We talkin’ Pistol Pete

[Ohioplayer00]

Yeah, numbers are objective, where as personal observations are subjective. When comparing players, I try to be objective.

I'm a random guy on the Internet, as are you. Why would you put more credibility into what I'm saying just because I, a random basketball fan, had seen him play in person?

You have repeatedly made the same claims that simply aren't backed up by reality. I've tried to meet you in the middle and discuss players statistically relative to their peers without taking into account how much worse the average NBA player was in the 1970's than they are today.

Statistics *do* paint pictures of players, side by side, and you're simply rejecting the picture in favor of something you attempt to remember from *50* years ago. Are stats skewed at times? Absolutely, but are they as skewed as one person's opinion? Certainly not.

Maravich averaged 20 or more field goal attempts per game for 7 straight years. In that time, his FGA were: 23, 24, 20, 21, 28(!!), 25, 21. He took by far the most shots on his team each of those seasons, and was at or near the top of the entire league in shot attempts.

If that's not being a "main scorer," then who were the "main scorers" that he played with? I'll happily post their shots and points per game relative to Pete's.

Harden, by comparison, has averaged more than 20 field goal attempts per game only 3 times in his career, and in those seasons was much more efficient and a better passer than Maravich ever was.

If you don't believe what I'm saying, go to basketball-reference and see for yourself.

I entered this experiment under the belief that Maravich was an all-time great because I've heard it for so long. I didn't think Harden would even stack up to be honest.

It turns out that Maravich simply wasn't as good as he's often cracked up to be, and the numbers demonstrate it.

Harden is a *bad* defender, and by the numbers, Pete was even worse, but that's for a whole different post.

I’m absolutely agree with everything you have said and posted! I haven’t argued about the stats. I argue the fact that somebody who has never seen Pete play in person tell me Harden’s a better ball handler, defender and passer and that Pete is “worse” than Harden. I’ve seen them both play and Harden is by far one of worst defenders in the league today and much worst than Pete. But again that’s my just my opinion. And I guess my other issue is the poster (not you) consistently down plays the performance of players in the 80s and 90s and puts todays players on a pedestal like they are the “be all end all”!
Guess I’m that old man yelling “Get off my lawn” LMFAOOOOOOO.
I’m also not afraid to admit I’m not a fan of todays game. Too many three pointers and no defense!
It’s all good!! I enjoy a spirited conversation!

 

[2 For The Brew]

Re: stats being the final answer:

Player A: 48.5 mpg 50.4 ppg 25.7 rpg
Player B: 30.8 ppg 12.5 rpg 11.4 apg
Player C: 18.9 ppg 23.6 rpg

Which of the three is MVP?
Which of the three won the Finals?

Stats are objective and therefore “true” but not exhaustive. The idea that there exists enough objective data to provide a high confidence evaluation of players from different eras is a conceit of data nerds. As a recovering data nerd I know, because data, even excellent data, is but one component of any decision-making process.

Statistics are developed from events with parameters including time. The game has evolved considerably from the 70s. Experts in statistics know that comparing data when conditions have changed is an abuse of statistical science, which is not just a collection of mathematical formulas but also includes a rather extensive list of assumptions that must be satisfied for analysis to be valid. In real life those assumptions are often not met, and to the degree they aren’t that reduces the reliability of the results. It’s not as scientifically accurate as, for example, radioactive dating of certain rocks.

tl;dr fuck James harden. Pistol Pete ruled.

 

[PIP]

Way more entertaining than James Harden that’s for sure…

 

[Randolphkeys]

This dispute just became timely and immediate. 34 years ago today?

Tonight I'm going to drink a bottle of tequila and kill a man. All to defend the memory and good name of Pistol Pete.

 

[PIP]

This dispute just became timely and immediate. 34 years ago today?

Tonight I'm going to drink a bottle of tequila and kill a man. All to defend the memory and good name of Pistol Pete.

2 days ago… Drink 2 bottles and search the net to find me a Luke Jackson gamer….

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Way more entertaining than James Harden that’s for sure…

Pete was showtime before “showtime” as Magic said.

 

[foucault87]

Re: stats being the final answer:

Player A: 48.5 mpg 50.4 ppg 25.7 rpg
Player B: 30.8 ppg 12.5 rpg 11.4 apg
Player C: 18.9 ppg 23.6 rpg

Which of the three is MVP?
Which of the three won the Finals?

Stats are objective and therefore “true” but not exhaustive. The idea that there exists enough objective data to provide a high confidence evaluation of players from different eras is a conceit of data nerds. As a recovering data nerd I know, because data, even excellent data, is but one component of any decision-making process.

Statistics are developed from events with parameters including time. The game has evolved considerably from the 70s. Experts in statistics know that comparing data when conditions have changed is an abuse of statistical science, which is not just a collection of mathematical formulas but also includes a rather extensive list of assumptions that must be satisfied for analysis to be valid. In real life those assumptions are often not met, and to the degree they aren’t that reduces the reliability of the results. It’s not as scientifically accurate as, for example, radioactive dating of certain rocks.

tl;dr fuck James harden. Pistol Pete ruled.

Russell was way better on the metrics than Wilt or Oscar tho. Its not an issue of boxscore metrics. Most statisticians would tell you that they are meaningless because they dont provide enough info. You need context and the best metrics do that via normalization or being on a per possession basis.

By those metrics, Pistol Pete was surpringly pedestrian. He was a very flashy player and had an aesthetic game. I won't deny that. In that way, he is the polar opposite of Harden. But literally every metric posted in this thread clearly shows why Pete was an inferior player.

 

[foucault87]

One more comment on @2 For The Brew 's post. They are 100% correct that cross-era stats are bad, especially for earlier eras were we just do not have reliable stat keeping. A lot of the standard metrics we have do pretty well from the mid 80s-present day since we have a lot of things like # of possessions in that time period. Even those metrics are however pretty bad in the pre 80s era. So yes, this comparison is somewhat unfair to Pete in that we don't have full data tho there are some propriety metrics (EPM comes to mind) that do a better job of this kind of comp. My issue is less that he compares poorly with Harden and more that he compares poorly with his own peers. For example, compare Pistol and Skywalker:

Versus Finder | Player and Team Comparison and Head-to-Head Stats - Pro Basketball | Stathead.com

Versus Finder is a comparison tool by Stathead.com that lets you compare players and teams across basketball. If you're looking for head-to-head comparisons, the Versus Finder is your go-to tool

stathead.com

The metrics are quite in the favor of Thompson. Yes, the early numbers a bit inflated by playing in the ABA which had a higher pace of play, but that does not explain the 16 point difference in ORTG, 15 point gap in VORP etc. Pistol Pete might have be similar to a player like Vince Carter, who had limited playoff success, put up some nice box score numbers, and damn if you don't remember the guy for his flair. We can ignore the last season in Toronto for this discussion.

 

[2 For The Brew]

One more comment on @2 For The Brew 's post. They are 100% correct that cross-era stats are bad, especially for earlier eras were we just do not have reliable stat keeping. A lot of the standard metrics we have do pretty well from the mid 80s-present day since we have a lot of things like # of possessions in that time period. Even those metrics are however pretty bad in the pre 80s era. So yes, this comparison is somewhat unfair to Pete in that we don't have full data tho there are some propriety metrics (EPM comes to mind) that do a better job of this kind of comp. My issue is less that he compares poorly with Harden and more that he compares poorly with his own peers. For example, compare Pistol and Skywalker:

Versus Finder | Player and Team Comparison and Head-to-Head Stats - Pro Basketball | Stathead.com

Versus Finder is a comparison tool by Stathead.com that lets you compare players and teams across basketball. If you're looking for head-to-head comparisons, the Versus Finder is your go-to tool

stathead.com

The metrics are quite in the favor of Thompson. Yes, the early numbers a bit inflated by playing in the ABA which had a higher pace of play, but that does not explain the 16 point difference in ORTG, 15 point gap in VORP etc. Pistol Pete might have be similar to a player like Vince Carter, who had limited playoff success, put up some nice box score numbers, and damn if you don't remember the guy for his flair. We can ignore the last season in Toronto for this discussion.

The Nuggets were a VERY good team. Pete played for the Hawks and Jazz. Teammates do affect statistics, even advanced statistics. David Thompson was a tremendous player until he hit the drugs but he did get to play with Issel and Bobby Jones. Pete didn’t have much in Atlanta or New Orleans.

It wasn’t just higher pace of play ABA vs NBA. The latter had guards like Frazier and Van Lier who were tremendous defenders. The ABA didn’t have many guards like that.

The guy who gets no respect but deserves it is Louie Dampier - the first really good 3 point shooter in basketball.

 

[foucault87]

The Nuggets were a VERY good team. Pete played for the Hawks and Jazz. Teammates do affect statistics, even advanced statistics. David Thompson was a tremendous player until he hit the drugs but he did get to play with Issel and Bobby Jones. Pete didn’t have much in Atlanta or New Orleans.

It wasn’t just higher pace of play ABA vs NBA. The latter had guards like Frazier and Van Lier who were tremendous defenders. The ABA didn’t have many guards like that.

The guy who gets no respect but deserves it is Louie Dampier - the first really good 3 point shooter in basketball.

Jelly Tart doe

I'm super sad we didn't get to see the Dr J/Pistol Pete pairing. Wouldve been amazing

 

[2 For The Brew]

Jelly Tart doe

I'm super sad we didn't get to see the Dr J/Pistol Pete pairing. Wouldve been amazing

Jelly Tart - awesome reference.

Louie Dampier hit 199 three pointers in 1968-69 ( at 36.1% - not bad at all) and 198 the following season. The NBA added the three point shot in 1979-80. Nobody broke Louie’s record until 1994-95 when John Starks hit 217 threes. Just shows how locked in the NBA was to the idea that taking a three was a bad idea. Coaches hated the shot. But Louie showed it made sense - nobody followed up on it for over 25 years. Amazing. Such a shame the NBA didn’t have it for Pistol Pete until too late.

 

[foucault87]

Jelly Tart - awesome reference.

Louie Dampier hit 199 three pointers in 1968-69 ( at 36.1% - not bad at all) and 198 the following season. The NBA added the three point shot in 1979-80. Nobody broke Louie’s record until 1994-95 when John Starks hit 217 threes. Just shows how locked in the NBA was to the idea that taking a three was a bad idea. Coaches hated the shot. But Louie showed it made sense - nobody followed up on it for over 25 years. Amazing. Such a shame the NBA didn’t have it for Pistol Pete until too late.

All I know about the ABA is from that excellent book by Pluto. Man what a mistake by the NBA to not adopt the 3 earlier

 

[2 For The Brew]

All I know about the ABA is from that excellent book by Pluto. Man what a mistake by the NBA to not adopt the 3 earlier

Doug Moe said that the NBA was a rinky-dink league compared to the ABA and he had a lot of strong points to back that up (mentioned on the book). The modern NBA resembles the ABA more than the pre-merger NBA. Terry did a hell of a job memorializing the ABA.

 

[foucault87]

Doug Moe said that the NBA was a rinky-dink league compared to the ABA and he had a lot of strong points to back that up (mentioned on the book). The modern NBA resembles the ABA more than the pre-merger NBA. Terry did a hell of a job memorializing the ABA.

They had no idea what they were doing but they really gave a lot to the modern game. The three point line, dunking, contracts leaking to reporters because the commissioner left his briefcase unlocked around them...

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Jelly Tart - awesome reference.

Louie Dampier hit 199 three pointers in 1968-69 ( at 36.1% - not bad at all) and 198 the following season. The NBA added the three point shot in 1979-80. Nobody broke Louie’s record until 1994-95 when John Starks hit 217 threes. Just shows how locked in the NBA was to the idea that taking a three was a bad idea. Coaches hated the shot. But Louie showed it made sense - nobody followed up on it for over 25 years. Amazing. Such a shame the NBA didn’t have it for Pistol Pete until too late.

Rick Mount was another sharp shooter from the old ABA days!!