Um, Maravich played for a really, really bad expansion team for a large chunk of his career. Pinning a bad streak of seasons on him is ludicrous. He had absolutely no help on that team.
He was one of the best ball-handlers, passers and creative scorers the NBA has ever seen. If he was not in the HOF it would be an atrocity. This thread seems like a question because of a lack of knowledge on the player.
His talent was never in question; how he used it frequently was. Maravich was a gunner who played most of his career as a shoot first ball dominator, similar to Iverson. He actually seemed a bit more of a PG mentality than Iverson though I hadn't looked at turnovers, a bit weaker defensively though with good size unlike AI. His shot percentages were better than Iverson's have been (until last year when AI really took advantage of the no handchecking rule) . . . very similar players (Gil too, though early in Gil's career). I'd give the nod to AI over Maravich for his greater consistency and his one Finals appearance but no, there are a lot of guys who are being passed over (Gilmore, Moncrief, etc.) who in my opinion were much better players than AI ever has been. MUCH!!!
__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk
Um, Maravich played for a really, really bad expansion team for a large chunk of his career. Pinning a bad streak of seasons on him is ludicrous. He had absolutely no help on that team.
when a guy has just no team success in his career, putting him in the HOF is just about marketing. I don't care what help he had, I'm not askeing for a championship, but he just had one >.500 season!
__________________ [LeBron] was banging those little boys around in high school, but once he goes against the men, they're going to beat his butt and make him cry. ESPN's Charley Rosen
In 1969-70, the Atlanta Hawks were 48-34. Next year, they drafted Maravich but lost Joe Caldwell to the ABA; and they dropped to 36-46. This was the only significant change to their lineup. Was Caldwell a superstar? No, he was a marginal Allstar at best. But this team became 12 wins worse with Maravich.
With the expansion Jazz, Pete never got to the playoffs. In 3 appearances with the Hawks, he was in 17 playoff games; averaged 25.5 pts, shooting 41%.
Maravich was incredibly talented. You can't have seen him play and think otherwise.
His father regrettably made him a circus act in college, and the NBA generally bought into it and encouraged it during a period when the league's popularity and reputation were at risk. Certainly, nobody made Maravich play along with the role--perhaps he could have helped win a few more games here and there if he'd bucked expectations and focused on being a more conventional playmaker. But perhaps not. Most of his teams really did suck, and this was before the days when stars could regularly and successfully sulk their way out of team situations that weren't to their liking.
His talent was never in question; how he used it frequently was. Maravich was a gunner who played most of his career as a shoot first ball dominator, similar to Iverson. He actually seemed a bit more of a PG mentality than Iverson though I hadn't looked at turnovers, a bit weaker defensively though with good size unlike AI. His shot percentages were better than Iverson's have been (until last year when AI really took advantage of the no handchecking rule) . . . very similar players (Gil too, though early in Gil's career). I'd give the nod to AI over Maravich for his greater consistency and his one Finals appearance but no, there are a lot of guys who are being passed over (Gilmore, Moncrief, etc.) who in my opinion were much better players than AI ever has been. MUCH!!!
Moncrief MUCH better than AI has EVER been??? I'd love to hear the explanation to this one.
Moncrief MUCH better than AI has EVER been??? I'd love to hear the explanation to this one.
Better defensive player?
Better offensive player?
__________________ (...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)
Moncrief MUCH better than AI has EVER been??? I'd love to hear the explanation to this one.
Ok, explanation as follows. First, defense. This is the easy one, Moncrief may be the best wing defender in history, Iverson is undersized and cheats on defense to save himself for offense. Second, rebounding and passing. Second, shooting the ball. Iverson is a poor percentage shooter and gunner. He barely shoots 40% for his career and everytime he shoots it takes a shot away from someone on his team (just about anyone) that is more likely to make the shot. Moncrief was a terrific shooter both from midrange and finishing/posting. He shot close to 50% for his career, scoring around 20 ppg while never once being accused of hogging the ball, in fact his Bucks teams were known for their balanced scoring. Who would you rather have, a 30 point shooter who shoots well below the team/league average or a 20 point shooter who shoots above the team average. If you pick the selfish gunner, go with Iverson. Third, intangibles. Moncrief was a famously hard worker and inspiration to his teammates; Iverson is the guy who is known for the quote "it's only practice!" They didn't think Moncrief would even play in the NBA because his knees had degenerated so badly in college but he had a reasonably long and extremely productive career. He was also a better rebounder than Iverson and for that matter, better at involving his teammates since Iverson has had conflicts with any other decent scorer he's ever played with . . . his teammates know that he will take the ball himself and only pass on a kickout or early in the clock. So, yes . . . I think Moncrief is a better player than Iverson easily . . . when healthy Sid was one of the top 5-10 shooting guards in history; Iverson was and is an overrated gunner who had one year where his team went somewhere (due to terrific defense and brilliant coaching by Larry Brown who, like every other coach Iverson has had, got sick of his antics and moved on though in Larry's case that was pretty much inevitable anyway).
__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk
on a PER basis, iverson has a slight prime advantage, although last year is his outlier year way above moncrief's best. that advantage is obvsiously significantly offset by moncrief's defensive advantage. moncrief also had 4 60%+ ts% seasons, and is 23rd all-time, top 5 for his position (really 2nd, behind reggie, unless you include kerr or brent barry).
i'll bring it up for moncrief because it's worth noting - he did struggle in many of his playoffs.
the shame of moncrief is that he really only had a 5 year prime. he was a great, very well respected, tough, professional player.
when a guy has just no team success in his career, putting him in the HOF is just about marketing. I don't care what help he had, I'm not askeing for a championship, but he just had one >.500 season!
The last time I looked, it was not the Hall of Guys that Played on NBA Champions or the Hall of Guys that Played for Winning Teams or the Hall of Guys that Played on Teams that Made it into the NBA Finals or the Hall of Guys that "Make their Teammates Better". It's not even the NBA Hall of Fame, it's the Basketball Hall of Fame, and its specifically for the best that played the game. Regardless of your league (as there are international players, female players, and pre-NBA players enshrined, as well). Whether or not you liked the Pistol's game (or never saw him play as a lot of you haven't) the man was a basketball artiste. He was also one of the best long distance shooters I've ever had the pleasure to see. If there had been a three point shot in his prime he would have used it and abused it, and all the kids watching him on TV would have emulated that too. Regardless of what the Hawks and Jazz did, the Pistol was a legitimately great player. If the Hall has room for K.C. Jones, there's more than enough room for the Pistol. Jesus Christ, people, Marques Haynes and Meadowlark Lemon are in the Hall, and the Pistol was ever
Why is Maravich in the HOF?
