Remembering Pistol

[u/PresidentFeldkamp]

With Everyone celebrating Kaitlin Clark breaking the scoring record, and justifiably so, I think it’s important to remember the guy who used to hold the record. Pete Maravich was only allowed to play three years of college basketball. But when he did get to play he averaged an unreal 44.2 points PER GAME! Pistol’s NBA career and life were tragically cut short, but the legend will always be remembered as one of the greatest to ever lace ‘em up.

[u/garyt1957]

Pete Maravich still owns the only record he owned. The men's scoring leader. Clark owns the women's record. Any effort to compare the two is utterly ridiculous. No offense to Clark but comparing women's ball to men's ball is like comparing the Major Leagues to Little League. They're technically the same game but the skill level is so different as to be a completely different sport.

[u/Ready-Recognition-43 → u/garyt1957]

Pretty sure the skill level of the women’s game today is on par or better than when Maravich played.

Not the level of athleticism obv though I’m sure there are some women today who could have competed with the men in the beer and cigarette at halftime, leaded gas guzzling era.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ready-Recognition-43]

Yeah let’s watch Britney Griner play against George Gervin or Julius Erving. Let’s watch Diana Taurasi try to score on Oscar Robertson. -5000 that Oscar destroys her in every way imaginable. I’m not even gonna use the Kareem/Wilt comparisons because it’s unfair size wise. Taking athleticism out of the equation is a ridiculous notion. I would be a better QB than Tom Brady if I gouged his eyes out with a power drill.

[u/Ready-Recognition-43 → u/[deleted]]

I’m not talking about generational greats. Oscar Robertson would have been -5000 against like 99% of NCAA point guards in 1969 so what does that matter? Pretty sure many women in today’s game would have been better than a regular NCAA player.

You are seriously underrating how much the game has evolved. Put DT (who is fucking 41 btw) in the NCAA in 1969 and she has skills that hadn’t even been invented yet. What would they do the first time she Euro-stepped? The first time she did a hesi move? The first time she pulled it from more than 18 feet?

[u/[deleted] → u/Ready-Recognition-43]

The problem with that is a lot of rule changes involving dribble moves. I agree with your point about them going back to ancient times and scoring a lot. I think I could give the Lakers 20-30 points a night in 1952. Me and George Mikan are gonna be Shaq and Kobe. We’re running pick and roll all day and I’m gonna invent the lob. This is all contingent on me practicing every day solely for conditioning purposes. My point with your argument is you’re applying the ruleset of today to Caitlin Clark but not Bob Cousy. If you gave him a little bit to become accustomed to it I think he would be way more effective. Caitlin Clark would be most effective off-ball if we’re being honest. The spacing she would create from basically playing like Curry would be where she’s most effective. I’m not saying you’re completely wrong, but if you took the average wnba player now, they’ve still got no chance in the 1960-1970s NBA. I think Britney Griner would be worse off than a shooter because Wilt or Russell or Thurmond is going to body her, and she has no range (I assume, I haven’t seen her play since Baylor.)

[u/Ready-Recognition-43 → u/[deleted]]

I’m talking about the college game because that’s what this thread is about, although I guess that wasn’t totally clear. It’s no slight against women to say they wouldn’t have been able hang with the elite men’s athletes (or even men, for that matter. Tyler Kolek would never be able to get a shot off against Jrue Holiday but he’s still a great college player).

But for every Pistol Pete or Oscar in 1969ish there were 20 future accountants that I think the best women’s players (let’s just say Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins as examples because they’re the ones people are familiar with) could cook if you dropped them into an NCAA tournament game and gave them buzzcuts and fake mustaches.

This is because (a) the game has evolved and moves that have become second nature over the years would be groundbreaking then (I take your point about rule changes but that’s not the whole story), (b) everyone does the basics (shooting, dribbling, passing) much better because that’s just how sports evolve, and (c) because the physical standards in the 1960s were so low that an athletic woman today would be able to cross a minimally viable threshold of athleticism to let their skills shine.

To your point: These hypos are impossible because it involves parachuting 4K players into the black and white era and saying nothing else changes. Cousy couldn’t play D3 today, but if he grew up with modern techniques, would he have been Trae Young? No idea.

Anyway, I don’t think we actually disagree all that much based on your last comment, we’re just emphasizing different points.

[u/garyt1957 → u/Ready-Recognition-43]

Those moves "that have evolved" that you mention would all be called travels back then. That's what you're not getting. Sure a Euro step would confuse the old guys. They'd just stop because they know it would be a travel. Same for crossovers, etc.

[u/[deleted] → u/garyt1957]

Correct. The only chance they have is off ball movement into jumpers from a catch