Now who is not using stats. Macy was the third best player on that title team behind Goose and Robey. The title shouldn't matter, because there are too many factors out of an individual's control. I agree he won't get his jersey in the rafters, but that's because a lot of people don't want one year players up there. All the other players who won SEC POY and were a consensus 1st team all-American are up there (sans Ron Mercer and Anthony Davis), even if they didn't do anything else.
Who was the best point guard to play at UK?
- Thread starter screwduke
- Start date
So in your world we have one choice. We can compare Kyle Macy's senior year stats to John Wall's freshman stats but we can't compare Wall's stats as a 22 year old to KM's stats as a 22 year old even though JW was playing against grown men.
Your world is cool.
My gosh...he was not a point guard for UK during "his first three years in the league!"
The question was actually quite simple.
And that is the flaw with this thread. It is ridiculous to compare a much wider 22 year old senior with 2 or 3 years of college ball under his belt to an 18 year old that only had high school and AAU experience prior to playing his freshman season in college.
How is that fair to JW than? If you can do that then I can sit here and use John Wall's NBA stats or just simply say if John Wall stayed at UK for 3 years he would have blown the doors off those other pg's. You know it, I Know It, Kyle knows it and Kyle's daddy knows it.
Last edited:
Yeah, the question is quite simple. How did Beard and KM do running point their freshman years? Can't have it both ways. You can't just compare a senior to a freshman and call it good.
Yes you can!! That is the question. Who was UKs best point guard. Can't imagine anyone would have to include the line...while he played at UK.
good grief it's really very simple. Lots of guys played pg AT UK. Which one was the best?
So how is it fair to compare JW as a freshman to othersh junior and senior years? It's not. If you think JW as a senior would not be as good as KM or RB were during their senior years than all I can say is you have no idea what you're looking at and you're just being stubborn.
Or we could just compare freshman seasons.
Ryan Harrow. ![[pfftt]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682173.gif "Pfffttt [pfftt]")
.....
Na na na. For real though. John Wall. But if Ulis stays all 4 years and wins a title I'd put him up there as well.
.....Na na na. For real though. John Wall. But if Ulis stays all 4 years and wins a title I'd put him up there as well.
If you are building a team, who are you putting as your starting point guard out of all the guys listed in this thread?
Totally different question. No point in hijacking the OPs thread with something completely different.
And Macy would have moved Wall to the 2 spot if he had played in 2011. Wall was a much better athlete than he was a college point guard. Macy's game would have transferred pretty well to this time with his floor game and shot. Not fast but quicker with the ball than most think and so good on the floor. Easy to get enamored with shiny objects and a few freaky athletic plays and forget Wall really struggled most of that year at true point play and struggled to score outside a breakaway for a good part of it.
Probably should have defined what makes a great point guard. Lot of red herrings in this thread.
My memory goes back to the mid 70s, and about the best I can do is say that Macy and Wall are the two best I've seen.
I will point out that it appears - as is the case nearly 100% of the time when people are arguing about 2 basketball players - everyone is focusing on just 50% of the game. No one says anything about defense.....
My memory goes back to the mid 70s, and about the best I can do is say that Macy and Wall are the two best I've seen.
I will point out that it appears - as is the case nearly 100% of the time when people are arguing about 2 basketball players - everyone is focusing on just 50% of the game. No one says anything about defense.....
yeah dog he went first in the draft because of how good his floor game was as a freshman
We're not asking who the best Freshman PG at UK was. We are asking who the best PG at UK was? If Kyle Macy played as a 22 year old senior, then yes, you take that into consideration. For John Wall, you take his career at UK, which is one year, as his entire body of work. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
I'd say we most definitely would have done the opposite. You're taking your best playmaker, and a guy who isn't a great shooter, and moving them off the ball. Macy would be the guy to play off guard if somehow that scenario were to occur.
Better check the scores of games in those days,UK scored in the 90's and 100's more than they do today
Um, pretty sure I stated that Ed was not the best point guard. My post was a musing - in that so many offerings / pages could pass by without any having at least noted his career stats during the process - specifically it was stated "one mention," where the word "mention" implies simply to state and not to demand nor to insist. The answer to your question is yes. You can use Wall's stats from any point in time that you like for all I care. You can use his stats from the first two minutes of the 3rd quarter in his most recent game against the Hawks to make your point on Wall's behalf if you like. I won't mind at all. Everything will be . . okay.
Hey, dog, he set the UK record for assists.
While leading a 35 win team in scoring, dog
While shooting 46%, dog
While leading the team in steals, dog
While blocking 19 shots, dog
While averaging over 4 rebounds per game, dog
If your idea of a PG is a guy who stands at the top of the key pounding the ball into the floor, and doesn't make many mistakes (ala Saul Smith), then I guess you wouldn't want Wall. Because yeah, his TO's were a little high- while he was making all kinds of plays to help UK win games.
Given your obvious level of cluelessness, dog, I guess it's no surprise you wouldn't want that.
Guys like Macy were incredible players and had great court iq.
Don't be "that" white guy. The white on white guy bashing was cool in 2006. It's just annoying now. Would you say black players are ashy? Of course not. Let's not go there. You're better than that.
Gotta agree with rex again here. If those guys had played today they would be different players.
You are right about thatIf Uliis were to stay all four years he'd be in the mix.
First, I respect everyone's opinion; however, I don't buy the Macy was a better shooter argument. So what? Wall could take it to the rack. A score's a score. Also, this is semantics. The OP simply asked who was the best point guard to play at UK. It wasn't specified if he meant who had the best career, or who had the most talent. That makes it a very open-ended question. The way I look at it is, out of all the PG's to play at UK, who gives you the best chance to win. For me it's Wall.
Simple question-
You're choosing teams. Your goal is to win the game. You have the choice of any point guard ever to play at UK, exactly as they were when they were at UK. Who do you pick?
You pick Wall. Just like the NBA did.
Under those standards, there is no other choice. If you want to talk about career achievement, stuff like that, it's a different argument. But this is the same type of argument that was going on when Kyle Wiltjer was selected preseason 1st team AA. If a guy is really "the best", or among the best, then why would I (and many other people) take so many other players ahead of him, if I was trying to win a game? Because really, any standard of designating someone as one of the best is rendered meaningless if there are legitimately other players who seemingly give me a better chance of actually winning games. What does "best" even mean, if you start to ignore that?
You're choosing teams. Your goal is to win the game. You have the choice of any point guard ever to play at UK, exactly as they were when they were at UK. Who do you pick?
You pick Wall. Just like the NBA did.
Under those standards, there is no other choice. If you want to talk about career achievement, stuff like that, it's a different argument. But this is the same type of argument that was going on when Kyle Wiltjer was selected preseason 1st team AA. If a guy is really "the best", or among the best, then why would I (and many other people) take so many other players ahead of him, if I was trying to win a game? Because really, any standard of designating someone as one of the best is rendered meaningless if there are legitimately other players who seemingly give me a better chance of actually winning games. What does "best" even mean, if you start to ignore that?
i read this as a question about career achievement. potential and ceiling don't really factor into it
Wall is an athletic freak but not the best point guard ever to play at UK. He was out of control many times yet made amazing plays at times. No one can argue he was the best athlete at the point but he didn't lead his team the best at the point. Had he stayed several years that may have changed. Some just forget or didn't see what a true, great point guard looked like.
The main problem in this or any other argument like it is that we are talking about a team sport. Wall was a great point guard on his team because his team wanted to run down the floor every time UK got the ball. Macy didn't have a shot clock, nor did Beard for that matter. Macy had a front line of Robey, Phillips and Givens. That team needed a point guard that could feed those guys the ball and hit shots when the defense cheated on them inside. Wall was the best athlete on the floor. It was all attack, attack, attack. Turnovers be damned.
I am 66 and been watching the Cats since1961 and I would say the best pure point guards have been Kyle and Tyler and it isn't even close. They were both great point guards when they arrived at UK! Wall was a great talent but not that great at running a team like those two!
I respect the past just fine for what it was then, but it's just a fact that most athletes from 60 years ago aren't near the same kind of athletes they are today in general. You could probably take any 6th man on an NBA roster today and he'd be an All-Star in the 60s. It's just different. Bigger, faster, more athletic. Same as you could take Barry Bonds in his roided up heyday and stick him in the Majors in the 30s and he'd hit 100 homeruns against those joker pitcher lobbing up 80-85 mph fastballs. It'd be batting practice.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
You could brush up on baseball also.
Actually, the original post is too open ended. Your "we're not asking… .." Sentence is your interpretation of what the op meant. My interpretation is different. You choose Bear ir Macy, I'm taking Wall. I don't get how anyone can take one player's senior year stats and compare them to a kid's freshman stats. The question is too open ended.
But either way I'd still take a Freshman Wall over a senior Macy or Beard anyday.
Because defense was an afterthought. Do you seriously think any team from back then would drop 100 on a top 100 ranked defense in the modern era? Please. There's a reason nobody scores 100+ points against teams that have a pulse these days.
Defense was an afterthought!?! Are you serious?? Did you even watch basketball during the 70s & 80s? I did & I can tell you your statement is ridiculous & ignorant.
I was like defense in the 40's, not even a thought.
So you think teams from the 40', 50's and 60's… .without a 3 point line would score over 100 points against modern era teams? Wow.
Ha. I like how you just insert some words in my mouth as if I said them, then respond to same words...sorta like having a conversation with yourself!
The poster you quoted was speaking of teams in the Macy era. That was late 70s, not 40's. You said "defense was an afterthought" in those years. That is dumb & untrue.
But, yeah, those teams from the 40's would go over the century mark routinely today...said no one ever.
The poster you quoted was speaking of teams in the Macy era. That was late 70s, not 40's. You said "defense was an afterthought" in those years. That is dumb & untrue.
But, yeah, those teams from the 40's would go over the century mark routinely today...said no one ever.
No. I watched a ton of basketball in the 80's, and I can unequivocally say that what passed for defense back then would be considered an absolute joke by today's standards.
You want to think that the players of your youth could jump 10 feet high and shoot lightning bolts out of their butts, go right ahead. But sorry, it makes you the one who's completely ignorant.
There was a reason that UK only scored 40 points against Georgetown in the 1984 FF. Some of it was pure choking, but A LOT of it was that Georgetown was a predecessor to something that's become very common today- a lineup full of superior athletes playing relentlessly intense defense. That's the way the game has gone, and that (along with changes in how the game is officiated) is the main reason that teams don't regularly score in the 90's any more. Only in your fantasy has there been some huge decline in skill in which, despite so many factors working against it, the players have somehow regressed.
Similar threads
