- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSU All-time basketball team vs. anyone else's
Posted on 1/27/09 at 10:04 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
Posted on 1/27/09 at 10:04 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:No, I'm not. I'm saying that basically no one ever didn't double or triple team Shaq, which was certainly not true for Jabbar. I don't know about Chamberlain, but he did not have the physique to shut down Shaq, college or pro.
Wait, are you telling me no one ever double teamed Jabbar? Or Chamberlain,
quote:No, it was also biased against Maravich, who on every conceivable measure other than team success is the runaway #1 player in the history of college basketball, and yet finished 5th on that list. Why? Because his teams did very little compared to the other guys. And Duncan may have had comparable supporting cast, but his best season ever in college was 20.8 pts and 14.7 rebounds per game, and his career averages were 16.5 and 12.3. Shaq averaged 21.6 and 13.5 for his CAREER, and had a best season of 27.6 and 14.7. So if it wasn't team accomplishments that put Duncan ahead of him, it was outright ignorance.
Why does it only apply to centers? Maravich, West, Bird, Baylor, Duncan are among that list that ESPN published. I don't remember them having stellar supporting casts. Is that list biased against Shaq only?
quote:Never said it wasn't. But when you are a player who is so completely unstoppable on the floor that the only recourse is to committ dozens of fouls and concede the points from the stripe, it says a lot about the player. And when you consider that in a hypothetical 5 on 5 only, Wilt/Duncan/whoever would be fouled out about 6 minutes into the game and there is no bench . . . so 5 on 4 the rest of the way. I like those odds.
And by the way, the Hack a Shaq was his own damn fault
1
Posted on 1/27/09 at 10:08 am to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:There was no 64 team NCAA Tourney back then, and the NIT was still a viable alternative tournament (which he did take us to the Final Four of). There is no rational debate that Maravich was the greatest college basketball player ever. If you think there is, then we simply have to agree to disagree about what the term "greatest basketball player ever" means. Because to me it means the guy who displayed the best collection of skills and abilities to play the sport of basketball at the college level. And no else has ever come close to the skills and abilities Pete displayed.
the thing about maravich is that he never even got to an ncaa tournament. his team was pure shite im sure, but still.
Posted on 1/27/09 at 10:11 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:Yeah, that's a bit much, especially since that reintroduces the concept of depth (12 man roster), which is where LSU completely falls out of the conversation. Plus, comparing 18-22 year old physiques to all-time greats at the height of their physical development. And, of course, that was an all-time, all-schools, all-pro kind of collection.quote:OK, you're getting carried away.
The original dream team in 91 would be a push.
Posted on 1/27/09 at 10:15 am to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:He could take 2/3 as many shots and still get his 40. Remember, again, he averaged over 50 a game but about 10 points per game weren't counted because there was no 3 point line. And that was while averaging over 5 assists per game with 4 other guys who couldn't score (tons of assists left on the table because the other guy couldn't finish and score; not a problem with Shaq, CJ and Bass/Stro/Petit/Maclin/whoever). And if he had had a 3 point line, he would have averaged 60 because he never would have shot inside. He could have made all his shots from outside but there was no incentive since you got just as many points for a crazy spin move behind the back reverse layup as you did for a 25 foot jump shot. And the long jumpers got boring for him eventually.
oh i understand that but i dont think he is getting 40 on this team
Posted on 1/27/09 at 10:20 am to King Joey
quote:
The original dream team in 91 would be a push.
It was humor, but I would love to watch it! LOL
Posted on 1/27/09 at 11:57 am to King Joey
quote:
There was no 64 team NCAA Tourney back then, and the NIT was still a viable alternative tournament (which he did take us to the Final Four of). There is no rational debate that Maravich was the greatest college basketball player ever. If you think there is, then we simply have to agree to disagree about what the term "greatest basketball player ever" means. Because to me it means the guy who displayed the best collection of skills and abilities to play the sport of basketball at the college level. And no else has ever come close to the skills and abilities Pete displayed.
Well, fans of The Big O would disagree. He averaged 33.8 ppg and 15.2 rpg as a GUARD. He also was at a akill level that was above everyone else.
Bird was also able to do a lot with a little in college. He took a supporting cast that was probably worse than Maravich's to the NCAA finals. He lifted his team up on his back and WON all the way to the final game against Magic Johnson's Michigan State team.
Posted on 1/27/09 at 12:56 pm to King Joey
quote:
No, it was also biased against Maravich, who on every conceivable measure other than team success is the runaway #1 player in the history of college basketball, and yet finished 5th on that list.
Any discussion involving the best college BB player of all time would have to include Pete. Top 5 in a subjective list such as the ESPN one, for me indicates really any of those 5 would have been deserving. What Maravich accomplished was amazing and will never be done again...however, you must admit the following:
His numbers will always be considered inflated by many experts because the team around him was so bad, compounded by the fact that his father was willing to let him do pretty much what he wanted. Am I saying it's fair? No. But you have to think they're thinking, if Jabbar got every shot, or Wilt, or whoever, they may have better stats also. I mean look what Chamberlain did as a pro when he was allowed to do so. You can bet your bottom dollar, Pete wouldn't have been jacking up shot after shot, or passing behind the back, playing for Wooden or Smith, etc.
I think Pete gets penalized for not having the quality teammates that the others had, when it should be the other way around.
Posted on 1/27/09 at 8:33 pm to King Joey
quote:
he averaged over 50 a game but about 10 points per game weren't counted because there was no 3 point line
he didnt average 50 if ten of them never counted.
also, i know plenty about basketball history and the ncaa tournament. but you cannot say he led them to the final four of the ncaa tournament when he never even made it there. i understand the nit was far more important back then and had a shite ton of good teams, but it is still not the same.
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News