Could They Play In Today's Era

[LAZERUSS]

Healthy and in their primes...

Bill Walton
Tiny Archibald
Bob McAdoo
Moses Malone
Tom Chambers
Pete Maravich
Walt Frazier
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
David Thompson
Jerry Lucas
Nate Thurmond
Rick Barry
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens

And if so, how would they do?

[SugarHill]

Bill Walton - Luke Walton tier
Tiny Archibald - backup PG
Bob McAdoo - decent role player
Pete Maravich - end of the bench
Moses Malone - MVP
Tom Chambers - decent starter
Pete Maravich - end of the bench, sitting next to himself
Walt Frazier - decent starter
Bob Lanier - energy big without the energy
Artis Gilmore - DJ Mbenga status
George Gervin - undrafted
David Thompson - undrafted
Jerry Lucas - decent starter
Nate Thurmond - DJ Mbenga status
Rick Barry - role player
John Havlicek - role player
Dave Cowens - poor man's Love with zero range

[deja vu]

Yes. Most of them would be bench players though.

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Walton - Luke Walton tier
Tiny Archibald - backup PG
Bob McAdoo - decent role player
Pete Maravich - end of the bench
Moses Malone - MVP
Tom Chambers - decent starter
Pete Maravich - end of the bench, sitting next to himself
Walt Frazier - decent starter
Bob Lanier - energy big without the energy
Artis Gilmore - DJ Mbenga status
George Gervin - undrafted
David Thompson - undrafted
Jerry Lucas - decent starter
Nate Thurmond - DJ Mbenga status
Rick Barry - role player
John Havlicek - role player
Dave Cowens - poor man's Love with zero range

Looks like a lot of thought went into this...

[Akrazotile]

The white guys couldnt

[SugarHill]

Looks like a lot of thought went into this...
continued

thanks

[PsychoBe]

dying at "undrafted" :roll: :roll: :roll:

but in all seriousness it depends on a lot of factors. how would their game translate? would their coaches even give them decent enough playing time? etc, etc.

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Walton - Luke Walton tier
Tiny Archibald - backup PG
Bob McAdoo - decent role player
Pete Maravich - end of the bench
Moses Malone - MVP
Tom Chambers - decent starter
Pete Maravich - end of the bench, sitting next to himself
Walt Frazier - decent starter
Bob Lanier - energy big without the energy
Artis Gilmore - DJ Mbenga status
George Gervin - undrafted
David Thompson - undrafted
Jerry Lucas - decent starter
Nate Thurmond - DJ Mbenga status
Rick Barry - role player
John Havlicek - role player
Dave Cowens - poor man's Love with zero range

Let me give you a quick example of Gilmore...

In his 84-85 and 85-86 seasons, he faced Hakeem in 10 TEN STRAIGHT games, and averaged 23.7 ppg on...get this... a .677 FG%. He easily outscored and dramatically outshot Olajuwon in the process.

BTW, Robert Parish faced both Gilmore and Shaq in his long career, and guess which one he claimed was stronger?

[LAZERUSS]

The white guys couldnt

I agree...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDyBSTQDwH8

[SugarHill]

Let me give you a quick example of Gilmore...

In his 84-85 and 85-86 seasons, he faced Hakeem in 10 TEN STRAIGHT games, and averaged 23.7 ppg on...get this... a .677 FG%. He easily outscored and dramatically outshot Olajuwon in the process.

BTW, Robert Parish faced both Gilmore and Shaq in his long career, and guess which one he claimed was stronger?

That wasn't serious and your agenda against Hakeem is tiresome

[juju151111]

Bill Walton - Great player. I see him has a rich man prime Bogut. Which is great. His defense would keep him in the league along with his IQ
Tiny Archibald- okay decent PG
Bob McAdoo- Definitely
Moses Malone- MVP
Tom Chambers- Same has the 90s
Pete Maravich- not sure I see him struggling for some reason
Walt Frazier- yes
Bob Lanier-maybe
Artis Gilmore- Definitely
George Gervin- yes, but I don't think has dominate
David Thompson- Same has Garvin
Jerry Lucas
Nate Thurmond-yes
Rick Barry-maybe
John Havlicek-yes, but not has dominate.
Dave Cowens- yes

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Walton - Great player. I see him has a rich man prime Bogut. Which is great. His defense would keep him in the league along with his IQ
Tiny Archibald- okay decent PG
Bob McAdoo- Definitely
Moses Malone- MVP
Tom Chambers- Same has the 90s
Pete Maravich- not sure I see him struggling for some reason
Walt Frazier- yes
Bob Lanier-maybe
Artis Gilmore- Definitely
George Gervin- yes, but I don't think has dominate
David Thompson- Same has Garvin
Jerry Lucas
Nate Thurmond-yes
Rick Barry-maybe
John Havlicek-yes, but not has dominate.
Dave Cowens- yes

I don't agree with all of this but...

:applause: :applause: :applause:


BTW, who would take...Ricky Rubio or Pistol Pete?

[PsychoBe]

how old are you laz

[LAZERUSS]

how old are you laz

Old enough to have seen them all play...

[PsychoBe]

Old enough to have seen them all play...

pm me a pic

[LAZERUSS]

pm me a pic

No need...most people confuse me with George Clooney.

[deja vu]

No need...most people confuse me with George Clooney.
Pics or GTFO.

[LAZERUSS]

Dave Cowens in a game seven against Kareem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_cyvav5tvk

Oh, and take a look at a past-his-prime Havlicek, as well.

[LAZERUSS]

http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/news/140512/george-clooney-600.jpg

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Bill Walton - HS coach
Tiny Archibald - China league
Bob McAdoo - Worldstar advisor
Moses Malone - Black Vucevic
Tom Chambers - AND1
Pete Maravich - One Direction
Walt Frazier - Nikka at a subway tryna get some change while playin jazz
Bob Lanier - Strength and conditioning coach
Artis Gilmore - One of the old nikkas smoking that ganja behind the convenience store
George Gervin - See above
David Thompson - Mcdonalds
Jerry Lucas - DLeague Allstar
Nate Thurmond - Strength and conditioning coach
Rick Barry - HS teacher
John Havlicek - Porn star
Dave Cowens - Pizza Hut

[SugarHill]

Bill Walton - HS coach
Tiny Archibald - China league
Bob McAdoo - Worldstar advisor
Moses Malone - Black Vucevic
Tom Chambers - AND1
Pete Maravich - One Direction
Walt Frazier - Backup PG
Bob Lanier - Strength and conditioning coach
Artis Gilmore - One of the old nikkas smoking that ganja behind the convenience store
George Gervin - See above
David Thompson - Mcdonalds
Jerry Lucas - DLeague Allstar
Nate Thurmond - Strength and conditioning coach
Rick Barry - HS teacher
John Havlicek - Porn star
Dave Cowens - Pizza Hut
:oldlol:

[PsychoBe]

Dave Cowens in a game seven against Kareem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_cyvav5tvk

Oh, and take a look at a past-his-prime Havlicek, as well.

great shooters back then but that was because you had to be during that time.

but that kareem isn't yoda kareem which is the best version of himself.

[iamgine]

They'd do okay. Some more so than others.

[LAZERUSS]

Thurmond vs Kareem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ4B5O6TAiI

BTW, Kareem shot a career .447 from the field against a full-time Nate.

Oh, and a PEAK Kareem, in his 71-72 season battled Thurmond in five H2H playoff games...

Nate averaged 25.0 ppg on a .437 FG%, while a peak Kareem... 22.8 ppg on a ...get this... .405 FG%.

[PsychoBe]

Thurmond vs Kareem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ4B5O6TAiI

BTW, Kareem shot a career .447 from the field against a full-time Nate.

Oh, and a PEAK Kareem, in his 71-72 season battled Thurmond in five H2H playoff games...

Nate averaged 25.0 ppg on a .437 FG%, while a peak Kareem... 22.8 ppg on a ...get this... .405 FG%.

he scouted him himself :applause:

that's what's lost in this generation. the drive and work ethic to go out of your way to want to dominate your opponent. nobody is cut from that same cloth anymore.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

real nikka talkin doe

Bill Walton-MVP caliber, rich mans Marc Gasol (much better rebounding and shotblockinig), easy DPOY
Tiny Archibald-lower top 10 PG
Bob McAdoo- Melo level
Moses Malone - post/physical version of Love w/o the passing
Tom Chambers - little worse than Griffin
Pete Maravich - Rubio w/ much more chucking and much worse defense
Walt Frazier - top 5 PG only CP and Steph are clearly better
Bob Lanier - Better Bosh
Artis Gilmore - Prolly the best center
George Gervin - best SG prolly, still a sht defender doe
David Thompson - no ones like him stylistically, prolly top 5 SG (better than Hardon for sure)
Jerry Lucas - David Lee
Nate Thurmond - best man defender, running for DPOY, sht offense........top 5 center still
Rick Barry - homeless mans Bird, top 3 SF
John Havlicek - more durable, conditioned and defensive minded Gallinari
Dave Cowens - no one like him stylistically........top 5 center, most intense player since KG, DPOY candidate will put up scoring numbers but is a sucky offensive player
[/QUOTE]

[Asukal]

And Wilt won only 2 rings his whole career end of story. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

Forgot Larry Lance...

this from 30 years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM08OJwRDgg

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/news/140512/george-clooney-600.jpg
u know this nikka old when he bring up clooney as being the good looking male:lol :lol

[deja vu]

And Wilt won only 2 rings his whole career end of story. :oldlol: :lol :roll:
20,000 women slayed doe!

[LAZERUSS]

real nikka talkin doe

Bill Walton-MVP caliber, rich mans Marc Gasol (much better rebounding and shotblockinig), easy DPOY
Tiny Archibald-lower top 10 PG
Bob McAdoo- Melo level
Moses Malone - post/physical version of Love w/o the passing
Tom Chambers - little worse than Griffin
Pete Maravich - Rubio w/ much more chucking and much worse defense
Walt Frazier - top 5 PG only CP and Steph are clearly better
Bob Lanier - Better Bosh
Artis Gilmore - Prolly the best center
George Gervin - best SG prolly, still a sht defender doe
David Thompson - no ones like him stylistically, prolly top 5 SG (better than Hardon for sure)
Jerry Lucas - David Lee
Nate Thurmond - best man defender, running for DPOY, sht offense........top 5 center still
Rick Barry - homeless mans Bird, top 3 SF
John Havlicek - more durable, conditioned and defensive minded Gallinari
Dave Cowens - no one like him stylistically........top 5 center, most intense player since KG, DPOY candidate will put up scoring numbers but is a sucky offensive player
[/QUOTE]

Did someone hack your account?

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Now...for those that gave honest and well-researched answers...

Take those prime players (and again, healthy), and what kind of numbers would they put up in today's game?

[3ball]

.
i posted a thread recently about Kiki Vandeweghe (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360034), with GIF's showing how he routinely posterized guys, was a tremendous shooter, and could make a very wide range of types of shots - the thread claimed he would be the best scoring white player in today's game, which is true - but he'd actually be one of the top scorers in the league period.

tom chambers is another one - he was an athletic beast that would benefit from the open shots and play-finishing that are the basis of today's offenses.. infact, most bigs back then would perform better today because bigs like say, duncan, don't have to create offense like they used to or have the offense run through them - duncan only has to finish plays in today's game, which is why he can still be effective... it also doesn't hurt that today's game is non-physical and has maximum spacing, where cutting and passing has been made easier by new rules.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/3f9a6c3b989acada841ee25705003e36.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/cc2bcbd6e8d265d60164a0dbccadc3ca.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/bae479fe36f734ea72309345ab0c8501.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/ea46e715f16154029a4a7c2687c3fd9b.gif


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/129b55960cdb0695511f88fedb32f42f.gif

[LAZERUSS]

A little footage of Artis...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXCHDcSHBS4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS1GJ5wxyTc

[LAZERUSS]

How about a little footage of Connie Hawkins...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlxsi80tTWs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUThAmz2Yak

[LAZERUSS]

The 6-4 Ricky Rubio, or the 6-5 this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UTust5oFW4

[andremiller07]

Prime Chuck Hayes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCMo5ZJ2p3U

Prime Reggie Evans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVCSBRznUbo

Prime Tyler Zeller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcF5XWFrDw

[StephHamann]

Prime Tyler Zeller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcF5XWFrDw

the music is so fitting :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Probably the most dominant college performance of all-time...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAnC4cBXAuY

and not a bad Finals' clinching game either...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmxRIEyBiXo

[andremiller07]

Zaza Pachulia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6z6V1It0js

[senelcoolidge]

The current NBA rules would make it easier for the SF's on the list like Barry, Gervin, and English. I think Barry would have a field day. High I.Q. player, outstanding scorer.
The rules would hurt the big men like Lanier possibly.

[LAZERUSS]

The current NBA rules would make it easier for the SF's on the list like Barry, Gervin, and English. I think Barry would have a field day. High I.Q. player, outstanding scorer.
The rules would hurt the big men like Lanier possibly.

Lanier would be interesting. He was a full 6-11, and in his prime he was about 270...or roughly the size of Demarcus Cousins.

Here is some footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvc7Vkp9iXE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOPvT4uJPaM


He was capable of hitting 15+ ft. shots, and had a solid hook shot, as well. BTW he was a very under-rated defender.

[LAZERUSS]

James Donaldson...the "Roy Hibbert" of his era...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/donalja01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hibbero01.html

[LAZERUSS]

Darryl Dawkins...

The "DeAndre Jordan" of the 70's and 80's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sYJ2ItXiRo

[LAZERUSS]

Moses won six rpg titles in seven seasons. The one he didn't, was won by this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEvYbFF67os

Nater averaged 15.0 rpg, in 35 mpg, in a league that averaged 44.9 rpg, and with a TRB% of 23.0.


Incidently, he was Bill Walton's BACKUP for two season at UCLA.

[Psileas]

How about a little footage of Connie Hawkins...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlxsi80tTWs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUThAmz2Yak

I love the play at 0:33 of the first video. Hawkins palms the ball with his right hand, then quickly starts driving to the left, by immediately bringing the ball, behind his back, to his left hand.

Οn OP: All of them, but a couple, MVP candidates in their primes, in a good team. Just think about it, one of the (if not the #1) very leading MVP candidates right now is a player who could realistically still be playing in college. :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

I love the play at 0:33 of the first video. Hawkins palms the ball with his right hand, then quickly starts driving to the left, by immediately bringing the ball, behind his back, to his left hand.

Οn OP: All of them, but a couple, MVP candidates in their primes, in a good team. Just think about it, one of the (if not the #1) very leading MVP candidates right now is a player who could realistically still be playing in college. :oldlol:

Too bad we don't have more footage of "the Hawk." I actually saw him play live in a game in the early 70's, and he threw down a monstrous (and effortless) "windmill" dunk over the 6-10 Clyde Lee.

As you can see in that footage, the ball looked like a grapefruit in his hands. And I swear, when he "unraveled" his arms and hands, that they dropped below his knees.

[LAZERUSS]

I love the play at 0:33 of the first video. Hawkins palms the ball with his right hand, then quickly starts driving to the left, by immediately bringing the ball, behind his back, to his left hand.

Οn OP: All of them, but a couple, MVP candidates in their primes, in a good team. Just think about it, one of the (if not the #1) very leading MVP candidates right now is a player who could realistically still be playing in college. :oldlol:

If nothing else, take a look at the atom-splitting sample size footage that is available for most of those guys...and tell me that they look like short, unathletic, nerdy, white guys, who couldn't dribble, run, jump, or shoot...and would have no chance at being good in TODAY's NBA?


I have posed the question already...what kind of numbers would those players, in their healthy primes, be putting up in today's NBA?

Could McAdoo hang 30+ ppg today? If not, why? I don't see anything different from a Durant (albeit, slightly more range due to the 3pt line.)

And Maravich, or Rubio? It's not even close in my book.

If Roy Hibbert, DeAndre Jordan, Andre Drummond, Joaquin Noah, and Demarcus Cousins are among the best centers in today's NBA...how would Gilmore, Lanier, Thurmond, Walton, and Moses do?

What's more...IF those guys would put up similar numbers today, as they did in their eras, what does that say about the level of their competition back then?

[Charlie Sheen]

Pistol is the most interesting one for me. Talk to anyone from that generation and they say almost the EXACT same things younger dudes have to say about ai. Both the good and the bad. Guy was doing things with the basketball no one had even seen...or hell even thought of at the time.

[Lebronxrings]

i don't think any of them make the nba. Remember, the league is filled with 5'7 white boys. who worked part time at ur local convenience store.

[LAZERUSS]

i don't think any of them make the nba. Remember, the league is filled with 5'7 white boys. who worked part time at ur local convenience store.

I agree, the CURRENT NBA is filled with those guys.

[LAZERUSS]

i don't think any of them make the nba. Remember, the league is filled with 5'7 white boys. who worked part time at ur local convenience store.

I remember going to 7-Eleven the night after he hung 40 points on Hakeem, and purchasing a slurpee from a 39 year old Kareem. And Magic smiled at me while he was sweeping the back-room. I felt bad for Worthy, though...the manager turned down his employment application. However, he did manage to get on at the local car-wash a few days later.

Meanwhile, Kurt Rambis had a thriving accounting business. I guess those glasses really worked for him...I understand he couldn't pass his 12th grade math class.

[Pointguard]

I saw a lot of these guys on film but saw a lot of them. I saw Chambers real time.

Healthy and in their primes...

Bill Walton Wouldn't have anybody of size bothering him and fouls are way more lenient now. Would have more space and better passing opportunities. Made up his mind quickly so wouldn't have much adjustment issues outside of smaller players that don't like to bang. 24ppg 13reb 6 assist.

Bob McAdoo - The original stretch four. Had superb handles - more like Durant than any other player in history of the sport (save Gervin). Had a 34.5ppg season - Was a real rebounder as well - 15 per one year. Today, game would be unaffected as his range and handle would provide the space needed. Today would be in the 29-31ppg range in his prime with 12 rebs per game.

Moses Malone - I come I bang I go crazy. His aggression would stand out but might get fouls called on him. 24-14 foul trouble.

Tom Chambers - unheralded but underachieved most of his career. Did get to 27 ppg on a team similar to Nash's Pheonix. Would still get up 24ppg on a simalar team today.

Pete Maravich - The main one who might take a big hit. Today you need fundamentals and coaches today rarely let players freestyle like him.

Walt Frazier- Like to post up. Was super fundamental and had a winning way about himself. Was very cool and great in the clutch.

Artis Gilmore - Can't figure out why players like this went extinct? A big hard worker that used his height??? Was a smart player that could adapt and was highly efficient. Game should be the same because he got the max from his height, strength and smarts.

George Gervin - One of the few guys in the history of the sport that just had a natural scorers way - like it was programmed in his head: just knew which way to spin, pull up, decieve defenders, spin hard off the backboard, reverse layups etc. Sometimes would go slow motion mode and nobody still could stop him. Had a very unique style.

These guys are like universal themes in books. Their ways are organic to the game. All have qualities that wouldn't lose flavor at any time in the history of the game.

[LAZERUSS]

I saw a lot of these guys on film but saw a lot of them. I saw Chambers real time.

Healthy and in their primes...

Bill Walton Wouldn't have anybody of size bothering him and fouls are way more lenient now. Would have more space and better passing opportunities. Made up his mind quickly so wouldn't have much adjustment issues outside of smaller players that don't like to bang. 24ppg 13reb 6 assist.

Bob McAdoo - The original stretch four. Had superb handles - more like Durant than any other player in history of the sport (save Gervin). Had a 34.5ppg season - Was a real rebounder as well - 15 per one year. Today, game would be unaffected as his range and handle would provide the space needed. Today would be in the 29-31ppg range in his prime with 12 rebs per game.

Moses Malone - I come I bang I go crazy. His aggression would stand out but might get fouls called on him. 24-14 foul trouble.

Tom Chambers - unheralded but underachieved most of his career. Did get to 27 ppg on a team similar to Nash's Pheonix. Would still get up 24ppg on a simalar team today.

Pete Maravich - The main one who might take a big hit. Today you need fundamentals and coaches today rarely let players freestyle like him.

Walt Frazier- Like to post up. Was super fundamental and had a winning way about himself. Was very cool and great in the clutch.

Artis Gilmore - Can't figure out why players like this went extinct? A big hard worker that used his height??? Was a smart player that could adapt and was highly efficient. Game should be the same because he got the max from his height, strength and smarts.

George Gervin - One of the few guys in the history of the sport that just had a natural scorers way - like it was programmed in his head: just knew which way to spin, pull up, decieve defenders, spin hard off the backboard, reverse layups etc. Sometimes would go slow motion mode and nobody still could stop him. Had a very unique style.

These guys are like universal themes in books. Their ways are organic to the game. All have qualities that wouldn't lose flavor at any time in the history of the game.

As always...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Could they play? Yea they could play, all of those players you've mentioned were great ballers, they would be great ballers regardless, so yea they could play... If they were scrubs in the league, they would still be scrubs in the league.

Why make a thread like this though? Why set yourself up like that? Threads like this only make the trolls and ignorant kids appear in full force... No need for it.

They would be... what they were, give or take a "few". And, like I've said, those players you've listed were great players, that's what they would be, same way they were, same level then "compared" to the state of the league, same style then "adjusted" to today's game.





Moses Malone - I come I bang I go crazy. His aggression would stand out but might get fouls called on him. 24-14 foul trouble.


If he'd be in foul trouble, what to say about the player guarding him?



Pete Maravich - The main one who might take a big hit. Today you need fundamentals and coaches today rarely let players freestyle like him.


Huh? If anything, it's the other way around... Back then all the hot-dogging and flashy basketball (Pete's style) were frowned upon by most coaches, players and hardcore fans. Nowadays it's much different. Pete would've been even more hyped up and famous in this era, plus his style is easily better suited for today's basketball.

Isiah Thomas said it best:
"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."

And while being too overflashy and playing more for the show, never able to find the right balance between scoring and passing, never truly grasping the team concept, chucking and ball-hogging lots of times... his basketball fundamentals were as good as it gets, plus he had a major feel for the game. Great case for most skilled player ever.

If you blended Kyrie Irving and Ricky Rubio... Pistol was something like that, standing at 6'5 barefooted.
Curry reminds me of Maravich plenty of times, when it comes to flashy passes, inside/finishing moves, or even shooting off the dribble.

[LAZERUSS]

Could they play? Yea they could play, all of those players you've mentioned were great ballers, they would be great ballers regardless, so yea they could play... If they were scrubs in the league, they would still be scrubs in the league.

Why make a thread like this though? Why set yourself up like that? Threads like this only make the trolls and ignorant kids appear in full force... No need for it.

They would be... what they were, give or take a "few". And, like I've said, those players you've listed were great players, that's what they would be, same way they were, same level then "compared" to the state of the league, same style then "adjusted" to today's game.





If he'd be in foul trouble, what to say about the player guarding him?



Huh? If anything, it's the other way around... Back then all the hot-dogging and flashy basketball (Pete's style) were frowned upon by most coaches, players and hardcore fans. Nowadays it's much different. Pete would've been even more hyped up and famous in this era, plus his style is easily better suited for today's basketball.

Isiah Thomas said it best:
"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."

And while being too overflashy and playing more for the show, never able to find the right balance between scoring and passing, never truly grasping the team concept, chucking and ball-hogging lots of times... his basketball fundamentals were as good as it gets, plus he had a major feel for the game. Great case for most skilled player ever.

If you blended Kyrie Irving and Ricky Rubio... Pistol was something like that, standing at 6'5 barefooted.
Curry reminds me of Maravich plenty of times, when it comes to flashy passes, inside/finishing moves, or even shooting off the dribble.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Just to add to my previous post... If they were playing right now, at their peak (important here), and without getting into much details, going just by position here (and without much thought):

Bill Walton - best C, easily

Tiny Archibald - top5 PG

Bob McAdoo - best PF most likely, as he also wouldn't have been "forced" to play at center - in his best days - in most situations

Moses Malone - best C, without a doubt

Tom Chambers - top5 PF, at least

Pete Maravich - best SG, but not by all that (if he kept his playing "ways")

Walt Frazier - great case for best PG

Bob Lanier - top3 center probably, dude was underrated even his playing days

Artis Gilmore - top3/5 center

George Gervin - best SG, clearly

David Thompson - great case for best SG

Jerry Lucas - top3/5 PF

Nate Thurmond - top5 center, at least

Rick Barry - top3 SF, at least

John Havlicek - top3 SF

Dave Cowens - great case for best center


Again, important to note that I'm going by peaks. Some were better rated in their playing days, others the other way around; like I've said...

They would be... what they were, give or take a "few". And, like I've said, those players you've listed were great players, that's what they would be, same way they were, same level then "compared" to the state of the league, same style then "adjusted" to today's game.

[LAZERUSS]

Just to add to my previous post... If they were playing right now, at their peak (important here), and without getting into much details, going just by position here (and without much thought):

Bill Walton - best C, easily

Tiny Archibald - top5 PG

Bob McAdoo - best PF most likely, as he also wouldn't have been "forced" to play at center - in his best days - in most situations

Moses Malone - best C, without a doubt

Tom Chambers - top5 PF, at least

Pete Maravich - best SG, but not by all that (if he kept his playing "ways")

Walt Frazier - great case for best PG

Bob Lanier - top3 center probably, dude was underrated even his playing days

Artis Gilmore - top3/5 center

George Gervin - best SG, clearly

David Thompson - great case for best SG

Jerry Lucas - top3/5 PF

Nate Thurmond - top5 center, at least

Rick Barry - top3 SF, at least

John Havlicek - top3 SF

Dave Cowens - great case for best center


Again, important to note that I'm going by peaks. Some were better rated in their playing days, others the other way around; like I've said...



:bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

I find it fascinating that there are those that honestly believe that the players of 30-40-50 years ago couldn't compete today, and yet we have the Zach Lavine's of this world who couldn't do anything in college, and yet are considered a sure-fire NBA star.

[La Frescobaldi]

I saw a lot of these guys on film but saw a lot of them. I saw Chambers real time.

Healthy and in their primes...

Bill Walton Wouldn't have anybody of size bothering him and fouls are way more lenient now. Would have more space and better passing opportunities. Made up his mind quickly so wouldn't have much adjustment issues outside of smaller players that don't like to bang. 24ppg 13reb 6 assist.

Bob McAdoo - The original stretch four. Had superb handles - more like Durant than any other player in history of the sport (save Gervin). Had a 34.5ppg season - Was a real rebounder as well - 15 per one year. Today, game would be unaffected as his range and handle would provide the space needed. Today would be in the 29-31ppg range in his prime with 12 rebs per game.

Moses Malone - I come I bang I go crazy. His aggression would stand out but might get fouls called on him. 24-14 foul trouble.

Tom Chambers - unheralded but underachieved most of his career. Did get to 27 ppg on a team similar to Nash's Pheonix. Would still get up 24ppg on a simalar team today.

Pete Maravich - The main one who might take a big hit. Today you need fundamentals and coaches today rarely let players freestyle like him.

Walt Frazier- Like to post up. Was super fundamental and had a winning way about himself. Was very cool and great in the clutch.

Artis Gilmore - Can't figure out why players like this went extinct? A big hard worker that used his height??? Was a smart player that could adapt and was highly efficient. Game should be the same because he got the max from his height, strength and smarts.

George Gervin - One of the few guys in the history of the sport that just had a natural scorers way - like it was programmed in his head: just knew which way to spin, pull up, decieve defenders, spin hard off the backboard, reverse layups etc. Sometimes would go slow motion mode and nobody still could stop him. Had a very unique style.

These guys are like universal themes in books. Their ways are organic to the game. All have qualities that wouldn't lose flavor at any time in the history of the game.

Yeah.
Only beef I got here is about Mighty Mo.

The dude broke Wilt Chamberlain's record for most consecutive games without fouling out. He was powerful oh yeah - but very sleek. I say no on the foul problem.

[Xiao Yao You]

Not much doubt with any of those guys is there? The league is watered down now with all the early entries.

[Nikola_]

big guys easily, perimeter play evolved too much

[Psileas]

Yeah.
Only beef I got here is about Mighty Mo.

The dude broke Wilt Chamberlain's record for most consecutive games without fouling out. He was powerful oh yeah - but very sleek. I say no on the foul problem.

Rumor has it, though, that he stopped playing defense after committing his 1st foul. :lol

[La Frescobaldi]

Not much doubt with any of those guys is there? The league is watered down now with all the early entries.

I don't think it's all that watered down. This is a list of some of the greatest players to ever lace 'em up.
I mean, comparing the current Lopez Bro's to Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore... Really? But during his days, Walton was at Duncan's level.... and would be now, too.

A better study would be the second tier of players from the '70s.

Guys like the Truck Robinsons or Elmore Smiths or the Bob Rules or maybe the lesser All-Stars like Jo Jo White or Norm Van Lier, see?

[Pointguard]

[B]If he'd be in foul trouble, what to say about the player guarding him?

You don't get in foul trouble a lot these days unless you are really aggressive. Just doesn't happen. Moses had a bull way about him which isn't something that goes on these days. Blake Griffin used to be very aggressive offensively. I think reffing kind of regulated him. Its a softer game now. But no, the guy guarding him won't be in trouble.



Huh? If anything, it's the other way around... Back then all the hot-dogging and flashy basketball (Pete's style) were frowned upon by most coaches, players and hardcore fans. Nowadays it's much different. Pete would've been even more hyped up and famous in this era, plus his style is easily better suited for today's basketball.

Isiah Thomas said it best:
"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."

And while being too overflashy and playing more for the show, never able to find the right balance between scoring and passing, never truly grasping the team concept, chucking and ball-hogging lots of times... his basketball fundamentals were as good as it gets, plus he had a major feel for the game. Great case for most skilled player ever.

If you blended Kyrie Irving and Ricky Rubio... Pistol was something like that, standing at 6'5 barefooted.
Curry reminds me of Maravich plenty of times, when it comes to flashy passes, inside/finishing moves, or even shooting off the dribble.
I would agree with a lot of that, but he's a tweener in todays game - the most unsuccessful group in today's game, and he wasn't fast, athletic, quick, strong or team oriented to boot. He would get totally destroyed by the elite shooting guards and nearly the entire group of point guards would be licking the lips at the sight of him. He couldn't run a team like Rubio on his best days. His career was very much like Kyrie's last year: Impressive for the individual but not much else. Nor was Pete clutch. Nor have I heard much of him taking over games much.

He didn't have a major feel for the game, he was very self absorbed and I never seen him organically tied into his teammates. He could shoot, but was streaky in the pros. And if his game was on, his team could forget about getting a good flow.

Contrast that with the game being more perimeter oriented now and quicker to the ball. I do believe the game has changed most for perimeter players before 80's. Even when Archibald lead the league in ppg and apg it never hyped his standing in the game because the league wasn't into smaller players. Isiah really changed the perception and value of the little man and it was largely because his ability to consistently and persistently drive and put pressure on the defense.

I disagree with the fundamentals part. When he started missing he wasn't much of a player. He shot well (quite a few were more efficient) and showed flashes of great foot movement here and there, but was a bit wild and inconsistent if there was a lot of pressure. I thought Gus Williams was a much better player despite a considerable distance in stats.

[Pointguard]

Yeah.
Only beef I got here is about Mighty Mo.

The dude broke Wilt Chamberlain's record for most consecutive games without fouling out. He was powerful oh yeah - but very sleek. I say no on the foul problem.
I have it as a criticism of the way the game is called today. Its just a softer league. Who is the banger in today's game? The last one, that comes to mind to me was Dwight Howard of a few years back. Who is the player that they allow to bull his way to the basket??? Not a knock on Moe at all. Embiid wanted to bang, but they discourage that in college ball. He was in foul trouble all the time and his play was a lot less banging and with more control than Moe's game. Embiid moves like Hakeem.

If they allow the banging - and they don't - he's 34 and 14 but I just don't see that in today's game. DMC is the NBA's project of reshaping a banger - hes the only guy in the league that stays in foul trouble.

[ProfessorMurder]

Bran can't even play today...

[SHAQisGOAT]

I would agree with a lot of that, but he's a tweener in todays game - the most unsuccessful group in today's game, and he wasn't fast, athletic, quick, strong or team oriented to boot. He would get totally destroyed by the elite shooting guards and nearly the entire group of point guards would be licking the lips at the sight of him. He couldn't run a team like Rubio on his best days. His career was very much like Kyrie's last year: Impressive for the individual but not much else. Nor was Pete clutch. Nor have I heard much of him taking over games much.

He didn't have a major feel for the game, he was very self absorbed and I never seen him organically tied into his teammates. He could shoot, but was streaky in the pros. And if his game was on, his team could forget about getting a good flow.

Contrast that with the game being more perimeter oriented now and quicker to the ball. I do believe the game has changed most for perimeter players before 80's. Even when Archibald lead the league in ppg and apg it never hyped his standing in the game because the league wasn't into smaller players. Isiah really changed the perception and value of the little man and it was largely because his ability to consistently and persistently drive and put pressure on the defense.

I disagree with the fundamentals part. When he started missing he wasn't much of a player. He shot well (quite a few were more efficient) and showed flashes of great foot movement here and there, but was a bit wild and inconsistent if there was a lot of pressure. I thought Gus Williams was a much better player despite a considerable distance in stats.

You're underrating his physical talents right there, big time... Pete stood over 6'5 barefooted and entered the league at almost 200 pounds; you look at players with similar skillsets throughout history, players like Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price, CP3, so on... and you won't find many who are even close to his size. Shit, in terms of height, not even Jordan or Kobe were as tall as Maravich, not even a Manu Ginobili, who today is listed at 6'6.

http://i60.tinypic.com/10h6cyc.png

^Pete next to Havlicek, who played forward and went up against the likes of Gus Johnson or Julius Erving, who's considered one of the greatest defensive players ever.
Maravich today could even be listed as high as 6'7, when you got guys below 6'5 listed at 6'6.

And no, he wasn't the athlete that a Kobe Bryant was or something along those lines... BUT, he was quick and a good leaper, had some really quick hands, great instincts and hand-eye coordination, he was strong and could absorve contact, great body control...

With ease, doing a fake behind-the-back pass, then jumping with a foot inside the ft line for the layup:
https://33.media.tumblr.com/75367952abe196ad88b9e5d9b9bf65e4/tumblr_n1l465gMBh1s3gys4o1_400.gif

Completely changing his jumpshot in mid-air and still making it:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/VOb1uC.gif

Steal, then the quick fake inside for the hoop, popularized by Hakeem or Rondo later on:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/vcl3Lg.gif

Chasedown block:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/iPjU2S.gif

Dunking off of two feet without a big jump start:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/ZcoI4d.gif

Absorving the contact and connecting on the layup:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/b1Wupa.gif

Changing his body in mid-air for the great layup:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/wkK6v1.gif

All types of fakes and a great pass in mid-air:
https://38.media.tumblr.com/2453f865b42c58bc0c4cb8d35553eb56/tumblr_nbppc2IYLp1s3gys4o2_400.gif

Dr. J, who was an athletic freak ripped and full of muscle, had this to say about Pete:

What nobody ever talks about with Pete Maravich is that he's a big guy. Not only is he tall, at over 6'5", but he is well-built, muscular, strong. At that stage of my career, I'm still wisp-skinny, so when we meet for the first time at Savannah College and we're sizing each other up, I have maybe an inch on him but Pete is actually broader than me.
(...)
But when you're playing with Pete, you realize that his game, which on TV looks like a flashier version of what I was familiar with from watching the Globetrotters, is actually much faster than anyone who is doing that kind of dribble, cross-over, snap-pass, no-look stuff. Pete has all of the Globetrotters moves, but he can do them at unimaginable speeds. He's one of the fastest players I've ever played with.
(...)
Playing one-on-one with Pete is an experience. He's got the kind of shooting range that I've never seen before. He can shoot it consistently out to 35 feet, but if I'm going to go out there and defend that, then he'll cross-me up on the dribble and get a lay-up or dunk. Pete has some great ups, and while he's not known for getting to the rim, he throws some nice dunks down in our games, his red hair flapping in the hot Georgia air. One of the things that makes Pete so great is his hang time, and no one talks about that. He can leave the floor and sort of stay up there long enough to make a good pass out of the play, or fake one way and then pass another.

Rubio is not as big as Pistol and not quite as athletic either, Nash is considerably smaller than Maravich and never as athletic.
Meanwhile you got your Kyle Korvers and JJ Redicks with starting SG spots for playoff teams, Goran Dragic putting up 20/6 on 51/41, Ginobili's one of the best SG's in this era still doing his thing, Kobe still balling at 36 yo after a torn achilles...

SG's in Pete's era include players such as David Thompson, George Gervin, Phil Smith, Randy Smith, World B Free, Don Chaney, Paul Westphal, Dennis Johnson, Jerry West, Walter Davis, so on... nough said. All (at least) good athletes, all (at least) good players.
"Skywalker" Thompson, for example, was doing stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6OsKy1c5A0

And Pete was a very hardworker, in his own way but hardworker nonetheless.
For example... For the 1979-80 season with the Celtics, he shed a lot of weight that he gained after the devastating knee injury; after the season ended he realized he couldn't "play" like he did before because of the injuries, he needed mass and major stamina while trying to change his style in some ways. So, he worked hard as hell in the off-season and showed up for training camp in great shape and at 210 lbs ripped/muscled. He then dropped 38 points in their first scrimmage, but then decided to retire after yet another quarrel with coach Fitch (shame because he never got that title).

Huh? Look, I'm first to criticize his playing ways and whatnot, but he was just a master when it came to basketball skills/fundamentals, plus creativeness. You're really underrating him there.
Dude had most offensive fundamentals down to a t, despite all the flashy basketball he was known for. I've seen him throw perfect bounce passes from half-court with the proper spin right on the target, he could make the most amazing dribble without carrying, he had a great textbook jumper, very quick release, his footwork was terrific... Red Auerbach was always praising him big time, and you know Red.
And yes, he had a great feel for the game, meaning he could use teammates to get himself open, knew how to cut, give-and-go, best ways to get his shot off, knew how to get his defender off balance, where to pass through, "passes" required (even the most flashy ones), what to do on the break, executed very quickly like the game was slowed down for him... Yes he was too overflashy for his own good and never grasped a team concept, so on... but he had a great feel for the game.

(continued...)

[SHAQisGOAT]

(...continuation)

He mastered his craft like crazy since he was a child. Even with the cristicism to his playing ways, every peer he had attested to that, even kids that saw him and later went on to become players...

"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

"I learned all my tricks from Pete Maravich."--Kobe Bryant

"I've got a lot of Pistol Pete in my game."--Steve Nash

"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

"Pete was 'The Man.' I'd just sit there and shake my head and say to myself: 'How'd he do that?'"--Magic Johnson

"(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

"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

"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

"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

You got moves that he was doing on the regular that later became "signature" moves for someone else, and even some stuff that was never duplicated ever since:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08

I can mention his teammates from the 1977 season, and most people never even heard of one (Gail Goodrich was injured), including hardcore fans.
Maravich was dropping 31 PPG on 43/84 (along with 5 APG), without a 3pt line, with the opponent concentrating mostly on him due to his average offensive teammates. On offense, that team was basically a one man show.

You can say this was Maravich's peak season, as he led the league in scoring with 31.1 PPG, was 3rd in MVP voting and made the All-NBA 1st team. He was also 12th, in the league, in APG and top5 in RPG amongst guards. He scored 40 or more points 13 times as the Jazz went 10-3, and he scored 30 or more points 39 times as the Jazz went 25-14. He scored 36.4 PPG on 34 wins and 26.6 on 39 losses. In New Orleans, he scored 34.2 PPG.
Pete even dropped 68 on Frazier and the Knicks, that year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UTust5oFW4

Again, I'm the 1st to criticize him (while understanding why) for some his playing "ways" that didn't lead to winning basketball, but you're just really underrating him there.
Pistol's one of the most skilled players ever, and he had some nice physical gifts too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

[Pointguard]

You're underrating his physical talents right there, big time... Pete stood over 6'5 barefooted and entered the league at almost 200 pounds; you look at players with similar skillsets throughout history, players like Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price, CP3, so on... and you won't find many who are even close to his size. Shit, in terms of height, not even Jordan or Kobe were as tall as Maravich, not even a Manu Ginobili, who today is listed at 6'6.

http://i60.tinypic.com/10h6cyc.png

^Pete next to Havlicek, who played forward and went up against the likes of Gus Johnson or Julius Erving, who's considered one of the greatest defensive players ever.
Maravich today could even be listed as high as 6'7, when you got guys below 6'5 listed at 6'6.

And no, he wasn't the athlete that a Kobe Bryant was or something along those lines... BUT, he was quick and a good leaper, had some really quick hands, great instincts and hand-eye coordination, he was strong and could absorve contact, great body control...

With ease, doing a fake behind-the-back pass, then jumping with a foot inside the ft line for the layup:

Dr. J, who was an athletic freak ripped and full of muscle, had this to say about Pete:

Rubio is not as big as Pistol and not quite as athletic either, Nash is considerably smaller than Maravich and never as athletic.
Meanwhile you got your Kyle Korvers and JJ Redicks with starting SG spots for playoff teams, Goran Dragic putting up 20/6 on 51/41, Ginobili's one of the best SG's in this era still doing his thing, Kobe still balling at 36 yo after a torn achilles...

SG's in Pete's era include players such as David Thompson, George Gervin, Phil Smith, Randy Smith, World B Free, Don Chaney, Paul Westphal, Dennis Johnson, Jerry West, Walter Davis, so on... nough said. All (at least) good athletes, all (at least) good players.
"Skywalker" Thompson, for example, was doing stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6OsKy1c5A0

And Pete was a very hardworker, in his own way but hardworker nonetheless.
For example... For the 1979-80 season with the Celtics, he shed a lot of weight that he gained after the devastating knee injury; after the season ended he realized he couldn't "play" like he did before because of the injuries, he needed mass and major stamina while trying to change his style in some ways. So, he worked hard as hell in the off-season and showed up for training camp in great shape and at 210 lbs ripped/muscled. He then dropped 38 points in their first scrimmage, but then decided to retire after yet another quarrel with coach Fitch (shame because he never got that title).

Huh? Look, I'm first to criticize his playing ways and whatnot, but he was just a master when it came to basketball skills/fundamentals, plus creativeness. You're really underrating him there.
Dude had most offensive fundamentals down to a t, despite all the flashy basketball he was known for. I've seen him throw perfect bounce passes from half-court with the proper spin right on the target, he could make the most amazing dribble without carrying, he had a great textbook jumper, very quick release, his footwork was terrific... Red Auerbach was always praising him big time, and you know Red.
And yes, he had a great feel for the game, meaning he could use teammates to get himself open, knew how to cut, give-and-go, best ways to get his shot off, knew how to get his defender off balance, where to pass through, "passes" required (even the most flashy ones), what to do on the break, executed very quickly like the game was slowed down for him... Yes he was too overflashy for his own good and never grasped a team concept, so on... but he had a great feel for the game.
(continued...)

Basically with that post, one could easily deduct that he was a bigger and stronger healthy Penny Hardaway. Pete never carried a team. Wasn't focused. Had little impact. Was never near being the best in the game. But Pete was apparently bigger stronger, faster, the most fundamental and skilled point guard in his day - and had no effect on the game. Basically a six foot six Chris Paul without any impact on the game... in a diluted league.

I never said he wasn't spectacular or impressive with his play, but he wasn't a great player. Red got most of the people he wanted. Especially if they were playing on bad teams. He didn't really want Pete and none of the good teams did. Pete's teams were usually the bottom five or three offensively. And Lou Hudson was scoring like Pete with better efficiency, especially in the playoffs. Lou was the better guard (should say wing player) the first four years - Pete's best four years on a team that could win. Lou Hudson doesn't get hyped on these boards.

Pete can not be mentioned with Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price or CP3 because they have/had a much better team sense and ability to capitalize from their fundamentals and have teammates prosper from it. Pete wasn't a sharp shooter, he was a shooter. He wasn't a great post player despite being much bigger than other guards. He wasn't a floor general despite being a crafty passer. He had skills but they didn't transfer into a team advantage. Hakeem had great fundamentals and skills, but if he couldn't finish or get much out of it, he wouldn't be great. Plain and simple.

Pete Maravich never really had big impact on the game. Its unfair to say guys like that could go into future eras and have impact or be top five. You have to have impact from where you were before you can say he's going to have impact someplace else or in an era where his weaknesses would be more exaggerated and with more competition. Skills and fundamentals that didn't tranfer into much in his generation aren't a going to magically get better in a more sophisticated defensive era where most of the players are better skilled.

I believe Centers aren't that good now - with none I would call great last year and only three or four that were very good or better. But I definitely believe guard play is a little bit better now than the 80's: It is better scouted, they are quicker to the ball, more pressure on the ball, they shoot a bit better, and there are about 15 -18 very good point guards now.

[G0ATbe]

Sure.....would they be good? No.

[3ball]

but Pete wasn't a great player.

Pete Maravich never really had big impact on the game.

You have to have impact from where you were before you can say he's going to have impact someplace else.

His skills and fundamentals didn't tranfer into much in his generation....


Pete Maravich was 1st team All-NBA twice, and 2nd team twice... so what are you talking about here?





more sophisticated defensive era


today's paint defense is much worse than previous eras because today's defenders cannot camp in the paint - they have to tippy-toe in and out of the lane to keep the lane clear, as mandated by defensive 3 seconds..

contrastingly, in previous eras, the rules allowed players to camp in the lane... being allowed to camp in the lane and not having to guard the 3-point line made the paint defense much tougher in previous eras.

anytime a defense can camp in the lane and doesn't have to guard 3's, it will defend the paint better.. plain and simple.





where most of the players are better skilled.


even though teams take a lot of 3's today, two-pointers are still 3/4 of the shots taken... and players shot better at two-pointers in previous eras - since they were better at the shots taken the most often (two-pointers), they were better shooters in previous eras.

it's plain and simple - since guys didn't shoot 3's, they were more skilled at two-pointers, as the two-point percentages demonstrate.. and two-pointers obviously includes a much wider range of shot types (i.e. runners, hook shots, turnaround shots, pull-ups, post moves, and all the many types of two-pointers that can be taken)...

whereas today, guys are afraid of the mid-range and are told to avoid it - too tough of a shot for today's players.

by the way, keep in mind that the NBA stated quite prominently that the new rules introduced in 2005 made passing and cutting easier, and "opened up the game"... so if passing and cutting is easier, and the floor is spread from 3-pointers, than today's players are playing AN EASIER VERSION OF THE GAME.





But I definitely believe guard play is a little bit better now than the 80's: there are about 15 -18 very good point guards now.


only the PG position is better...

the SG and SF positions were much better in the 80's than they are now, along with the bigs... this is actually the weakest the SG position has ever been... too much 3-and-D, not enough guys that can get their own shot.

[houston]

pete so overrated didn't play defense he would get smoke this era

[Round Mound]

The Centers of the 60s and 70s Would Totally Demolish 10s Centers. Period!

[Kvnzhangyay]

The Centers of the 60s and 70s Would Totally Demolish 10s Centers. Period!

Can't really put in the period because we'll never know :confusedshrug:

[miles berg]

Most past players would be better today than they were in the past. The defensive rules of the NBA today would make it a cakewalk for these guys.

Moses Malone would easily be the best player in the league today.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Basically with that post, one could easily deduct that he was a bigger and stronger healthy Penny Hardaway. Pete never carried a team. Wasn't focused. Had little impact. Was never near being the best in the game. But Pete was apparently bigger stronger, faster, the most fundamental and skilled point guard in his day - and had no effect on the game. Basically a six foot six Chris Paul without any impact on the game... in a diluted league.

I never said he wasn't spectacular or impressive with his play, but he wasn't a great player. Red got most of the people he wanted. Especially if they were playing on bad teams. He didn't really want Pete and none of the good teams did. Pete's teams were usually the bottom five or three offensively. And Lou Hudson was scoring like Pete with better efficiency, especially in the playoffs. Lou was the better guard (should say wing player) the first four years - Pete's best four years on a team that could win. Lou Hudson doesn't get hyped on these boards.


Now you're shifting your whole argument? 1st it was the physical side of things and now it's the impact... what's next? Look, I've never said he would be winning MVP, leading his team to major wins and whatnot, I've said he would be what he was, give or take a "few", adjusting to today's style, so on. Still, at his peak, he would've been the best SG in the game right now, not by all that (assuming he "kept" his playing ways) but he most likely would've been... Actually also was, at his best, in his playing days (not that it couldn't have been the other way around).

Penny Hardaway? Who mentioned him? I don't know how from my post one would deduct Pete was bigger and stronger than Penny (Anfernee was actually taller and more athletic, while healthy) or that he would be anything like him. I was pretty objective, but anyways... Penny couldn't shoot like Pete, Maravich couldn't play D like Hardaway, Penny was flashy but not to the same extent as Pistol, Hardaway was more efficient too, played more for the win let's say, better in the post also, better at finding the balance between scoring and passing, even though Pete was more skilled overall and also did some things better.
They have some similarities in their game yea, but just two different players with two different playing ways, I don't get the comparison :confusedshrug:

Putting words in my mouth, yet again? Yea, most likely he was the most fundamentally sound, now who said he was the biggest or most athletic guard? :rolleyes: David Thompson, George Gervin, Don Chaney, Phil Smith, Dennis Johnson, Randy Smith, Walt Frazier, Walter Davis... were playing during the same time.

Again, I'm the 1st to criticize some of his playing ways that didn't translate into winning basketball many times, but to say he wasn't a great player or that he never had big impact on the game... is just underrating him.
Despite all of the "bad things", he made his impact on the game of basketball, had great influence (especially for future generations), had some great seasons still, most of his peers praise the hell out of his talents, kids that were watching him that later went on to become great players...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08

"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

"I learned all my tricks from Pete Maravich."--Kobe Bryant

"I've got a lot of Pistol Pete in my game."--Steve Nash

"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

"Pete was 'The Man.' I'd just sit there and shake my head and say to myself: 'How'd he do that?'"--Magic Johnson

"(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

"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

"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

"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


In 1977, with a bunch of no-namers, on a team that was a 1man show on offense, he wrecked shit up many times and they were 34-39 with him while finishing the year at 35-47, so 1-8 without him.

You can say this was Maravich's peak season, as he led the league in scoring with 31.1 PPG, was 3rd in MVP voting and made the All-NBA 1st team. He was also 12th, in the league, in APG and top5 in RPG amongst guards. He scored 40 or more points 13 times as the Jazz went 10-3, and he scored 30 or more points 39 times as the Jazz went 25-14. He scored 36.4 PPG on 34 wins and 26.6 on 39 losses. In New Orleans, he scored 34.2 PPG.
^Just some examples (there's more), and you're out there saying he wasn't a great player, that all of his talent transferred into nothing, etc... :rolleyes: Get real.
Again, most of his intangibles were the opposite of his skill but you're not doing those types of things if you're not a great player, without having great talent, without having great skill (while having some at least some nice physical gifts)... Matter of fact, ESPECIALLY since his intangibles were "shitty", he had to have much of the rest, to do what he did.

Hudson never was all-nba 1st, never even top10 in MVP voting, never led the league in scoring, never was top5 in APG...
Sweet Lou was a really good baller, pretty overlooked/underrated these days. He was bigger than Pete, had the edge in athleticism too, smarter at picking his shots, more efficient basketball... but he was also too passive sometimes, couldn't take over a game with his scoring like Pete could (he didn't have all the efficiency you talk about in the playoffs either, when it's "harder" to pick your shots), he couldn't pass or handle the rock like Maravich, he should've been a better rebounder than he was, his edge over Pete on the defensive end wasn't big (at both their best), he was very skilled offensively but not quite like Maravich...
At both their peaks as overall players, Maravich gets the edge, simple as that.
For example, even in 1972 - Maravich was a sophomore, Hudson was a veteran in his prime - Pistol Pete had a better series vs the Celtics, better Playoff run, as the Hawks got beat in those semifinals.

(continued...)

[SHAQisGOAT]

I never said he wasn't spectacular or impressive with his play, but he wasn't a great player. Red got most of the people he wanted. Especially if they were playing on bad teams. He didn't really want Pete and none of the good teams did. Pete's teams were usually the bottom five or three offensively. And Lou Hudson was scoring like Pete with better efficiency, especially in the playoffs. Lou was the better guard (should say wing player) the first four years - Pete's best four years on a team that could win. Lou Hudson doesn't get hyped on these boards.

Pete can not be mentioned with Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price or CP3 because they have/had a much better team sense and ability to capitalize from their fundamentals and have teammates prosper from it. Pete wasn't a sharp shooter, he was a shooter. He wasn't a great post player despite being much bigger than other guards. He wasn't a floor general despite being a crafty passer. He had skills but they didn't transfer into a team advantage. Hakeem had great fundamentals and skills, but if he couldn't finish or get much out of it, he wouldn't be great. Plain and simple.

Pete Maravich never really had big impact on the game. Its unfair to say guys like that could go into future eras and have impact or be top five. You have to have impact from where you were before you can say he's going to have impact someplace else or in an era where his weaknesses would be more exaggerated and with more competition. Skills and fundamentals that didn't tranfer into much in his generation aren't a going to magically get better in a more sophisticated defensive era where most of the players are better skilled.

I believe Centers aren't that good now - with none I would call great last year and only three or four that were very good or better. But I definitely believe guard play is a little bit better now than the 80's: It is better scouted, they are quicker to the ball, more pressure on the ball, they shoot a bit better, and there are about 15 -18 very good point guards now.

(continuation...)

If Red didn't want Pete then why did he go out and got him, when Maravich was just a shell of his former self? :confusedshrug:
Auerbach also said that if he could've gotten Pistol on the Celtics at an earlier stage, he could've turned him into one of the GOAT's, and tbh that could've very well had happen...
Pete had all the talent in the world but his intangibles were the other way around; he was viewed as a star since a very young age, he was coached by his father in college, who let him do everything he wanted on the court, and in the pros he never really had a Phil Jackson, a Larry Brown, a Red Auerbach, a Gregg Popovich... to kill his bad habits, to work on his weaknesses, to really lay into him, to make him more disciplined, make him grasp a team concept, to make him use his talents for winning basketball...

Pete was drafted into an already good team with some pretty good players, a team that actually got worse with him... but the team also didn't fit his style, his teammates were jealous of him, coach wasn't a game changer. Then with the Jazz, he had a team built around him but his teammates' level was average at best. When they got better and really managed to get it going, with Goodrich old but healthy or Truck Robinson as a good 2nd option big, also, Pete always gradually improving intangibles (and play), since his early years... Maravich got injured and never was the same again; they were on 10-game winning streak just before it.
And, again, I'm the 1st to criticize his playing ways, though... I'm not making any excuses, just viewing things as a whole.
Plus, like I've said before, he was always a very hardworker, in his own way but a hardworker nonetheless... always worked very hard, since a child, to really master his craft, while letting terrific creativity flow because the game, at some point, started to get "boring" for him... Even, for intance, if you watch him in his early years, on D, he was getting lost on rotations, blowing off assignments, not playing solid m2m, caring little for it and just getting by, on that end, mostly using good instincts and reflexes; and then you watch him later on with the Jazz, and you can see some considerable improvement regarding all of that.

I specifically referred to 'similar skillsets' and you say Pete can't be mentioned along the likes of Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price or CP3 (as far as that)? Gimme a break... :rolleyes:
You can talk about anything you like apart from that, but when it comes to skill - offensive talent, and "things" along those lines - he definitely can be mentioned amongst players like those, and like I've said, they had similar skillsets. Shit, Pete was even more offensively-skilled than most of those guys, and as a great case for GOAT as far as that.
Despite poor shot-selection and whatnot, he was a great shooter (in many ways), period. A great scorer too. No, he wasn't what you call a floor general and he was too flashy for his own good, still a great fundamental passer with unreal creativity and ability to execute some of the toughest passes. And he actually had a nice post-game (one of the best guards I've ever seen at hitting hook-shots), I don't know what you're talking about...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/Du42dX.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/iuzRLK.gif

https://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdf3x2m5C71renuivo1_400.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/93p8hF.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/Jxg7UR.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/O8Irwb.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/bQrMB1.gif

Better skilled players, on average around the league, nowadays? That's pretty subjective but, regardless of that discussion (don't want to get to it now), Pete still went up against great competition (on many different levels) on both ends, h2h or even bigmen in the paint and whatnot.
And you wanna talk about defense? In his playing days, DRtg across the league was actually considerably lower than in recent times; while it's been pretty much the same since the 80's.

... and the rules also make it considerably "easier" for them(guards) - regarding your last paragraph.

[3ball]

Pete was even more offensively-skilled than most of those guys, and as a great case for GOAT as far as that.


unbelievable plays by Pete Maravich in the previous post... :bowdown:

but he wouldn't have to make tough shots ON defenders like that in today's game - not nearly as much, hardly ever actually.

the spurs showed that it's all about ball movement for open shots in today's game, which can be done by role players, but wasn't possible much at all in Pete's day - the lack of spacing and paint-camping made ball movement less effective, so taking your man was often a better option.

while today's game takes advantage of the easier ball movement and spaced floor by seeking open shots as the standard approach, in previous eras the standard approach was for players to take their man and try to score ON him, like your GIFs..

Today's ball movement and open shots can be done by scrubs or role players (see the Spurs), where the 2-5 positions only need to be unselfish and have a default level of skill to finish the plays (like unskilled positions in football), whereas previous eras did what today's game views as tougher and less efficient - taking their man, which is requires more individually unique skill (more skill positions).

[swagga]

(continuation...)

If Red didn't want Pete then why did he go out and got him, when Maravich was just a shell of his former self? :confusedshrug:
Auerbach also said that if he could've gotten Pistol on the Celtics at an earlier stage, he could've turned him into one of the GOAT's, and tbh that could've very well had happen...
Pete had all the talent in the world but his intangibles were the other way around; he was viewed as a star since a very young age, he was coached by his father in college, who let him do everything he wanted on the court, and in the pros he never really had a Phil Jackson, a Larry Brown, a Red Auerbach, a Gregg Popovich... to kill his bad habits, to work on his weaknesses, to really lay into him, to make him more disciplined, make him grasp a team concept, to make him use his talents for winning basketball...

Pete was drafted into an already good team with some pretty good players, a team that actually got worse with him... but the team also didn't fit his style, his teammates were jealous of him, coach wasn't a game changer. Then with the Jazz, he had a team built around him but his teammates' level was average at best. When they got better and really managed to get it going, with Goodrich old but healthy or Truck Robinson as a good 2nd option big, also, Pete always gradually improving intangibles (and play), since his early years... Maravich got injured and never was the same again; they were on 10-game winning streak just before it.
And, again, I'm the 1st to criticize his playing ways, though... I'm not making any excuses, just viewing things as a whole.
Plus, like I've said before, he was always a very hardworker, in his own way but a hardworker nonetheless... always worked very hard, since a child, to really master his craft, while letting terrific creativity flow because the game, at some point, started to get "boring" for him... Even, for intance, if you watch him in his early years, on D, he was getting lost on rotations, blowing off assignments, not playing solid m2m, caring little for it and just getting by, on that end, mostly using good instincts and reflexes; and then you watch him later on with the Jazz, and you can see some considerable improvement regarding all of that.

I specifically referred to 'similar skillsets' and you say Pete can't be mentioned along the likes of Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price or CP3 (as far as that)? Gimme a break... :rolleyes:
You can talk about anything you like apart from that, but when it comes to skill - offensive talent, and "things" along those lines - he definitely can be mentioned amongst players like those, and like I've said, they had similar skillsets. Shit, Pete was even more offensively-skilled than most of those guys, and as a great case for GOAT as far as that.
Despite poor shot-selection and whatnot, he was a great shooter (in many ways), period. A great scorer too. No, he wasn't what you call a floor general and he was too flashy for his own good, still a great fundamental passer with unreal creativity and ability to execute some of the toughest passes. And he actually had a nice post-game (one of the best guards I've ever seen at hitting hook-shots), I don't know what you're talking about...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/Du42dX.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/iuzRLK.gif

https://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdf3x2m5C71renuivo1_400.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/93p8hF.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/Jxg7UR.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/O8Irwb.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/bQrMB1.gif

Better skilled players, on average around the league, nowadays? That's pretty subjective but, regardless of that discussion (don't want to get to it now), Pete still went up against great competition (on many different levels) on both ends, h2h or even bigmen in the paint and whatnot.
And you wanna talk about defense? In his playing days, DRtg across the league was actually considerably lower than in recent times; while it's been pretty much the same since the 80's.

... and the rules also make it considerably "easier" for them(guards) - regarding your last paragraph.

with those guard skills they aren't making it past halfcourt on half of their possessions. You stick a dude like rondo or wall on maravich and he'll average double digit turnovers.

The guard hooks don't prove skill, they prove a lack of quality shot creation capability, therefore lack of skill. It's actually shocking how much the guard play has evolved and how it changed the rigors of the frontcourt to adapt at all the guard pressure ... so you see less posting up and more mobility and help defense.

[3ball]

with those guard skills they aren't making it past halfcourt on half of their possessions. You stick a dude like rondo or wall on maravich and he'll average double digit turnovers.

The guard hooks don't prove skill, they prove a lack of quality shot creation capability, therefore lack of skill. It's actually shocking how much the guard play has evolved and how it changed the rigors of the frontcourt to adapt at all the guard pressure ... so you see less posting up and more mobility and help defense.

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/bQrMB1.gif


today's player simply does not SEEK a blatantly contested shot like previous eras - like, the sky hook is considered a HORRIBLE shot in today's game, because it's a highly contested shot.. but back when there was no spacing or open paint to make passing and cutting easier, sky hooks were a pretty high quality shot and about as good as you were going to get.

back then, it was standard to take tough shots and players SOUGHT tough shots (they expected nothing else).

[juju151111]

I don't agree with all of this but...

:applause: :applause: :applause:


BTW, who would take...Ricky Rubio or Pistol Pete?
None Lol

[SHAQisGOAT]

with those guard skills they aren't making it past halfcourt on half of their possessions. You stick a dude like rondo or wall on maravich and he'll average double digit turnovers.

The guard hooks don't prove skill, they prove a lack of quality shot creation capability, therefore lack of skill. It's actually shocking how much the guard play has evolved and how it changed the rigors of the frontcourt to adapt at all the guard pressure ... so you see less posting up and more mobility and help defense.

So you're constructing a "making it past halfcourt" argument based on gifs from a player's post-game/hooks? SMH
Pistol Pete is one of the best dribblers ever, he pulled some great stuff without even carrying... Imagine him today with all the loose dribbling rules, plus the game "easier" for guards...

Pete was doing ball-fakes way back in the day, on the regular and with ease, that players like Rondo or Curry get praised for nowadays.
He was doing moves that now are called signature moves for Hakeem.
He was pulling Magic type passes before Magic was even playing.
People went crazy over a Joe Johnson crossover on Pierce a few years ago, Pistol was doing the same type of crossover on the regular, many years ago (with stricter rules).
Nowadays you got everybody talking about floaters, Pistol was a master at those.
I could go on for paragraphs here.... Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08

He's one of the most skilled players ever, you're just making yourself look ignorant there, stop...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

Throughout his career, at some point or another, Maravich was guarded by Walt Frazier, David Thompson, Don Chaney, Phil Smith, Dennis Johnson, Paul Westphal, Jerry West, Norm Van Lier, Jerry Sloan, Quinn Buckner, Lionel Hollins, Brian Taylor, George Gervin... All (at least) good athletes, (at least) good defenders, or a combination of both.
Don't even know how he got past half-court...
Nash is considerably smaller than Maravich and less athletic, Rubio is not as big and not even as athletic, Goran Dragic just averaged 20/6 on 51/41 for a whole season, Manu at 33 still averaged 17/5 in 30 min, Curry kills much more athletic PG's, so on... I don't know why nobody ever put a player like Wall or Rondo on them (and more), so they wouldn't get past half-court...

Who used the guards' hooks to prove (all the) skill? You can't even read? Shit... I was referring to his post-game on those gifs. And Kobe, one of the greatest scoring SG's in this era, still uses hooks very effectively. It requires plenty of skill too. You're clueless.

Lack of shot creation? Huh, why? You're arguments don't even make sense. And Pistol Pete is one of the best ever at shooting off the dribble, stop acting dumb, child.

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/VOb1uC.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/vcl3Lg.gif

https://i.imgflip.com/2o33d.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/3bcQaV.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/viOQ7n.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/piAq_t.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/1rShlJ.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/xq4jTB.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/wkK6v1.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/1BY0nI.gif

How's that for shot creating, dribbling, and much more?

Anyways, you don't even know what you're talking about though... Discussion is futile here.

[La Frescobaldi]

with those guard skills they aren't making it past halfcourt on half of their possessions. You stick a dude like rondo or wall on maravich and he'll average double digit turnovers.

The guard hooks don't prove skill, they prove a lack of quality shot creation capability, therefore lack of skill. It's actually shocking how much the guard play has evolved and how it changed the rigors of the frontcourt to adapt at all the guard pressure ... so you see less posting up and more mobility and help defense.

lulz

[Pointguard]

Pete Maravich was 1st team All-NBA twice, and 2nd team twice... so what are you talking about here? Like I said it was a terribly weak time for guards - not unlike people looking back and looking at Al Jefferson, Chandler, Al Horford or David Lee on these teams. None are bad players but they aren't great. Rick Barry was 5th in assist. Pete made first team with 5.4 assist in both years on a losing team.



today's paint defense is much worse than previous eras because today's defenders cannot camp in the paint - they have to tippy-toe in and out of the lane to keep the lane clear, as mandated by defensive 3 seconds..
They are waaaay faster to the ball today than in the 70's. There were hardly even penetrators at that time.


contrastingly, in previous eras, the rules allowed players to camp in the lane... being allowed to camp in the lane and not having to guard the 3-point line made the paint defense much tougher in previous eras.

anytime a defense can camp in the lane and doesn't have to guard 3's, it will defend the paint better.. plain and simple.

Pete might have been fast at that time. But now he isn't getting to the rim. There is absolutely no need for a rim protector in his case. If he posted, it could have been a problem but he didn't. The lateral movement is significantly better right now. If you hot dog it now, it would get stolen unless you are very close to the ground and very quick.




it's plain and simple - since guys didn't shoot 3's, they were more skilled at two-pointers, as the two-point percentages demonstrate.. and two-pointers obviously includes a much wider range of shot types (i.e. runners, hook shots, turnaround shots, pull-ups, post moves, and all the many types of two-pointers that can be taken)...

No. There were better guards in the early part of the 70's. They didn't really have penetrators during Pete's prime. No explosive players like Rose/Westbrook, no floaters like Rose/Parker. No assist guys like Rondo/Paul. No 20/8 guys while these guys are doing it every night now. Very few 8 assist guys.



by the way, keep in mind that the NBA stated quite prominently that the new rules introduced in 2005 made passing and cutting easier, and "opened up the game"... so if passing and cutting is easier, and the floor is spread from 3-pointers, than today's players are playing AN EASIER VERSION OF THE GAME.

That's why the scoring of the game is down??? With better shooters??? The only passing and cutting team we've seen in some time was SA last year. They cut and passed much more in other generations.

[ralph_i_el]

The only passing and cutting team we've seen in some time was SA last year. They cut and passed much more in other generations.


:facepalm

[Pointguard]

Now you're shifting your whole argument? 1st it was the physical side of things and now it's the impact... what's next?
No. I was always talking about the whole player. You can have every physical advantage in the world and it don't mean A DAM THING. To keep this on target: YOU can't take a guy who didn't make his mark in his time in any big way, and transplant him in another time and say he's top five. His deadly weapons never matured in a way to affect the later part of the 70's which was the best time to get some shine. Ballers ball.



Look, I've never said he would be winning MVP, leading his team to major wins and whatnot, I've said he would be what he was, give or take a "few", adjusting to today's style, so on. Still, at his peak, he would've been the best SG in the game right now, not by all that (assuming he "kept" his playing ways) but he most likely would've been... Actually also was, at his best, in his playing days (not that it couldn't have been the other way around).

Penny Hardaway? Who mentioned him?
The quotes you were using were suggesting he was a 6'6 point guard with superior skills and fundamentals. He had plenty of flash. Was physically big for his position. Historically who does that match??? We won't insult Magic so the obvious allusion would be Penny. That's why I said it.

He didn't have skills that flipped his teams.


[B]Putting words in my mouth, yet again? Yea, most likely he was the most fundamentally sound, now who said he was the biggest or most athletic guard? :rolleyes: David Thompson, George Gervin, Don Chaney, Phil Smith, Dennis Johnson, Randy Smith, Walt Frazier, Walter Davis... were playing during the same time.
I never said athletic. Where did you get that from? Biggest, fundamental and fast were all things you made thematic in your post. He wasn't more fundamental than Frazier who capitalized from his much better and played a far superior team game, which is why he won chips. The other guys are not going to be on anybodies fundamental list. A lot were athletic but that's you arguing with yourself. I never said anything about athletic.


Again, I'm the 1st to criticize some of his playing ways that didn't translate into winning basketball many times, but to say he wasn't a great player or that he never had big impact on the game... is just underrating him.
Despite all of the "bad things", he made his impact on the game of basketball, had great influence (especially for future generations), had some great seasons still, most of his peers praise the hell out of his talents, kids that were watching him that later went on to become great players...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08
I said he was "impressive with his play." He definitely impressed people. ai was the most influential player of this generation and impressed people. He flat out made his team a contender. He inspired small people around the globe and he barely gets the great treatment now despite most here seeing him play. I always thought he was great but few here act like he existed.



In 1977, with a bunch of no-namers, on a team that was a 1man show on offense, he wrecked shit up many times and they were 34-39 with him while finishing the year at 35-47, so 1-8 without him.

^Just some examples (there's more), and you're out there saying he wasn't a great player, that all of his talent transferred into nothing, etc... :rolleyes: Get real.
Again, most of his intangibles were the opposite of his skill but you're not doing those types of things if you're not a great player, without having great talent, without having great skill (while having some at least some nice physical gifts)... Matter of fact, ESPECIALLY since his intangibles were "shitty", he had to have much of the rest, to do what he did.
His intangibles were bad and there was a disconnect with good team ball.



Hudson never was all-nba 1st, never even top10 in MVP voting, never led the league in scoring, never was top5 in APG...
Sweet Lou was a really good baller, pretty overlooked/underrated these days. He was bigger than Pete, had the edge in athleticism too, smarter at picking his shots, more efficient basketball... but he was also too passive sometimes, couldn't take over a game with his scoring like Pete could (he didn't have all the efficiency you talk about in the playoffs either, when it's "harder" to pick your shots), he couldn't pass or handle the rock like Maravich, he should've been a better rebounder than he was, his edge over Pete on the defensive end wasn't big (at both their best), he was very skilled offensively but not quite like Maravich...
At both their peaks as overall players, Maravich gets the edge, simple as that.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Lou took that same team, to the conference finals with 48 wins. Maravich comes to the team and they dip immediately 36 wins. They lost Joe Caldwell but he wasn't some great. The rest of the team is pretty much the same. Did Maravich ever contribute to a winning team after this?

[Pointguard]

[B](continuation...)
If Red didn't want Pete then why did he go out and got him, when Maravich was just a shell of his former self? :confusedshrug:

He got his shell. He didn't get Pete. That was a I once had that name on my team thing.


Auerbach also said that if he could've gotten Pistol on the Celtics at an earlier stage, he could've turned him into one of the GOAT's, and tbh that could've very well had happen...
Pete had all the talent in the world but his intangibles were the other way around; he was viewed as a star since a very young age, he was coached by his father in college, who let him do everything he wanted on the court, and in the pros he never really had a Phil Jackson, a Larry Brown, a Red Auerbach, a Gregg Popovich... to kill his bad habits, to work on his weaknesses, to really lay into him, to make him more disciplined, make him grasp a team concept, to make him use his talents for winning basketball... This is not equivalent to saying he was this type of player or ever approached being that type of player.



I specifically referred to 'similar skillsets' and you say Pete can't be mentioned along the likes of Nash, Curry, Stockton, West, Isiah, Price or CP3 (as far as that)? Gimme a break... :rolleyes:
You can talk about anything you like apart from that, but when it comes to skill - offensive talent, and "things" along those lines - he definitely can be mentioned amongst players like those, and like I've said, they had similar skillsets. Shit, Pete was even more offensively-skilled than most of those guys, and as a great case for GOAT as far as that.
Despite poor shot-selection and whatnot, he was a great shooter (in many ways), period. A great scorer too. No, he wasn't what you call a floor general and he was too flashy for his own good, still a great fundamental passer with unreal creativity and ability to execute some of the toughest passes. And he actually had a nice post-game (one of the best guards I've ever seen at hitting hook-shots), I don't know what you're talking about...

Skill to make the fancy pass vs. being a good floor general is a world apart.

A guy who easily integrates into his team is better than a great individual.
Heck Shaq had the best individual ability I ever seen and Shaq was swept more than he won it all.

Like I said if Hakeem could not shoot well or pass his skills are pretty useless. I don't care how good fundamentals and skills are if you don't have a basketball brain to compliment it. He could get hot but I can't say for sure he was competitive.

I should say that Pete was indeed influential, and impressed other players and there is a spot for that in greatness. I don't like putting any player that didn't have a distinct niche in his own generation in ability to impress his era's competitors. I think career wise he was somewhat like TMac in that they didn't win. But Tmac could get his team in the playoffs, lead the league in scoring, take over games in great fashion and definitely be as good as the HOFers in their prime. Who talks about TMac now? Pete didn't have those attributes. They loved his style but had no reason to think he was going to do much when he was the best player on his team.

[La Frescobaldi]

Like I said it was a terribly weak time for guards - not unlike people looking back and looking at Al Jefferson, Chandler, Al Horford or David Lee on these teams. None are bad players but they aren't great. Rick Barry was 5th in assist. Pete made first team with 5.4 assist in both years on a losing team.


They are waaaay faster to the ball today than in the 70's. There were hardly even any penetrators.........


No. There were better guards in the early part of the 70's. They didn't really have penetrators during Pete's prime. No explosive players like Rose/Westbrook, no floaters like Rose/Parker. No assist guys like Rondo/Paul. No 20/8 guys while these guys are doing it every night now. Very few 8 assist guys.



:wtf:
Phil Chenier, George Gervin, Dean Meminger, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Nate Archibald, Calvin Murphy, Louie Dampier, Pete Maravich, Kevin Porter, Earl Monroe ...... no penetrators? not explosive? No floaters?
PG I love your stuff man but :wtf:

[SHAQisGOAT]

They are waaaay faster to the ball today than in the 70's. There were hardly even penetrators at that time.

Pete might have been fast at that time. But now he isn't getting to the rim. There is absolutely no need for a rim protector in his case. If he posted, it could have been a problem but he didn't. The lateral movement is significantly better right now. If you hot dog it now, it would get stolen unless you are very close to the ground and very quick.

No. There were better guards in the early part of the 70's. They didn't really have penetrators during Pete's prime. No explosive players like Rose/Westbrook, no floaters like Rose/Parker. No assist guys like Rondo/Paul. No 20/8 guys while these guys are doing it every night now. Very few 8 assist guys.


Disagree with most of what you've said... And you're flat-out wrong in most sentences.

Now, he isn't getting to the rim? Gimme a break. What's next?
Steve Nash is a 2x MVP in this era, Goran Dragic averaged 20/6 on 51/41 last season, Manu Ginobili is one of the best SG's of this era and was still averaging 17/5 at 33 in 30min, Ricky Rubio averaged 8.6 APG in less than 33min, Stephen Curry constantly kills bigger and more athletic guards, Chris Paul at 6' still best PG after injuries, so on...
Pistol was over 6'5 barefooted, almost 200 entering the league, quick, fast and a nice leaper, very quick hands and great hand-eye coordination, good body control, strong, agile and coordinated... I mean, he wasn't an elite athlete but definitely a nice one, and better at that than some players I've mentioned there before. You're underrating his physical gifts like crazy now, simple as that. Also, although having poor intangibles for the most part, he had all the skill in the world.

Dude was a great shooter, had 4pt range, great handles, nice physical gifts, knew how to finish in many different ways, knew how to keep his defender off balance, used fakes, had great footwork, great overall scorer..... And you're giving me bullshit like he couldn't go to the rim today??? Get real.
Like I've mentioned before, he faced great competition on both ends, some great athletes too, league was much tougher especially for guards, no 3pt line, paint more packed on the regular, much stricter dribbling rules... Nough said in my book.

No explosive players? No penetrators? Nobody hitting floaters?
I'll just throw some names out there that fit at least of those criterias... Julius Erving, David Thompson, Tiny Archibald, World B Free, Gus Williams, Phil Smith, Jo Jo White, Randy Smith, George Gervin, Pete Maravich, Dennis Johnson, Paul Westphal, Archie Clark, Calvin Murphy, Lionel Hollins, Dave Bing, Lucius Allen, Phil Chenier, Lenny Wilkens, Earl Monroe, Walter Davis...

I mean (some players active at the same time as Pete):

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/5-04-2014/y3nP5M.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/H3B8xD.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-25-2014/ZMepjG.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/bHkrWo.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/hvbUWj.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/HAyGCB.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/sKNDUP.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/wgVy8i.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-25-2014/uibBCN.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-25-2014/arMUv2.gif

Go watch some Calvin Murphy too, dude's one of the quickest players ever, great handles, great penetrator. Showing his dribbling with Red:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmI9MSuXtdY&t=2m10s

^That's just what I've found very quickly here, and pre-80's footage is EXTREMELY limited.

Don't mean to offend you but you're just looking mighty ignorant right now, I'm realizing this discussion has no point whatsoever... It leads to nothing.
Lots of REALLY "wrong" going on with your post there, just what it is. I can't really prove a point in this situation...

[SHAQisGOAT]

Phil Chenier, George Gervin, Dean Meminger, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Nate Archibald, Calvin Murphy, Louie Dampier, Pete Maravich, Kevin Porter, Earl Monroe ...... no penetrators? not explosive? No floaters?
PG I love your stuff man but

I was sorta perplexed too... Discussion is just futile at this point, imho.

I mean, like I've said, I found this very quickly, and pre-80's footage? Call it rare. (some is 80s footage, from players already active in the 70s)


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/5-04-2014/y3nP5M.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/H3B8xD.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-25-2014/ZMepjG.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/bHkrWo.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/hvbUWj.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/HAyGCB.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/sKNDUP.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/wgVy8i.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-25-2014/uibBCN.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-25-2014/arMUv2.gif

Go watch some Calvin Murphy too, dude's one of the quickest players ever, great handles, great penetrator. Showing his dribbling with Red:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmI9MSuXtdY&t=2m10s

^And I had to post some of that because mentioning names at this point? Proves nothing (to him, and more)... realizing that after some of the stuff said.

[SHAQisGOAT]

(taking it right at Wilt)
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/CfAecz.gif

https://33.media.tumblr.com/75367952abe196ad88b9e5d9b9bf65e4/tumblr_n1l465gMBh1s3gys4o1_400.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/VOb1uC.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/3bcQaV.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/vcl3Lg.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/iPjU2S.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-23-2014/ZcoI4d.gif

https://i.imgflip.com/2o33d.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-24-2014/viOQ7n.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UTust5oFW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHgIxwwBB0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq1oUk7sgRY

Yea, this dude wouldn't be able to do the same he did, in this era, give or take a "few". Gimme me a break. Now, y'all go on and make some dumb ass argument... I'm done with this discussion.

[Pointguard]

:wtf:
Phil Chenier, George Gervin, Dean Meminger, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Nate Archibald, Calvin Murphy, Louie Dampier, Pete Maravich, Kevin Porter, Earl Monroe ...... no penetrators? not explosive? No floaters?
PG I love your stuff man but :wtf:
Murphy and Archibald were very quick and did penetrate but it wasn't the style of the game. I said "really," suggesting not the average route of things. There are 20 guys that penetrate now. Not three or four. Like people saying there are no bigs in the game now. There are five going to the HOF. Its a figure of speech. Cousy was a penetrator and the game has had it since. Every team has a penetrator but were they top notch and a key part of the game.

If the topic is about era and players I am always talking in context of the comparison. Murphy and Archibald were stellar penetrators. Were they AI, Rose or Westbrook? No, they were not as persistent, not as athletic, not as explosive, not as fast. Rose and Westbrook are so fast that they startle/freeze opponents who know they are coming. Archibald has told me himself he was amazed at AI's speed, explosion and quickness (Archibald and his brother frequently gave us tickets as kids, we are from the same projects in the South Bronx). When I moved to Queens one of my older brothers was good friends with Vic Fleming - the twin of Vern Fleming (I was getting good tickets my whole life.) AI is visibly not quite on the level of Rose and Westbrook in those qualities.

Great J West was not really in Pete's time. Gervin had some funky floaters and crafty ways to get to the basket - he was moreso a small forward which wasn't part of the conversation. Monroe wasn't the penetrating beast he was in Baltimore when Pete came along. Guys peaked very early back then. On the championship Knicks he wasn't starting from 23 feet out as much and was backing himself in. I was more impressed with Gus Williams than Maravich. If Gus caught fire he could beat a Kareem team in the playoffs. If Pete caught fire - Pete caught fire... and that's it.

Once again, so folks won't get lost in what I'm saying. Its unfair to suggest that a guy that made his teams worse, would be in the worse group of underachievers in todays game, didn't have a killer shot, wasn't good as a floor general, his basketball brain was weirdly wired at best, would pop up today and be a top notch player at a position that is the strongest in the league now. From 1975 to 79 the league was diluted and dynasties didn't rule the sport.

[Pointguard]

I was sorta perplexed too... Discussion is just futile at this point, imho.

I mean, like I've said, I found this very quickly, and pre-80's footage? Call it rare. (some is 80s footage, from players already active in the 70s)

^And I had to post some of that because mentioning names at this point? Proves nothing (to him, and more)... realizing that after some of the stuff said.

Seriously. I can show you clips were people are moving a lot faster, fundamentally covering much better spots on the floor, creating real obstacles to get to the baskets, that are way more explosive, super fast in comparison. There was a serious dilution of the league due to expansion, drugs and a lack of talent in the mid to late 70's.

I love the 60's it was heart, blood, sweat and tears age. The league went up and then came down hard in the later 70's. I am not saying they were without talent. There was always some that could do different things but overall the game suffered. But saying a guy that had no impact then is going to rise up in the strongest position today is insane. And he would be in the hardest position to prove himself in today's game or be part of the near extinct position of tweener guard. He didn't do squat then but is going to be top five now. This is why you lose people with this craziness.

[3ball]

Murphy and Archibald were stellar penetrators. Were they AI, Rose or Westbrook?


point guard is the only position that is better in today's game, which i'm assuming is why that's the only position you want to talk about or compare over the eras.

at the 2-5 spots, previous eras can match today's game player-for-player, AND SOME (go ahead and throw some players out there like you did with the point guards - i will match them player for player easily).

so why don't we talk about the 2-5 positions and compare those over the eras?... comparing point guards is only 20% of the comparison.

[Pointguard]

point guard is the only position that is better in today's game, which i'm assuming is why that's the only position you want to talk about or compare over the eras.

at the 2-5 spots, previous eras can match today's game player-for-player, AND SOME (go ahead and throw some players out there like you did with the point guards - i will match them player for player easily).

so why don't we talk about the 2-5 positions and compare those over the eras?... comparing point guards is only 20% of the comparison.
Actually, I can't do that. I don't like it when people start going off on tangents and taking a small part of what I say and blowing that up and out of proportion. Thanks for recognizing my contention here. I've always favored the center position in the 60's and early 70's better than now.

I'll keep it simple for now. But I have said this my entire time here. That the point guard position is the one position that kept progressing throughout the decades but was never the main position. Its strange its like this being that a great majority of the population is PG sized. You figure there would be more talent there. Coach's have somewhat disabled the position so this group of PG's will not be real big wave that will come later where they are the main thinkers, chess piece controllers, quarterback like, super intuitive decision makers.

[La Frescobaldi]

Murphy and Archibald were very quick and did penetrate but it wasn't the style of the game. I said "really," suggesting not the average route of things. There are 20 guys that penetrate now. Not three or four. Like people saying there are no bigs in the game now. There are five going to the HOF. Its a figure of speech. Cousy was a penetrator and the game has had it since. Every team has a penetrator but were they top notch and a key part of the game.

If the topic is about era and players I am always talking in context of the comparison. Murphy and Archibald were stellar penetrators. Were they AI, Rose or Westbrook? No, they were not as persistent, not as athletic, not as explosive, not as fast. Rose and Westbrook are so fast that they startle/freeze opponents who know they are coming. Archibald has told me himself he was amazed at AI's speed, explosion and quickness (Archibald and his brother frequently gave us tickets as kids, we are from the same projects in the South Bronx). When I moved to Queens one of my older brothers was good friends with Vic Fleming - the twin of Vern Fleming (I was getting good tickets my whole life.) AI is visibly not quite on the level of Rose and Westbrook in those qualities.

Great J West was not really in Pete's time. Gervin had some funky floaters and crafty ways to get to the basket - he was moreso a small forward which wasn't part of the conversation. Monroe wasn't the penetrating beast he was in Baltimore when Pete came along. Guys peaked very early back then. On the championship Knicks he wasn't starting from 23 feet out as much and was backing himself in. I was more impressed with Gus Williams than Maravich. If Gus caught fire he could beat a Kareem team in the playoffs. If Pete caught fire - Pete caught fire... and that's it.

Once again, so folks won't get lost in what I'm saying. Its unfair to suggest that a guy that made his teams worse, would be in the worse group of underachievers in todays game, didn't have a killer shot, wasn't good as a floor general, his basketball brain was weirdly wired at best, would pop up today and be a top notch player at a position that is the strongest in the league now. From 1975 to 79 the league was diluted and dynasties didn't rule the sport.

I see what you mean to a certain point. I've long said that West was the fastest guy from the perimeter to the ring that I ever saw for decades.... but I think Rose is even faster.
Tiny was too generous if he thinks AI was quicker than Tiny himself man. Tiny was a lightning bolt.
Also I gave a dozen names in a 17 team league (shaqisN'Tgoat provided more still)..... that's an even higher number of guys than 20 is in a 30 team league and there were lots more than just Louie in the ABA so.... I dunno what that was.....

But I do see what you mean about context. With the girlie rules in today's paint a guy can literally just sprint full speed at the rim - which was not happening ever in a '70s game - and that's exactly what is happening, too. Meanwhile defenders just stand at that ridiculous line with their arms up or get punished with a whistle.
I hear ya about Westbrook but I don't think i can ever get past the fact that the man is so galactically stupid on a basketball court. I can't even think of another guy with so many high level skills that is so utterly useless at decisions.

[3ball]

Actually, I can't do that. I don't like it when people start going off on tangents and taking a small part of what I say and blowing that up and out of proportion. Thanks for recognizing my contention here. I've always favored the center position in the 60's and early 70's better than now.

I'll keep it simple for now. But I have said this my entire time here. That the point guard position is the one position that kept progressing throughout the decades but was never the main position. Its strange its like this being that a great majority of the population is PG sized. You figure there would be more talent there. Coach's have somewhat disabled the position so this group of PG's will not be real big wave that will come later where they are the main thinkers, chess piece controllers, quarterback like, super intuitive decision makers.
that's the thing tho - you don't seem to want to talk or compare the SG, SF, or PF positions over the eras.

you only want to talk about the 1 position that is better in today's game, PG.

but if you started naming SG's, SF's, or PF's, like you did with the PG's, me or anyone on here could match the players you name player-for-player and we would actually have more players that today's game could not match.

like, let's talk about big men in general - in previous eras, you had dozens of PF's and centers (i'm calling these positions "bigs" from now on) that were skilled at creating offense and had elite scoring ability, where you could run offense through them... in today's game, you literally have only 5 bigs that have elite offensive, shot-creating skill... :confusedshrug:

[fandarko]

Bill Walton - Luke Walton tier
ALL STAR
Tiny Archibald - backup PG
Bob McAdoo - decent role player
ALL STAR
Pete Maravich - end of the bench
HAHAHA, ALL STAR
Moses Malone - MVP
ALL STAR
Tom Chambers - decent starter
ALL STAR
Pete Maravich - end of the bench, sitting next to himself
Walt Frazier - decent starter
Bob Lanier - energy big without the energy
Artis Gilmore - DJ Mbenga status
George Gervin - undrafted
David Thompson - undrafted
Jerry Lucas - decent starter
Nate Thurmond - DJ Mbenga status
Rick Barry - role player
John Havlicek - role player
Dave Cowens - poor man's Love with zero range

OK, you're joking

[pudman13]

I'm late to this thread, but here's my take on it, having watched as much footage of these guys as I could find (and being old enough to have seen all but Frazier, Thurmond and Lucas when they were still active)

The obvious thing that changes some of these people's careers is the 3-point shot, not just for the perimeter players, but also for the centers and how their roles would be changed.

Bill Walton : If he could play a full season, he's an MVP.
Tiny Archibald : All-star. Imagine Iverson with better shot selection
Bob McAdoo : Also an All-star. People keep comparing him to Durant, but Nowitzki seems like the better comparison to me.
Moses Malone : also an MVP
Tom Chambers : I actually didn't see him play much...not sure about his overall game, but I don't see any reason to think he's be any better or worse than he was
Pete Maravich : We'll never know if he could have fit in on a great team, but I see no reason to think he wouldn't be as successful as, say, Carmelo Anthony, or more so, and he sure would be a ton more fun to watch.
Walt Frazier : He'd rank with the very best point guards in the game, easy. He's maybe win some Defensive Player of the Year awards too. So would Jerry West, though nobody asked about him.
Bob Lanier : Also an all star...a guys as strong as him with so many offensive skills? He'd be great.
Artis Gilmore : There's nobody like him playing right now. He'd be the most physically dominating player in the game. Maybe his effectiveness would be cut down a bit since less of the game is played in the paint, but he would intimidate.
George Gervin : He'd be a scoring champ in any era
David Thompson : A sidenote here--there's one of those Red Auerbach videos of him and 6'5" Brian Winters, and Winters just dwarfs him. Was he one of the first to lie about his height? Is he really more like 6'2"? He's a better Russell Westbrook, no? An easy all star.
Jerry Lucas : Here's a guy who was shooting from 3-point range when it only got him 2. He's a better Kevin Love. Lucas had a .499 lifetime FG%, even shooting all those 3-point range hook shots, and the guy was probably the most skilled rebounder ever in terms of playing the angles.
Nate Thurmond : Again, there really aren't any centers like him--he'd be similar to Gilmore, though somewhat less offensively skilled.
Rick Barry : I wonder if any team today would let a guy like Barry just dominate the ball the way he did...I suspect he'd be one of the few on this list whose game would be hamstrung by the way the game is played now, though I see no reason to think he couldn't still be great if he was allowed to play his game. He played with the 3-pointer in the ABA...would be an easy adjustment for him.
John Havlicek : I've said this many times...as great as he was, the biggest change in the game since his retirement is that forwards are generally bigger. A guy like him with such an uncanny knack for being where the play is would be great in any era--he had the same kind of alpha dog mentality as, say, Kobe Bryant--but I do wonder about the matchups. I'd like to see more footage of him playing against teams who had big forwards. Can anyone here give me an example of a key 60s or 70s team who had a 3 who was a few inches taller than Havlicek? He did play against Dr. J, by the way, so it's not as if he couldn't keep up with guys who had that kind of athleticism. Also...like Frazier, he was a star defender, something that could translate to any era.
Dave Cowens : They called him "undersized," but by today's standards he'd probably be listed as at least 6'10." A guy who could shoot like him, who had as much skill from the center position? Who rebounded like he did? He'd be great. Would he maybe be a PF instead of a center? Maybe, but I don't think it would make him less effective.

[pudman13]

Speaking of Cowens, can anyone tell me who he's dunking over in the gif on this page?

http://www.celticslife.com/2014/08/the-1970s-celtics-overlooked-champions.html

[Psileas]

Speaking of Cowens, can anyone tell me who he's dunking over in the gif on this page?

http://www.celticslife.com/2014/08/the-1970s-celtics-overlooked-champions.html

He may be Manny Leaks.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Seriously. I can show you clips were people are moving a lot faster, fundamentally covering much better spots on the floor, creating real obstacles to get to the baskets, that are way more explosive, super fast in comparison. There was a serious dilution of the league due to expansion, drugs and a lack of talent in the mid to late 70's.

I love the 60's it was heart, blood, sweat and tears age. The league went up and then came down hard in the later 70's. I am not saying they were without talent. There was always some that could do different things but overall the game suffered. But saying a guy that had no impact then is going to rise up in the strongest position today is insane. And he would be in the hardest position to prove himself in today's game or be part of the near extinct position of tweener guard. He didn't do squat then but is going to be top five now. This is why you lose people with this craziness.


Some of the arguments you've used here before, couldn't be further from the truth, simple as that. Some stuff even left me like :wtf:
And you're getting more and more into very subjective grounds...

Anyways, bottom line is that Pistol Pete still faced great competition on both ends (not just h2h), some great athletes too... regardless, no matter which way you wanna look at it. And in a time where rules(written/unwritten) made it harder for guards than nowadays. Playing with no 3pt line also "detrimental" to his game beause he was a great shooter with great range. And hot-dogging was mostly frowned upon by most coaches, players and hardcore fans. Oh, and dribbling rules are way looser now.

Despite not having good intangibles, Pete is one of the most skilled players ever while having some nice physical gifts...

And you can keep talking about 'this' being more athletic than 'that', things of that nature, so on and so forth... But you're missing some facts, some important things, some stuff that can't be ignored and basically "kills" everything you wanna base your arguments onto:
-Steve Nash was considerably smaller than Pete, and less athletic... 2x MVP in this era, just to name something;
-You wanna talk about Westbrook or Rose... Stephen Curry ain't even seeing them as far as athleticism while being smaller too, but he can kill them in any given night, and at this point I'd rather have him on my team than those other two;
-5' 11.75" Chris Paul after sustaining injuries that took plenty of his athleticism was still able to be considered the best PG in the league;
-Goran Dragic is smaller than Maravich, not as skilled, not more athletic either... 20/6 on 51/41 just last year;
-Manu Ginobili is one of the best SG's of this era, still balling past-30. His teammate Tony Parker is a FMVP;
-36 years old Kobe Bryant, in his 19th season, after a torn achilles, is leading the league in scoring;
...(so on)
You can keep bringing up Westbrook and so on, athleticism this and that, but just don't neglect some examples like the ones above.

Coming up nowadays, if he was playing at his peak today, Pete Maravich would've been the best SG in the league at this point (by little though, mostly because of his playing "ways").
Not saying he would be better than he was, not at all, he would be...... what he was, give or take a "few", adjusting to today's "style" and game. And you got many examples/facts from both eras, that can be used to "view" things that way.

And, like I've mentioned before, you've said some extremely "wrong" things here that imho make this discussion futile, no point in going further, I'm done here.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm late to this thread, but here's my take on it, having watched as much footage of these guys as I could find (and being old enough to have seen all but Frazier, Thurmond and Lucas when they were still active)

The obvious thing that changes some of these people's careers is the 3-point shot, not just for the perimeter players, but also for the centers and how their roles would be changed.

Bill Walton : If he could play a full season, he's an MVP.
Tiny Archibald : All-star. Imagine Iverson with better shot selection
Bob McAdoo : Also an All-star. People keep comparing him to Durant, but Nowitzki seems like the better comparison to me.
Moses Malone : also an MVP
Tom Chambers : I actually didn't see him play much...not sure about his overall game, but I don't see any reason to think he's be any better or worse than he was
Pete Maravich : We'll never know if he could have fit in on a great team, but I see no reason to think he wouldn't be as successful as, say, Carmelo Anthony, or more so, and he sure would be a ton more fun to watch.
Walt Frazier : He'd rank with the very best point guards in the game, easy. He's maybe win some Defensive Player of the Year awards too. So would Jerry West, though nobody asked about him.
Bob Lanier : Also an all star...a guys as strong as him with so many offensive skills? He'd be great.
Artis Gilmore : There's nobody like him playing right now. He'd be the most physically dominating player in the game. Maybe his effectiveness would be cut down a bit since less of the game is played in the paint, but he would intimidate.
George Gervin : He'd be a scoring champ in any era
David Thompson : A sidenote here--there's one of those Red Auerbach videos of him and 6'5" Brian Winters, and Winters just dwarfs him. Was he one of the first to lie about his height? Is he really more like 6'2"? He's a better Russell Westbrook, no? An easy all star.
Jerry Lucas : Here's a guy who was shooting from 3-point range when it only got him 2. He's a better Kevin Love. Lucas had a .499 lifetime FG%, even shooting all those 3-point range hook shots, and the guy was probably the most skilled rebounder ever in terms of playing the angles.
Nate Thurmond : Again, there really aren't any centers like him--he'd be similar to Gilmore, though somewhat less offensively skilled.
Rick Barry : I wonder if any team today would let a guy like Barry just dominate the ball the way he did...I suspect he'd be one of the few on this list whose game would be hamstrung by the way the game is played now, though I see no reason to think he couldn't still be great if he was allowed to play his game. He played with the 3-pointer in the ABA...would be an easy adjustment for him.
John Havlicek : I've said this many times...as great as he was, the biggest change in the game since his retirement is that forwards are generally bigger. A guy like him with such an uncanny knack for being where the play is would be great in any era--he had the same kind of alpha dog mentality as, say, Kobe Bryant--but I do wonder about the matchups. I'd like to see more footage of him playing against teams who had big forwards. Can anyone here give me an example of a key 60s or 70s team who had a 3 who was a few inches taller than Havlicek? He did play against Dr. J, by the way, so it's not as if he couldn't keep up with guys who had that kind of athleticism. Also...like Frazier, he was a star defender, something that could translate to any era.
Dave Cowens : They called him "undersized," but by today's standards he'd probably be listed as at least 6'10." A guy who could shoot like him, who had as much skill from the center position? Who rebounded like he did? He'd be great. Would he maybe be a PF instead of a center? Maybe, but I don't think it would make him less effective.


:applause: :applause: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Healthy and in their primes...

Bill Walton
Tiny Archibald
Bob McAdoo
Moses Malone
Tom Chambers
Pete Maravich
Walt Frazier
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
David Thompson
Jerry Lucas
Nate Thurmond
Rick Barry
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens

And if so, how would they do?

I don't think there is ANY question that ALL of these players, in their primes, would be among the best in TODAY's NBA.

[pauk]

All those & any player ever could play in any era, question is simply if they could play/produce as well as they did back then.

[Pointguard]

Some of the arguments you've used here before, couldn't be further from the truth, simple as that. Some stuff even left me like :wtf:
And you're getting more and more into very subjective grounds...


And you can keep talking about 'this' being more athletic than 'that', things of that nature, so on and so forth... But you're missing some facts, some important things, some stuff that can't be ignored and basically "kills" everything you wanna base your arguments onto:
-Steve Nash was considerably smaller than Pete, and less athletic... 2x MVP in this era, just to name something;
-You wanna talk about Westbrook or Rose... Stephen Curry ain't even seeing them as far as athleticism while being smaller too, but he can kill them in any given night, and at this point I'd rather have him on my team than those other two;
-5' 11.75" Chris Paul after sustaining injuries that took plenty of his athleticism was still able to be considered the best PG in the league;
-Goran Dragic is smaller than Maravich, not as skilled, not more athletic either... 20/6 on 51/41 just last year;
-Manu Ginobili is one of the best SG's of this era, still balling past-30. His teammate Tony Parker is a FMVP;
-36 years old Kobe Bryant, in his 19th season, after a torn achilles, is leading the league in scoring;
...(so on)
You can keep bringing up Westbrook and so on, athleticism this and that, but just don't neglect some examples like the ones above.

Coming up nowadays, if he was playing at his peak today, Pete Maravich would've been the best SG in the league at this point (by little though, mostly because of his playing "ways").
Not saying he would be better than he was, not at all, he would be...... what he was, give or take a "few", adjusting to today's "style" and game. And you got many examples/facts from both eras, that can be used to "view" things that way.

And, like I've mentioned before, you've said some extremely "wrong" things here that imho make this discussion futile, no point in going further, I'm done here.

Extremely wrong things??? Please point out one thing where I am wrong or supposedly "far from the truth." You have said this what three times already and not once come back with any substance. Don't say nonsense like that and don't back it up. If you aren't old enough to know conceptual differences from truths why are you defending Maravich where the whole argument is conceptual.

OK, so when I ask questions then you should be able to answer them. Simple enough right.

I had one theme from the beginning that I keep harping on that you avoid at all cost.

Name me the skill, attribute or asset that Maravich had that made him elite in his time, that made his team win and would be even better in today's game. Curry, Gin, Nash and Paul are all deeply ingrained in their teams winning and functioning at high levels. I don't know of any team where they made their team significantly worse. Perhaps, you can tell me?

Its guess work if Maravich can be on a winning team as the best player? In fact, he only took a winning team and turned them into a loosing team? Or is that premise wrong?

You are just telling me that he had this and that but is this and that is automatically good enough to make him elite in another era when he wasn't then? He had more freedom to score when he was in his prime, than any other player in the game ever had in their prime.

Point out one thing wrong here. Simple enough.

And we are supposed to just agree with you because you said it?