All-Time ACC MBB Team

[Newton_14]

I have never wavered in my belief that Phil Ford is the best ACC point guard I have seen. Now in the day of early departures I just don't see my opinion (for what that is worth) ever changing. His consistent play over four years and his ability to control and dominate a game set him apart. He averaged over 50% from the floor all four years. I never respected a UNC player more.

Ford has to be on the All Time ACC First team. He was that good. He invented "Stop and Pop". The guy would dribble the length of the floor at Mach 1, stop on a dime and drain a mid-range jumper, time and time again. Dribbling was like a yo-yo on a string. Hurley was awesome, and deserves to be in the conversation, but Ford gets the nod.

Despite the many great players in recent years, the starting backcourt for the All-Time ACC team would still be Phil Ford and David Thompson. Ralph Sampson would be the starting Center. From there it gets complicated.

[-jk]

Interesting turn of thread.

I'll see Ford and DT. Not so certain about Ralph.

I do think Laettner has a place on first team, though. Duke Blue glasses and all.

-jk

[Newton_14]

Interesting turn of thread.

I'll see Ford and DT. Not so certain about Ralph.

I do think Laettner has a place on first team, though. Duke Blue glasses and all.

-jk

I agree Laettner has to be first team as well. Big Ralph was a 3 Time National Player of the year if memory serves. Despite the lack of titles, not sure how he can be omitted.

[gumbomoop]

Despite the many great players in recent years, the starting backcourt for the All-Time ACC team would still be Phil Ford and David Thompson. Ralph Sampson would be the starting Center. From there it gets complicated.

There must be several threads on All-Time ACC, which I'll ignore, and just comment here that I'd think it would not be that controversial [Ha!] to say it only gets complicated after:
PG - Ford
SF - Thompson
PF - Laettner
C - Sampson

[sagegrouse]

Ford has to be on the All Time ACC First team. He was that good. He invented "Stop and Pop". The guy would dribble the length of the floor at Mach 1, stop on a dime and drain a mid-range jumper, time and time again. Dribbling was like a yo-yo on a string. Hurley was awesome, and deserves to be in the conversation, but Ford gets the nod.

Despite the many great players in recent years, the starting backcourt for the All-Time ACC team would still be Phil Ford and David Thompson. Ralph Sampson would be the starting Center. From there it gets complicated.

It doesn't get very complicated, at least on DBR. Laettner is one of the ten best collegians of all time -- and I would put him closer to top five. Four final fours. Two NCs, where he was MOP once. Two-time All-American. National Player of the Year. Greatest shot in NCAA history. Laettner is after David Thompson in the ACC, but probably ahead of Ford and Sampson.

sagegrouse

[OldPhiKap]

There must be several threads on All-Time ACC, which I'll ignore, and just comment here that I'd think it would not be that controversial [Ha!] to say it only gets complicated after:
PG - Ford
SF - Thompson
PF - Laettner
C - Sampson


I know that David Thompson is legend and all -- deservedly so -- but I would love to see a prime-time match between him and Len Bias. Certainly the most undefendable player I can recall.

[turnandburn55]

Please nobody suggest MJ as a shoo-in at SG.....

[OldPhiKap]

Please nobody suggest MJ as a shoo-in at SG.....

Certainly not the ACC's best college sg, let alone the heels.

Crappy baseball player, too.

[gumbomoop]

I know that David Thompson is legend and all -- deservedly so -- but I would love to see a prime-time match between him and Len Bias. Certainly the most undefendable player I can recall.

I'm inclined to stick with the 4 I listed as automatics. But if we look at some players as tweeners, we might get Bias in there this way:


PG - Ford
SG - Thompson
SF - Bias
PF - Laettner
C- Sampson

Now, maybe some might reply that this places 3 of the 5 out of their normal position, as Thompson was mostly a SF, Bias a PF [was he??], and Laettner a C. If one insists that Thompson was a SF, period, then I'll stick with him at that spot.

[Olympic Fan]

My personal observation of ACC basketball dates back to the late 1950s, so I can't really talk about Shavlik, Rosenbluth, Hemric or any of the stars of the '50s. I always hate these internet threads because they are so biased towards recent years and negate the old-time guys. Other players are judged superficially.

But we all have opinions.

My question is: Are we picking the top 5 by position? Are we putting together a team that could play together? Are we basing it on peak performance? On overall career perforance? On actual talent?

If I were picking a five-man team based on cumulative college performance, I think there are three non-debatable picks:

(1) David Thompson is the greatest player in ACC history and it's not even close. Len Bias? Are you kidding me? Len Bias led the ACC in scoring twice, averaging 18.3 ppg in 1985 and 23.2 in 1986 (with a shot clock). He was a consensus first-team All-American as a senior ... never national player of the year (in fact, in his best year, a conference rival won a major national player of the year award). The two years he was a great player, his team finished a cumulative 14-14 in the ACC.

Thompson on the other hand, averaged 24.7 as a sophomore, 26.0 as a junior and 29.9 as a senior. He shot better from the floor (over 55 percent to 53.6 for Bias). At 6-4, he was a better rebounder than the 6-8 Bias (8.1 to 5.7 for their careers). Thompson was three times consensus first-team All-American and the only reason he wasn't four time was that freshmen weren't eligible his freshman year. His three State teams finished 79-7 (and 32-4 in the ACC). Thompson had better individual stats, won more national awards and played on more successful teams. There is not one criteria that puts Bias -- or anybody else -- in his class.

(2) Christian Laettner's numbers are great (he finished his career as the No. 5 scorer and No. 10 rebounder in ACC history ... he's still No 7 and No. 14 in those categories). It could be argued that hhe was the greatest 3-point shooter in ACC history (his 48.5 career average is the best for anybody who attempted more than 100 3 pt field goals in a career). His individual honors are good -- three-time All-American, 1992 national player of the year. But what earns him a spot on this team, ahead of a few other guys with similar or better numbers, is the fact that he is the greatest postseason player in ACC -- and maybe NCAA history. The first and still only player to start on four Final Four teams -- he is justly famous for his clutch NCAA play, especially in regional victories over Georgetown, UConn and Kentucky, plus of course his Final Four MVP in 1991. Still the leading career scorer in NCAA Tournament history. He was 21-2 in NCAA play!

(3) Phil Ford is a lock IF we have to pick a point guard. If positions don't matter, then he becomes borderline top 5 (but still top 10). But he's clearly the No. 1 point guard in ACC history -- the top scorer at the position and while only 10th in assists, his assist numbers are better than his rank because of how they were awarded in his era. Obviously, the rules at the time helped make him greater than he would be today with a shot clock, but those were the rules at the time and Ford made the Four Corners the most fared (and hated) tactic in college basketball.

I'm not going to be pick a 4th and 5th guy because I think you can make the case for a lot of guys and there's little to choose among them. You want to argue Bias in the top 5, I'm fine with that -- just don't compare him to Thompson. You can make a case for Tim Duncan, Len Chappell, Larry Miller, Charlie Scott, Johnny Dawkins, Grant Hill, John Lucas, Shane Battier, Tyler Hansbrough, Tommy Burleson, Jason Williams. You could push for one of the '50s guys -- certainly Shavlik and Rosenbluth have eye-popping stats and played on dominant teams.

However, I will argue that Ralph Sampson is NOT a lock and wouldn not have a place on my team, despite his three national player of the year awards. I can't dispute that he won them, but I would argue that he didn't deserve them -- any of them. Ralph was the greatest choke artist in ACC histiory. A guy with all the talent in the world, but a guy who never wanted the spotlight and never wanted to take the clutch shot. I think the way his career ended is illustrative -- down one point to NC State in the West Regional finals, Ralph passed up the potential game-winning shot. When a teammate missed at the buzzer, Ralph ran down the rebound and at least two seconds after the buzzer (when the pressure was off) he swished a turn-around 15-footer. That was Ralph Sampson. He averaged a modest 16.9 points and a solid 11.9 rebounds and blocked 462 shots in his career. Just compare that with Tommy Burleson, who averaqed 19.0 points and 12.3 reounds for his career; Tim Duncan, who averaged 16.5 points, 12.3 rebounds and blocked 481 shots in his career. Or Mike Gminski (whose career overlapped Sampson's) who averaged 19.0 points, 10.2 rebounds and blocked 345 shots or Tyler Hansbrough, who averaged 20.6 points and 8.2 rebounds. Of course, none of those numbers compare with Wake big man Len Chappell, who averaged 24.9 points an 13.9 rebounds (we don't have his blocked shots).

Not only did Duncan, Gminski, Burleson, Hansbrough and Chappell put up similar or better numbers, they all did it on teams that actually won something (each of them played on teams that one two ACC championships ... Ralph won none).

PS One interesting note about Michael Jordan and Jason Williams. By almost any measure, they had almost exactly the same college careers. Actually, Jason scored more -- 19.3 ppg to 17.7 (although some of that may be due to the 3-point shot). Jordan rebounded better, while Jason was one of the top assist men in ACC history. But look at the awards they won -- both were two-time first-team All-ACC and two-time concensus All-Americans. Each won a single NPOY award as a sophomore (Jordan the Sporting News; Jason the NABC) and both were consensus national players of the year as juniors. Jordan won an ACC POY and Jason didn't, but Jason was ACC Tournament MVP and Jordan didn't. Their teams had similar success -- each winning a national championship; each was also upset by an SEC team in Syracuse's Carrier Dome in one East Regional (Jordan and UNC by Georgia in 1983; Jason and Duke by Florida in 2000); each ended his career on a dismal note, being upset by Indiana in the Sweet 16.

Jason played on three teams that finished No. 1 in the AP poll and on three ACC championship teams; Jordan played on two teams that finished No. 1 and one ACC championship team.

Jason did go higher in the draft -- No. 2 as opposed to Jordan's No. 3.

So which had the better COLLEGE career?

[luvdahops]

I'm inclined to stick with the 4 I listed as automatics. But if we look at some players as tweeners, we might get Bias in there this way:


PG - Ford
SG - Thompson
SF - Bias
PF - Laettner
C- Sampson

Now, maybe some might reply that this places 3 of the 5 out of their normal position, as Thompson was mostly a SF, Bias a PF [was he??], and Laettner a C. If one insists that Thompson was a SF, period, then I'll stick with him at that spot.

If memory serves, Bias and Derrick Lewis were somewhat interchangeable at the 3 and 4 for the Terps in 85 and 86. Same with Lennie and Herman Veal the prior two years, although Veal was definitely more an interior player despite standing only 6'6". I recall Alarie generally defending Bias when we played them, though.

Veal was charged with sexual assault at one point in his career, and I believe it was after an '84 game at Cameron when Crazies threw panties and condoms on the court as Veal was being introduced that the WaPost wrote an editorial criticizing our behavior, which in turn led to the famous "avuncular letter" from Terry Sanford.

[lotusland]

Laettner and Thompson are automatic. I'll agree on Phil Ford but I don't think he'a automatic. My final 2 are Duncan and Grant Hill. I may be covering every position instead of taking the best 5 but I think there are only 2 automatics and the rest is debatable. Jonny Dawkins, James Worthy, Tyler Hansbrough and Ralph Sampson are certainly in the conversation.

Grant Hill above Bias, JayDub and Jordan.

I know ifs and buts aren't worth much but Hill was just one Scotty Thurmond prayer away from being arguably the greatest Blue Devil ever. Imagine 3 Championships after a flat out dominant Senior year where he played every position on the court on both offense and defense. He guarded the opponents best player whether it was Randolph Childress or Glenn Robinson. Duke did not have anything close to a final four caliber lineup without Hill and we all know what happened to Duke after Hill graduated.

[gumbomoop]

Laettner and Thompson are automatic. I'll agree on Phil Ford but I don't think he'a automatic. My final 2 are Duncan and Grant Hill. I may be covering every position instead of taking the best 5 but I think there are only 2 automatics and the rest is debatable.

I agree that Grant and Duncan are very much in the conversation, but.....

If Laettner and Thompson are automatic [surely yes], and we're covering every position [apparently the only way Ford makes top 5??], then Grant must be shut out. For Thompson didn't play SG in college, did he? And if Thompson is the SF, then Grant's out. But wait, he actually played plenty of PF at Duke, but Laettner is, like Thompson, automatic.

Now one might argue, if Laettner's automatic [surely yes], that he actually mostly played C. Thus:


PG - Ford
SG - ??? [many superb players, several Duke guys]
SF - Thompson [automatic, at his actual college position]
PF - Hill/Bias, maybe Worthy
C - Laettner [automatic, at his actual college position]

[grit74]

Without disagreeing about his inclusion in the list, I must note that Phil Ford walked every time he did the stop and pop.

[roywhite]

I agree that Grant and Duncan are very much in the conversation, but.....

If Laettner and Thompson are automatic [surely yes], and we're covering every position [apparently the only way Ford makes top 5??], then Grant must be shut out. For Thompson didn't play SG in college, did he? And if Thompson is the SF, then Grant's out. But wait, he actually played plenty of PF at Duke, but Laettner is, like Thompson, automatic.

Now one might argue, if Laettner's automatic [surely yes], that he actually mostly played C. Thus:


PG - Ford
SG - ??? [many superb players, several Duke guys]
SF - Thompson [automatic, at his actual college position]
PF - Hill/Bias, maybe Worthy
C - Laettner [automatic, at his actual college position]



Jason Williams comes to mind at the SG spot, based on your position assumptions.

He acheived a lot in 3 years, had several outstanding performances, and was a key player on a National Championship team.
Was there a 3-year player who had a higher scoring total?

[gumbomoop]

Jason Williams comes to mind at the SG spot, based on your position assumptions.

He acheived a lot in 3 years, had several outstanding performances, and was a key player on a National Championship team. Was there a 3-year player who had a higher scoring total?

Three Duke guys would be in the SG conversation: Dawkins, Williams, Redick. I think Olympic Fan has shown in a previous post that JWill nips Jordan. And in fact it seems uncontroversial to me to assert that Jordan is not on this team, either by position or top 5 ACC, period. He became an all-time NBA great [and arguably the greatest], but he wasn't that in college.

[turnandburn55]

Three Duke guys would be in the SG conversation: Dawkins, Williams, Redick. I think Olympic Fan has shown in a previous post that JWill nips Jordan. And in fact it seems uncontroversial to me to assert that Jordan is not on this team, either by position or top 5 ACC, period. He became an all-time NBA great [and arguably the greatest], but he wasn't that in college.

To paraphrase a previous poster

I love JJ Redick

I love JJ Redick

I love JJ Redick

But I'd take Jay Dubs over Redick any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Unless I needed a designate foul shooter (commence head-shaking)

[Nepos]

If sustained excellence within the ACC were to be the main criterion, then an objective standard might be making first team All-ACC at least three times. On top of that, one might hope that the members of the all-time team were dominant enough to win ACC Player of the Year at least once. According to the 2011 ACC Basketball Guide, 15 players meet this standard. Five of those won ACC POY at least twice: Duncan, Sampson, Thompson, John Roche, and Chappell. If the team is by position, then this 5 lacks someone to distribute the ball. Only one point guard made first team all-ACC three times -- Ford. So, by one set of objective criteria that focuses on sustained excellence within the league, one might put this team on the floor:

PG Ford
SG Roche
SF Thompson
PF Sampson
C Duncan

[gumbomoop]

To paraphrase a previous poster

I love JJ Redick

I love JJ Redick

I love JJ Redick

But I'd take Jay Dubs over Redick any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Unless I needed a designate foul shooter (commence head-shaking)

Can't disagree, including, btw, the head-shake.

I'd take Dawkins over JWill.

And so, without much fudging at all, I could get 3 Devils on this team: Laettner, Dawkins, and Hill, with each at the position he actually played most of the time in college.

[Nepos]

If sustained excellence within the ACC were to be the main criterion, then an objective standard might be making first team All-ACC at least three times. On top of that, one might hope that the members of the all-time team were dominant enough to win ACC Player of the Year at least once. According to the 2011 ACC Basketball Guide, 15 players meet this standard. Five of those won ACC POY at least twice: Duncan, Sampson, Thompson, John Roche, and Chappell. If the team is by position, then this 5 lacks someone to distribute the ball. Only one point guard made first team all-ACC three times -- Ford. So, by one set of objective criteria that focuses on sustained excellence within the league, one might put this team on the floor:

PG Ford
SG Roche
SF Thompson
PF Sampson
C Duncan

Sorry, the second to last sentence should be: "Only one point guard made first team all-ACC three times and was an ACC POY..."

[Bojangles4Eva]

To paraphrase a previous poster

I love JJ Redick

I love JJ Redick

I love JJ Redick

But I'd take Jay Dubs over Redick any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Unless I needed a designate foul shooter (commence head-shaking)

Agree, although I might take Dawkins over Jwill. J.J. is top 10 ACC talent most definitely, but what hurts him in this list is defense (adequate for college, but not up to par with other top 10 ACC players) and his kryptonite...A long athletic 2/3 guarding him.

[throatybeard]

Viking Guy rarely posts here anymore, but I'm compelled to bring up his all-time Duke MBB team

PG Wojo
SG Wojo
SF Wojo
PF Wojo
C Wojo on stilts

I think DT could displace him at SG.

Seriously though, I can't see Sampson over Tim Duncan. I can't seem him over Gminski. I'm not sure what a center is though, really.

One of the regional partners, Jeff Pilot or Hardees or someone, did this exercie on old-school broadcast TV in about the 1990 regular season. During commercials, with slow reveals. Thus, Laettner wasn't Laettner just yet. What interested me about that team was Ferry was on it. I think they went

PG Ford
SG Thompson
SF Bias
PF Ferry
C I forget. Probably Sampson.

As you can see, it is solid but also privileges players of the recent past at the time over guys from the 1960s and 1950s. So like, no Hemric, no Roche, no Heyman or Mullins. Worthy wasn't on it. Again let me make clear that this is IIRC.

[johnb]

I always hate these internet threads because they are so biased towards recent years and negate the old-time guys. Other players are judged superficially.

Amidst many good observations, Olympic Fan asserts something that made me want to agree and argue.
My first thought was, yeah, I didn't follow ACC basketball until the late 70's, and I view the conference via Duke games, so I'd be tempted to rank Len Bias (who was overwhelming against us) over Thompson because I never watched Thompson play. And so I'd agree that it's unfair.

OTOH, there's another reason to discount some of the achievements of the guys before, say, 1970. They were all white. Not their fault, of course, but, without getting back into last week's discussion about athleticism and skin color, can you imagine JJ's (or Grant's or Elton's or any modern star's) numbers if no African-American players were allowed to guard him?

[davekay1971]

Ford has to be on the All Time ACC First team. He was that good. He invented "Stop and Pop". The guy would dribble the length of the floor at Mach 1, stop on a dime and drain a mid-range jumper, time and time again. Dribbling was like a yo-yo on a string. Hurley was awesome, and deserves to be in the conversation, but Ford gets the nod.

Despite the many great players in recent years, the starting backcourt for the All-Time ACC team would still be Phil Ford and David Thompson. Ralph Sampson would be the starting Center. From there it gets complicated.

I have almost nothing to add after Olympic's sensational post. I will simply put in a very subjective plug for Grant. Grant's performance in leading the 94 team to within a basket of the natty is one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen. He was never a huge scorer, although he was good, but Grant was simply the best at everything of any player on the court all year. He was our best floor general, our best defender, best scoring option, best passer, best communicator. Grant grew into that, having guys Laettner and Hurley around his first 3 years. But when it was his team, Grant really shined.

With all that said, I'd select the following team

PG Ford - best consummate PG
SG Redick - best deep scorer, the non-charity All time scoring champ
SF Thompson - the best
PF Hill - reasons mentioned above
C Laettner - the second best

[luvdahops]

Amidst many good observations, Olympic Fan asserts something that made me want to agree and argue.
My first thought was, yeah, I didn't follow ACC basketball until the late 70's, and I view the conference via Duke games, so I'd be tempted to rank Len Bias (who was overwhelming against us) over Thompson because I never watched Thompson play. And so I'd agree that it's unfair.

OTOH, there's another reason to discount some of the achievements of the guys before, say, 1970. They were all white. Not their fault, of course, but, without getting back into last week's discussion about athleticism and skin color, can you imagine JJ's (or Grant's or Elton's or any modern star's) numbers if no African-American players were allowed to guard him?

Here's a sampler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhsoRKK1pI

Not all college highlights, but does give you a flavor. Dude was amazing. Listed at 6-4, supposedly closer to 6-2 in socks, played about 6-10 with great quickness to boot. And could shoot the lights out. He is still the #1 all-time in the ACC in my book.

I did not grow up in ACC country but a local TV channel would show the ACC Game of the Week (via CD Chesley) on Sundays. David Thompson was the guy who got me hooked on basketball in grade school.

[Olympic Fan]

Here's a sampler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhsoRKK1pI

Not all college highlights, but does give you a flavor. Dude was amazing. Listed at 6-4, supposedly closer to 6-2 in socks, played about 6-10 with great quickness to boot. And could shoot the lights out. He is still the #1 all-time in the ACC in my book.

I did not grow up in ACC country but a local TV channel would show the ACC Game of the Week (via CD Chesley) on Sundays. David Thompson was the guy who got me hooked on basketball in grade school.

Thanks for the video clip. Every few years we need to remind a new generation of basketball fans what a great player Thompson was.

There's really no way to describe it if you weren't there, but just a few comments might help. Providence All-American Marvin "Bad News" Barnes, after giving up 40 points (on 16-of-19 shooting) to Thompson in the East Regional semifinals in 1974 said:

“Now you know why we call him Superman. I couldn't stop him. How many did get, 40? You just try and not let him get 50. I don’t think anybody can stop Thompson, except himself. He’s probably the best around.”

Fred Schaus, who coached Jerry West at West Virginia and later with the Lakers, saw Thompson play as a freshman and said: “Thompson is better right now than Jerry West was as a college senior. Thompson is one of the 10 best basketball players in the nation, pros included.” That was in his freshman year.

Thompson avereaged 35.8 points in his first five college outings -- albiet against weak opposition. But in game six, the Pack faced Wake in the Big Four Tournament. With Burleson in early foul trouble, Thompson carried the load. He scored 29 points and had 12 rebounds. I mention this because the next day, several papers lamented his "disappointing performance."

It was like that for Thompson. When he scored a mere 28 in the 1974 title game, people compained that he had a mediocre performance. Well, it was mediocre compared to his two previous performances against Maryland when he scored 39 and 41 points: “I’ve guarded him with 6-10 people and 6-4 people and 6-6 people,” Driesell said after the second game. “You just couldn’t stop him. He was unstoppable.”

Thompson scored 26 to beat UNC for the sixth straight time, despite the best efforts of 6-9 Bobby Jones, probably the best defender of that generation (eight times an all-pro defender):

“He will just not let them lose,” Jones said of Thompson. “If State needs something, Thompson will get it for them. He’s just the best I’ve ever been around.”

According to Virginia's Wonderful Wally Walker:

“What can you say, except he’s the greatest,” Walker said. “David does everything on the court well. I’ll bet he can even get dressed faster than anybody else in the conference because I’ll tell you, he can jump quicker and higher than anybody I’ve ever seen. I can’t see anybody beating State when State has David Thompson on its side.”

After the Final Four, the cover of sports Illustrated showdd the 6-4 (or 6-2?) Thompson soaring OVER the 6-11 Bill Walton.

Thompson had a tremendous impact on the game of college basketball. It was his noteriety as a freshman at State that helped convince the NCAA to pass freshman eligibility. It was his dramatic performance in the 1973 Super Bowl Sunday game at Maryland (37 points, including the game-winning tap-in) that convinced NBC to sanction a college basketball game of the week. And maybe it was just coincidence, but Thompson sacrificed the last regular season basket of his career to dunk -- and take an intentional technical foul -- to protest the anti-dunking rules of his day. Just happened that the NCAA lifted the ban on dunking the next season. And what we missed -- Thompson later beat Dr. J in a dunk contest at the ABA all-star game (then won the all-star MVP award).

The great tragedy of his career was that he was hurt with 10 minutes to go on the 1975 ACC Tournament semifinals. Thompson had scored 38 points in the opener and had 30 with 10 minutes to go against the top-seeded Terps when he went down and was helped off the floor. State, up 20 at the time, hung on to win 87-85. The next night, Thompson tried to play on one leg and had a miserable night as UNC edged State 70-66. That loss kept Thompson and State from defending their NCAA title. It was his last college game.

But he went out as the greatest the ACC has ever seen and -- I would argue -- the greatest non-center in college basketball history. (and don't bring up Oscar -- whose team actually improved AFTER he left or Maravich, whose LSU team was never any good when Pistol Pete was scoring all those points). Maybe Jabbar, maybe Russell ...

[roywhite]

The great tragedy of his career was that he was hurt with 10 minutes to go on the 1975 ACC Tournament semifinals. Thompson had scored 38 points in the opener and had 30 with 10 minutes to go against the top-seeded Terps when he went down and was helped off the floor. State, up 20 at the time, hung on to win 87-85. The next night, Thompson tried to play on one leg and had a miserable night as UNC edged State 70-66. That loss kept Thompson and State from defending their NCAA title. It was his last college game.

But he went out as the greatest the ACC has ever seen and -- I would argue -- the greatest non-center in college basketball history. (and don't bring up Oscar -- whose team actually improved AFTER he left or Maravich, whose LSU team was never any good when Pistol Pete was scoring all those points). Maybe Jabbar, maybe Russell ...

Excellent account, and I feel fortunate to have seen him play in person and on TV.

All due respect, but "the great tragedy" of David Thompson's career was substance abuse, drugs and alcohol.
It hampered his performance, cut short his pro career, and prevented him from greater recognition and achievement as a pro.

[ForkFondler]

The three point line changed the game so much that you really need with/without lineups. With a three point line, I might take Redick over Dawkins on the Duke All-Time Team, but without the three, no way. Similarly, you can't take Laettner over Sampson without the line.

[Newton_14]

Excellent account, and I feel fortunate to have seen him play in person and on TV.

All due respect, but "the great tragedy" of David Thompson's career was substance abuse, drugs and alcohol.
It hampered his performance, cut short his pro career, and prevented him from greater recognition and achievement as a pro.

Agree in terms of his Pro career, but that injury was a tragedy in terms of his college career. On top of all the data Oly has shared, in DT's Soph and Jr campaigns, State went 56-1, with the only loss coming to UCLA early in the 73-74 season. They avenged that loss later that season in the Final 4. State ran the table in 72-73, but missed the tourney due to being on probation. They would have had a great chance of winning the NCAA title in 73, were it not for that. David Thompson is still the greatest college player I have ever seen. Not sure anyone will surpass him given that most of the best players no longer stay in college long enough to leave a legacy.

As for the All Time ACC team, thanks to everyone for the interest and comments so far. I am settled on my top 4, but still debating on that final spot. I know the lists would be slightly different if you threw out positions, but I like keeping positions in play. I have great respect for Oly and his knowledge of the game, but Sampson has to be on the team, for me. I do understand the reasoning behind those that omit Ralph though.

Maybe we should do a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd team, and maybe throw a poll up or something. Would be a fun exercise..

So my 4 are still Ford, Thompson, Sampson, Laettner... still need that 5th guy..

[sagegrouse]

Looking at some likely all-time all-ACC candidates. How about the NPOY who played in the ACC? The list I found begins with 1961, but there are 13 ACC players so honored:

Heyman, D
Thompson, NCS x2
Sampson, V x3
Jordan, NC
Laettner, D
Smith, M
Duncan, WF
Jamison, NC
Brand, D
Battier, D
JWill, D
Redick, D
Hansbrough, NC

Thirteen players and not a bad list, esp. considering that six of the 13 were from Duke.

Guards: Jordan, JWill, Redick
Forwards: Heyman, Thompson, Smith, Jamison, Battier
C and FC: Sampson, Laettner, Duncan, Brand, Hansbrough

An incredible roster, and both Phil Ford and Grant Hill could compete with these guys.

Six of the 13 won NCAA championships; ten made Final Fours; and 11 won ACC championships. The only two players who were 0-0-0 across the championships were Joe Smith of Maryland and Ralph Sampson. (Quite frankly, I had forgotten that Smith was NPOY. Of course, that was in 1995, and I have tried to forget a lot about that season.)

I'm still thinking about how I would choose a first team and second team.

sagegrouse
'Note that Ferry and Dawkins got some recognition as NPOY but not the AP selection'

[Olympic Fan]

Your national player of the year list actually shorts Phil Ford, who was the consensus national player of the year in 1978. He won the Wooden Award, the USBWA Award, the NABC and the Sporting Nerws -- four of the six awards recognized by the NCAA.

You also leave out Danny Ferry, who was co-national player of the year in 1989 with Arizona's Sean Elliott (both won three major awards). Joe Smith, who you do list in 1995, also won three of the six major awards.

In addition, Johnny Dawkins won the Naismith (one of the recognized awards) in 1986, although that was his only win and he was not consensus.

A few other players won oddball awards that are not recognized by the NCAA -- Lennie Rosenbluth won the Helms Award in 1957 (the UNC people love that one), James Worthy and Ralph Sampson were the Helms co-winners in 1982. Josh Howard won the Basketball Digest Award in 2005 and Jerry Stackhouse won the Sports Illustrated Award in 1995 (a real odd one -- SI has only picked about three national players of the years in the last 30 or so years).

I agree that Grant Hill, whose only NPIOY award waqs on defense, should be in the mix. I would also add Charlie Scott -- a two-time first team All-American and an Olympian -- ho was never national player of the year.

[burnspbesq]

The last ABA championship series, with Thompson going at Dr. J at one end of the floor and Dr. J going at Bobby Jones at the other end, was the apotheosis of pro ball in my mind.

[sagegrouse]

Your national player of the year list actually shorts Phil Ford, who was the consensus national player of the year in 1978. He won the Wooden Award, the USBWA Award, the NABC and the Sporting News -- four of the six awards recognized by the NCAA.

You also leave out Danny Ferry, who was co-national player of the year in 1989 with Arizona's Sean Elliott (both won three major awards). Joe Smith, who you do list in 1995, also won three of the six major awards.

In addition, Johnny Dawkins won the Naismith (one of the recognized awards) in 1986, although that was his only win and he was not consensus.



Sorry but I left out the most important qualifier in my post (can't believe it wasn't there). I started with the AP NPOY list, which begins in 1961 - Ford and Ferry weren't recipients. Thanks for your additions: I knew of the other Duke players earning NPOY awards but did not have a good reference to players from other schools.

Can we agree we have a candidate list of nominees?

Guards: Charlie Scott*, Ford, Jordan, JDawkins, JWill, Redick

Forwards: Heyman, Thompson, Grant Hill*, Smith, Jamison, Battier

Center and CF: Sampson, Ferry, Laettner, Duncan, Brand, Hansbrough

Eighteen players, evenly divided among the three categories. All but Scott and Grant won NPOY awards; they are highly deserving "wild card" (*) selections.

The next set of candidates is formidable as well: Chappell (Wake), Gminski, Worthy, Perkins, Daugherty. I'm not sure I'd bump someone else off the list to take one of these.

sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

How about?

Laettner
Duncan
Thompson
Ford
JWill

Followed by?

Sampson (sorry, but he has to play)
Brand
Hill or Jamison (Antwan has the NPOY chops but Grant is so-o-o-o versatile)
MJ
JDawkins or Scott

And then?

Ferry
Hansbrough or Battier
Smith
Heyman
Redick

Restricting All-Time All-ACC to those who won national championships?

Laettner or Hansbrough
Hill or Battier
Thompson
Jordan
JWill

sagegrouse

[gumbomoop]

I'd need to think further about sagegrouse's candidate list, but I'd eliminate Elton. For all-time ACC, I'd prefer the player spent more time in the ACC. Three seasons minimum.

[Nepos]

How about?

Laettner
Duncan
Thompson
Ford
JWill

Followed by?

Sampson (sorry, but he has to play)
Brand
Hill or Jamison (Antwan has the NPOY chops but Grant is so-o-o-o versatile)
MJ
JDawkins or Scott

And then?

Ferry
Hansbrough or Battier
Smith
Heyman
Redick

Restricting All-Time All-ACC to those who won national championships?

Laettner or Hansbrough
Hill or Battier
Thompson
Jordan
JWill

sagegrouse

When I reviewed the ACC records, the name that jumped out at me was (to my surprise) John Roche. In his three years of eligibility he was ACC POY as a Soph, as a Jr, and then finished second in the voting as a Sr. By the way, he beat out Charlie Scott (who was a year ahead) both years that he was POY. On its face, that seems like an unreal record to me, and one that seems worthy of strong consideration for the starting SG slot. However, I know next to nothing about Roche. He was well before my time, and I've heard almost nothing about him during my 30 years following ACC basketball. Can someone who is older fill me in here. Was he as amazing as his record? Is he overlooked because he played for SC just before they left the league? Is there another reason why his name is seldom raised in these discussions?

[Duvall]

When I reviewed the ACC records, the name that jumped out at me was (to my surprise) John Roche. In his three years of eligibility he was ACC POY as a Soph, as a Jr, and then finished second in the voting as a Sr. By the way, he beat out Charlie Scott (who was a year ahead) both years that he was POY. On its face, that seems like an unreal record to me, and one that seems worthy of strong consideration for the starting SG slot. However, I know next to nothing about Roche. He was well before my time, and I've heard almost nothing about him during my 30 years following ACC basketball. Can someone who is older fill me in here. Was he as amazing as his record? Is he overlooked because he played for SC just before they left the league? Is there another reason why his name is seldom raised in these discussions?

Well, those POY votes had...complicating factors.

[Olympic Fan]

When I reviewed the ACC records, the name that jumped out at me was (to my surprise) John Roche. In his three years of eligibility he was ACC POY as a Soph, as a Jr, and then finished second in the voting as a Sr. By the way, he beat out Charlie Scott (who was a year ahead) both years that he was POY. On its face, that seems like an unreal record to me, and one that seems worthy of strong consideration for the starting SG slot. However, I know next to nothing about Roche. He was well before my time, and I've heard almost nothing about him during my 30 years following ACC basketball. Can someone who is older fill me in here. Was he as amazing as his record? Is he overlooked because he played for SC just before they left the league? Is there another reason why his name is seldom raised in these discussions?

As Duval aludes to, the ACC POY votes in 1969 and 1970 were about as worthless as anything you can think of. There's no telling how may racists refused to vote for Scott -- who was the ACC's first great player -- but we know of at least five in 1969 (five voters left him off their first and second team All-ACC teams).

As someone who was there -- those were my college years -- Scott was a significantly better player than Roche -- he won more All-America honors and he was an Olympian (and one of three key players on a US team that won as an underdog).

Let's look at the numbers for a monent just in 1969 and 1970, the two years the voters gave Roche the award over Scott:

In 1969, Roche averaged 23.6 points and 2.6 rebounds for the ACC's second best team. He shot .471 from the field. He was asked to do little on defense -- South Carolina played exclusively zone. We don't have the assist/turnover data for South Carolina that year, but Billy Walsh was the nominal point guard. Roche did handle a lot -- he and soph Tom Owens played a lot of pick and roll.

That year Scott was the best player on the ACC's best team -- one that clinched the ACC title with a week to go, then won the ACC Tournament as Scott turned in the greatest single-game ACC Tournament performance in history (40 points, including 25 in the second half). For the year, he averaged 22.3 points, but shot .503 from floor and averaged 7.1 rebounds. He also averaged 3.6 assists (I know that was more than Roche) and was a great defensive player. Head to head, Roche led South Carolina to an upset in the first game in Charlotte (part of the old North-South Doubleheader), but Scott led UNC to a victory in the rematch in Columbia.

What criteria -- or I should say, what honest criteria -- would give Roche the POY over Scott? Because he averaged 1.3 more points? Forget that Scott shot better, rebounded better and defended better. That's ignoring his heroic ACC Tournament performance and his game-winning perfrormance against Davidson in the East Regional finals.

In 1970, the tables turned. South Carolina added Tom Riker while UNC lost three senior starters. Scott had to carry the load alone. He averaged 27.1 points and 8.6 rebounds and 3.1 assists. His shooting slipped to .460. Roche, now the best player on the best team, averaged 22.3 and 2.3 rebounds. He shot .473 from the floor.

The two years are mirror images in a way -- in '69 Scott was the best player on the best team; Roche was the best player on the second-best team ... and Roche scored a very little bit more than Scott; in '70 Roche was the best player on the best team; Scott was the best player on the second best team ... and Scott scored A LOT more. Beyond that of course, Scott was superior in every other aspect of the game -- he rebounded much better, he distributed better and he defended much better.

Yet, somehow the ACC voters managed to see Roche as the best player both years/

Nationally, there was no comparison. In 1969, Scott was first team A-A for USBWA and NABC; second team AP and UPI. Roche did not make a single significant A-A team.

In 1970, Scott was a concensus first-team All-American ... Roche ended up as the 10th guy in the AA vote, hence was the last guy on the consensus second team.

And, of course, all this doesn't include the 1968 Olympic Games. The US entered the games as a big underdog after most of the top players (including Alcindor, Lanier, Pete Maramich) refused to play. They were battered on a pre-games tour of Europe. But with Scott and Kansas star Jo Jo White (about the only two big-time NCAA stars that played) teaming with an unknown juco big man named Spencer Heywood, the Americans clawed their way into the gold medal game against Yugoslavia. The US managed a four-point halftime lead, but with the hostile Mexico City crowd howling for blood, it looked like the US was in trouble.

What happened next remains one of my greatest basketball memories. White and Scott keyed a fullcourt press that had to be seen to be believed. The US absolutely destroyed the Yugoslavs, scoring the first 17 poiints of the second half. Anybody who can remember that moment -- or the second half of the 1969 title game -- would seriously consider Mr. Scott as one of the five ... or at least 10 greatest ACC players (despite the racist vote that denied him ACC Player of the Years). Heck, if you are going to go by that, take Jason Williams and Johnny Dawkins off the list -- the never won ACC player of the year either (although in their case, I don't blame racism).

One final thought. I got into an argument with a longtime ACC sports writer not long ago about the greatest shooting guard in UNC history. My case was that despite the national honors Michael Jordan won, Charlie Scott was a better college player.

His numbers were better (Scott averaged 22,1 ppg, 7.1 rpg and 3.3 apg for the two years we have the numbers; Jordan averaged 17.7 ppg., 5.0 rpg and 1.8 apg). Both were great defenders. Although Jordan has a national title and Scott doesn;t, you might give James Worthy and Sam Perkins credit for that. In the two years that Jordan was the best player on the team, they didn't win anything -- not an ACC title or a regional. Scott played on two Final Four teams (to Jordaan's one) and played on two ACC championship teams (to Jordan's one).

Now, I think I'm right about that -- I'd pick Scott (as a collegian) over the collegiate Michael Jordan. But that's a debatable point.

But Scott>Roche is an easy call.

[theAlaskanBear]

The last ABA championship series, with Thompson going at Dr. J at one end of the floor and Dr. J going at Bobby Jones at the other end, was the apotheosis of pro ball in my mind.

Do you know anywhere one can watch ABA video? Here is a youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qNqZVklGm0

More like the apotheosis of fro ball!

[sagegrouse]

Now, I think I'm right about that -- I'd pick Scott (as a collegian) over the collegiate Michael Jordan. But that's a debatable point.

But Scott>Roche is an easy call.

In addition to the reasons Olympic Fan cites, the press in those days were very swayed by simple stats like points per game. Roche was a great scorer. I mean, Duke's Steve Vacendak was ACC POY in 1966, but the playmaker wasn't even first-team All-ACC. The writers knew he was a grat player but couldn't bring themselves to vote him ahead of guys that scored a lot more.

Not only Charlie Scott but JJ Redick IMHO (where the H is characteristically silent) was a far better player than Roche.

sage

[roywhite]

John Roche was also the first ACC star that Mike Krzyzewski shut down.

The Army captain got the defensive assignment vs Roche in the 2nd round of the 1969 NIT and took him out of the game, leading to a 59-45 Army win.

[Nepos]

Thanks for the info on Mr. Roche. Sounds like he has one of the more interesting stories in ACC history -- an excellent player whose resume is probably a little more illustrious than it would have been in a different era.

[Verga3]

Sorry but I left out the most important qualifier in my post (can't believe it wasn't there). I started with the AP NPOY list, which begins in 1961 - Ford and Ferry weren't recipients. Thanks for your additions: I knew of the other Duke players earning NPOY awards but did not have a good reference to players from other schools.

Can we agree we have a candidate list of nominees?

Guards: Charlie Scott*, Ford, Jordan, JDawkins, JWill, Redick

Forwards: Heyman, Thompson, Grant Hill*, Smith, Jamison, Battier

Center and CF: Sampson, Ferry, Laettner, Duncan, Brand, Hansbrough

Eighteen players, evenly divided among the three categories. All but Scott and Grant won NPOY awards; they are highly deserving "wild card" (*) selections.

The next set of candidates is formidable as well: Chappell (Wake), Gminski, Worthy, Perkins, Daugherty. I'm not sure I'd bump someone else off the list to take one of these.

sagegrouse


One can always quibble, but this is a really well-thought list, sagegrouse. Here's my take on a Top 3 from your list (with a super-sub for each team):

First Team
Ford, Jordan, Thompson, Hill, Duncan (Laettner)

Second Team
JWill, Redick, Jamison, Battier, Sampson (Brand)

Third Team
Scott, Dawkins, Heyman, Smith, Ferry (Hansbrough)

Fun to think about how these teams would fare against each other.

[-jk]

Sorry - any first team that doesn't prominently feature both DT and Christian shows an utter lack of perspective.

In my humble opinion, of course.

-jk

[Newton_14]

Sorry - any first team that doesn't prominently feature both DT and Christian shows an utter lack of perspective.

In my humble opinion, of course.

-jk

Agree, and Jordan is not in the conversation. This has zilch to do with NBA accomplishments. It is 100% about what they did in College. A boatload of players had better college careers than Jordan did.

[turnandburn55]

Agree, and Jordan is not in the conversation. This has zilch to do with NBA accomplishments. It is 100% about what they did in College. A boatload of players had better college careers than Jordan did.


Completely agree. And if we're strictly talking about body of work vice "who I want on my team if my life is on the line", I can't justify putting either Jamison or Brand over Beaker. It pains me to say it because it made me ill watching him play, but the dude is the ACC's all-time leading scorer, a national champion, and the only dude in ACC history to make the first time unanimously all four years.

Again, I hate the player with a passion. But the accomplishments, on the balance, outweigh both Brand and Jamison.

[Verga3]

Agree, and Jordan is not in the conversation. This has zilch to do with NBA accomplishments. It is 100% about what they did in College. A boatload of players had better college careers than Jordan did.

Not so sure a "boatload" had better college careers. But for MJ not to be in the conversation? Not so sure about that.

[Newton_14]

Not so sure a "boatload" had better college careers. But for MJ not to be in the conversation? Not so sure about that.

He was a really good college player, but his stats and accomplishments in college fall short compared to the best the ACC has seen. I could never put him in the Top 10, and would need real convincing to put him in my top 15.

And I am someone who feels Jordan is still the best NBA player ever, so it is not a bias thing.

[Verga3]

He was a really good college player, but his stats and accomplishments in college fall short compared to the best the ACC has seen. I could never put him in the Top 10, and would need real convincing to put him in my top 15.

And I am someone who feels Jordan is still the best NBA player ever, so it is not a bias thing.

I hear you. We just disagree on this one...No worries.

[JBDuke]

Jason Williams comes to mind at the SG spot, based on your position assumptions.

He acheived a lot in 3 years, had several outstanding performances, and was a key player on a National Championship team.
Was there a 3-year player who had a higher scoring total?

Lots of 3-year players that exceed JWill's 2079 points. One fairly recent ACC player, Dennis Scott, scored 2115. The NCAA career leader is Pete Maravich, who scored 3667 in just 3 years. Other top ACC 3-year scorers: David Thompson (2309), Buzzy Wilkinson (2233), Len Chappell (2165).

[Verga3]

Lots of 3-year players that exceed JWill's 2079 points. One fairly recent ACC player, Dennis Scott, scored 2115. The NCAA career leader is Pete Maravich, who scored 3667 in just 3 years. Other top ACC 3-year scorers: David Thompson (2309), Buzzy Wilkinson (2233), Len Chappell (2165).

Thanks, JBDuke. Maybe we should start an all-time NCAA thread. Two of my nominees would be Pete Maravich and David Thompson. Anyone with me?

[Olympic Fan]

Thanks, JBDuke. Maybe we should start an all-time NCAA thread. Two of my nominees would be Pete Maravich and David Thompson. Anyone with me?

Thompson, yes -- absolutely.

Maravich, no -- absolutely not. There are a lot of great players who could have posted similar or better stats is (1) they played on teams more designed to get them points than to winning; (2) they played in a second-rate basketball league (which the SEC was in Pete's days); (3) they were coached by the own father, who designed everything around them.

Maravich may be the only player in basketball history with a higher scoring average (44.2) than shooting percentage (43.8).

Just to re-interate my point about the weakness of the SEC in that era and is the fact that a guy named Johnny Neumann at Ole Miss essentially matched Maravich's production at LSU when he averaged over 40 points a game as a soph (Neumann went into the ABA after one year, so he didn't threaten Marvich's record) in 1970. Anybody putting Neumann on the list of the 10 greatest?

Now, I'm not saying that Maravich wasn't a great player, just that he wasn't a unique or all-time player. I think I can name two-dozen players who you could put in that same environemt, who would have posted equal or better numbers. I would argue that had Austin Rivers played three varsity seasons ar LSU in the late '60s, he would have averaged 40-plus points a game. I shudder to think what Oscar or Jerry West would have averaged ... or Michigan Jordan, who also wouldn't be in the conversation as one of the 5-10 greatest college players.

So if we're going to pick an all-time college team, I'd put Russell and Alcindor (his name at UCLA) in the post -- they could have easily played together -- the greatest defensive/rebounding and greatest offensive big men in history. I'd put Thompson on one wing. I'd think long and hard about Oscar, Jerry West and Bill Bradley (remember, we're talking college accomplishments) on the other wing. At point, I don't know ... maybe Ernie DiGregorio (again, we're only concerned with collegiate performance). Let me think about that one.

[turnandburn55]

So if we're going to pick an all-time college team, I'd put Russell and Alcindor (his name at UCLA) in the post -- they could have easily played together -- the greatest defensive/rebounding and greatest offensive big men in history. I'd put Thompson on one wing. I'd think long and hard about Oscar, Jerry West and Bill Bradley (remember, we're talking college accomplishments) on the other wing. At point, I don't know ... maybe Ernie DiGregorio (again, we're only concerned with collegiate performance). Let me think about that one.

I realize we've already gone big-man heavy, but I'd like to find a spot for Bill Walton... 3xplayer of the year, 2xnational champion (and it's hard to fault the dude for losing to another top-5 guy on the list in 2OT), and he of the 88-game win streak plus one of the greatest finals performances of all time... 21/22 for the field for 44 points.

[Newton_14]

I hear you. We just disagree on this one...No worries.

Yeah, no worries. All in the spirit of good debate. It's a fun exercise, as would coming up with a All-Time NCAA team would be. The shame of it all, is with the current landscape, there likely will be few future greats to bring into the conversation. Sad really.

For the All Time NCAA team, I would start with Alcindor, and David Thompon. Oly makes a good argument on Pistol Pete, but not sure I could leave him off the starting 5. If I did, he would have to be in my Top 10. Competition aside, the guy was a tremendous player.

[CajunDevil]

How can Bias not be in the final list of candidates? My five are David Thompson, Christian Laettner, Len Bias, Ralph Sampson and Bobby Hurley.

[dcdevil2009]

How can Bias not be in the final list of candidates? My five are David Thompson, Christian Laettner, Len Bias, Ralph Sampson and Bobby Hurley.

Perhaps I'm off base here because I wasn't around to see Bias play, but was he actually as amazing as people seem to remember or has his early death caused people to remember him as better than he was? I've got no doubt he was good, but didn't Grant Hill, Antawn Jamison, and even Tyler Hansbrough have equally impressive college careers?

[Indoor66]

Perhaps I'm off base here because I wasn't around to see Bias play, but was he actually as amazing as people seem to remember or has his early death caused people to remember him as better than he was? I've got no doubt he was good, but didn't Grant Hill, Antawn Jamison, and even Tyler Hansbrough have equally impressive college careers?

I think you have hit on something here. Some seem to have a cocain enhanced memory of Bias' career. He was very good but not among the all time greats, IMO.

[turnandburn55]

I think you have hit on something here. Some seem to have a cocain enhanced memory of Bias' career. He was very good but not among the all time greats, IMO.

Agreed... part of the reason why a fellow Maryland forward (Joe Smith) is frequently forgotten is precisely because he had such a pedestrian NBA career. Heck, even the dude selected right after Bias (Washburn) was also discussed as "the next big thing".

While I understand that Bias was a four-year player, unlike the others, but even as a senior, his team finished an anemic 6th in the ACC and petered out in the 2nd round. Compare that the 1994 Duke Grant Hills, for instance.

[slower]

Now, I'm not saying that Maravich wasn't a great player, just that he wasn't a unique or all-time player. I think I can name two-dozen players who you could put in that same environemt, who would have posted equal or better numbers. I would argue that had Austin Rivers played three varsity seasons ar LSU in the late '60s, he would have averaged 40-plus points a game. I shudder to think what Oscar or Jerry West would have averaged ... or Michigan Jordan, who also wouldn't be in the conversation as one of the 5-10 greatest college players.

At point, I don't know ... maybe Ernie DiGregorio (again, we're only concerned with collegiate performance). Let me think about that one.

Maravich wasn't unique? Afraid a lot of folks might take issue with that.

You wouldn't put Maravich on your all-time team, but you'd consider Ernie DiGregorio?

[slower]

Perhaps I'm off base here because I wasn't around to see Bias play...

Then you, my friend, missed seeing one of the most breathtaking players EVER to grace the ACC. Len Bias was a physical ANIMAL, who was also blessed with one of the most feathery jumpers you'll ever see.

[Verga3]

Maravich wasn't unique? Afraid a lot of folks might take issue with that.

You wouldn't put Maravich on your all-time team, but you'd consider Ernie DiGregorio?

Lest we forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM

[CameronBlue]

Lest we forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM


Maravich wasn't unique? Afraid a lot of folks might take issue with that.

You wouldn't put Maravich on your all-time team, but you'd consider Ernie DiGregorio?

Maybe the poster was shooting for hyperbole or maybe he just doesn't get away from Beacon Hill all that often ;) but I've rarely heard someone called "The Next Ernie DiGregorio". Maravich's game was transcendant in that he did things with the basketball no one had ever seen. He refashioned the play-making guard archetype established by Bob Cousy adding electrifying creativity to the merely cerebral. Havlicek called him the greatest ball-handler of all time. Degregorio's pro-career was truncated by a devastating knee injury but he was a passer first. Watch the video and trust your eyes.

[Indoor66]

Lest we forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM

With todays droopy drawers uniforms, Pete wouldn't be able to make some of those passes.

[slower]

Maybe the poster was shooting for hyperbole or maybe he just doesn't get away from Beacon Hill all that often ;) but I've rarely heard someone called "The Next Ernie DiGregorio". Maravich's game was transcendant in that he did things with the basketball no one had ever seen. He refashioned the play-making guard archetype established by Bob Cousy adding electrifying creativity to the merely cerebral. Havlicek called him the greatest ball-handler of all time. Degregorio's pro-career was truncated by a devastating knee injury but he was a passer first. Watch the video and trust your eyes.

Pistol Pete > Ernie D, now and forever. Guys like Maravich are a major reason WHY people watch sports. The Pistol was an artist.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

My all time ACC team...one I would be very confident hitting the floor with against any other All ACC team... And granted, lots of great players have to get cut...

Center- Tim Duncan
Power Forward- Ralph Sampson
Small Forward- James Worthy
Shooting Guard- David Thompson
Point Guard- Phil Ford

Back ups...Laettner,Jamison,Bias,Jordan....Mark Price

[dball]

Maravich wasn't unique? Afraid a lot of folks might take issue with that.

You wouldn't put Maravich on your all-time team, but you'd consider Ernie DiGregorio?

I'd be one of those that agree with you that Maravich was unique. Not sure how MVC of Robertson's time was some powerhouse compared to the SEC of Maravich's time for example. Drake? Tulsa? Houston? North Texas State? Bradley was pretty good but that was about it for Cinti's league. (Of course, I am not comparing the two as players...only challenging the previously mentioned notion that Robertson would have scored far more points in the SEC because it was a far inferior league).

The SEC had Kentucky which was a Top 5 team all of Maravich's years and regular season national number one his senior year (when LSU came in 2nd in the league). During that time Tenn was pretty good and in the Top 10 a couple of years. Vanderbilt also had a Top 10 team. Both Georgia and Florida have their moments as well. Maravich, by the way never scored less than 44 against Kentucky...now granted that was his AVERAGE. Tenn tended to combat him by holding the ball and this made the scores lower.

Could Robertson have averaged 12 or more points per game over the course of his career? That's what he would have needed to do to best Maravich for scoring average (Robertson was the career leader until Pete came along). Was having your father as a coach a distinct advantage? Not in terms of minutes played. The Big O averaged more minutes per game than Pistol Pete. Might it be that good coaches like to keep great players in the game?

Pete was noted for his long distance shooting in an era that had no 3 point line. Dale Brown of LSU claimed to have charted all his games and deduced he would have averaged 13 more points per game with the college 3 point line. The NBA didn't add the 3 point line until Pete's last season when his knees had slowed him considerably (Pete shot 10 of 15).

While we have come to accept Maravich's moves in today's world, he was a one-of-a-kind player and he did it full throttle. Definitely one of the greatest basketball players ever. Pete is described in the Naismith Hall of Fame as ""perhaps the greatest creative offensive talent in history". John Havlicek, quoted in 2010, called Pete "the best ball-handler of all time".

[gumbomoop]

My question is: Are we picking the top 5 by position? Are we putting together a team that could play together? Are we basing it on peak performance? On overall career performance? On actual talent?


My all time ACC team...one I would be very confident hitting the floor with against any other All ACC team... And granted, lots of great players have to get cut...

Center- Tim Duncan
Power Forward- Ralph Sampson
Small Forward- James Worthy
Shooting Guard- David Thompson
Point Guard- Phil Ford

Back ups...Laettner,Jamison,Bias,Jordan....Mark Price

Wheat's team, understandably Heel-heavy, is probably an answer to at least one of Olympic Fan's questions, but it doesn't observe the "top 5 by position" criterion. In college, Sampson was a C, Worthy a PF, and Thompson an SF. Too much fudging, possibly influenced by the positions 1 or 2 of these guys played in pros. Mention of Mark Price is good [and a deft touch in leaving out Dawkins]; leaving Grant Hill out in favor of Jamison is not so deft. As to Jordan over JWill, see Olympic Fan's careful analysis in post #10.

Also for understandable, but not entirely admirable, reasons, Wheat has managed to relegate Laettner to a sub. But for most of us Laettner is one of the 2 "automatics," along with Thompson. Ford slips in as a 3d close-to-automatic, as long as we stick to the "top 5 by position" criterion. Absent that criterion, which Wheat's list ignores, some would leave Ford out of the starting lineup, as not-top-5.

Wheat's team, especially if it's 10-deep rather than 5, surely would lead one to have confidence that they'd win a bunch. But its makeup depends on too much revisionism.

IMO, it's more sensible to stick with the positions these players actually played in college, then consider career performance [stats, awards, team accomplishments], in which case, the gist of this thread might be:


PG - Ford
SG - Dawkins, JWill, Scott, Jordan, Redick, Roche, others??
SF - Thompson
PF - Hill, Worthy, Ferry, Jamison, Battier
C - Laettner [Duncan, Sampson only if Laettner is not an "automatic," of if he can be pushed to PF]

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat's team, understandably Heel-heavy, is probably an answer to at least one of Olympic Fan's questions, but it doesn't observe the "top 5 by position" criterion. In college, Sampson was a C, Worthy a PF, and Thompson an SF. Too much fudging, possibly influenced by the positions 1 or 2 of these guys played in pros. Mention of Mark Price is good [and a deft touch in leaving out Dawkins]; leaving Grant Hill out in favor of Jamison is not so deft. As to Jordan over JWill, see Olympic Fan's careful analysis in post #10.

Also for understandable, but not entirely admirable, reasons, Wheat has managed to relegate Laettner to a sub. But for most of us Laettner is one of the 2 "automatics," along with Thompson. Ford slips in as a 3d close-to-automatic, as long as we stick to the "top 5 by position" criterion. Absent that criterion, which Wheat's list ignores, some would leave Ford out of the starting lineup, as not-top-5.

Wheat's team, especially if it's 10-deep rather than 5, surely would lead one to have confidence that they'd win a bunch. But its makeup depends on too much revisionism.

IMO, it's more sensible to stick with the positions these players actually played in college, then consider career performance [stats, awards, team accomplishments], in which case, the gist of this thread might be:



PG - Ford
SG - Dawkins, JWill, Scott, Jordan, Redick, Roche, others??
SF - Thompson
PF - Hill, Worthy, Ferry, Jamison, Battier
C - Laettner [Duncan, Sampson only if Laettner is not an "automatic," of if he can be pushed to PF]


I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers.

[turnandburn55]

My question is: Are we picking the top 5 by position? Are we putting together a team that could play together? Are we basing it on peak performance? On overall career perforance? On actual talent?


Wheat, the contention here is not that your team is a "bad" one, but that it's heavily biased towards talent/peak performance/NBA performance rather than on overall collegiate performance. If I were a cynic, I'd say you started from the list of who made an NBA All-Star team (Bias being the obvious exception), and worked backwards from there.

[Olympic Fan]

I'd be one of those that agree with you that Maravich was unique. Not sure how MVC of Robertson's time was some powerhouse compared to the SEC of Maravich's time for example. Drake? Tulsa? Houston? North Texas State? Bradley was pretty good but that was about it for Cinti's league. (Of course, I am not comparing the two as players...only challenging the previously mentioned notion that Robertson would have scored far more points in the SEC because it was a far inferior league).

The SEC had Kentucky which was a Top 5 team all of Maravich's years and regular season national number one his senior year (when LSU came in 2nd in the league). During that time Tenn was pretty good and in the Top 10 a couple of years. Vanderbilt also had a Top 10 team. Both Georgia and Florida have their moments as well. Maravich, by the way never scored less than 44 against Kentucky...now granted that was his AVERAGE. Tenn tended to combat him by holding the ball and this made the scores lower.

Could Robertson have averaged 12 or more points per game over the course of his career? That's what he would have needed to do to best Maravich for scoring average (Robertson was the career leader until Pete came along). Was having your father as a coach a distinct advantage? Not in terms of minutes played. The Big O averaged more minutes per game than Pistol Pete. Might it be that good coaches like to keep great players in the game?

Pete was noted for his long distance shooting in an era that had no 3 point line. Dale Brown of LSU claimed to have charted all his games and deduced he would have averaged 13 more points per game with the college 3 point line. The NBA didn't add the 3 point line until Pete's last season when his knees had slowed him considerably (Pete shot 10 of 15).

While we have come to accept Maravich's moves in today's world, he was a one-of-a-kind player and he did it full throttle. Definitely one of the greatest basketball players ever. Pete is described in the Naismith Hall of Fame as ""perhaps the greatest creative offensive talent in history". John Havlicek, quoted in 2010, called Pete "the best ball-handler of all time".

Forgive my delay in responding. I was traveling.

I knew when I posted it that my criticism of Maravich would generate some criticism. I welcome the debate.

Dball, to respond to some of your points:

(1) I don't disagree that some other candidates played in weak leagues. The MVC of Oscar's years and the Ivy of Bradley's years were as weak or weaker than the SEC of Maravich's era (Kentucky was a consistent top 10 team in Maravich's day, while Vandy and briefly Tennessee flirted with the rankings -- neither were top 10 as you suggest-- in fact, no SEC team other than Kentucky finished ranked in the final AP poll during Pete's three seasons ... on the whole, the SEC was still a league where most schools refused to devote resources to the sport). The difference between Maravich and Oscar/Bradley is that they absolutely dominated their weak leagues . But Maravich didn't dominate the SEC. He was barely competitive (his three-year SEC record was 28-26). During his entire tenure at LSU, his team spent one week in the AP top 20 (no top 25at the time) -- they were 15th on Dec. 16, 1971.

Can you think of another great player --n a candidate for the top 10, top 5 list -- who didn't play on a team that made a national impact? The Ivy League might have been weak, but Bill Bradley led Princeton to a Final Four. The MVC was weak, but Oscar led Cincinnati to the Final Four and to national finishes of No. 2, No. 5 and No. 1 in the final AP polls. Alcindor, Russell, Walter, Laettner led their teams to multiple national titles. Thompson led NC State to a national title (over Walton) and to final AP poll finishes of No. 2, No. 1 and No. 7. I think Ralph Sampson was an underachiever, but he did lead Virginia to a Final Four and three top 10 finishes. Even Tim Duncan's teams won two ACC titles and finished in the top 10 three times.

Can you think of another "great" player who played on such unsuccessful teams -- in a weak league or not? Heck, Larry Bird played in the weakest league imaginable, but he dominated that league and led Indiana State to the national title game.

Maravich was all about the stats -- not about the winning. That continued in the pros. He put up some good numbers, but his teams always seemed to get worse. His first year, he joined an Atlanta team that seemed to be on the rise with Lou Hudson, Walt Bellamy and Walt Hazzard. They went from 42 wins in 1970 to 36 wins with Maravich averaging 23 points a name. Interesting for a guy who is supposed to be the most creative playmaker of all time -- Hazzard had more assists in less minutes. Maravich's best years in the NBA were spent scoring a lot of points for bad teams. The only good team he played on was a 61-win Boston team in his final year. But he played just 26 games that yuear, averaging less than 15 minutes a game. And, just by coincidence, the Celtics were upset in the East conference fibnals (although I don't blame Pete for that one -- he was far too minor a player to have an impact).

(2) You attempt to refute the point about Pete's father coaching him by citing playing time. It's not about playing time -- both Pete and Oscar played every minute they could (a Oscar, being stronger, was able to play more minutes). That wouldn't have changed if Pete were coached by Rupp, Bubas or Wooden. He WAS a great player and would have played maximum minutes for everybody.

But where it matters is gameplan and structuring a team. Back in the early '80s, somebody asked Bobby Knight what he thought of Ralph Sampson. His response was "If he had played for me, he'd have made a living within five feet of the basket and he'd have been one of the greatest centers of all time." Holland was a good coach -- especially with average talent -- but he never could enforce that kind of discipline on Sampson.

A better coach coaching Pete might have enforced better disciple. Cut down the bad shots and some of the counterproductive flamboyance and Pete's teams might have been better. Yeah, there weren't a lot of good players on those LSU teams, but who wanted to play for a one-man team when the coach had decided that EVERYTHING would go through Pete? His career reminds me of something that happened in Duke's very first ACC Tournament Game against Virginia in 1954. Duke had a nice lead at halftime, so Virginia coach Bus Male decided not to play for the win, but to turn his star Buzz Wilkinson lose to set the tournament scoring record. Wilkinson did -- scoring 42 points. Of course, he lauched 44 shots (missing 31) and Virginia lost the game 96-68. but, her, Buzz Wilkinson got the record.

My point is that EVERY game at LSU was like that for Pete. He was a good ballhandler -- spectacularly flashy -- but there is no evidence that he was a great creator. He had good assist numbers when we have them for his career, but nothing spectacular. His NBA career average was 5.4 apg and his career high was 6.7. Just for contrast, Oscar's career average was 8.1 apg.

(3) As for Dale Brown's asssertion that with the 3-point shot, Pete would have averaged 57 points a game, take a moment to think about that claim.

First, Dale Brown is a BS artist and it's hard to take anythibng he says seriously (remember his famous story of offering a prospect a suitcase full of money?).

Second, Maravich average 44 points a game ... to get to 57 points a game, then Maravich must have averaged 13 3-pointers made a game, right (since he got two-points fior all his mythical 3-pointers)? Consider ... JJ Redick holds the NCAA record for 3-pointers made and he averaged 3.3 made 3-pointers a game. Dennis Scott has the ACC career record for 3-pointers made per game and that 3.6 made a game. I don't have the NCAA record handy, but I seriously doubt that it's more than 4 3-pointers a game. Do you really think that Maravich made four times as many 3's as the next most prolific 3-point shooter in NCAA history?

Third, let's assume he did for a second. 13 3s a game. Well, he shot 41 percent from the floor. Let's be generous an assume he shot the same from beyond the mythical arch as he did inside it (although few players do, it occassionally happens). That means to hit his 13 3-pointers, Pete would have to launch 41 3-point attempts a game. The problem is that Pete "only" averaged 38 shots a game at LSU.

It's obvious that Brown's claim is bogus. Pete did not hit anywhere near that. And considering that he didn't have a 3-point shot ...that his 25-footers only counted 2 points, then if he did launch a large percentage of his shots from long range for just two points, then he was hurting his team.

I repeat what I said erlier, that in the same circumstances -- when the goal is to score as many points as possible without regard to winning and you do it in a weak league, there are any number of gtreat players who could have matched Pete's performance. If I was confusing when I said he wasn't unique, I apologize. Pete was unique in his flamboyance -- although that wasn't always a good thing (the clips you see feature the plays he made, not the ones he didn't). His ballhandling was hardly revolutionary. Cousy was doing many of the same things and doing them better.

Could Oscar have averaged 12 more points a game at LSU in the late '60s. Absolutely yes -- if he was content for his teams to go 49-35 and never play on a top 10 team. Could Pete have averaged 44 points a game for a Cincinnati team that was always top 5 in the late 50s? Not a chance.

A lot of hyperbole about Maravich -- witness Dale Brown's BS -- but I repeat, there is no evidebnce that he was a great playmaker. Good yes, but not great. Even his defenders admit that he was an indifferent defender. He was a very good shooter, but not as uniquely good as his numbers suggest -- as I pointed out before, Johnny Neumann (hardly an all-time great) practically duplicated Pete's numbers a year later at Ole Miss.

(3) Ernie DiGregorio ... I don't really mean to suggest that DeGregorio>Maravich ... I was trying to pick a team off the top of my head and I wanted to pick a great college point guard. If I were picking the five greatest college players of all time, it would be three centers (Russell, Alcindor, Walton -- in that order) and two wings (Thompson and Oscar -- in that order). But picking by position, I really wanted a point guard.

I'm not sure DiGregorio is the best, but I think you guys have forgotten how good he readlly was -- he averaged 21 points and 7.7 assists for his career (by contrast Bobby Huirley averaged 7.68 assists, but just 12,4 ppg.; Phil Ford averaged 18 ppg and 6.1 apg.; Jason Williams averaged 19.6 and 5.9). He did it on great teams -- including 1973, when he averaged 24.6 points and 8.6 assists for a 27-4 team that reached the Final; Four. He did have a short pro career, thanks to a knee injury, but in his one healthy season with the Buffalo Bills he averaged over 15 ppg and 8.2 apg -- more than Maravich ever averaged). More significantly, in contrast to Pete, whose NBA teams almost always got worse, Ernie helped Buffalo improve fron 21 wins the year before he arrived to 42 wins in his first season.

Now, I'm not sure the Ernie DiGregorio deserves a play on my college top 5 (picked by position), but I'd argue that there's a better case for his inclusion on the team than for Pete Maravich.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat, the contention here is not that your team is a "bad" one, but that it's heavily biased towards talent/peak performance/NBA performance rather than on overall collegiate performance. If I were a cynic, I'd say you started from the list of who made an NBA All-Star team (Bias being the obvious exception), and worked backwards from there.

I'm not sure who are you talking about on my team that depends on nba performance to show justification as my choice.

My starting five are all NCAA NPOY's and AA's. My bench has three more (Laettner, Jamison,Jordan).

My weakest choice by "awards" is Price, a 4 time all ACC and 2nd team AA, and Bias, an ACC POY.

I tried to choose players and create the strongest team possible as i recalled from their play during college.

As for positions, often in college the PF and C spots interchange along with the SG and WF. PG is about the only true position on most teams, except for the relatively few rare low post C's like Shaq.

[slower]

Forgive my delay in responding. I was traveling.

I knew when I posted it that my criticism of Maravich would generate some criticism. I welcome the debate.


Now, I'm not sure the Ernie DiGregorio deserves a play on my college top 5 (picked by position), but I'd argue that there's a better case for his inclusion on the team than for Pete Maravich.

You said that Maravich was not a "unique" player. Many of us on here think that's a ludicrous statement. At the time he left college, there had never been anybody like him.

Obviously, neither Maravich nor DiGregorio would make a Top 5 college all-time team. But your attempt to somehow cast DiGregorio as the greater player is also ludicrous. Ernie was a very good college point guard. Maravich was (and will always be) a legend and a revolutionary player whose impact on the game of college basketball was many, many, many times greater than DiGregorio.

[slower]

At point, I don't know ... maybe Ernie DiGregorio (again, we're only concerned with collegiate performance). Let me think about that one.

Did you happen to think of - oh, I don't know - a guy named Magic Johnson?

[Bob Green]

There is a lot of good discussion in this thread so I'll be brief to avoid making statements already better stated:

PG - Phil Ford (John Lucas)
SG - Charlie Scott (JJ Redick)
SF - David Thompson (Dennis Scott)
PF - James Worthy (Grant Hill)
C - Christian Laettner (Tim Duncan)

I am surprised there has been no mention of John Lucas who was 1st Team All America in 75 and 76, and 2nd Team All America in 74.

[Verga3]

There is a lot of good discussion in this thread so I'll be brief to avoid making statements already better stated:

PG - Phil Ford (John Lucas)
SG - Charlie Scott (JJ Redick)
SF - David Thompson (Dennis Scott)
PF - James Worthy (Grant Hill)
C - Christian Laettner (Tim Duncan)

I am surprised there has been no mention of John Lucas who was 1st Team All America in 75 and 76, and 2nd Team All America in 74.

Agree on John Lucas, Bob I had he and Mo Howard as candidates for the top ACC guard duo ever. I was following the earlier sagegrouse template (Lucas was not in there). That's ok, one can always quibble. I would have a Lucas/Dawkins backcourt (bumping Charlie Scott) on my third team, from my earlier post. Maybe Lucas/Dawkins is the all-time lefty backcourt...

[sagegrouse]

There is a lot of good discussion in this thread so I'll be brief to avoid making statements already better stated:

PG - Phil Ford (John Lucas)
SG - Charlie Scott (JJ Redick)
SF - David Thompson (Dennis Scott)
PF - James Worthy (Grant Hill)
C - Christian Laettner (Tim Duncan)

I am surprised there has been no mention of John Lucas who was 1st Team All America in 75 and 76, and 2nd Team All America in 74.


Agree on John Lucas, Bob I had he and Mo Howard as candidates for the top ACC guard duo ever. I was following the earlier sagegrouse template (Lucas was not in there). That's ok, one can always quibble. I would have a Lucas/Dawkins backcourt (bumping Charlie Scott) on my third team, from my earlier post. Maybe Lucas/Dawkins is the all-time lefty backcourt...

I agree with both of you re Lucas. The problem is taking 60 years of ACC history and mining for the best players. My effort, I fear, skimmed the surface. I started with the NPOY list by the AP and expanded to include others, which gave us 16 players, to which I added Scott and Grant as wild cards. I had forgotten Lucas, which is a huge oversight, but I had wondered if James Worthy was indeed worthy of being on the list.

sagegrouse

[Olympic Fan]

I did consider Magic Johnson ... but I have a hard time with one and two year players. You might as well consider Carmelo Anthony or Kenny Anderson ... or Elton Brand for the all-time ACC team.

Personally -- and I can understand if you disagree -- I insist on a three-year minimum when it comes to all-time greatest.

I have a big, BIG problem with picking James Worthy to an all-time ACC top 5 or even 10.

Great talent, yes ... but look at his college career.

As a freshman in 1980, Worthy played in 14 games before he broke his leg. He was doing well (12.4 ppg and 7.4 rpg.) and might have been rookie of the year if he had stayed healthy, but in the end, he didn't have much chance to do much.

As a sophomore in 1981, Worthy still showed the effect of his injured leg. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 8.4 rpg and shot 50 percent from the floor -- good numbers, but again, nothing special. He was the number eight vote-getter on the All-ACC team (meaning he was right in the middle of the second team). By contrast, Buck Williams averaged 15.5 points and 10.4 rebounds (and shot 10 points higher from the field). Actually, Gene Banks was the only power forward to make first-team All-ACC in '81. Williams, Worthy and Larry Nance made second team. Worthy did not get a single POY vote.

I will say that late in the season, both Worthy and freshman Sam Perkins stepped up their games -- maybe Perkins more that Worthy. It was Perkins who won ACC Tournament MVP honors. In the NCAA Tournament, Perkins averaged 14.6 ppg and 7.8 rpg to Worthy's 11.2 ppg and 6.0 rpg (of course, small forward Al Wood was the real star at 21.6 ppg. and 9.8 rpg in the NCAAs). Worthy was especially anemic in the Final Four, averaging 7.5 points and 4.5 rebound in the two games.

At that point, he's not even in the conversation as one of the ACC's all-time greats.

Well, as a junior, he did have a great year. He averaged 15.6 ppg and 6.3 rpg. He made first-team All-ACC and missed unanimous by by one vote. He was second in the POY vote, finishing less than half as many votes (33) as the winner Sampson (69). He certainly had a great postseason, winning ACC Tournament POY and Final Four MVP as UNC won the national title.

Still, we're talking one outstanding year. Was it that great? I can forgive him losing ACC POY to the overrated Sampson, But while he was a consensus first-team A-A, he was not unanimous -- he was only second team AP. He didn't win a single recognized (by the NCAA) national player of the year award (he did share the Helms Award -- they love that one in Chapel Hill --but that was it).

Again, I'm not saying he's not a great player. His 1982 was an outstanding year. But does one first-team All-ACC year make Worthy an all-time ACC great? Certainly when you rank the ACC guys in the pros, he's right up there, but there are two dozen guys who had more significant college careers. Compare Kyle Singler's junior year with Worthy's junior yar -- both were Final Four MVP, but Singler averaged more points and more rebounds for the season. Battier in 2001 averaged more points (19.9) and more rebounds (7.3). Battier was ACC POY, Final Four MVP and was the consensus national POY.

And, of course, that's just comparing their best year ... Battier had other seasons that were significantly better than anything Mr. Worthy's second and third-best years.

I don't mean to be the bad guy here. Worthy was a great player in 1982 and became a great pro. Maravich was a great college player. But let's have some perspective -- neither were among the all-time great COLLEGE players.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I did consider Magic Johnson ... but I have a hard time with one and two year players. You might as well consider Carmelo Anthony or Kenny Anderson ... or Elton Brand for the all-time ACC team.

Personally -- and I can understand if you disagree -- I insist on a three-year minimum when it comes to all-time greatest.

I have a big, BIG problem with picking James Worthy to an all-time ACC top 5 or even 10.

Great talent, yes ... but look at his college career.

As a freshman in 1980, Worthy played in 14 games before he broke his leg. He was doing well (12.4 ppg and 7.4 rpg.) and might have been rookie of the year if he had stayed healthy, but in the end, he didn't have much chance to do much.

As a sophomore in 1981, Worthy still showed the effect of his injured leg. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 8.4 rpg and shot 50 percent from the floor -- good numbers, but again, nothing special. He was the number eight vote-getter on the All-ACC team (meaning he was right in the middle of the second team). By contrast, Buck Williams averaged 15.5 points and 10.4 rebounds (and shot 10 points higher from the field). Actually, Gene Banks was the only power forward to make first-team All-ACC in '81. Williams, Worthy and Larry Nance made second team. Worthy did not get a single POY vote.

I will say that late in the season, both Worthy and freshman Sam Perkins stepped up their games -- maybe Perkins more that Worthy. It was Perkins who won ACC Tournament MVP honors. In the NCAA Tournament, Perkins averaged 14.6 ppg and 7.8 rpg to Worthy's 11.2 ppg and 6.0 rpg (of course, small forward Al Wood was the real star at 21.6 ppg. and 9.8 rpg in the NCAAs). Worthy was especially anemic in the Final Four, averaging 7.5 points and 4.5 rebound in the two games.

At that point, he's not even in the conversation as one of the ACC's all-time greats.

Well, as a junior, he did have a great year. He averaged 15.6 ppg and 6.3 rpg. He made first-team All-ACC and missed unanimous by by one vote. He was second in the POY vote, finishing less than half as many votes (33) as the winner Sampson (69). He certainly had a great postseason, winning ACC Tournament POY and Final Four MVP as UNC won the national title.

Still, we're talking one outstanding year. Was it that great? I can forgive him losing ACC POY to the overrated Sampson, But while he was a consensus first-team A-A, he was not unanimous -- he was only second team AP. He didn't win a single recognized (by the NCAA) national player of the year award (he did share the Helms Award -- they love that one in Chapel Hill --but that was it).

Again, I'm not saying he's not a great player. His 1982 was an outstanding year. But does one first-team All-ACC year make Worthy an all-time ACC great? Certainly when you rank the ACC guys in the pros, he's right up there, but there are two dozen guys who had more significant college careers. Compare Kyle Singler's junior year with Worthy's junior yar -- both were Final Four MVP, but Singler averaged more points and more rebounds for the season. Battier in 2001 averaged more points (19.9) and more rebounds (7.3). Battier was ACC POY, Final Four MVP and was the consensus national POY.

And, of course, that's just comparing their best year ... Battier had other seasons that were significantly better than anything Mr. Worthy's second and third-best years.

I don't mean to be the bad guy here. Worthy was a great player in 1982 and became a great pro. Maravich was a great college player. But let's have some perspective -- neither were among the all-time great COLLEGE players.

This is all subjective, of course, but awards/stats don't tell the story when we try to compare players from different time frames. All we can do is recall their individual skills and opine on who would get the better of the other guy.

IMO, A healthy Worthy could not be stopped in college, and that's why he's in my starting All ACC line up.

He'd post up smaller defenders and out quick bigger ones. He ran the floor like the wind and finished with creativity all the time. His mid-range game was killer, and he was a quick, intuitive rebounder that could lead a break end to end...all at a long 6'9".

He was a much tougher defender than ever given credit for because of his offensive skills.

I have great respect for Battier, one of my favorite Duke players, but he would not want to be responsible for defending Worthy. Like Ford, and Thompson, nobody could check him when healthy in college.

[gumbomoop]

My all time ACC team...one I would be very confident hitting the floor with against any other All ACC team....


I don't mean to be the bad guy here. Worthy was a great player in 1982 and became a great pro. Maravich was a great college player. But let's have some perspective -- neither were among the all-time great COLLEGE players.


This is all subjective, of course....

In some ways I and others [here, Olympic Fan] are talking past Wheat, and he past us. While it might seem we're all having roughly the same conversation, we're not, mostly because we cannot pin Wheat down on any actual criteria, though several have been suggested, repeatedly.

If it's merely - and I choose that word deliberately - a matter of "confidence" about picking a very talented 5 [or 10] guys, then it might be somewhat subjective, though even there, really, we must recognize some limits. Really. All opinions are neither created equal, nor equally sensible, nor equally persuasive, nor even equally intelligible.

It might be one's opinion that James Buchanan was a great President, or that ketchup is a vegetable, or that the Civil War "had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery," but none of those opinions is worth a damn. None passes the laugh test. Wheat's opinion-based selections aren't at all laughable, but neither are they fully comparable to some well-reasoned, evidence-and-criteria-based conclusions.

Thus, to a set of concrete facts - evidence carefully presented by Olympic Fan in the form of stats - that demonstrate that Worthy might not be worthy of being in the top 10 ACC college hoopsters, the response is to ignore the evidence, indeed, to denigrate it - in a friendly enough way, to be sure - by these words: "[1] This is [2] all [3] subjective, [4] of course."

But [1] there are 2 quite different meanings of "this." One "this" reduces to a perfectly understandable enthusiasm based on memory; the other "this" subjects memory to some standards. The word [2] "all" smushes together several distinct issues, the effect of which is to obfuscate rather than to clarify and advance the conversation. Whereas one "this" is [3] sort of subjective, the other isn't. And [4] "of course" is, of course, intended as the coup de grace to any claims that we might actually narrow our list to something like a consensus [not unanimity] on at least several of the 5 positions.

James Worthy was a fine player, with wonderful skills, definitely very tough to guard. He looked more intimidating than, say, Grant Hill. But the evidence doesn't support Wheat's opinion re Worthy's greatness as a college player. We'll probably not come to any closure on most of these top 5 positions, however, as long as opinion, memory, and team loyalty push us away from a coherent - again, I use this word deliberately - conversation. The conversation can't cohere when sidetracked.

Just as "there's no accounting for taste," there's too often "no accounting for opinion." That's a fundamental problem, as in the present debate-that-can't-be-joined: there's no accountability.

[dball]

(1) I don't disagree that some other candidates played in weak leagues. The MVC of Oscar's years and the Ivy of Bradley's years were as weak or weaker than the SEC of Maravich's era (Kentucky was a consistent top 10 team in Maravich's day, while Vandy and briefly Tennessee flirted with the rankings -- neither were top 10 as you suggest-- in fact, no SEC team other than Kentucky finished ranked in the final AP poll during Pete's three seasons ... on the whole, the SEC was still a league where most schools refused to devote resources to the sport). .

This is incorrect. I correctly noted that both Tenn and Vanderbilt were in the Top 10 during the Maravich years. I made no reference to end of season finish other than KY being number 1 the year LSU finished second in the league (and thus ineligible for NCAA play).



Maravich was all about the stats -- not about the winning. That continued in the pros. He put up some good numbers, but his teams always seemed to get worse. His first year, he joined an Atlanta team that seemed to be on the rise with Lou Hudson, Walt Bellamy and Walt Hazzard. They went from 42 wins in 1970 to 36 wins with Maravich averaging 23 points a name. Interesting for a guy who is supposed to be the most creative playmaker of all time -- Hazzard had more assists in less minutes. Maravich's best years in the NBA were spent scoring a lot of points for bad teams. The only good team he played on was a 61-win Boston team in his final year. But he played just 26 games that yuear, averaging less than 15 minutes a game.

Unsure how you formed this opinion. How do you know Pete was all about the stats? Wasn't Hazzard the playmaker for the Hawks and Pete the SG during Pete's first year? Wouldn't one expect Hazzard to have more assists? New Orleans was an expansion franchise so he obviously didn’t get much help while he was there.

All of the guys you mention have noted their efforts to haze the "Golden Boy" and it definitely affected the team chemistry, particularly that first year--but that wasn't on Maravich. There was a lot of jealousy on that team but Lou Hudson, who was already a star in the league, had even better numbers after Maravich arrived.

From Sports Illustrated (12/4/78)

"As a rookie in Atlanta, Maravich was subjected to hostility, taunts and reverse racism from some of the Hawks' black veterans, who resented his enormous salary and the fact that he was being promoted as the whole show. They tried to drive their new teammate out of the NBA."

"Lenny Wilkens, now coach of the Seattle SuperSonics, says, 'A lot of guys who might have been good cracked under such circumstances. Pete kept his wits. He hung in there. He survived.'"

"Maravich's fellow (Jazz) backcourt man Gail Goodrich, 'Pete's a good guy. He wants to win, desperately.'"

"Lou Hudson said of Pete "This man has been quicker and faster than Jerry West or Oscar Robertson. He gets the ball up the floor better. He shoots as well. Raw-talentwise, he's the greatest who ever played. The difference comes down to style.’"

"Bob Lanier: 'He's a team player. Give Pistol another forward and a center and he'd be all-everything. He's the only player I'd pay money to see.'"

"Portland Coach Jack Ramsay: 'Pete is the best. A great player, a great competitor. Of course he could play with us. He could adapt to whatever was necessary to win.'"



As for Dale Brown's asssertion that with the 3-point shot, Pete would have averaged 57 points a game, take a moment to think about that claim.

First, Dale Brown is a BS artist and it's hard to take anythibng he says seriously.

You may believe or not believe Dale Brown, but his assertion was that he tracked all the shots so the rest of your arguments regarding percentages don’t seem relevant.



Consider ... JJ Redick holds the NCAA record for 3-pointers made and he averaged 3.3 made 3-pointers a game. Do you really think that Maravich made four times as many 3's as the next most prolific 3-point shooter in NCAA history?

Maravich played in 59% the games that JJ played in yet scored 900 more total points. 900 points in a season is a good year for a lot of players. Again, Brown claimed he tracked the shots. I would suspect some hyperbole, but (like Verga) Pete shot from deeeeeep.



His ballhandling was hardly revolutionary. Cousy was doing many of the same things and doing them better.

Well, John Havlicek disagrees with that assessment. At this point, you seem to be asking, “Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”




Now, I'm not sure the Ernie DiGregorio deserves a play on my college top 5 (picked by position), but I'd argue that there's a better case for his inclusion on the team than for Pete Maravich.

I suppose there may be small enclaves in or near Providence and Buffalo that may agree with you. If you’re visiting the Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame or the Naismith, take a moment to view Pete’s accomplishments. Don’t believe Ernie D is in either.

If you’re looking for a Providence guard, I’d go with Lenny Wilkens.

[-jk]

...

You may believe or not believe Dale Brown, but his assertion was that he tracked all the shots so the rest of your arguments regarding percentages don’t seem relevant.

I won't address the rest of your post, other than to say it's a solid salvo, but I was reminded of Carroll Wright's assertion that figures don't lie, but liars may figure. I think OF's statistical analysis is reasonable, and reasonably rigorous. I'll take it over an assertion by Dale Brown that he tracked all Of PP's shots and found he'd have made 13 per game. 'Cause we all know that 62.3% of all stats are made up on the spot. ;)

-jk

[Wheat/"/"/"]

In some ways I and others [here, Olympic Fan] are talking past Wheat, and he past us. While it might seem we're all having roughly the same conversation, we're not, mostly because we cannot pin Wheat down on any actual criteria, though several have been suggested, repeatedly.
.

Wheat's actual criteria- "Put together an all time ACC "team" of ten of the best players you think can win against anyone else's team".

In a previous post I've already said.... " I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers".

I'm really not that hard to pin down.

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC. I just don't think there's been another ACC player who was a tougher matchup than Worthy at SF.

Feel free to continue to disagree, which is where "subjective" enters the picture again.

[Olympic Fan]

Wheat's actual criteria- "Put together an all time ACC "team" of ten of the best players you think can win against anyone else's team".

In a previous post I've already said.... " I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers".

I'm really not that hard to pin down.

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC. I just don't think there's been another ACC player who was a tougher matchup than Worthy at SF.Feel free to continue to disagree, which is where "subjective" enters the picture again.

Well, alow me to disagree with that point -- and it's not subjective -- Worthy never played SF at UNC. Never.

In 1980 as a freshman, he played PF with Joe Wolf usually at center -- O'Koren and Wood were the wings.

In 1981 as a sophomore Worthy played the post alongside Budko/Perkins (Budko would usually start, but Perkins would play the bulk of the minutes ... late in the season Budko got hurt and Perkins started). Wood was the SF (backed up by freshman Matt Doherty) and Dean rotated a backcourt of Braddock, Pepper and Black.

In 1982, UNC's lineup was remarkably stable -- Perkins and Worthy in the post, Jordan and Doherty on the wings and Black at the point.

Worthy was NEVER a small forward at UNC (the position he played so well with the Lakers).

As a PF, he was good, but hardly among the ACC's best ever -- he was a one-time first-team All-ACC, a one-time All-American ... never national POY, never ACC POY. His career averages were 14.5 ppg., 7.4 rpg. He shot a good (not great) 54 percent from the floor and a poor 65 percent from the foul line. He had 50 more turnovers than assists.

I can name a dozen ACC post players with better credentials -- more honors, better stats and comparable team accomplishments. Cnsidering that he had just one outstanding season (and one second-team All-ACC one beyond that) at UNC, my opinion is that arguing that Worthy belongs a list of the five best ACC players is blatant homerism.

Of course that's just subjective.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Well, alow me to disagree with that point -- and it's not subjective -- Worthy never played SF at UNC. Never.

In 1980 as a freshman, he played PF with Joe Wolf usually at center -- O'Koren and Wood were the wings.

In 1981 as a sophomore Worthy played the post alongside Budko/Perkins (Budko would usually start, but Perkins would play the bulk of the minutes ... late in the season Budko got hurt and Perkins started). Wood was the SF (backed up by freshman Matt Doherty) and Dean rotated a backcourt of Braddock, Pepper and Black.

In 1982, UNC's lineup was remarkably stable -- Perkins and Worthy in the post, Jordan and Doherty on the wings and Black at the point.

Worthy was NEVER a small forward at UNC (the position he played so well with the Lakers).

As a PF, he was good, but hardly among the ACC's best ever -- he was a one-time first-team All-ACC, a one-time All-American ... never national POY, never ACC POY. His career averages were 14.5 ppg., 7.4 rpg. He shot a good (not great) 54 percent from the floor and a poor 65 percent from the foul line. He had 50 more turnovers than assists.

I can name a dozen ACC post players with better credentials -- more honors, better stats and comparable team accomplishments. Cnsidering that he had just one outstanding season (and one second-team All-ACC one beyond that) at UNC, my opinion is that arguing that Worthy belongs a list of the five best ACC players is blatant homerism.

Of course that's just subjective.

And Laettner was never a center because everybody knows coach K does not define positions.

Look, I'm the coach of my team and he plays where I tell him to play or I sit him and bring in Bias. :)
It's my team of great ACC players that I'm theoretically putting on the floor against whoever you want to put on the floor.

When I put Worthy at SF along with Duncan and Sampson inside, and Ford/Thompson in the backcourt, my team will win against anyone you want to put out there. That's my contention.

I'm arguing best all time ACC "team", not all time best at a position, (which,btw, can never be defined), or all time most awards.

[jv001]

And Laettner was never a center because everybody knows coach K does not define positions.

Look, I'm the coach of my team and he plays where I tell him to play or I sit him and bring in Bias. :)
It's my team of great ACC players that I'm theoretically putting on the floor against whoever you want to put on the floor.

When I put Worthy at SF along with Duncan and Sampson inside, and Ford/Thompson in the backcourt, my team will win against anyone you want to put out there. That's my contention.

I'm arguing best all time ACC "team", not all time best at a position, (which,btw, can never be defined), or all time most awards.

worthy wouldn't even make that team if you pick it with no homerism. But unc fans have a hard time doing that. Those fans should take a page from our Jim Sumner. He was the first to mention that phil ford was the best pg ever in the ACC. Bet you never hear a unc fan say that a Duke player was the best ever at anything that's good. I would take Bobby Jones(along with Walter Davis two of my favorite players) over worthy any day of the week. Matter of fact, jamison was a better college player than worthy. GoDuke!

[superdave]

Wheat's actual criteria- "Put together an all time ACC "team" of ten of the best players you think can win against anyone else's team".

In a previous post I've already said.... " I just chose the 10 ACC players I've seen and would like to have if i was a coach to defend against all comers".

I'm really not that hard to pin down.

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC. I just don't think there's been another ACC player who was a tougher matchup than Worthy at SF.

Feel free to continue to disagree, which is where "subjective" enters the picture again.



Wheat - question on Tim Duncan. Did you give any weight to his NBA successes?

Based on the stats I found, Duncan is the all-time ACC shot blocker and 3rd in rebounds. But he only scored 2117 points and had a career record of 97-31. His best tourney finish was losing by 20 to UK in the regional final his junior year.

I think he was a great player in college, particularly on the defensive end. But I think other forwards argued here were better, including Laettner, Worthy, Hansborough (ugh), Jamison and Ferry, mostly because they had a lot more post-season success.

[JohnGalt]

My personal observation of ACC basketball dates back to the late 1950s, so I can't really talk about Shavlik, Rosenbluth, Hemric or any of the stars of the '50s. I always hate these internet threads because they are so biased towards recent years and negate the old-time guys. Other players are judged superficially.

Oly, I appreciate your insight and tremendous font of knowledge as much as anyone, but isn't this statement a bit...I don't know...self-contradictory? Since no one has seen everyone, including you (as you mentioned), is it really fair to say that anyone is biased? Everyone's concept of "old-time guys" just shifts around with their age. My dog is only 7, after all, and can barely remember the great teams of the JJ Redick era, eons ago.

I guess the only solution is drop the "All-time" idea for a "Modern Basketball" team or something a bit narrower. But then that's not as much fun. :D

[Bob Green]

Worthy was not a homer pick, as much as you'd like to paint it. He was a great college player who happened to play at UNC.

I agree with Wheat/"/"/". While Olympic Fan makes a very strong quantitative argument thet James Worthy does not belong on the team, my qualitative eye test memory is James Worthy was an awesome player and there is room for him on my Top 5 team. In 1982, no matter how important Jimmy Black was as the steady PG or how important it was that Michael Jordan hit the last shot, UNC doesn't beat Georgetown without James Worthy.

Where I do disagree with Wheat/"/"/" is the SF/PF situation. My opinion is we should insert players into the position they played in college. Worthy is a PF with David Thompson being the SF.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat - question on Tim Duncan. Did you give any weight to his NBA successes?

Based on the stats I found, Duncan is the all-time ACC shot blocker and 3rd in rebounds. But he only scored 2117 points and had a career record of 97-31. His best tourney finish was losing by 20 to UK in the regional final his junior year.

I think he was a great player in college, particularly on the defensive end. But I think other forwards argued here were better, including Laettner, Worthy, Hansborough (ugh), Jamison and Ferry, mostly because they had a lot more post-season success.

Maybe I did, subconsciously.
I had a hard time deciding between Laettner and Duncan in the starting line up, but I never had a doubt about having Laettner on my team.
I know how Sampson liked to float, and no way he wasn't starting, so I felt like I needed to have an anchor in the post to go with him and he was a better fit with my starters.

[gumbomoop]

I'm arguing best all time ACC "team", not all time best at a position, (which,btw, can never be defined), or all time most awards.

I intend in what follows to be moderately fair to you, Wheat. But , I begin in an ever so slightly irritated mood. For I infer a tone in this tag quote of something like this: "I don't know what you guys have been talking about, but I have been talking about a real team, not some irrelevant award/accomplishment/positon thingy."


In some ways I and others [here, Olympic Fan] are talking past Wheat, and he past us. While it might seem we're all having roughly the same conversation, we're not, mostly because we cannot pin Wheat down on any actual criteria, though several have been suggested, repeatedly.

Wheat's post #84 does help me understand exactly why we're having separate conversations. I can imagine Wheat saying [and understand that I won't have to imagine for long, which is good] that he's been perfectly clear from the beginning.

But here's why, IMO, things haven't been clear: Wheat's posts are based on a [I]different definition of "All-time All-team" than is the common understanding of that term. The common understanding is precisely what Wheat states is not his definition, that is, "not all time best at a position." So all this stuff about all-time best at positions is, if not irrelevant to Wheat, at least somewhat inconvenient.

Or perhaps it would be [moderately] fairer to Wheat's view - Wheat? - to claim that this "best-mixture-of-guys, positions-be-damned team to beat anybody you can pick" is actually a better way to think about "All-time All-teams." Fair enough, as long as we - you, too, Wheat - acknowledge that this is a debatable claim, a different conversation, necessitating a different approach and definition.

Assuming I now understand what was previously unclear, I've no idea whether this thread will morph into that different conversation. If it doesn't, it might be because it really will depend a whole lot more on subjectivity, mere opinion, some homerism. If it does, it might or might not be interesting.


And Laettner was never a center because everybody knows coach K does not define positions.

On Laettner's position - Even if we stick to the common definition, the un-Wheat, I will reluctantly concede that it's easier to fudge Laettner into PF than it is to fudge some other players into their not-position. Worthy, for example. As Olympic Fan has noted, this is not a subjective opinion.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

[QUOTE=Bob Green;581091

Where I do disagree with Wheat/"/"/" is the SF/PF situation. My opinion is we should insert players into the position they played in college. Worthy is a PF with David Thompson being the SF.[/QUOTE]

If that's the case, then I'll take...

Center-Sampson
PF- Laettner
SF-Thompson
SG-Jordan
PG-Ford

Duncan, Worthy, Bias, Reddick, Price

Say what you want about Jordan's body of work in college, but I've never seen a better 2g than the way he played the year before he left. And I'll take Reddick over Stackhouse for my bench due to his work ethic and shooting.

[superdave]

Worthy
Wheat -
Thoughts on Worthy vs. Antawn Jamison?

Worthy averaged 14.5 on 65% FGs and 7.4 boards in three years of college. He was Final Four MVP and 2nd team All-America his junior year.

Jamison averaged 19 on 58% shooting and 9.9 boards in three years of college. He was 2nd team All-America as a sophomore and 1st team as a junior, and won national player of the year as a junior. He made back to back Final Fours.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat -
Thoughts on Worthy vs. Antawn Jamison?

Worthy averaged 14.5 on 65% FGs and 7.4 boards in three years of college. He was Final Four MVP and 2nd team All-America his junior year.

Jamison averaged 19 on 58% shooting and 9.9 boards in three years of college. He was 2nd team All-America as a sophomore and 1st team as a junior, and won national player of the year as a junior. He made back to back Final Fours.

Worthy with the eye test.
I don't think Jamison could guard Worthy, but I think Worthy could do a decent job on Jamison.

[luvdahops]

Worthy with the eye test.
I don't think Jamison could guard Worthy, but I think Worthy could do a decent job on Jamison.

Agreed

Also my two cents that Worthy played on better teams - UNC went 31-11 in the ACC (73.8%), 82-18 overall (82.0%) in his time, versus 34-14 (70.8%), 83-22 (79.0%) for Jamison - in a more competitive era top-to-bottom in the ACC. His stats were also impacted by tempo differences, having played in the pre-shot clock era (and during arguably the height of the Four Corners and its various imitations around the league).

[Olympic Fan]

Wheat -
Thoughts on Worthy vs. Antawn Jamison?

Worthy averaged 14.5 on 65% FGs and 7.4 boards in three years of college. He was Final Four MVP and 2nd team All-America his junior year.

Jamison averaged 19 on 58% shooting and 9.9 boards in three years of college. He was 2nd team All-America as a sophomore and 1st team as a junior, and won national player of the year as a junior. He made back to back Final Fours.

Worthy averaged 54.1 percent from the field, not 65 percent. In his career, he was 485 of 896.

'Course, can't argue with the "eye test" ... everybody's eyes have their own tint (and, Wheat, it's easy to see how your eyes are tinted)

It's pretty obvious that you want to hijack this thread from what these guys actually accomplished in college (where Worthy doesn't come close to the all-time ACC team) to what kind of players they proved tio be in the pros -- where Worthy suddenly becomes a factor. Fair enough, but I hope everybody sees what you doing.

[superdave]

Worthy with the eye test.
I don't think Jamison could guard Worthy, but I think Worthy could do a decent job on Jamison.


Agreed

Also my two cents that Worthy played on better teams - UNC went 31-11 in the ACC (73.8%), 82-18 overall (82.0%) in his time, versus 34-14 (70.8%), 83-22 (79.0%) for Jamison - in a more competitive era top-to-bottom in the ACC. His stats were also impacted by tempo differences, having played in the pre-shot clock era (and during arguably the height of the Four Corners and its various imitations around the league).


Worthy averaged 54.1 percent from the field, not 65 percent. In his career, he was 485 of 896.

'Course, can't argue with the "eye test" ... everybody's eyes have their own tint (and, Wheat, it's easy to see how your eyes are tinted)

It's pretty obvious that you want to hijack this thread from what these guys actually accomplished in college (where Worthy doesn't come close to the all-time ACC team) to what kind of players they proved tio be in the pros -- where Worthy suddenly becomes a factor. Fair enough, but I hope everybody sees what you doing.

I agree with everyone that Worthy was better than Jamison, although the stats and individual accolades point the other way. I see it as a Worthy being on a much better, more complete team and having no need to carry the load every game. It is good to go through the motions on these comparisons though.

I think at the end of the day I'd rather have Grant Hill or Lenny Bias on my all-time team though, so I'll disagree with Wheat. I'd bump Worthy to the bench alongside Hill and Battier and start Bias. But a Final Four MVP and a title do put Worthy in the conversation, albeit behind the guys I listed above.

I mixed up Worthy's FT% (65) with his FG% (54). My bad...

[Wheat/"/"/"]

It's pretty obvious that you want to hijack this thread from what these guys actually accomplished in college (where Worthy doesn't come close to the all-time ACC team) to what kind of players they proved tio be in the pros -- where Worthy suddenly becomes a factor. Fair enough, but I hope everybody sees what you doing.

Yea, I'm a real outlaw in these parts.

[TheTrain]

Perhaps I'm off base here because I wasn't around to see Bias play, but was he actually as amazing as people seem to remember or has his early death caused people to remember him as better than he was? I've got no doubt he was good, but didn't Grant Hill, Antawn Jamison, and even Tyler Hansbrough have equally impressive college careers?

No....you have to account for the fact Bias effectively had nobody around him to helpo offensively....nobody. Teams would literally triple-team him (that is not a typo). Duke tried it and nearly lost at Cameron. By the time he was a senior, he was literally unstoppable. He could beat you in the low post, in transition and from the outside. Hill, Jamison and Hansbrough played on better teams (by far)....but none of them are in the same category as a player