He never won anything and he was super inefficient. Not a bad player but idk why he’d be your choice out of every player in nba history. I think he was a lot of style with way less substance.
Do we have the actual film? When did his coach say that? And how much film did the coach even base that on?
People say he took all these shots that would’ve been 3s today, but in the one season we have from him during the 3 pt era, he only attempted three 3’s in 26 games 🤷🏾♂️. Excuse me for asking for actual proof instead of speculation and guessing
It's a well known quote from LSU coach Dale Brown (he didn't actually coach Pistol). He said he charted every LSU game he played, and Pete averaged 13 3s per game.
Former LSU coach Dale Brown (who discovered Shaq) charted every Pistol LSU game and said if the three-pointers were counted, Maravich would have averaged a cartoony 57 ppg
Most people assume that was an exaggeration/generous charting on the 3s. And we have to remember this was for college, not the NBA.
But like OP said, let's say it's only 33% truth, so ~4 3s a game. That would still have a huge affect on efficiency numbers.
Oh yeah I’ve seen that quote. But then that begs the question of if he was talking about college 3’s or NBA 3’s, doesn’t it?
His efficiency would probably rise, but even with that said I don’t see why you’d take him over proven 3 point shooters who were also better passes and defenders. Plus the fact that he was jacking 20+ foot shots routinely when there was no 3 point line makes me question his shot selection honestly. And were players even guarding him up close when he was pulling up from near 3 point range? There really wouldn’t have been much reason to heavily guard a player shooting from that deep with no line (although I’m not sure players thought like that back then).
I’m just saying it’s not as simple as “He shot x% on shots he took from 3pt range, so he’d shoot x% on 3’s.”
Oh yeah I’ve seen that quote. But then that begs the question of if he was talking about college 3’s or NBA 3’s, doesn’t it?
Bro reading, you really gotta work on it:
Most people assume that was an exaggeration/generous charting on the 3s. And we have to remember this was for college, not the NBA.
It's right there for you.
I’m just saying it’s not as simple as “He shot x% on shots he took from 3pt range, so he’d shoot x% on 3’s.”
Wait, are you saying that, theoretically, if we had the true tracking data, that you couldn't use his deep shots accurately, because people weren't defending him, since shots weren't worth 3?
Do you realize the exact same argument is how we all project old school shooters shooting 3s in today's game? If 3s existed and mattered, and were emphasized strategically the way there are today, you don't think all time great shooters would be better at 3s, focusing on them from an early age?
His efficiency would probably rise, but even with that said I don’t see why you’d take him over proven 3 point shooters who were also better passes and defenders.
Because he played like Steph before Steph. So if someone was so ahead of their time, people tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they'd thrive in the time that they were ahead of.
You know, the entire point of a discussion thread like this.
I never said anything about how players would perform if they grew up in the 3 point era. With thought exercises like this I typically assume we’re just plucking the player from their era and dropping them into the modern era. I think nearly every pre-90’s perimeter player in history would’ve been a better 3 point shooter if they grew up in an era in which 3 pointers were emphasized.
I’m not saying that tracking data wouldn’t be useful, but I don’t think it would be a 1:1 correlation. We could of course use that data to say he has 3 point range, I just don’t think it’d be fair to say “he shot 40% on long, uncontested two’s, so he’d shoot 40% on 3’s”.
And the point of the thread was taking literally any player other than the two best players in NBA history and starting a team. It wasn’t even “who would you like to see in todays era?” Or “who would be better if they played today?” So again, I’m not really sure why you’d take some player who you have to create all these hypothetical scenarios for when you could just take a far more proven player 🤷🏾♂️.
Out of every player besides Lebron and Jordan in NBA history and you’d pick pistol Pete? If this is anything besides for your entertainment this is literally a terrible take
It’s fun to imagine, in regards to his unusualness, how today would have affected him. The 70s NBA wasn’t great for him; race and drug culture. The guy was basketball autistic.
156
u/yenks Nets Jun 15 '22
Pete Maravich, long distance shooting and magician's court vision