Pistol Pete sucked?

[Findog]

Since it's the offseason and we're doing "Who's the best of all-time" and "The Top Ten ___ of all-time," thought I'd pass along this. It's interesting:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/08/...-early-answer/

Henry Abbott – of TrueHoop – posted a lengthy story on Kobe Bryant on Monday en led “To Be Determined: Kobe Bryant’s Place in History”. Towards the end of his story (which is a lengthy but good read) is a comparison of Kobe and Pistol Pete Maravich. Just like Pistol Pete, Kobe is the leading scorer on a team that does not contend for a le. Just like Pistol Pete, Kobe is often accused of dominating the ball and reducing the involvement of his teammates. And just like Pistol Pete, Kobe appears to respond to this criticism by, at times (apparently) refusing to shoot.

Although Kobe’s team has not been a contender since Shaq departed in 2004 (and as it is currently constructed, will not contend in 2007-08), the inability to win consistently cannot be attributed to Kobe. Of all the players taken in the 1996 draft, Kobe has been the most productive. This past season Kobe produced more wins than any other shooting guard in the Association. In sum, Kobe is a really good basketball player (although with a career WP48 – Wins Produced per 48 minutes — of 0.202, he would not be defined as a Super-Star).

What of Pistol Pete?

Abbott’s mention of Pete Maravich led me to wonder — exactly how good a player was the Pistol? Yes, he was a legendary scorer. In college he averaged 44 points per game. Although he was less prolific as a pro, he did finish his career with a per-game average of 24 points.

His teams, though, were never consistent winners. In his first nine seasons Pistol Pete only played for a winning team once, and overall, his teams had a 0.425 winning percentage.

Midway through his tenth season he was waived by the Utah Jazz and a few days later was signed by the Boston Celtics. Boston finished that season with 61 victories. But given that Maravich only played 442 minutes for the Celtics, though, it’s hard to attribute Boston’s success in 1979-80 to Pistol Pete.

Of course, the Kevin Garnett saga in Minnesota demonstrates that even one outstanding player cannot make up for a poor supporting cast. So perhaps Pistol Pete was truly outstanding, but was just cursed with teammates who were less than capable. In fact, this seems to be the conventional wisdom with respect to his career.

So we have two possibilities. The conventional wisdom is that Pistol Pete was a great player but cursed with bad teammates. The alternative to this story is that Pistol Pete, despite his prodigious scoring, was really not an effective player.

To settle this dispute (which is probably not a dispute beyond the confines of this forum), let me begin with my memory of Pistol Pete’s performance in the NBA. Pete Maravich began his NBA career in 1970 and retired ten years later after the 1979-80 season. When he retired I was ten years old, so I never actually saw him play. So much for my memories.

I have seen the highlights, and he certainly looked like a great basketball player. Of course, highlights tend to be about the good things that people do on the field of play. In other words, highlights tend to make everyone look good. What we want to know is how good Maravich was in between the highlights.

Although I never saw him play, some people managed to watch every game he played in the NBA. And these people recorded every point he scored, every shot he missed, every rebound he grabbed, every assist, and every personal foul. Starting with the 1973-74 season people started to note each offensive rebound, defensive rebound, steal, and blocked shot. And in 1977-78, someone noted every turnover he committed. In sum, the people who watched every game Maravich ever played left us with a wealth of information we can use to evaluate his performance.

We can find this data today at Basketball-Reference.com. Or you can look at the following table where Maravich’s career averages are detailed (as well as the performance of Kobe Bryant and an average NBA guard today). As we can see, Pistol Pete was no Kobe. In fact, I think the evidence suggests that Pistol Pete was not even “good”.

Table One: Maravich’s Career Performance

What people remember most about Maravich is his ability to score. He finished his career with 15,948 points, for – as noted — an average of 24.2 points per game.

In The Wages of Wins we observed that scoring totals are often what people focus upon in evaluating players. But it’s shooting efficiency (along with rebounds and turnovers) that matters most when it comes to wins and losses. And when we look at efficiency we see that Pistol Pete misfired quite a bit.

We can see this when we consider how many points he scored per field goal attempt. Of his 15,948 career points, 3,564 came from the free throw line. This means that he scored 12,348 points from his 14,025 field goal attempts. A bit of simple division reveals that Maravich scored 0.88 points per shot from the field (which is exactly the same mark he had in college). An average player from 1973-74 to 1979-80 scored 0.94 points per field goal attempt. In sum, Maravich was below average as a scorer. Yes, he was prolific, but this was because he took a large number of shot attempts.

What about other aspects of Maravich’s performance? Per 48 minutes he averaged 5.4 rebounds, 7.0 assists, and 3.7 personal fouls. Relative to players today (the table looks at players from 1993-94 to 2004-05), his rebounding totals are above average for a point guard and about average for a shooting guard (Maravich probably played a bit at each position). His assist numbers are below average for a point guard, but above average for a shooting guard. And his propensity to commit personal fouls was average for any guard. One should note that were more rebounds to be had in the 1970s, so his above average rebounds could be just a product of his era.

When we turn to steals, blocked shots, and turnovers we have less data to work with. Steals and blocked shots were only kept for the last seven years of his career. His numbers indicate, though, that he was about average with respect to each. As for turnovers, we only have three years of data. And for these three years he appears to quite turnover prone.

If we put the whole picture together we see that Maravich was above average with respect to scoring, but his inefficient shooting tells us that his ability to score did not help his team win. And he was not exceptional with respect to any other aspect of the game. In fact, with respect to turnovers, he was quite poor.

Looking at these numbers, I think it’s hard to conclude that Maravich was actually a very effective NBA player. So it’s not surprising to see that his NBA teams, which were built around him, didn’t often win.

By the way, I think you can make the argument I have made – i.e. Maravich was not a very effective player – without looking at a Wages of Wins metric. Still, you will note the above table does report the career Win Score for Pistol Pete (based on his last seven years as a pro). Per 48 minutes, Maravich’s Win Score was only 3.2. This is quite a bit below average for a guard (and only a third of what Kobe offers), which again tells us that Pistol Pete tended to misfire in between all those wonderful highlights.

An Early Answer

Let me close this post with the following observation: When we look at Pistol Pete we see an inefficient scorer who tends to commit turnovers. The inability of his teams to win is often blamed on his teammates, but it was Maravich’s performance that probably played an important role in the lack of team success we observed. Regular readers of the WoW Journal will note that this story is quite similar to what we have said about “The Answer” – Allen Iverson. Like Maravich, Iverson is a prodigious scorer. Like Maravich, Iverson is turnover prone. Like Maravich, Iverson’s teams have tended to be less successful. And like Maravich, Iverson’s teammates tend to be blamed for the many losses seen on the court. In sum, it looks like Pistol Pete was an Early Answer.

[Solid D]

There is a thread of truth to the effectiveness premise. He did not play defense but then Gervin didn't play much defense either. Pete jacked up shots more than he should have but he was a confident and creative shot-maker and passer deluxe.

WITH THAT SAID...he was a 5-time NBA All Star, Pete was named as one of the Top 50 players on the 50th Anniversary of the NBA in 1996, AND Pete is enshrined in Springfield at the Basketball Hall of Fame on his merits in both college and the NBA. Pistol was the ultimate showman and let's face it, the NBA is professional sports entertainment.

[Findog]

There is a thread of truth to the effectiveness premise. He did not play defense but then Gervin didn't play much defense either. Pete jacked up shots more than he should have but he was a confident and creative shot-maker and passer deluxe.

WITH THAT SAID...he was a 5-time NBA All Star, Pete was named as one of the Top 50 players on the 50th Anniversary of the NBA in 1996, AND Pete is enshrined in Springfield at the Basketball Hall of Fame on his merits in both college and the NBA. Pistol was the ultimate showman and let's face it, the NBA is professional sports entertainment.

One problem I have with this premise is that it seems to be letting his teammates off the hook to a certain extent. He played with an expansion team in New Orleans, so he can hardly be blamed for failing to win consistently with the early Jazz teams. In Atlanta, he was resented for the big rookie contract he got and his teammates did not always make an effort to adjust their games to fit his.

Having said that, his game was probably more suited to college than the pros. He himself said he never really enjoyed the pro game.

[BeerIsGood!]

The Pistol would have been great on a team like the Suns, but he wasn't Championship material. His game was far too one sided and he never played with a dominant big man. That said, as far as pure skill with the ball there haven't been any better than the Pistol. The guy was the original "Magic".

[Findog]

The Pistol would have been great on a team like the Suns, but he wasn't Championship material. His game was far too one sided and he never played with a dominant big man. That said, as far as pure skill with the ball there haven't been any better than the Pistol. The guy was the original "Magic".

His unique skillset was the result of thousands of hours spent by himself in a gym.

This is amazing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w9JLJunoxlc

I love Bob McAdoo's reaction: "Aw, naw." Or the look on Iceman's face when he has to do the behind the backboard shot.

[ShoogarBear]

Pete Maravich was a one-man show who was fun to watch, and great for highlight reels, but he had little idea of how to play true team ball, and his defense was atrocious.

A lot like a more talented version of Steve Francis.

[BeerIsGood!]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Y5KAaerc...elated&search=

This is a pretty good reel of Pistol, especially the second half of it. The ball control on the dribble and the passing is the absolutely amazing part of his game. Keep in mind this was when they actually called traveling and carrying.

[BeerIsGood!]

His unique skillset was the result of thousands of hours spent by himself in a gym.

I think that ultimately may have been one of his biggest problems as well as the source of his great ability. He worked far too much alone on his individual skill and lost sight of the team concept of the game. Also, kind of hard to practice defense by yourself.

[Findog]

I think that ultimately may have been one of his biggest problems as well as the source of his great ability. He worked far too much alone on his individual skill and lost sight of the team concept of the game. Also, kind of hard to practice defense by yourself.

Yeah, that's true. But I still think that his teams could've been consistent winners if he had been in the right situation. He was absolutely a useful reserve for the Celtics in his last season.

[oligarchy]

Should have been a Globetrotter?

Edit:
#6 - ESPN's All-time overrated list
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/alltimeoverrated.html

[JMarkJohns]

His 24 ppg career average would have been several points higher had the NBA advented the 3-point line before 79-80. Same with his college average.

Probably would have been closer to 30 and 50+.

As for overrated, he may have been, but seldom do those who reinvent a position and spawn the evolution of the game reap the rewards. I think Scoring PGs like Thomas, KJ, Tim Hardaway, among others, all benefitted from Maravich.

[Dave McNulla]

he was released from the jazz, iirc, because he was on drugs. if you remove the end years from his averages, he averaged a lot higher. in his best season, he scored 31 ppg, shot 43%, ft was 83%, and EFF as almost 26.

[Hemotivo]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Y5KAaerc...elated&search=

This is a pretty good reel of Pistol, especially the second half of it. The ball control on the dribble and the passing is the absolutely amazing part of his game. Keep in mind this was when they actually called traveling and carrying.

Amazing!!!

that wrist pass......

[Holt's Cat]

Should have been a Globetrotter?

Edit:
#6 - ESPN's All-time overrated list
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/alltimeoverrated.html

Oddly enough no Boston greats made Simmons' list. Imagine that.

[Solid D]

Those YouTubes brought back memories. Good times.

Brent and Manu occasionally bring out some stuff that resembles Pete's highlights. Nothing quite like Pete but they at least have the unabashed nerve to try them.

[ShoogarBear]

Oddly enough no Boston greats made Simmons' list. Imagine that.

Thimmons didn't writhe that.

[Pistol...2K4]

Pete Maravich was THE greatest college basketball player of all time. He pioneered most of the dribbling and passing skills of the modern day game. Pete didn't dominate the pro game as he did in college , but that didn't mean he wasn't effective. Until he blew out his knee , Pete could play with anyone in the pro game. Statistics are no more than a bunch of mental masturbation. Crunch on this...You are the only scoring option on your team....everyone you play knows it(you see their best D) , your coaches know it and your teammates know it...the honus is on you to score if your team is to have a chance to win....Pete Maravich was a great player but he was no Michael Jordan.

[Obstructed_View]

How about this: You're the son of an obsessive parent who forces you to work on fundamentals by yourself so that he can later use you to become a coach of an NCAA team by promising you as a recruit. You become a great scorer and dribbler. You know it. You are better than your teammates. They know it. They also know you know it. Your senior year, you score 45 points per game yet only go 20-8, squeaking out two wins in the NIT before being blown out.

You go to the NBA as the third pick in the draft, added to a team that won their division and went to the second round of the playoffs. Your team never wins as many games as they did that year and they never get to the second round. After four years of frustration you are traded to your home town where you are adored and become a star. You make all star and all-nba teams. Your team never even sniffs a .500 season record or the playoffs.

A telling stat is that when you are a 17 minute a game bench player for the Celtics, a team with Larry Bird, Cedric Maxwell, Dave Cowens, and Tiny Archibald, you still manage to dominate the team in scoring per minute, mostly by averaging almost as many field goal attempts per game as Archibald, despite less than half the minutes.

Pistol Pete was a great individual player, and the NBA loves individuals. Too bad basketball is a team sport, and wins require teamwork.

[Findog]

How about this: You're the son of an obsessive parent who forces you to work on fundamentals by yourself so that he can later use you to become a coach of an NCAA team by promising you as a recruit. .

Are you saying Press Maravich has something in common with Earl Woods, Jim Pierce and Marv Marinovich?

[Obstructed_View]

Are you saying Press Maravich has something in common with Earl Woods, Jim Pierce and Marv Marinovich?

All but Earl Woods, who was asked by his son to help teach him how to win. Tiger's never been denied anything. He was never forced to practice. He was never relied upon to earn income for the family. He was told by his parents that he wasn't allowed to go hit golf balls until he finished his homework.

[Darrin]

Pistol Pete Maravich
Isiah Thomas
Gary Payton
John Stockton
Jason Kidd
Tiny Archibald

What do they have in common? Steve Nash has two more MVPs than that entire list.

Bob Cousey and Oscar Robertson have as many as him.

[Obstructed_View]

Pistol Pete Maravich
Isiah Thomas
Gary Payton
John Stockton
Jason Kidd
Tiny Archibald

What do they have in common?

With Maravich on the list, the answer certainly isn't team success.

[Medvedenko]

Pete's teams struggled with injuries when he was on early in his career...granted he was a gunner, but damn he was good. I'm sure signing a million dollar contract the first year didn't help him in the locker room. He was ahead of his time, guys could not get used to playing with him and bumbled his passes all day long.

[Findog]

Pete's teams struggled with injuries when he was on early in his career...granted he was a gunner, but damn he was good. I'm sure signing a million dollar contract the first year didn't help him in the locker room. He was ahead of his time, guys could not get used to playing with him and bumbled his passes all day long.

I think Pete was one of those guys who needed the ball to be effective. And he played with an expansion team in New Orleans. I'm sorry, but Tim Duncan and 11 D-Leaguers will make the playoffs, but they won't win a le.

[Obstructed_View]

He was a great individual talent playing a team game. Too bad there wasn't a National Horse Association.