Who was the best point guard to play at UK?

[kyjeff1]

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.

How can you watch any game from the 70's and come away thinking defenses were anywhere close to on par with today's defenses? How? The pressure on the ball these days is so much tougher, there is so much more physicality now and the players are so much more athletic now than they were back then. No team is going to get 100 points on a top 50 team in this ERA but back in the 70's it was very common for teams to score in the hundred point range. There's only one way that happens.

 

[Bluest Member]

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.

So Lew Alcindor,Oscar Robertson,,Jerry West,Bill Russell,Elgin Baylor,Jerry Lucas,Julius Erving,Elvin Hayes,John Havelicek,Pete Maravich,Bob Lanier,Michael Jordon,Larry Bird,Magic Johnson,Clyde Drexler,James Worthy,Bernie King,Dennis Johnson,Charles Barkley,Hakeem Olajuwan,Dominique Wilkins,Kevin McHale,Isiah Thomas,Moses Malone,and a hundred others couldn't compete against today's players?

 

[Bluest Member]

Can't tell somebody something that already knows it all

 

[kyjeff1]

So Lew Alcindor,Oscar Robertson,,Jerry West,Bill Russell,Elgin Baylor,Jerry Lucas,Julius Erving,Elvin Hayes,John Havelicek,Pete Maravich,Bob Lanier,Michael Jordon,Larry Bird,Magic Johnson,Clyde Drexler,James Worthy,Bernie King,Dennis Johnson,Charles Barkley,Hakeem Olajuwan,Dominique Wilkins,Kevin McHale,Isiah Thomas,Moses Malone,and a hundred others couldn't compete against today's players?

What the heck are you talking about? Half the guys on that list played in the 80's and 90's, heck, some of them played into the 2000's, what do they have to do with this? Most of those guys, given the same training and opportunities, would probably still thrive in today's game but that's not what we are talking about now is it?

 

[kyjeff1]

Can't tell somebody something that already knows it all

Oh I know, the nerve of some people huh. Nobody should EVER have a different opinion. Ever.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

70s icons michael jordan and clyde drexler

 

[Bluest Member]

What the heck are you talking about? Half the guys on that list played in the 80's and 90's, heck, some of them played into the 2000's, what do they have to do with this? Most of those guys, given the same training and opportunities, would probably still thrive in today's game but that's not what we are talking about now is it?

Those guys were from the 60's,70's,and 80's in college

 

[kyjeff1]

Those guys were from the 60's,70's,and 80's in college

You are correct and yes, they were unbelievable players in their day and I fully believe they could succeed today and John Wall has the athleticism to hang with that group of guys. Which is why I have JW as my pick for best pg at UK. He did things the others could only dream of but one thing I would like to add to that, Wall was surrounded by a very young and inexperienced team so that hurt him a little bit. He was still great even though he was just a freshman.
The group that you posted is a group of players that was head and shoulders better than everyone else but there wasn't very many guys you could put in a group like that from that era, there are a lot more guys today that would qualify for that group. A LOT more .

 

[Bluest Member]

Well, first of all I'd notice you're mixing up eras. The post you were responding to was talking purely about the 1970s, yet you just listed a bunch of guys who didn't come along came along until the 80s and 90s. There's a HUGE difference, my friend, between Hakeem/Jordan and the typical 60s/70s competition.

But, to address your question, yeah I certainly DO think a lot of those 60s and 70s guys could "compete" today, but their roles would VERY different. Guys who were superstars back then might just be role players off the bench today.

Take Bill Russell, for example. In the 60s he was the most dominant defensive force the game had ever seen, a truly revolutionary player. But do you know what else he also was? A pure center who was only 6'9" and could not dribble or shoot at all---how many of those do you see starring at center in today's NBA? Jerry Lucas was a slow footed 6'8" center who couldn't jump over a piece of paper--how many of those centers you see in today's NBA? Elgin Baylor was a scoring machine who got most points down low along the baseline or posting up, how many 6'5" low post players you see in the NBA today?

Might still be a spot for those guys in today's game, but it sure wouldn't be same the sort of superstar role they had back then.

Those were all players from the 60's,70's,and 80's some played into the 90's and 2000's and I never only posted about the 70's,I did compare scores from the 70.s to today. The whole arguement has been players from previous years couldn't compete with today's finely tuned athletes. I'm done,keep thinking only in this time and place are the great players.

 

[JPScott]

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?

Just for the record the ONLY reason I even mentioned possessions per game is in response to YOU saying the game was slower back then.

That's a common misconception, which I find interesting because the facts actually show the opposite in many cases.

The question of athletic ability is a different topic, which is only partially related to the above. (I.e. There's many other factors at play as far as game pace, only some of which are related to athletic ability.)

 

[namnik]

Who would you say?

For college ball or NBA prep ball? I'm going with Kyle Macy for shooting and turnovers against all other point guards.

 

[mj2k10]

Well, first of all I'd notice you're mixing up eras. The post you were responding to was talking purely about the 1970s, yet you just listed a bunch of guys who didn't come along came along until the 80s and 90s. There's a HUGE difference, my friend, between Hakeem/Jordan and the typical 60s/70s competition.

But, to address your question, yeah I certainly DO think a lot of those 60s and 70s guys could "compete" today, but their roles would VERY different. Guys who were superstars back then might just be role players off the bench today.

Take Bill Russell, for example. In the 60s he was the most dominant defensive force the game had ever seen, a truly revolutionary player. But do you know what else he also was? A pure center who was only 6'9" and could not dribble or shoot at all---how many of those do you see starring at center in today's NBA? Jerry Lucas was a slow footed 6'8" center who couldn't jump over a piece of paper--how many of those centers you see in today's NBA? Elgin Baylor was a scoring machine who got most points down low along the baseline or posting up, how many 6'5" low post players you see in the NBA today?

Might still be a spot for those guys in today's game, but it sure wouldn't be same the sort of superstar role they had back then.

People miss the subtleties of how the game changes, which is understandable, but it's necessary to look at them if you really want to understand things in context.

Great players are generally so gifted that yes, you have to think they'd succeed (and probably at a high level) in any era. But...you need to look at them within their own eras, and look at the level of competition before you proclaim that modern players somehow don't stack up.

I'm talking about things like this:

Oscar Robertson played college basketball from 57-58 through 59-60. He was a revolutionary figure, a 6'5" PG who could dominate a game from all over the court. However, consider this: during those 3 years (one of which included a national title for UK), UK had 1 (58), 2 (59), and 2 (60) guys on the roster listed as taller than 6'5", and only one guy taller than 6'7". I'd assume that was a pretty standard thing for college rosters of that time.

Wilt Chamberlain entered the NBA in 59-60. There were 8 teams in the league at that time, with a grand total of 5 guys listed as taller than 6'9" (one of whom was Russell, who probably wasn't actually that tall).

 

[3rex]

[QUOTE="mj2k10, post: 3262914, member: 10198]

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.
.[/QUOTE]

Ok educate us all on the "huge layer of context" that diminishes Maravich as a player.

Can't wait for this.

 

[bthaunert]

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.

You definitely get a pat on the back for that. I enjoy debating with people who have differing opinions. Job well done!

 

[UK90]

Ok educate us all on the "huge layer of context" that diminishes Maravich as a player.

Well, for starters::

1) He played during the pinnacle of college basketball's ultimate run n gun no defense era when the entire country was racking up crazy scoring numbers.

2) He played in a gimmicky system designed by his dad/coach to keep the ball in his sons hands and get his son as many shots as humanly possible.

3) He played during an era when the SEC did not allow African American athletes, which of course meant he didn't have to face the sort of elite athletic defenders that make up nearly every roster today.

4) He never won a damn thing that matters at any level.

5) He was notorious for playing horrible defense, being a turnover machine, and often playing like a selfish me-first gunner who seemed to care as much or more about racking up stats and putting on a show than winning.

Hands down the single most overrated player in basketball history.

 

[TeoJ]

Actually both Beard and Ramsey did win national titles in their first years.

Ralph Beard as a freshman sank the winning free throws vs. Rhode Island State in the NIT Championship game in 1946.

Frank Ramsey played at a time when freshmen were ineligible to play on the varsity, but he was a key member of the 1951 National Championship team as a sophomore.

PS, just a suggestion, you might actually look up information which is readily available and easy to find rather than asking simple questions, as that tends to undercut whatever point you're trying to make.

Most people think they know every thing why use facts.

 

[TeoJ]

I didn't have time to look those stats up when I posted. either way, my point is valid, John Wall as a freshman did things that those guys couldn't do as seniors.

They also did things as freshman wall never did.

 

[TeoJ]

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.

You never saw Pete play if you don't think he had a WOW factor.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

wall has become a true point guard--really the only nfl wr 21st century freak athlete to do so--but in college his #s did benefit somewhat from the times cousins and orton were playing volleyball with opponents' shots and bledsoe was out sprinting on the break

in the half-court, he wasn't great with changing speeds or the intermediate floater type game. he is now though

 

[3rex]

Hmmm...uk90..wonder how the brother got in the pic?

 

[3rex]

Hmmmm

 

[3rex]

Dang uk90...you think they knew they weren't supposed to be playing?

 

[JohnnyGentle]

paul westphal was a better pro than maravich imo

 

[3rex]

paul westphal was a better pro than maravich imo

 

[UK90]

Tell me, 3Rex, how many of those pics were against SEC competition? I'll answer for you. NONE. Zero. Zilch. The fact that he might've faced an occasional African American opponent in a few non-con games doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of his games were played against slow-footed entirely white competition.

I think our own UK playing and NBA coaching legend, Pat Riley, aptly described Pete's game when he gave Sports Illustrated this quote at the peak of Pete's playing career:

"Maravich is the most overrated superstar who ever came down the pike. Every guard in the league wants to send a limo to pick Pete up at the airport and play against his soft defense. I not only don't think Pete could play any other way, I don't think he wants to."

Hmm, do you think Pat Riley knows much about basketball? Just imagine, if that's how awful Maravich's D was viewed even back then during the porous D 70s era, imagine how awful it'd look today.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

yeah westphal shot 50% for his career, on good teams, and went by people and dunked, but you don't remember him as well as the hero of basketball simpletons so post a f--king meme

 

[3rex]

yeah westphal shot 50% for his career, on good teams, and went by people and dunked, but you don't remember him as well as the hero of basketball simpletons so post a f--king meme

 

[JohnnyGentle]

another substantive response

i looked at the numbers. westphal was better

 

[kyjeff1]

They also did things as freshman wall never did.

Like???

 

[kyjeff1]

You never saw Pete play if you don't think he had a WOW factor.

So what, he had a "wow factor". What does that have to do with this? Look at his turnover stats and the fact he couldn't guard a trash can.

 

[kyjeff1]

Dang uk90...you think they knew they weren't supposed to be playing?

He said the SEC didn't allow black players, congrats on finding pictures where he actually played against a couple of black players. I can't make out what teams those were but they don't look like uniforms from an SEC team.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

the one white home uniform with the jersey number inside the dark-colored circle is pretty ill though

i think the celtics traded westphal for charlie scott--another player who was just about maravich's equal as a pro, though not nearly as acclaimed

lousy coach but westphal was a really good player

 

[3rex]

another substantive response

i looked at the numbers. westphal was better

Hmmm...I seem to remember Maravich being a part of the NBAs 50 greatest. Can't remember Westphal being up there...

then again you probably know more than those who actually saw him play.

 

[UK90]

yeah westphal shot 50% for his career, on good teams, and went by people and dunked, but you don't remember him as well as the hero of basketball simpletons so post a f--king meme

Plus Westphal actually played good defense and helped his teams win. Neither of which can be said about Maravich.

There was nothing unreasonable about your opinion. Westphal was a helluva player and perennial all star, a very solid argument can be made that he was better than Maravich. Certainly not as flashy as Pete, but a sounder all around player, and in terms of the things that help your team win, I tend to agree with you.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

maravich being included in the top 50 is pretty much exhibit a in the case for him being vastly overrated

 

[JohnnyGentle]

i don't think adrian dantley, bernard king, or dominique wilkins made that top 50 list, and they were all more prolific scorers than maravich on the pro level, though nearly as one-dimensional

and that's not even getting into guys like marques johnson who are damn near completely forgotten

 

[3rex]

maravich being included in the top 50 is pretty much exhibit a in the case for him being vastly overrated

as i said...you undoubtedly know more than the NBA players & personnel who saw him play...

 

[JohnnyGentle]

well jordan is the best player ever and he took cody zeller with the third pick, and noel still on the board, iirc

mo cheeks shot 54% for his career and had more steals than turnovers. he's not even in the HOF. i'd take him over maravich in a heartbeat if i was trying to win a basketball game, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong

 

[3rex]

Boy if I had a dollar for all the "why isn't Paul Westphal in the NBA 50 greatest" conspiracy theories I've heard in my lifetime...

 

[1991greywildcat]

Anthony Davis would destroy most of the bigs from the past..jmo, John wall is probably the best pure point I have seen at UK besides rondo and Turner, some of the things he can do with the ball is just flat out amazing..