Frank Dascenzo's article re Spanarkel

[Jim3k]

As a Heyman-Mullins contemporary, I have no problem with Dascenzo recommending Spanarkel's number be retired.

I do, however, think his comparison logic is somewhat flawed. In his article he points out that one of the criteria for retirment is being named NPOY. He then compares Spanarkel, who was never a NPOY (hey, he played with Gminski) with Heyman and Mullins. He omits the fact that Art was the 1963 consensus NPOY, leaving the reader to think that Spanarkel's honors and Heyman's are about the same. That just ain't so.

Now, the comparison to Mullins is a better one. Jeff was never the NPOY (Hey, he played with Heyman), so that honor wasn't required for No. 44.

What Dascenzo does do is to compare statistics. What he does not do, is to observe that Spanarkel played four years while Heyman and Mullins were only allowed to play three. If you extrapolate their averages to four years, they are among the top four in overall scoring (doing it for Dick Groat and Bob Verga puts them up there as well).

Heyman and Mullins's numbers were not retired until thirty years after they played, so Dascenzo has no problem with delaying Spanarkel's retirement well after the fact.

Yet, what this does, is to elevate Spanarkel over some other players whose credentials are at least as good if not better and who, like him, were not POYs. Verga is a good example, as is Gene Banks who scored 67 more points than Spanarkel. So is Mark Alarie who scored over 100 points more.

Spanarkel still holds Duke's all-time steals record and when he graduated was Duke's all-time scorer (then held by Heyman during his three-year career).

Spanarkel was no slouch. But if Duke retires his number, it would devalue the performances of Verga, Banks, Alarie or Jack Marin or even Spanarkel's some time teammate, Tate Armstrong. It's a tough call. Spanarkel was a wonderful player. The others whose numbers haven't been retired were wonderful players, too. Bubas has been quoted as saying Marin was the best player he coached. (It's in the DBR archives somewhere.)

As much as it hurts me to say it, I think the issue is best left alone.

[sbpollo]

Interesting that you bring up Tate Armstrong. Seems as I remember the big change as he began shooting more rather than playmaker. I've always wondered how he'd match up in the three point era-awesome as I would guess. A few of us went to Chapel Hill in 1976 to watch a scrimmage be tween the Olympic team and I think Czech. at Carmichael. I think Tom LaGarde was ejected for fighting! Memories!!!!!!!!

[johnb]

Spanarkel wouldn't be my pick for an old timer's retirement.

I'd go with Alarie, who was not only a great player but also--with Dawkins, Bilas, Henderson, et al--the key to Duke's success over the past 20 years. Without him, we might have fired K and been at about the level of a Wake Forest or Vanderbilt. It's all about the coach in college basketball, and Alarie helped us keep ours. Because they were coaches, we hear a lot more about Henderson and Bilas, but Alarie was only a half step behind Dawkins in regards to talent, and that team had great success without the 5-7 McD's that have become standard on campus.

I'd also go with Eugene Banks. He was a fantastic athlete and scorer, was a charismatic team leader, and was our first elite black recruit. He was considered one of the two top players in high school his year and was attending West Philadelphia High, which was an essentially all-black school in a rugged neighborhood. Duke in 1977 was A LOT whiter than it is today, and probably more homogeneously affluent. That was the era in which the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote an article filled with numbers that purported to show that Duke had the wealthiest student body in the country--presumably a matter of embarrassment and pride to the administration. Anyway, Gene was not wealthy, and he was not extremely well prepared academically, and he shocked the pre-ESPN basketball nation with his choice of schools. And when he showed up, he was not met with universal love. For example, we had (did I mention I was in his class?) an orientation meeting with Terry Sanford that filled up Page Auditorium. First question was, "You chose to admit a student this year who was academically unqualified just because he is the best basketball player in the country. How do you justify that?" I was surprised, at least partly because I was--at that time--much more of a fooball fan and hadn't heard about the recruit and Duke basketball hadn't been particularly good since I 'd been in second grade and was coming off mediocrity, but mostly because the question was so rude. Sanford said something temporizing, and someone followed it up with a second anti-athlete question, which prompted some boos (did I mention that we had all grown up watching our older siblings get to behave badly on campus, and we wanted a piece of the action?).

Anyway, Gene joined the white, affluent, snotty student body and rocked out. Four years later, he gave a great commencement address after having led us to the final game as a freshman and into the upper echelon of the ACC throughout. Like Alarie, Banks made an impact at Duke that went beyond his numbers. Further, unlike Spanarkel and Alarie, he didn't look like an enlarged version of an average Duke student. He brought us into the post-Civil-Rights era with charm and grace and led, a few years later, to recruitment of people (like Dawkins and Henderson) who might not have attended if there hadn't been a Eugene Banks who came before them. Not nominating him for sainthood (though I probably wouldn't inflict that on anybody), but I would be happy to see him in the rafters.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I have been saying Jim Spanarkel's #34 should have been retired for years too. In fact, during Mike Dunleavy's junior year, before he bolted ship, I suggested to Nan K at halftime one game when I ran into her in the concourse, that the next year, after Dunleavy has a great senior year, that it be a double ceremony for both Jim Spanarkel and MD. Of course, MD screwed up that scenario.

#34 to the rafters! I know, he's in the Hall of Honor, and that is supposed to end retirement speculation, but I ask why? It is our house and our rules. Retire #34!

[Olympic Fan]

A couple of uears ago, I was lucky enough to purchase a videotape of Duke's 1978 national title game loss to Kentucky. It's frustrating to watch because those kids were so close to the championship ... still it was fun to revisit that team in all its glory.

Watching it almost a quarter century after the fact, one of the things that surprised me was how good Jimmy Spanarkel was. I mean I knew it, but I had to see the tape to remember it. It's also easy to forget what a quality kid he was -- smart, articulate ... kind of like an earlier Shane Battier.

That said, I can't put him at the top of my retirement list either. As others have noted, the National Player of the Year Award is not required -- Mullins, Gminski,Hurley, Grant Hill, Shelden Williams never won a major NPOY award (Shelden and Grant won national DEFENSIVE player of the year, but so did Amaker and Wojo and their jersies aren't up there).

Still, as good as Jim Spanarkel was, he was never a consensus first-team All-American. He was never ACC player of the year. He never quite led Duke to the national title. I agree with the poster who suggests that Gene Banks has almost exactly the same career in terms of stats, honors and team success. It's hard to see how you could put one up there without the other. Alarie is another nice comparison. So is Trajan Langdon for that matter.

Personally, I think the one historical figure who most deserves to be rafters in Bob Verga. He had very similar career numbers to Mullins and, unlike Mullins, was a consensus first-team All-American.

I wouldn't be upset if they honored Spanarkel ... a great honor for a great player. But if Duke starts honoring past players at his level, they are going to run out of jersey numbers real fast.

[merry]

It's too bad we don't have access to more of those older games on tape. I have a copy of the 1979 home game with UNC (really only half of a game if you know what I mean) and the last time I watched it I too was amazed to be reminded of how good Spanarkel was. I mean, I watched him in person all four years but it was plus/minus 30 years ago so the memories do get vague.

His senior year when JJ would do something really smart, get in the lane and lean in for a lay up I'd tell my husband he was channeling Spanarkel.

All that said I've come to agree with the Hall of Honor designation for #34. He was a great player at a time when the program needed one, and was part of some really good years for Duke, but objectively speaking there are a lot of other players that fall into a similar category.

Still just about my all time favorite Dukie, anyway.

[Bob Green]

Tate Armstrong was a deadly outside shooter and he would have thrived in the 3-point era.

I watched the 1976 Olympic Team play a scrimmage/practice game at Reynolds Coliseum. It was an awesome experience.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[chrishoke]

JohnB - Great post about Gene Banks!

[gw67]

Sparnarkel, Banks, Alarie and Marin were terrific players but, IMO, the most deserving of the older players is Bob Verga. He only played three years in an era before the 35-40 game seasons and three-point shot but he averaged 22ppg and had he not gotten ill during the Final Four, he could have led the Devils to their first NCAA title.

Here are a couple of my thoughts about Spanarkel. Jim wasn’t even the top player on his high school team and, as I recall, he wasn’t highly recruited. His high school teammate was Mike O’Koren (UNC) who a year behind him. For those who didn’t see him play, Jim was an outstanding shooter, good ballhandler, fine passer, and an excellent rebounder for a guard. His best quality, IMO, was his all around play and court awareness. He played with great players and he understood the need to distribute the ball, proper spacing, when to force the action and guarding the passing lanes. Although he had good basketball skills and a good understanding of the game, he would probably not be appreciated by some in today’s world because he was not fast and couldn’t jump. He was just a good basketball player.

gw67

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Jim was an outstanding shooter, good ballhandler, fine passer, and an excellent rebounder for a guard. His best quality, IMO, was his all around play and court awareness. He played with great players and he understood the need to distribute the ball, proper spacing, when to force the action and guarding the passing lanes. Although he had good basketball skills and a good understanding of the game, he would probably not be appreciated by some in today’s world because he was not fast and couldn’t jump. He was just a good basketball player.

gw67

Spanarkel was Bill Foster's first big recruit, arriving on campus in the fall of 1975, my senior year. Spanarkel's special quality, which I guess you could define as smart hustling intensity (think Wojo as a senior), prompted a local sports writer to coin the phrase "Spanarkeled", as in, "the opposing player was Spanarkeled". Jim generated excitement in the program when there was little to get excited about (think Duke football of the recent past).

[gw67]

Ozzie - Thanks for the reference to "Spanarkeled". I had forgotten. The Gminski, Banks, Sparnarkel, Dennard teams were very special.

I note that the Wachovia golf tournament in Charlotte this week was one of the beneficiaries of the new PGA schedule. The field is about as strong as it gets - Tiger, Phil, Els, Furyk, Vijay, Goosen, Garcia, Harrington, Daly, Love, Scott, Ogilvy, Weir and Ogilvie. It should be good viewing for you folks down South.

gw67