revolves around Pete getting the ball and either shooting it or passing it for an assist. He had the brightest, biggest, most neon green light of all time.

After Maravich became famous stories would crop up about other high-scoring phenoms across the country.
My state of Wisconsin had a Maravich-type clone named Mickey Crowe who still has many Wisconsin prep scoring records. He averaged over 40 ppg for several years at a small high school near Milwaukee in the early seventies.. I saw him play one time against a school close to my home. He scored a lot of pts (47), but he took about 50 shots to do it.
Unfortunately, althought he was about the same size and skinny like Maravich, he didn't have Pete's athleticism. He was a tad slow.
Another thing I noticed after reading stories about a number of other high-scoring high school players is that a very high pct. played for their father or older brother.
Mickey Crowe's father, Marty Crowe, coached him and allowed him to shoot 40 times a game.
What is ironic is that Marty Crowe was an excellent coach who had coached another Wisc. high school team to a state tournament title some years previous. And he was a much more conservative coach with that team.
But, like Pete's father Press Maravich, he just couldn't help letting his kid be a gunner. Bad for Pete and Mickey (the latter never even played college ball.)

[Johnlac1]

Flashy, exciting, early example of developing handles. Bad approach, fostered by his college days and going to a crap team, I guess. Not a guy who played winning basketball, though he was quite talented. The sort of player a casual fan would enjoy: Big scoring numbers, a scoring title, flashy passer, limp backing stats, inefficient scorer, had a decent run in the 74 playoffs but that's about it.

High-risk, a little sloppy. Kind of a shame, I think, because with a more focused mindset, he certainly had the talent to be an interesting and high-level player.

I just got finished watching one of his college games, and good lord, its a freak show. He's dominating the ball to a degree that I've never seen before, and I've seen some of Kobe's really ball-hoggy games. Every possession revolves around Pete getting the ball and either shooting it or passing it for an assist. He had the brightest, biggest, most neon green light of all time.

You might be talking about the LSU-Kentucky game which was televised nationally. It was the only regular season game of Maravich's that was ever televised nationally. Pete scored 64 pts. in that game. What is forgotten is that Dan Isssel for Kentucky scored 51 pts.
LSU did play in the NIT (which was a bigger deal back then) postseason which televised some games including LSU's first game , but Pete didn't have any high-scoring games. They won one game then lost the next one.