Who's your 5 best UK shooters over the years, by positions?
- Thread starter TopCatCal
- Start date
There is no way that Jodie Meeks was a better shooter than Louie Dampier. No debate on this is necessary. Likewise, Kyle Wiltjer at PF, really?
And as a center or power forward, both Melvin Turpin and Sam Bowie should be considered.
And as a point guard, Travis Ford should also considered.
Small forward is probably Grevey, but Tom Parker deserves a mention, as does Jack Givens.
And as a center or power forward, both Melvin Turpin and Sam Bowie should be considered.
And as a point guard, Travis Ford should also considered.
Small forward is probably Grevey, but Tom Parker deserves a mention, as does Jack Givens.
I agree with you. The only position that I had to think about was Grevey. Pat Riley was a great shooter, too.
I was at an an event in Louisville connected to the Colonels and watched Dampier and Purdue's Rick Mount duel it out. Not even close, Dampier spanked him. And I had the pleasure of watching him in Memorial when I was a freshman. Lights out. The kids nowdays are more athletic and more showmanship an all that for sure, but when I was at UK Rupp would not let the players dunk in games, just in warmups. That had something to do with it.
Best shooters by position. All of these are pretty obvious IMO.
Point guard Brandon Knight
Wing guard Louie Dampier
Wing forward Kevin Grevey
Power forward Jamal Mashburn
Center Dan Issel
Actually, doing a bit of research, everyone is off the mark. Just dig a bit on career stats and you'll see what I mean.
Just as a teaser, the second best shooter in KY history will take the floor next season.
Marcus Lee.
Seriously, I found the stats quite surprising. I recommend taking a look.
Just as a teaser, the second best shooter in KY history will take the floor next season.
Marcus Lee.
Seriously, I found the stats quite surprising. I recommend taking a look.
I don't think it is too outlandish to put Wiltjer as the best shooting PF, granted he was only here 2 years. He shot the 3 ball at a 40% clip in those two years, and shot it around 46% this year at Gonzaga. Percentage wise, he will probably go down as the best 3 point shooting PF when he leaves college.
I have watched every UK team back into the 50's. Hands down the best shooter of all time at UK was Louie Dampier. If there would have been a 3 point there is absolutely no way to guess what he would have averaged.
Tom Parker would give Grevey a run for his money but Grevey is the more recognizable. Both were outstanding. Larry Steele could fill it up as well.
PG Macy - Delk
SG Dampier - Chapman
C Turpin - Estill
PF K. Walker - Nazr Mohammed
SF Issell - Hurt
Hard to leave off Grevey, Givens, McKinnley, Master, Robey.
SG Dampier - Chapman
C Turpin - Estill
PF K. Walker - Nazr Mohammed
SF Issell - Hurt
Hard to leave off Grevey, Givens, McKinnley, Master, Robey.
PG Macey - Due to his impact after transfer in.
SG Dampier - No contest
C Issel - In todays game he would probably be a PF
PF K. Walker - debatable
SF Givens - also debatable.
SG Dampier - No contest
C Issel - In todays game he would probably be a PF
PF K. Walker - debatable
SF Givens - also debatable.
Surprised not more votes for Tony Delk. That guy was absolutely lethal when I watched UK growing up. Travis Ford and Jeff Sheppard were pretty automatic as well.
Wiltjer?? Terrible choice.
I'd give that spot to Walter McCarty, who was the best long range shooting big we've had at Kentucky. He had better shooting percentages both from three point range and from the field than Wiltjer, plus McCarty actually hit his shots when we needed him most against the big opponents (McCarty shot an amazing 47 percent from threes during the 96 title season, compare that to Wiltjer's woeful 36 percent during the one and only season in which he played significant minutes).. And, even if you don't give that spot to McCarty, there are still far better choices than Wiltjer (umm ...Jamal Mashburn maybe?).
Always baffled me how many folks here overrated Wiltjer, and appears some still do. Truth is he was not even that good of a shooter for us, in fact often couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in the games where we most needed him (check out his percentages the second half of his soph year after Noel got hurt--they're ghastly awful), and he could not do anything else besides shoot.
Last edited:
I should have wrote. Who's your five best UK shooters over the years, by position that you saw play while at UK? I started watching UK in 1969, which is after Dampier was already gone from UK. And for those like Alumni Gym & TruBlueCatFan that says that Dampier was a better shooter than Meeks. What do you base your opinion on? Because the facts just don't back you up. It's not my intent to put Dampier down. He's going into the Hall of Fame & deserves it. But check the numbers.
Meeks
UK Ft% .890
NBA/ABA Ft% .881
NBA/ABA 3-Pt% .373
Dampier
UK Ft% .834
NBA/ABA Ft% .820
NBA/ABA 3-Pt% .358
Meeks
UK Ft% .890
NBA/ABA Ft% .881
NBA/ABA 3-Pt% .373
Dampier
UK Ft% .834
NBA/ABA Ft% .820
NBA/ABA 3-Pt% .358
Walker was NOT a shooter. That's the only reason he couldn't make it in the NBA. He shot a decent percentage from 8 feet and in.
Walker shot 57% - [which is better than decent], the question didn't ask where from or how long.
Tayshaun didn't shoot three at consistent clip.
28.7%
30.7%
35.8%
32.9%
Streaky shooter. I think Meek was streaky as well.
We live in the Golden Age of shooting. As good as Dampier was he wasn't in the same class as Steph Curry.And the great shooters of this era from UK are more kin to Curry than to Dampier. Meeks's great season was unequalled in UK's history. Percentages don't always tell the tale. When Meeks was tearing it up he was basically it. Defenses were geared to stop him and just didn't. So Jodie Meeks should be given his due.
/geezer here who idolized Dampier
/geezer here who idolized Dampier
Kenny was a very good college shooter. A shot from his range has to go through tons of flak so you can't go by numbers. He was just over-matched physically in the pros. (The best shooter like Walker in the pros that I remember was our old nemesis Bernard King. No real range, but didn't need it.)
I wish some of the younger fans could have seen some of the players that you named here. Tom Parker was one heck of a shooter.
Here is JP Scott's straight up FG% list. Got me wondering why Michael Bradley transferred after his Sophomore season, I can't remember was it because Pitino left? Issel is only choice at Center leading scorer in UK history, he may not have been the purest jump shooting Center, but Centers weren't aloud to shoot until Nowitski.
http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/statistics/careerfieldgoalpercent.html
http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/statistics/careerfieldgoalpercent.html
LOL! This goes to show why understanding a question is necessary to answer it well. Hitting a high percentage of dunks and putbacks will give you a great shooting percentage as 1 misleading stat, if all the shots you take are dunks and putbacks. That doesn't make a player a great shooter, which was the OP's question. There is a good reason why nobody who watches our basketball games lists Lee as a great shooter. Misleading stats aside, if you are seriously suggesting Lee is a better shooter than Mashburn or Patterson, then you haven't seen Lee play. So I assume your post was meant in sarcasm.
If you hit enough dunks and putbacks it certainly does mean you are a good shooter. It depends largely on what position you play.
I agree, understanding the question is necessary to get it right, thats why the question cannot be answered without using exceptions.
Wilt Chamberlain led NBA in shooting % for 9 seasons, but was regarded a poor shooter. Wilt, of course was not a UK player only using him as example.
Sorry but I don't consider shooters as someone who dunks or lays it in around the basket. If that were true Shaq would have been one of the greatest shooters of all time. He's not. Just my interpretation of shooters.
Actually, no sarcasm intended. I'm basically a data freak. I find it curious how data lays down with perception and circumstance. What that piece of data tells us is that, in fact, Lee is good at the type of shot that he takes. If you've actually seen him play, then you will know that he predominately picks up second chance points, loose balls and putbacks. Data doesn't lie, he is, in fact, quite good at that, great actually. What we don't know, simply because he doesn't take many of those types of shots, is how good he would be from 10' - 15' or shots off the dribble, etc. In essence the data doesn't speak to that. You assume he would be bad without supporting data. I would state simply that it is an unknown.
It is also a fact that the question wasn't specific as to the type of shot the player was taking. You were assuming that the player at each position was the type of player that you wanted at that position. If one were to structure a team such that the 5 spot mainly played defense and was tasked with second chance and put back offense, Lee might not be a bad choice. Would I structure a team like that? Probably not. Frankly, looking at those numbers as numbers alone, I'd say Anthony Davis would also be a good choice as he was up near the top in shooting and we all know how good he is at the other aspects of the game. Big surprise, huh?
Contextually, Issel was down the list a good bit. However, his numbers are astounding when you consider that he bore a great deal of the scoring load for his teams. Defenses were free to key on him but he still managed to score prolifically. Issel was great at getting the ball to go down under duress. I'm not sure I'd choose him as a teammate in horse, however. Rupp and other coaches grasped this concept very well. Letting these high scorers do their thing while "stopping the other four". What I wonder of those coaches is did they base that decision on data or was it intuitive.
My point, if you cared to read my post fully, was that the numbers on shooting percentage are interesting. And they are that, and even in some cases, counter intuitive. They don't tell us who the best player was at a given position. They do tell us what players shoot well for the types of shots they take. I stand by my statement that the second best shooting player for what he does in Kentucky history will take the court this fall. If you can count, you can see that is true. What I didn't say is that he would be the one I'd pick. In fact, I didn't even pick a team. I was just suggesting that folks might enjoy looking at the data. Apparently you don't enjoy it or perhaps you may not understand it.
That would be true if your only criterion for defining a good shooter is this single stat, shooting %. But I doubt many fans define it that way. I don't. For example, Lee shot 32% last year from the free throw line. Most fans know good shooters don't shoot 32% from the free throw line. Shooting is a scoring skill. Fans of basketball know that good shooters score all over the floor. Not just when their elbows hit the rim. This helps to explain why nobody on this thread considers Lee a good shooter. Lee has a couple of elite level skills, such as offensive rebounding. But shooting is not among them.
You incorrectly assume that I don't understand your point because I didn't fully read your post. But I read your post carefully, with interest, and Lee is still a poor shooter. Data don't lie, but data can be cited out of context. BTW, the word data is pleural. If you use data to support a conclusion, data should be used appropriately in the context of your point. The error in your logic is your assumption that shooting % necessarily defines a player's shooting skills. When every shot taken by the player is a dunk or an offensive rebound, this logic does not hold. So let me give you another piece of data. Nearly all basketball fans understand that a player who shoots 32% from the free throw stripe is not a good shooter. We can go around about this all day, but Calipari does not create shots for Lee in his offense, except for lob passes, for 1 reason and only 1 reason. I think Calipari understands what a good shooter is.
So what does a 15' shot have to do with put backs, lobs and dunks?
Data can be either plural or singular depending on context.
You have no data to show either way what Lee's percentage would be from shots he doesn't take.
And no you didn't fully read the post as you falsely assumed that I was proposing Lee for an 'all Kentucky shooters' team. I stand by my statement that for the shots he takes, he is a great shot. You are jumping to the conclusion that I meant he would be good a given position.
You really should drop this. Its an argument you won't win because I'm merely using the numbers for what they represent. The percentages reflect the shots the shooter took. End of story. I've not used them in any other context. You will not be able to prove otherwise. I simply invite others to enjoy the data. In fact, did you notice that Shag's numbers were way up there. He hit a lot of shots he took as well.
