Who was the best point guard to play at UK?

[JohnnyGentle]

there is video of both players available. if you are unable to arrive at the conclusion that deandre jordan runs faster and jumps higher than wilt, that's not my problem

condescension from someone who doesn't think anyone in the league is as athletic as george gervin--a jumpshooter who flipped up fingerrolls around the rim--is patently offensive

 

[JohnnyGentle]

maravich jacked up 50 shots a game for daddy in college and put up similarly empty numbers in the nba

he's a homeless leper's gilbert arenas

 

[ZenCatFan73]

Well the South will rise again so it's only fitting.

Plus the South has good tacos and I like tacos.

Mmmmm, tacos.

 

[GLR5555]

Coming up next.....Lebron is the GOAT. Wait for it.

 

[UK90]

Not sure you could name a player today more athletic than George Gervin or Wilt Chamberlain. Pete Maravich would make a fool of most PGs today.

I'm sorry, but George Gervin's athleticism and explosiveness was nowhere close to the top athletes of later generations (frankly, you could've picked much better examples of 70s athleticism than Gervin, for example Dr. J and David Thompson). Gervin was also pretty overrated. Yeah, he was a tremendously skilled scorer (sweetest finger roll ever), but scoring was pretty much the ONLY thing he did well, he was notoriously weak defender, a poor passer, and he had a knack for choking at playoff time.

As for Maravich, he's only the single most overrated player in basketball history. He never won a damn thing, he was a turnover machine, often a selfish me-first gunner, and his defense was notorious for being HORRENDOUSLY bad (even by the weak D 70s standards).

I don't know how Maravich would fit in today. His scoring skills would certainly still translate, but guards with that level of gawdawful defense generally aren't even allowed on NBA courts today.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

lebron is 1a is to jordan's 1

 

[GLR5555]

I'm sorry, but George Gervin's athleticism and explosiveness was nowhere close to the top athletes of later generations (frankly, you could've picked much better examples of 70s athleticism than Gervin, for example Dr. J and David Thompson). Gervin was also pretty overrated. Yeah, he was a tremendously skilled scorer (sweetest finger roll ever), but scoring was pretty much the ONLY thing he did well, he was notoriously weak defender, a poor passer, and he had a knack for choking at playoff time.

As for Maravich, he's only the single most overrated player in basketball history. He never won a damn thing, he was a turnover machine, and his defense was notorious for being HORRENDOUSLY bad (even by the weak D 70s standards).

I don't know how Maravich would fit in today. His scoring skills would certainly still translate, but guards with that level of gawdawful defense generally aren't even allowed on NBA courts today.

Those were just names at the tip of my tongue. Point is, players from the 70's and 80's are some of the greatest ever. Actuallly, the majority of the top 10 in history are from that era.

 

[fatguy87]

That has nothing to do with the athletes playing the game. The reality is that better athletes on the court actually often equates to a slower tempo game. Quicker, faster, stronger athletes on the floor means it's not easy to beat the defense down the court, and there aren't a lot of open shots to be found.

The evolution of basketball strategy has an influence here too.

Overall, offensive rebounding is declining. What that entails is that teams are more wary of transition opportunities so they sacrifice offensive rebounding opportunities by getting back on defense. We saw this from Mississippi State in our most recent game. They didn't even try to get an offensive rebound until the second half.

 

[catben]

gervin would be a below average athlete by current nba wing standards

deandre jordan is more explosive than wilt, with a similar inability to make free throws

maravich wasn't even that good in his own era. he couldn't make a roster today

WOW!!

How many players take, much less can make shots from 8-15 ft?
How many use that white square above the basket?
How many guards carry the ball EVERY time they dribble by yesterday's standards?
How many would foul out in the 1st quarter by yesterday's standards?

The comparisons go both ways.

 

[UK90]

I think Jon Scott disproved your allegations

He did not disprove any such thing. Good lord, do you even know what "possessions per game" means?

A game played with more cumulative possessions does not mean it had quality play or better athletes. Instead it often just means the teams played crappy soft defense or forked up more bad shots. In fact, better athletes often translates to fewer possessions because it means better defense and thus fewer shot opportunities. And the best teams often average far fewer possession than worse teams.

In fact, what I thought interesting about Jon's chart is that the two UK teams that averaged the least possessions were the 84 team and last year's 2015 team, BOTH of which were No. 1 seeds that reached the final four . Do you somehow think the 84 and 2015 teams were worse than other UK teams because they averaged fewer possessions and points?

 

[bthaunert]

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.

I have no problem if you think Wall at UK was a better point guard than Macy or Beard at UK. The OP asked a simple question, "Who was the best point guard at UK?" If you think Wall was the best point guard at UK, then fair enough, he's obviously in the conversation. At UK, he played one year, hence you take his one year at UK. At UK, Macy played 3 years, hence you take his 3 years at UK. It's the same as if someone asked who the greatest player at UK was. Some people will say AD, while others might say Issel or Mashburn. When you have that conversation, you're looking at their career at UK. Issel and Mash played 3 years while AD played one.

How did you interpret the OP's question of "Who was the greatest point guard at UK?"

 

[3rex]

I have no problem if you think Wall at UK was a better point guard than Macy or Beard at UK. The OP asked a simple question, "Who was the best point guard at UK?" If you think Wall was the best point guard at UK, then fair enough, he's obviously in the conversation. At UK, he played one year, hence you take his one year at UK. At UK, Macy played 3 years, hence you take his 3 years at UK. It's the same as if someone asked who the greatest player at UK was. Some people will say AD, while others might say Issel or Mashburn. When you have that conversation, you're looking at their career at UK. Issel and Mash played 3 years while AD played one.

How did you interpret the OP's question of "Who was the greatest point guard at UK?"

He can't grasp that simple concept. I & others have already tried.

 

[WildcatUnderground]

When Wall committed to UK, I had never seen a highlight reel like that in my life. Everything he did just seemed unreal at the time. From his first game back from suspension, he carried that team. Unbelievable athleticism, just always found a way to put the ball in the basket, regardless of difficulty. The best PG I've ever seen at UK, and it's not close. Man, I loved that team. Kyle Macy was a stud as well. Pretty unbelievable scoring ability. I'd argue him as a not-so-close second, but still a solid second.

Can you imagine what Wall would have been as a Senior at UK? Or even just a Sophomore?

 

[bthaunert]

When Wall committed to UK, I had never seen a highlight reel like that in my life. Everything he did just seemed unreal at the time. From his first game back from suspension, he carried that team. Unbelievable athleticism, just always found a way to put the ball in the basket, regardless of difficulty. The best PG I've ever seen at UK, and it's not close. Man, I loved that team. Kyle Macy was a stud as well. Pretty unbelievable scoring ability. I'd argue him as a not-so-close second, but still a solid second.

Can you imagine what Wall would have been as a Senior at UK? Or even just a Sophomore?

Same with imaging a guy like Kevin Durant at Texas as a Sophomore or AD here. That's what stinks about college basketball these days. Guys like this stayed till their junior or senior years 99.9% of the time.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

wall was definitely a youtube all-timer

wiggins and maker are up there too, misleadingly

 

[Bluest Member]

He did not disprove any such thing. Good lord, do you even know what "possessions per game" means?

A game played with more cumulative possessions does not mean it had quality play or better athletes. Instead it often just means the teams played crappy soft defense or forked up more bad shots. In fact, better athletes often translates to fewer possessions because it means better defense and thus fewer shot opportunities. And the best teams often average far fewer possession than worse teams.

In fact, what I thought interesting about Jon's chart is that the two UK teams that averaged about the least possessions were the 84 team and last year's 2015 team, BOTH of which were No. 1 seeds that reached the final four . Do you somehow think the 84 and 2015 teams were worse than other UK teams because they averaged fewer possessions and points?

I went through games in every decade from the 40's through now,the notion that they never played defense in the 70's or 80's because UK teams regularly scored in the 90's and 100's is BS if you look at the average margin of victory,which was also better than today's games are as well.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

I went through games in every decade from the 40's through now,the notion that they never played defense in the 70's or 80's because UK teams regularly scored in the 90's and 100's is BS if you look at the average margin of victory,which was also better than today's games are as well.

this post bewilders me. i can't even tell what point you're trying to make with the margin of victory

 

[Bluest Member]

this post bewilders me. i can't even tell what point you're trying to make with the margin of victory

It's the contention of a couple of posters that guards from the past are not as good as todays players because teams never played defense in the 70's and 80's,that they didn't play as fast,as several other idiotic notions.Kentucky regularly scored more per game while holding opponents to less without the 3 point shot

 

[JohnnyGentle]

so what does the avg margin of victory prove, one way or another, about the overall attention to defense in that era?

 

[Bluest Member]

so what does the avg margin of victory prove, one way or another, about the overall attention to defense in that era?

Well,for one thing if they held opponents to less points then somebody must have been playing defense

 

[UK90]

I went through games in every decade from the 40's through now,the notion that they never played defense in the 70's or 80's because UK teams regularly scored in the 90's and 100's is BS if you look at the average margin of victory,which was also better than today's games are as well.

So friggin what? Average margin of victory might be revealing as to how we compared to other 70s competition, but it tells us NOTHING relevant to how the quality of defenses/athletes compared to later eras. Your logic skills are very strange. You keep asserting things that are utterly irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, but you don't seem to realize they're irrelevant.

And stop saying we regularly scored in 90s and 100s in the 1980s, because that is simply NOT true. Those 80s Joe B Hall teams were lower-scoring half-court style bunches whose games generally ended with scores around the 60s.

There was huge difference between the 70s and 80s here that you don't seem to realize. The run n gun era you're thinking of basically peaked in 75, and after that our average score steadily declined as the game changed and defense became much more of a focus throughout college basketball.

 

[GLR5555]

Well,for one thing if they held opponents to less points then somebody must have been playing defense

I believe defenses didn't start getting credit for low opp scoring totals until the 90's. They just attributed it to bad offense.

 

[Bluest Member]

So friggin what? Average margin of victory might be revealing as to how we compared to other 70s competition, but it tells us NOTHING relevant to how the quality of play/defenses/athletes compared to later eras. Your logic skills are very strange. You keep asserting things that are utterly irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, but you don't seem to realize they're irrelevant.

And stop saying we regularly scored in 90s and 100s in the 1980s, because that is simply NOT true. Those 80s Joe B Hall teams were relatively low-scoring plodding bunches who's games usually ended with scores in the 60s.

There was huge difference between the 70s and 80s here that you don't seem to realize. The run n gun era you're thinking of basically peaked in 75, and after that our average score steadily declined as the game changed and defense became much more of a focus throughout college basketball.

Wrong,at the end of Joe B Halls era the average score was in the 70's similar to todays gameQuit spewing opinion and do some math.

 

[mj2k10]

It's the contention of a couple of posters that guards from the past are not as good as todays players because teams never played defense in the 70's and 80's,that they didn't play as fast,as several other idiotic notions.Kentucky regularly scored more per game while holding opponents to less without the 3 point shot

Because they shot more. Which has 0 to do with quality of play or players. A concept that you seem to be having severe problems grasping.

And speaking for myself, my contention would be that today's game is played by a generally far superior athlete than the game of the 70's or 80's (or any time earlier), which means you can't gain very much context from raw numbers. "Pete Maravich scored 44 ppg!!!!" Well, yay for him, but there's a huge layer of context completely missing from the "44ppg, WOW!" argument.

The only thing you can really judge is how much better a player was than his contemporaries. And even that gets dicey as you go further back, because when you're drawing from a smaller talent pool, it's far more likely that one guy will be able to stand head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

[Hoskins91]

Those were just names at the tip of my tongue. Point is, players from the 70's and 80's are some of the greatest ever. Actuallly, the majority of the top 10 in history are from that era.

20 years isn't an era, and I'd say that there's only one player indisputably in the top 10 that played significantly in the 70's, that being Kareem. Moses and Wilt only played three years in that decade. Most people would say late 80's early 90's was the most loaded the league's ever been.

 

[mj2k10]

Wrong,at the end of Joe B Halls era the average score was in the 70's similar to todays gameQuit spewing opinion and do some math.

84-85 UK team scoring average: 65.7 ppg
83-84: 68.2
82-83: 70.5
81-82: 73.3
80-81: 72.9

Slightly lower than a normal Cal-coached UK team. Fewer shots taken, though, as Hall became obsessed with just pounding the ball inside for the highest percentage shot his teams could get (as great as Robey and Philips were, they seemed to ruin Joe B as an offensive coach).

The scoring of that 5 years was, overall, very similar to what we have today, with the difference being that there was no 3 pointer (so the ball was actually going through the hoop more often than it does now, even if the ppg totals are similar).

 

[Bluest Member]

Because they shot more. Which has 0 to do with quality of play or players. A concept that you seem to be having severe problems grasping.

And speaking for myself, my contention would be that today's game is played by a generally far superior athlete than the game of the 70's or 80's (or any time earlier), which means you can't gain very much context from raw numbers. "Pete Maravich scored 44 ppg!!!!" Well, yay for him, but there's a huge layer of context completely missing from the "44ppg, WOW!" argument.

The only thing you can really judge is how much better a player was than his contemporaries. And even that gets dicey as you go further back, because when you're drawing from a smaller talent pool, it's far more likely that one guy will be able to stand head and shoulders above everyone else.

Again your opinion ,but no proof,I grasp concepts fine,it would seem that you can't

 

[Bkocats]

I have no problem if you think Wall at UK was a better point guard than Macy or Beard at UK. The OP asked a simple question, "Who was the best point guard at UK?" If you think Wall was the best point guard at UK, then fair enough, he's obviously in the conversation. At UK, he played one year, hence you take his one year at UK. At UK, Macy played 3 years, hence you take his 3 years at UK. It's the same as if someone asked who the greatest player at UK was. Some people will say AD, while others might say Issel or Mashburn. When you have that conversation, you're looking at their career at UK. Issel and Mash played 3 years while AD played one.

How did you interpret the OP's question of "Who was the greatest point guard at UK?"

and, given how the game has changed so much, do you break it down by era?

These GOAT discussions are too subjective, I think, especially, if, as you said, the criteria aren't specified.

 

[kyjeff1]

good job running down an all-time UK great & National Champion. You just be proud.

Who you plan to bash next? Jack Givens? Dan Issel? Jamal Mashburn?

He was great in his day, he played great in his ERA, don't try to twist what I'm saying. If he played today he would still be a great pg but IN MY OPINION he wouldn't be as effective as John Wall.

 

[Nubb16]

Wall, then Delk.

I'm a huge Delk fan but he played the two.

 

[kyjeff1]

Coming up next.....Lebron is the GOAT. Wait for it.

Uh, okay, you say that like it's far fetched.

 

[Bluest Member]

84-85 UK team scoring average: 65.7 ppg
83-84: 68.2
82-83: 70.5
81-82: 73.3
80-81: 72.9

Slightly lower than a normal Cal-coached UK team. Fewer shots taken, though, as Hall became obsessed with just pounding the ball inside for the highest percentage shot his teams could get (as great as Robey and Philips were, they seemed to ruin Joe B as an offensive coach).

The scoring of that 5 years was, overall, very similar to what we have today, with the difference being that there was no 3 pointer (so the ball was actually going through the hoop more often than it does now, even if the ppg totals are similar).

Cals years slightly better,of course you nit pick years,look at those Adolph Rupp teams in the 40's and 50's or after Hall and Sutton
09-10 = 79.2
10-11 = 74.8
11-12 = 77.3
12-13 = 72.6
13-14 = 74.8
14-15 = 74.3

 

[kyjeff1]

I'm sorry, but George Gervin's athleticism and explosiveness was nowhere close to the top athletes of later generations (frankly, you could've picked much better examples of 70s athleticism than Gervin, for example Dr. J and David Thompson). Gervin was also pretty overrated. Yeah, he was a tremendously skilled scorer (sweetest finger roll ever), but scoring was pretty much the ONLY thing he did well, he was notoriously weak defender, a poor passer, and he had a knack for choking at playoff time.

As for Maravich, he's only the single most overrated player in basketball history. He never won a damn thing, he was a turnover machine, often a selfish me-first gunner, and his defense was notorious for being HORRENDOUSLY bad (even by the weak D 70s standards).

I don't know how Maravich would fit in today. His scoring skills would certainly still translate, but guards with that level of gawdawful defense generally aren't even allowed on NBA courts today.

This X 10.

 

[kyjeff1]

Those were just names at the tip of my tongue. Point is, players from the 70's and 80's are some of the greatest ever. Actuallly, the majority of the top 10 in history are from that era.

Hilarious, tip of your tongue huh?
Seriously, if you think athletes from the 70's are better than today's athletes you are too out of touch for me to even begin to help you. Even 3Rex isn't going to jump in to help you on that front.

 

[Mojocat]

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.

Yep. It's not something I realized in real time. Sometime a few years ago, I saw a youtube clip of a late 70s, early 80s game. I think it was IU and somebody - IU under Knight of course being one of the top defensive teams of that era. I've made it a point to look for this in other clips of older games, to make sure what I saw was representative, and it was. And what I saw was stunning. Often, at least 4 and sometimes all 5 defenders were inside the lane. None of this stuff where the point guard is forced to initiate the offense almost at half court due to defensive pressure - in that time, you could begin your offense around the top of the key. The reasons for that packing-it-in are kind of obvious. One, every basket was worth the same, so there was a premium on close to the basket attempts. Two, there just wasn't the across the board length, athleticism and intensity we see now.

Offense, in many ways the opposite - not as many great athletes, but skill level was higher, and combined with more experienced players, you just had more efficient, better offenses. But on the defensive end, no comparison to today.....

 

[UK90]

[

Wrong,at the end of Joe B Halls era the average score was in the 70's similar to todays gameQuit spewing opinion and do some math.

Really? "At the end of the Joe B. Hall era"? Then can you explain why Hall's final team (in 85) averaged only 65 points per game? Or why his team the prior year--ie. the great 84 team with Bowie/Walker/Turpin, that was No. 1 seed Final Four team--averaged 68 ppg? Do you somehow think the 84 and 85 teams were not "at the end of the Joe B. Hall era"?

And, regardless, you previously suggested those teams "regularly scored" in the 90s and 100s, which is a patently untrue of teams averaging in the 60s or 70s. It might've been something they did a couple times a season (usually against a patsy non-con opponent), but not "regularly."

 

[mj2k10]

Again your opinion ,but no proof,I grasp concepts fine,it would seem that you can't

Can you grasp this?

UK team FG attempts per game, last 3 years:

58.4 (this year), 55.1, 55.3.

UK FG attempts per game, 67-68 through 76-77.

77.1, 74.0, 78.8, 76.0, 66.6, 73.9, 65.3, 77.8, 67.6, 67.2

Not opinion, FACT: They took a hell of a lot more shots back then than teams do now.

 

[kyjeff1]

He did not disprove any such thing. Good lord, do you even know what "possessions per game" means?

A game played with more cumulative possessions does not mean it had quality play or better athletes. Instead it often just means the teams played crappy soft defense or forked up more bad shots. In fact, better athletes often translates to fewer possessions because it means better defense and thus fewer shot opportunities. And the best teams often average far fewer possession than worse teams.

In fact, what I thought interesting about Jon's chart is that the two UK teams that averaged about the least possessions were the 84 team and last year's 2015 team, BOTH of which were No. 1 seeds that reached the final four . Do you somehow think the 84 and 2015 teams were worse than other UK teams because they averaged fewer possessions and points?

Sadly they actually do believe that those teams that averaged more possessions per game are better athletes than today's athletes. It's sad really but what can you do?

 

[kyjeff1]

I have no problem if you think Wall at UK was a better point guard than Macy or Beard at UK. The OP asked a simple question, "Who was the best point guard at UK?" If you think Wall was the best point guard at UK, then fair enough, he's obviously in the conversation. At UK, he played one year, hence you take his one year at UK. At UK, Macy played 3 years, hence you take his 3 years at UK. It's the same as if someone asked who the greatest player at UK was. Some people will say AD, while others might say Issel or Mashburn. When you have that conversation, you're looking at their career at UK. Issel and Mash played 3 years while AD played one.

How did you interpret the OP's question of "Who was the greatest point guard at UK?"

Honestly I think the OP should set the guidelines, they are too open ended the way they sit now but hey, it got the thread to 7 pages so there's that.

 

[mj2k10]

Cals years slightly better,of course you nit pick years,look at those Adolph Rupp teams in the 40's and 50's or after Hall and Sutton
09-10 = 79.2
10-11 = 74.8
11-12 = 77.3
12-13 = 72.6
13-14 = 74.8
14-15 = 74.3

I didn't nit-pick squat. YOU were the one talking about the end of the Joe B era, so that's exactly what I listed.