"51 years ago today, "Pistol" Pete Maravich became the first Division I basketball player to surpass 3,000 career points.
Maravich remains the all-time leading scorer in Division I history with 3,667 points and an average of 44.2 points per game (!!!). He achieved this before the adoption of the three-point line and shot clock, and despite not playing varsity as a freshman due to then-NCAA rules. 3,000-point club: Remember, Maravich played just three seasons, while the rest of the guys on this list played four.
Maravich, LSU ('6870): 3,667 points Freeman Williams, Portland St. ('7578): 3,249 Chris Clemson, Campbell ('1619): 3,225 Lionel Simmons, La Salle ('8790): 3,217 Alphonso Ford, MVSU ('9093): 3,165 Doug McDermott, Creighton ('1114): 3,150 Mike Daum, S. Dakota St. ('1619): 3,067 Harry Kelly, Texas Southern ('8083): 3,066 Keydren Clark, Saint Peter's ('0306): 3,058 Hersey Hawkins, Bradley ('8588): 3,008
The big picture: After graduating from LSU, where he'd played for his father, Maravich went on to the NBA, where he averaged 24.2 points per game over a 10-year career with the Hawks, Jazz and Celtics.
After injuries forced his retirement, Maravich became a recluse for two years before eventually becoming a born-again Christian. In 1988, he died suddenly at age 40 during a pick-up game due to a previously undetected heart defect." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Classic example of a great individual talent who never achieved much team success. His collegiate career was much more successful than his pro version, which may speak more to the level of competition/supporting cast than his individual skills. I remember his passing/ball-handling prowess as much as his shooting.
Great passer. An asset to any team. No three-point shot back then... and he could hit from long range! How the heck does anybody AVERAGE 40+ ppg in college?!?
Classic example of a great individual talent who never achieved much team success. His collegiate career was much more successful than his pro version, which may speak more to the level of competition/supporting cast than his individual skills. I remember his passing/ball-handling prowess as much as his shooting.
A very great player. To average over 40 points a game in Division 1 in an era where there was no shot clock is amazing. And he had such great ball handling skills in an era when the referees treated palming the ball as a violation, and called it so. He averaged 5.1 assists a game in college, 6.2 as a senior.
As you said, he was a great individual player who never achieved much team success. I guess Pete Newell would have agreed with your assessment. When Pete was the General Manager of the Lakers, he had a chance to trade for Maravich, but he didn't pull the trigger. He later said that he didn't think he could win with Maravich. It has been a sort of curse for many truly outstanding individual players, to not have much team success. Teams and coaches may depend too much on them, and that was not their fault. Maravich played to make his teammates better, but still his teams came up short, in terms of championships.
Yeah the fact that he had that career without knowing he had a heart defect just makes his whole journey so improbable. I presume that, these days, similar heart issues are identified and addressed one way or the other.
We all know the the Hank Gathers story, but his issue was actually diagnosed. He never should have been allowed to play.
When I was going to Berkeley High in the early 70s, we lost star all-league basketball player, Greg Brown, to a heart attack during a game late in the season. It was devastating to the entire school, and obviously the team, at the time. Alameda actually forfeited the last game of the season to allow BHS to remain unbeaten in its league--a pretty magnanimous gesture. BHS went on to lose in the semi-final of the TOC to St Joes by one point. The team was still very good with future Cal star, Gene Ransom, but I believe would have easily taken the TOC with Greg. (Side note: only two players were ever three time TOC all tournament team members--both came from BHS. Gene Ransom and Ruppert Jones.)
Some years later, BHS had a program that resulted in it being one of the first schools to purchase and have heart shocker paddles at games.
Classic example of a great individual talent who never achieved much team success. His collegiate career was much more successful than his pro version, which may speak more to the level of competition/supporting cast than his individual skills. I remember his passing/ball-handling prowess as much as his shooting.
A very great player. To average over 40 points a game in Division 1 in an era where there was no shot clock is amazing. And he had such great ball handling skills in an era when the referees treated palming the ball as a violation, and called it so. He averaged 5.1 assists a game in college, 6.2 as a senior.
As you said, he was a great individual player who never achieved much team success. I guess Pete Newell would have agreed with your assessment. When Pete was the General Manager of the Lakers, he had a chance to trade for Maravich, but he didn't pull the trigger. He later said that he didn't think he could win with Maravich. It has been a sort of curse for many truly outstanding individual players, to not have much team success. Teams and coaches may depend too much on them, and that was not their fault. Maravich played to make his teammates better, but still his teams came up short, in terms of championships.
It's easier to defend 1 player, no matter how good, than 5.
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
And then consider how much more he would have scored (1) with a 3 point line, and (2) today's rules protecting guards from the rough play of earlier times...
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
I've seen his stats before, but that video was the first I've seen of how he played. He had a really good shooting stroke! He also had a great pull up jumper and a really good fade away! In some ways, he seemed like a proto-Kobe or a proto-Harden. Only, it looked like he out-quicked his opponents and relied on his athleticism moreso than either of the other two (or maybe I'm just thinking old Kobe and not so much young Kobe). In reading more about him, it looked like he wasn't much of a defender, so that would make him more of a proto-Harden than proto-Kobe. Would that be a fair assessment?
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
I've seen his stats before, but that video was the first I've seen of how he played. He had a really good shooting stroke! He also had a great pull up jumper and a really good fade away! In some ways, he seemed like a proto-Kobe or a proto-Harden. Only, it looked like he out-quicked his opponents and relied on his athleticism moreso than either of the other two (or maybe I'm just thinking old Kobe and not so much young Kobe). In reading more about him, it looked like he wasn't much of a defender, so that would make him more of a proto-Harden than proto-Kobe. Would that be a fair assessment?
I think the closest comparison in the modern game is Stephen Curry. Not the 30 foot shot Curry. Rather the guy who plays all the angles, is constantly in motion, is the smartest guy on the court and plays with the most flair. His shot was good, but not great. He shot only 44% on 2s for his career unlike Curry who shoots 48% despite much tougher defending. Maravich was two or three inches taller, similar athletic ability. Relied on quickness and skill, lack of strength was a weakness. There was an excitement watching him play as with Curry, like what is he going to do next. No comparison to young Kobe, who was an all time athlete, or Harden, who is a bull. Knee injuries before there were good treatments robbed him of some his best years like my other childhood hero, Bernard King. Like King, he improved until his late 20s before the injuries .
Back in the 70s stars did not play defense. That allowed him to play over 40 minutes a game. Not to pick nits, but by the time of the video, Frazier was over the hill, and not the great defender he had been five years before.
"His shot was good, but not great. He shot only 44% on 2s for his career unlike Curry who shoots 48% despite much tougher defending."
Yeah, in that HORSE game with The Iceman that I posted above, Maravich bricked most of the outside shots Gervin made. Pistol got the Iceman out with chicanery.
With regard to the game where Pete went off for 68 against the Knicks, I read somewhere that at one point Clyde said to Earl the Pearl, "Are you going to give me a little help here?" to which Monroe responded, "You're the one who is All League Defense, you figure it out."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
I've seen his stats before, but that video was the first I've seen of how he played. He had a really good shooting stroke! He also had a great pull up jumper and a really good fade away! In some ways, he seemed like a proto-Kobe or a proto-Harden. Only, it looked like he out-quicked his opponents and relied on his athleticism moreso than either of the other two (or maybe I'm just thinking old Kobe and not so much young Kobe). In reading more about him, it looked like he wasn't much of a defender, so that would make him more of a proto-Harden than proto-Kobe. Would that be a fair assessment?
Similar to Harden mostly in the way in which he dominated the ball. Although he had great passing ability, often the only time the ball left his hands on offense is when he shot it.
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
I've seen his stats before, but that video was the first I've seen of how he played. He had a really good shooting stroke! He also had a great pull up jumper and a really good fade away! In some ways, he seemed like a proto-Kobe or a proto-Harden. Only, it looked like he out-quicked his opponents and relied on his athleticism moreso than either of the other two (or maybe I'm just thinking old Kobe and not so much young Kobe). In reading more about him, it looked like he wasn't much of a defender, so that would make him more of a proto-Harden than proto-Kobe. Would that be a fair assessment?
I think the closest comparison in the modern game is Stephen Curry. Not the 30 foot shot Curry. Rather the guy who plays all the angles, is constantly in motion, is the smartest guy on the court and plays with the most flair. His shot was good, but not great. He shot only 44% on 2s for his career unlike Curry who shoots 48% despite much tougher defending. Maravich was two or three inches taller, similar athletic ability. Relied on quickness and skill, lack of strength was a weakness. There was an excitement watching him play as with Curry, like what is he going to do next. No comparison to young Kobe, who was an all time athlete, or Harden, who is a bull. Knee injuries before there were good treatments robbed him of some his best years like my other childhood hero, Bernard King. Like King, he improved until his late 20s before the injuries .
Back in the 70s stars did not play defense. That allowed him to play over 40 minutes a game. Not to pick nits, but by the time of the video, Frazier was over the hill, and not the great defender he had been five years before.
You can't compare shooting stats of vastly different eras, because the rules have changed like night and day from 1977. Today, palming is never called. Traveling is hardly ever called. Hand checking is not allowed. Drawing a charge near the basket is not allowed. Flopping draws a warning. A ball handler on the drive is apparently permitted to make a fist with his off hand and punch his defender in the chest to stun him or back him up and blow by him. First player I ever saw do this was Jaylen at Cal. Back in the day of Maravich and Frazier, defenders were the ones who got away with a lot, but now defenders are greatly restricted in order to allow the offensive players much more freedom. Coaches have countered the changes by using more help defense to try and even the odds somewhat. Gone is the in-your-face defender, like Jorge, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, KC Jones or Clyde Frazier. They are dinosaurs, almost extinct. In my opinion, players of the 1970s had a lot tougher defenders to contend with than they have today. Defense from the 1990s to about 2013 was another period emphasizing tougher defense, and the scores reflected that. Very few, if any, NBA players play tough individual defense today. They play help defense, which means almost every player is ready at any time to leave his man and help out a teammate. The result to me often looks like chaos, with one or more players left wide open, but with every team playing this style of defense, the game has changed to an offensive game. No longer are there many players who get to play as defensive specialists. A great defender like KC Jones would not get to start or play much at all, because he was not much of a scorer. Jorge Gutierrez, another great defender, doesn't even get more than a cup of coffee with any team, because he can't score enough. And Mr. Curry gets to face some zones, a piece of cake for him, while the Pistol had to play against man-to-man defense exclusively.
Not to pick your nit, but Frazier and Maravich were close in age, Frazier was only two years older, 31 when the Jazz game in bearister's video was played, while Maravich was 29. I don't agree that the stars played no defense in the 70s. What do you base that on? It was the opposite. I'd agree that Frazier was a little on the downhill side of his career, but only two years before that game, 1975, Frazier won his final All-defensive first team award, an award which he won for 7 straight seasons. Maravich was having the best year of his career in 1977. At 31, I'd guess that Frazier was still a better defender than at least 90% of the guards in the NBA that year. He had had only a slight dropoff offensively. He retired at 34. Maravich had a tragic injury to his meniscus in 1978, played about 50 games in the next two years and retired at 32, ironically the same year Frazier retired.
I understand your feelings for Cuonzo. My quarrel with rewarding invitations or seeds is that it is a reflection of society in general, where propping up self esteem is so important that we stoop to making awards for having been chosen for something, instead of earning it through piling up achievements. This has been a gradual change. The NCAA expanded more and more over time, to admit more and more teams, most of which have zero chance of winning the tournament. Their reason for being chosen was to increase the gate, increase the popularity of the tournament to what it is today. Along the way there have even been teams with losing records invited to play in it. Their only chance for many teams is to upset some superior team, and that too leads to the excitement. And over time we have lost sight of the game and the purpose for playing it, professionalized it, as it were. I don't quarrel with your opinion. It is the prevailing one. Whatever keeps you interested in basketball is fine with me. I just have a different view.
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
I've seen his stats before, but that video was the first I've seen of how he played. He had a really good shooting stroke! He also had a great pull up jumper and a really good fade away! In some ways, he seemed like a proto-Kobe or a proto-Harden. Only, it looked like he out-quicked his opponents and relied on his athleticism moreso than either of the other two (or maybe I'm just thinking old Kobe and not so much young Kobe). In reading more about him, it looked like he wasn't much of a defender, so that would make him more of a proto-Harden than proto-Kobe. Would that be a fair assessment?
I think the closest comparison in the modern game is Stephen Curry. Not the 30 foot shot Curry. Rather the guy who plays all the angles, is constantly in motion, is the smartest guy on the court and plays with the most flair. His shot was good, but not great. He shot only 44% on 2s for his career unlike Curry who shoots 48% despite much tougher defending. Maravich was two or three inches taller, similar athletic ability. Relied on quickness and skill, lack of strength was a weakness. There was an excitement watching him play as with Curry, like what is he going to do next. No comparison to young Kobe, who was an all time athlete, or Harden, who is a bull. Knee injuries before there were good treatments robbed him of some his best years like my other childhood hero, Bernard King. Like King, he improved until his late 20s before the injuries .
Back in the 70s stars did not play defense. That allowed him to play over 40 minutes a game. Not to pick nits, but by the time of the video, Frazier was over the hill, and not the great defender he had been five years before.
You can't compare shooting stats of vastly different eras, because the rules have changed like night and day from 1977. Today, palming is never called. Traveling is hardly ever called. Hand checking is not allowed. Drawing a charge near the basket is not allowed. Flopping draws a warning. A ball handler on the drive is apparently permitted to make a fist with his off hand and punch his defender in the chest to stun him or back him up and blow by him. First player I ever saw do this was Jaylen at Cal. Back in the day of Maravich and Frazier, defenders were the ones who got away with a lot, but now defenders are greatly restricted in order to allow the offensive players much more freedom. Coaches have countered the changes by using more help defense to try and even the odds somewhat. Gone is the in-your-face defender, like Jorge, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, KC Jones or Clyde Frazier. They are dinosaurs, almost extinct. In my opinion, players of the 1970s had a lot tougher defenders to contend with than they have today. Defense from the 1990s to about 2013 was another period emphasizing tougher defense, and the scores reflected that. Very few, if any, NBA players play tough individual defense today. They play help defense, which means almost every player is ready at any time to leave his man and help out a teammate. The result to me often looks like chaos, with one or more players left wide open, but with every team playing this style of defense, the game has changed to an offensive game. No longer are there many players who get to play as defensive specialists. A great defender like KC Jones would not get to start or play much at all, because he was not much of a scorer. Jorge Gutierrez, another great defender, doesn't even get more than a cup of coffee with any team, because he can't score enough. And Mr. Curry gets to face some zones, a piece of cake for him, while the Pistol had to play against man-to-man defense exclusively.
Not to pick your nit, but Frazier and Maravich were close in age, Frazier was only two years older, 31 when the Jazz game in bearister's video was played, while Maravich was 29. I don't agree that the stars played no defense in the 70s. What do you base that on? It was the opposite. I'd agree that Frazier was a little on the downhill side of his career, but only two years before that game, 1975, Frazier won his final All-defensive first team award, an award which he won for 7 straight seasons. Maravich was having the best year of his career in 1977. At 31, I'd guess that Frazier was still a better defender than at least 90% of the guards in the NBA that year. He had had only a slight dropoff offensively. He retired at 34. Maravich had a tragic injury to his meniscus in 1978, played about 50 games in the next two years and retired at 32, ironically the same year Frazier retired.
I understand your feelings for Cuonzo. My quarrel with rewarding invitations or seeds is that it is a reflection of society in general, where propping up self esteem is so important that we stoop to making awards for having been chosen for something, instead of earning it through piling up achievements. This has been a gradual change. The NCAA expanded more and more over time, to admit more and more teams, most of which have zero chance of winning the tournament. Their reason for being chosen was to increase the gate, increase the popularity of the tournament to what it is today. Along the way there have even been teams with losing records invited to play in it. Their only chance for many teams is to upset some superior team, and that too leads to the excitement. And over time we have lost sight of the game and the purpose for playing it, professionalized it, as it were. I don't quarrel with your opinion. It is the prevailing one. Whatever keeps you interested in basketball is fine with me. I just have a different view.
I saw what I saw. Stars played no defense in the 70s. Non-stars played less defense than non-stars do now. Obviously there were exceptions like Frazier who made their names on defense. (I am not old enough to have seen KC Jones.) Making things even easier, modern help defense had not been invented. Defense was 1 v 1 or 1 v 2. Defenses then were like checkers versus chess now. I know you are nostalgic for the past, but the modern game is so much more highly skilled. Even if less contact is allowed and higher dribbles are allowed. Curry is way better than Maravich, it is not even close, although their creativity and style binds them across eras. If there was no help coming on screens for Curry he could score 40 points a game even without a 3 point line. However, Maravich may have raised his game if he was forced to, so the comparison is unfair. I remember Frazier being on his last legs, but I was young at the time so maybe I am wrong.
I think you are confusing me with someone else on Cuonzo as I have not said much. I think he was incompetent other than as a recruiter. I did not like watching his teams play. But I don't like Jones' or Fox's teams either. I think Monty is the only competent coach Cal has had since I started watching in the 80s.
Read the stats in Bearister's original post, then look at the video posted by Bearister of the Jazz - Knicks game. Maravich put up huge numbers in that game, and made all his teammates look better. And the man guarding him that night was none other than Walt (Clyde) Frazier, the best defensive guard in the NBA at the time. Plus, the Pistol was just a great showman, with the hair and the floppy socks. He was a joy to watch, and his teams were a joy to watch. That is what I miss.
I've seen his stats before, but that video was the first I've seen of how he played. He had a really good shooting stroke! He also had a great pull up jumper and a really good fade away! In some ways, he seemed like a proto-Kobe or a proto-Harden. Only, it looked like he out-quicked his opponents and relied on his athleticism moreso than either of the other two (or maybe I'm just thinking old Kobe and not so much young Kobe). In reading more about him, it looked like he wasn't much of a defender, so that would make him more of a proto-Harden than proto-Kobe. Would that be a fair assessment?
I think the closest comparison in the modern game is Stephen Curry. Not the 30 foot shot Curry. Rather the guy who plays all the angles, is constantly in motion, is the smartest guy on the court and plays with the most flair. His shot was good, but not great. He shot only 44% on 2s for his career unlike Curry who shoots 48% despite much tougher defending. Maravich was two or three inches taller, similar athletic ability. Relied on quickness and skill, lack of strength was a weakness. There was an excitement watching him play as with Curry, like what is he going to do next. No comparison to young Kobe, who was an all time athlete, or Harden, who is a bull. Knee injuries before there were good treatments robbed him of some his best years like my other childhood hero, Bernard King. Like King, he improved until his late 20s before the injuries .
Back in the 70s stars did not play defense. That allowed him to play over 40 minutes a game. Not to pick nits, but by the time of the video, Frazier was over the hill, and not the great defender he had been five years before.
You can't compare shooting stats of vastly different eras, because the rules have changed like night and day from 1977. Today, palming is never called. Traveling is hardly ever called. Hand checking is not allowed. Drawing a charge near the basket is not allowed. Flopping draws a warning. A ball handler on the drive is apparently permitted to make a fist with his off hand and punch his defender in the chest to stun him or back him up and blow by him. First player I ever saw do this was Jaylen at Cal. Back in the day of Maravich and Frazier, defenders were the ones who got away with a lot, but now defenders are greatly restricted in order to allow the offensive players much more freedom. Coaches have countered the changes by using more help defense to try and even the odds somewhat. Gone is the in-your-face defender, like Jorge, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, KC Jones or Clyde Frazier. They are dinosaurs, almost extinct. In my opinion, players of the 1970s had a lot tougher defenders to contend with than they have today. Defense from the 1990s to about 2013 was another period emphasizing tougher defense, and the scores reflected that. Very few, if any, NBA players play tough individual defense today. They play help defense, which means almost every player is ready at any time to leave his man and help out a teammate. The result to me often looks like chaos, with one or more players left wide open, but with every team playing this style of defense, the game has changed to an offensive game. No longer are there many players who get to play as defensive specialists. A great defender like KC Jones would not get to start or play much at all, because he was not much of a scorer. Jorge Gutierrez, another great defender, doesn't even get more than a cup of coffee with any team, because he can't score enough. And Mr. Curry gets to face some zones, a piece of cake for him, while the Pistol had to play against man-to-man defense exclusively.
Not to pick your nit, but Frazier and Maravich were close in age, Frazier was only two years older, 31 when the Jazz game in bearister's video was played, while Maravich was 29. I don't agree that the stars played no defense in the 70s. What do you base that on? It was the opposite. I'd agree that Frazier was a little on the downhill side of his career, but only two years before that game, 1975, Frazier won his final All-defensive first team award, an award which he won for 7 straight seasons. Maravich was having the best year of his career in 1977. At 31, I'd guess that Frazier was still a better defender than at least 90% of the guards in the NBA that year. He had had only a slight dropoff offensively. He retired at 34. Maravich had a tragic injury to his meniscus in 1978, played about 50 games in the next two years and retired at 32, ironically the same year Frazier retired.
I understand your feelings for Cuonzo. My quarrel with rewarding invitations or seeds is that it is a reflection of society in general, where propping up self esteem is so important that we stoop to making awards for having been chosen for something, instead of earning it through piling up achievements. This has been a gradual change. The NCAA expanded more and more over time, to admit more and more teams, most of which have zero chance of winning the tournament. Their reason for being chosen was to increase the gate, increase the popularity of the tournament to what it is today. Along the way there have even been teams with losing records invited to play in it. Their only chance for many teams is to upset some superior team, and that too leads to the excitement. And over time we have lost sight of the game and the purpose for playing it, professionalized it, as it were. I don't quarrel with your opinion. It is the prevailing one. Whatever keeps you interested in basketball is fine with me. I just have a different view.
I saw what I saw. Stars played no defense in the 70s. Non-stars played less defense than non-stars do now. Obviously there were exceptions like Frazier who made their names on defense. (I am not old enough to have seen KC Jones.) Making things even easier, modern help defense had not been invented. Defense was 1 v 1 or 1 v 2. Defenses then were like checkers versus chess now. I know you are nostalgic for the past, but the modern game is so much more highly skilled. Even if less contact is allowed and higher dribbles are allowed. Curry is way better than Maravich, it is not even close, although their creativity and style binds them across eras. If there was no help coming on screens for Curry he could score 40 points a game even without a 3 point line. However, Maravich may have raised his game if he was forced to, so the comparison is unfair. I remember Frazier being on his last legs, but I was young at the time so maybe I am wrong.
I think you are confusing me with someone else on Cuonzo as I have not said much. I think he was incompetent other than as a recruiter. I did not like watching his teams play. But I don't like Jones' or Fox's teams either. I think Monty is the only competent coach Cal has had since I started watching in the 80s.
I admit to being nostalgic, but I am not talking emotion here. I am trying to talk facts and logic. The game is played by different rules now. It is not the same game I grew up with. The rule changes were enacted over many years to make the game more popular, to create more crowd pleasing experiences, and sell more tickets. In the early days of the NBA, the games were contests based on the old rules which made for equal competition between defense and offense. No one had an edge. Players like Wilt and Russell began to dominate on defense, forcing many rule changes. Russell used to go up above the rim and guide all his teammates' errant shots into the basket, and the goal tending rule was born. Russell and Wilt caused the key to be widened the first time, and in following years it was widened further. Lew Alcindor caused the dunk to be disallowed for some years. When it was noticed that fans loved seeing the dunks, then dunks were allowed, all to sell tickets. We need to remember that the NBA was struggling a lot to stay afloat financially in the early years, and even though many fans loved to see Russ and Wilt block a lot of shots, and get all the rebounds, still offense and scoring was more influential in selling tickets. So over time the rules have been generally changed to favor the offense over the defense.
My opinion is the players today in general are more athletic, but that the skills required by the rules today are vastly different from the skills required by the old rules to play the game I grew up with. I feel it is impossible to prove the players of today are more skilled, or vice versa. First of all, most of the players of old could not play in today's game, the NBA players today have developed the ability to palm or carry a basketball, travel with it, and shoot it from 30 feet with good accuracy. You mentioned eliminating palming as just allowing a higher dribble. What it does is allow the dribbler to put his hands on the side of the ball, below the equator and make those fabulous crossover moves, and it allows Kevin Durant to actually pick up his dribble, carry the ball, maybe travel a step, and dribble again. Those skills were learned over a lifetime of playing and practicing, and not easily changed to adapt to the stricter rules of yesteryear. Those skills would have been worthless in Russell's day, because every time a modern player tried to dribble, or walk without a dribble, he'd be called for a turnover. With no 3-point line, every time he tried a long range shot, he would have been benched by his coach for taking such a low percentage shot. And every time he created contact with a defender, he'd have been called for a charge. Most of your players of today trying to play in a game under the old rules, would be sitting on the bench.
Conversely, the players of old trying to play the modern game would be similarly disastrous. They did not grow up with the freedom to palm or carry the ball, to travel with it, or think about learning to specialize in three point shooting when there was no three point line. Their lifetime of games and practice would have been useless in the modern game, and very few of them could play today. They would have to learn how to created an open shot by using physical contact. In the old days, it was the defender who used his hands and his body in physical contact to be able to stop the skilled offensive player. Today it is the offensive player who is allowed to use his body to use his body to created contact. Bill Russell once asked Wilt, "You once averaged 50 points a game for a whole season. How many points do you think you could average in the modern game?" Wilt answered, "Oh, about 75 points." Russell asked why, and Wilt said something like, "Are you kidding? I scored 50 a game with players hanging all over me. How many points do you think I could score with no one allowed to lay a hand on me?" He went on to mention that in the 12 games or so leading up to his 100 point game, he had averaged 75 points a game.
As to defenses, players of old were trained to be tough individual defenders. Zone defenses were invented to help teams who did not have such good individual defenders. Similarly, help defenses were created to help teams cope defensively with the arbitrary rule changes, like allowing the offensive player to pick up his dribble, carry the ball and dribble again, or make the fancy crossover moves, allowing traveling, and disallowing hand checking, and putting an abitrary semi-circle near the basket to give the offensive player a better chance at a free shot at the basket, and of course, to defend the new three-point shot.
Here are a couple of videos on carrying the ball and traveling, all apparently legal in the modern game:
As to who was better, Curry or Maravich, I'd lean toward Curry, not necessarily as an individual player, but because he has some rings and Maravich has none.
I'm very sorry I confused you with someone else over an opinion of Cuonzo. I feel about the same as you on that issue.
I had a casual acquaintance with Nate the Great. I regret I never asked him for a ride in his Rolls. He had the same Silver Cloud III model that Clyde owned, I believe.
Yeah, your Nate story about you and your date in the restaurant is a memorable one and a great testament to what a nice person Nate was.
The thing that gets my goat about the modern game more than anything else: How is a defender supposed to guard a guy that picks up his dribble and walks in for a layup? The very reason the offensive player picked up his dribble is because the defender was sealing him off....then the offensive player flips the script and makes himself unguardable by walking, often resulting in a foul and two FT.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yeah, your Nate story about you and your date in the restaurant is a memorable one and a great testament to what a nice person Nate was.
The thing that gets my goat about the modern game more than anything else: How is a defender supposed to guard a guy that picks up his dribble and walks in for a layup? The very reason the offensive player picked up his dribble is because the defender was sealing him off....then the offensive player flips the script and makes himself unguardable by walking, often resulting in a foul and two FT.
SFCityBear, what's the story? Would you mind sharing it here?
Yeah, your Nate story about you and your date in the restaurant is a memorable one and a great testament to what a nice person Nate was.
The thing that gets my goat about the modern game more than anything else: How is a defender supposed to guard a guy that picks up his dribble and walks in for a layup? The very reason the offensive player picked up his dribble is because the defender was sealing him off....then the offensive player flips the script and makes himself unguardable by walking, often resulting in a foul and two FT.
SFCityBear, what's the story? Would you mind sharing it here?
I used Google* to locate it. SFCity Bear posted this comment in a thread on 12/16/20 (I copied and pasted):
" I think a told this story before, but I first met Nate Thurmond in Henry Africa's club on Broadway. I was having a drink with my date, when in the door comes Nate Thurmond and his long-time girlfriend. They sat down at a table on the other side of the crowded nightclub. I called the waiter over, and told him to bring a round of drinks for Nate and his ladyfriend, but don't make a big deal out of it. If he asks, just tell him the drinks are from a fan. A few minutes later, the waiter returned, and told me, "Mr. Thurmond won't accept the drinks unless you come over and join them at his table." So we went over to Nate's table and joined them, We spent about 3 hours together telling stories, and had a wonderful time. My date didn't know a basketball from a tennis ball, but we all seemed to enjoy each other. We talked basket ball, but then they wanted to know what we did, and everything about us as well. At the end of the evening, Nate asked me, "What are you doing this weekend?" Nate then said, "Well, I've got to fly down to San Diego this weekend for a game with the Clippers, and I'd like you to come down with me. There is probably no one in San Diego who will buy me a drink."
Nate also opened a restaurant, selling mostly BBQ, using his mother's recipes. Best BBQ in SF. I used to stop by from time to time, and Nate and I always laughed about how we met. Before that time, I had felt that all the 7-footers were eccentric people, not particularly open, somehow a little uncomfortable in their tall frames, but I found Nate the Great to be a very regular guy, and I am very happy to have known him."
* Search terms: bearinsider SFCityBear Nate Henry Africa (I remembered the name of the hostelry)
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yeah, your Nate story about you and your date in the restaurant is a memorable one and a great testament to what a nice person Nate was.
The thing that gets my goat about the modern game more than anything else: How is a defender supposed to guard a guy that picks up his dribble and walks in for a layup? The very reason the offensive player picked up his dribble is because the defender was sealing him off....then the offensive player flips the script and makes himself unguardable by walking, often resulting in a foul and two FT.
SFCityBear, what's the story? Would you mind sharing it here?
I used Google* to locate it. SFCity Bear posted this comment in a thread on 12/16/20 (I copied and pasted):
" I think a told this story before, but I first met Nate Thurmond in Henry Africa's club on Broadway. I was having a drink with my date, when in the door comes Nate Thurmond and his long-time girlfriend. They sat down at a table on the other side of the crowded nightclub. I called the waiter over, and told him to bring a round of drinks for Nate and his ladyfriend, but don't make a big deal out of it. If he asks, just tell him the drinks are from a fan. A few minutes later, the waiter returned, and told me, "Mr. Thurmond won't accept the drinks unless you come over and join them at his table." So we went over to Nate's table and joined them, We spent about 3 hours together telling stories, and had a wonderful time. My date didn't know a basketball from a tennis ball, but we all seemed to enjoy each other. We talked basket ball, but then they wanted to know what we did, and everything about us as well. At the end of the evening, Nate asked me, "What are you doing this weekend?" Nate then said, "Well, I've got to fly down to San Diego this weekend for a game with the Clippers, and I'd like you to come down with me. There is probably no one in San Diego who will buy me a drink."
Nate also opened a restaurant, selling mostly BBQ, using his mother's recipes. Best BBQ in SF. I used to stop by from time to time, and Nate and I always laughed about how we met. Before that time, I had felt that all the 7-footers were eccentric people, not particularly open, somehow a little uncomfortable in their tall frames, but I found Nate the Great to be a very regular guy, and I am very happy to have known him."
* Search terms: bearinsider SFCityBear Nate Henry Africa (I remembered the name of the hostelry)
Geez, Bearister, Thanks for searching and locating that story. I intended to retell it, but I was tardy in doing so. I got very involved with the Lowell High Alumni Association which is opposing the SF School Board which passed a resolution to rename 44 San Francisco schools, including my high school, junior high, and elementary school.
Anyway, I can add a few small details to the Nate Thurmond story. I remembered that I had met Nate for a moment several years earlier. I had a girlfriend at the time who was about 5 feet tall, and she had this crush on Nate Thurmond, and when we were attending a game in Oakland, she kept asking me if we could get Nate's autograph. I finally gave in, and after the game, we went down to the door of the locker room, where a few people were waiting for the players to come out. Several players came out and some met family members and they went off to their cars in the parking lot. There were three absolute foxes there, dressed to the nines. Out comes Sleepy Floyd, and they all snuggle up to him, and take his arms and walk to his Mercedes, off to a party somewhere, I suppose. Then Nate came out, and my girlfriend, who was very shy, and I asked him for his autograph, which he gladly gave her, and then asked us how we enjoyed the game, and thanked us for coming. He could not have been nicer. My girlfriend had never been up close to someone that tall, and she couldn't stop talking about him all the way home.
I also remembered that Nate opened a restaurant on Fillmore street at the edge of the Western Addition area. He had a cook and a manager who were both relatives, and the menu was mostly his mother's recipes of soul food. It had a bar as well. It was later on that he got the idea to open a soul food BBQ place on Folsom st that served take out or delivered BBQ.
Finally, I will add to the story that you posted above, that when we were about to leave Henry Africa's club, I went outside to get my car, a '54 MG TF Roadster parked a few blocks away, and bring it to the front door and pick up my girlfriend. I had left the top down when I parked it, and during the time we were in the bar, it had rained, a rather heavy downpour. My car was filled to the top of the doors with water. I opened one and all the water rushed out. I had a couple of towels in trunk, and I tried to dry off the passenger seat. The seat was still pretty wet, but luckily, she had so much to drink, she did not notice all the way home.
That is about it. Nate lived up on Twin Peaks, I think, I lived not too far away. I used to see him in his car from time to time in different neighborhoods. Did you know that Nate and Gus Johnson were on the same high school team? Gus was later a star for the Baltimore Bullets.
It is so great to hear about sports heroes that are kind, nice people, especially when so many of them are a$$h@les.
Did not know that about Gus Johnson. I have this memory about him that may not be accurate: that he was one of the first players that could launch from the free throw line and dunk.
Finally, this one's for you:
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
It is so great to hear about sports heroes that are kind, nice people, especially when so many of them are a$$h@les.
Did not know that about Gus Johnson. I have this memory about him that may not be accurate: that he was one of the first players that could launch from the free throw line and dunk.
Finally, this one's for you:
Gus Johnson was 6-8 as I remember, and played center on that high school team, while Thurmond played forward, maybe because Gus could leap and Nate had that sweet jump shot. Maybe Nate played center when on defense.
Thanks for the photo. That is the car alright, except that mine was black, and had wire wheels. I spent more time underneath it than I did driving it. It was a real chick magnet, as they say. I remember one sunny afternoon driving down Castro st. At a bus stop, a young lady was hitching a ride. The car in front of me pulled over to pick her up. I pulled in behind and gave her the high sign, and she closed his door and hopped into my car. We headed to the Marina for some cocktails. She worked for the Dead or the Jefferson Airplane, and told me to come by a side door at Winterland that night, and she would let me in backstage, and I got to see the whole show. Janis Joplin was there too, as I recall.
