Verga on front page

[ricks68]

Not only would it have been a definite possibility that Bob Verga would have averaged 25 ppg today, but there's a more than good chance he would have done it for all the 3 years he played. For the uninitiated, grab an old yearbook (I think '66) and check out the full page picture of him going up for his typical shot set up by a Stuart McCaig screen. Look famiiar? Oh, and since we're doing that, don't forget to add maybe another 2 to 3 ppg to Jack Marin's average, too.:)

ricks

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Not only would it have been a definite possibility that Bob Verga would have averaged 25 ppg today, but there's a more than good chance he would have done it for all the 3 years he played. For the uninitiated, grab an old yearbook (I think '66) and check out the full page picture of him going up for his typical shot set up by a Stuart McCaig screen. Look famiiar? Oh, and since we're doing that, don't forget to add maybe another 2 to 3 ppg to Jack Marin's average, too.:)

ricks

Allow four years of eligibility instead of only three and who knows what sort of numbers would have been generated.;)

[TruBlu]

. . . and wipe out one case of ill-timed stomach flu, and there would probably be another Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

[vick]

Not only would it have been a definite possibility that Bob Verga would have averaged 25 ppg today, but there's a more than good chance he would have done it for all the 3 years he played. For the uninitiated, grab an old yearbook (I think '66) and check out the full page picture of him going up for his typical shot set up by a Stuart McCaig screen. Look famiiar? Oh, and since we're doing that, don't forget to add maybe another 2 to 3 ppg to Jack Marin's average, too.:)

ricks

I'm skeptical. Verga enjoyed a substantially higher-paced environment than players today--points per game in the NCAA were between 75 and 78 in the three years he played varsity basketball, compared with just 68 in 2012 (2013 was even lower I believe but I don't have that in my record book). You can't just add some hypothetical three pointers made to pre-three era players and get their "today" points without also deflating their points to adjust for the massive pace advantage they enjoyed, otherwise you find yourself reaching absurd conclusions, e.g., that for, say, 1966, where teams averaged 78 points, those guys could come in and average ~85 points today (significantly more than any team did last year).

[Olympic Fan]

. . . and wipe out one case of ill-timed stomach flu, and there would probably be another Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

Actually, it was a throat infection, not a stomach flu.

As for Verga averaging 25 points a game ... well, as a senior in 1967, he averaged 26.1 points per game. No telling what he averages with the 3-point shot, but he converted 283 field goals that season and somewhere between a half and a third of those were from modern 3-point range. Give him 100 3's (a VERY conservative figure) and Verga would have averaged 29.8 points per game.

For his career, Verga averaged 22.0 points per game (third best in Duke history ... just ahead of Jeff Mullins at 21,.9 ppg.)

Again, he made 728 field goals ... it's not unreasonable to project him at 300 3-pointers, but let's be conservative again and say 250. That gets him just over 2,000 career points (in three seasons!) and a career average of 25.1.

Of course, Verga would have been defended differently, but Bubas would have designed his offense to him more 3-point shots too. Anybody who was there knows that Verga was one of the great long-range shooters in Duke history. Just a note -- for all his long shots, Verga's career FG percentage was .490 ... compare that to Redick's .433 or Langdon's .426 or even Jason Williams' .453 (to name the top 3-point shooters in Duke history).

Now, if we are going to upgrade Verga's numbers with the hypothetical 3-pointers, it's only fair to do the same for Duke's other top scorers from the pre-3 era. Art Heyman, No. 1 on the list, would have only goosed his real average of 25.1 up a bit -- he did most of his work from 15-feet in. He hit a few long-range shots (he liked the top of the key), but not a lot. Groat, second at 23.0) would have improved that a bit, but he was a slasher more than a pure shooter. Mullins would have moved up some -- he was a great jump shooter. But not as much as Verga. I don't see anybody else on the top 20 list that would have changed much with the 3-point shot.

Certainly no one who would have improved as much as Bobby Verga.

[ricks68]

I'm skeptical. Verga enjoyed a substantially higher-paced environment than players today--points per game in the NCAA were between 75 and 78 in the three years he played varsity basketball, compared with just 68 in 2012 (2013 was even lower I believe but I don't have that in my record book). You can't just add some hypothetical three pointers made to pre-three era players and get their "today" points without also deflating their points to adjust for the massive pace advantage they enjoyed, otherwise you find yourself reaching absurd conclusions, e.g., that for, say, 1966, where teams averaged 78 points, those guys could come in and average ~85 points today (significantly more than any team did last year).

Considering that Verga's "money" shot was outside where the 3 point line started at, and considering the extra shot at the line if he got fouled out there, along with the 4-corner offensive that he had to put up with, (he was the leading scorer with a whole 7 points in the 21-20 UNC game), and no shot clock, your "massive pace advantage' does not hold water in my opinion. Add to that the fact that he was not the main offensive threat for us. We also had Vacendak and Marin that were the leading scorers for a lot of the games. Lewis was no slouch at scoring, either.

As far as your record book is concerned, we scored way, way higher than the NCAA average in those years, also. Unless you really saw Verga play, as few did because of very little TV coverage in those days, generalizing with stats just won't cut it. Substitute 2 points for the 3's that JJ got, along with the extra foul shot, and see what JJ's average would have been. Then compare those stats with what you have on Verga, and then you might realize why you have to put all these "stats" in their proper perspective.

A good reference is Devil in the Blue Dress, as she has seen most of our greats play live more than just a few times, even Heyman.

So, these are not "absurd conclusions" in my book.

ricks

[ricks68]

Actually, it was a throat infection, not a stomach flu.

As for Verga averaging 25 points a game ... well, as a senior in 1967, he averaged 26.1 points per game. No telling what he averages with the 3-point shot, but he converted 283 field goals that season and somewhere between a half and a third of those were from modern 3-point range. Give him 100 3's (a VERY conservative figure) and Verga would have averaged 29.8 points per game.

For his career, Verga averaged 22.0 points per game (third best in Duke history ... just ahead of Jeff Mullins at 21,.9 ppg.)

Again, he made 728 field goals ... it's not unreasonable to project him at 300 3-pointers, but let's be conservative again and say 250. That gets him just over 2,000 career points (in three seasons!) and a career average of 25.1.

Of course, Verga would have been defended differently, but Bubas would have designed his offense to him more 3-point shots too. Anybody who was there knows that Verga was one of the great long-range shooters in Duke history. Just a note -- for all his long shots, Verga's career FG percentage was .490 ... compare that to Redick's .433 or Langdon's .426 or even Jason Williams' .453 (to name the top 3-point shooters in Duke history).

Now, if we are going to upgrade Verga's numbers with the hypothetical 3-pointers, it's only fair to do the same for Duke's other top scorers from the pre-3 era. Art Heyman, No. 1 on the list, would have only goosed his real average of 25.1 up a bit -- he did most of his work from 15-feet in. He hit a few long-range shots (he liked the top of the key), but not a lot. Groat, second at 23.0) would have improved that a bit, but he was a slasher more than a pure shooter. Mullins would have moved up some -- he was a great jump shooter. But not as much as Verga. I don't see anybody else on the top 20 list that would have changed much with the 3-point shot.

Certainly no one who would have improved as much as Bobby Verga.

Nice. I'm glad you put this up. My post was sent in before reading this. Great, well thought-out summary, as usual. Listen to this man. He knows.

ricks

[vick]

As for Verga averaging 25 points a game ... well, as a senior in 1967, he averaged 26.1 points per game. No telling what he averages with the 3-point shot, but he converted 283 field goals that season and somewhere between a half and a third of those were from modern 3-point range. Give him 100 3's (a VERY conservative figure) and Verga would have averaged 29.8 points per game.

Half? Come on, that's 141 3PM in 27 games, 5.2 per game. Only one person in NCAA history has ever hit that mark for a season.


Again, he made 728 field goals ... it's not unreasonable to project him at 300 3-pointers, but let's be conservative again and say 250.

300 3PM? He played 80 games, so 3.75 per game. Only six players, and none from a major conference, have hit that mark for a career (min 200 makes).

Look, I'm not trying to denigrate the man, but when you're talking about "converting" stats in such a way as to assume that they were NCAA record-breakers (and, oh by the way, let's just sweep segregation under the rug while we do this), that's pretty aggressive in my book.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Considering that Verga's "money" shot was outside where the 3 point line started at, and considering the extra shot at the line if he got fouled out there, along with the 4-corner offensive that he had to put up with, (he was the leading scorer with a whole 7 points in the 21-20 UNC game), and no shot clock, your "massive pace advantage' does not hold water in my opinion. Add to that the fact that he was not the main offensive threat for us. We also had Vacendak and Marin that were the leading scorers for a lot of the games. Lewis was no slouch at scoring, either.

As far as your record book is concerned, we scored way, way higher than the NCAA average in those years, also. Unless you really saw Verga play, as few did because of very little TV coverage in those days, generalizing with stats just won't cut it. Substitute 2 points for the 3's that JJ got, along with the extra foul shot, and see what JJ's average would have been. Then compare those stats with what you have on Verga, and then you might realize why you have to put all these "stats" in their proper perspective.

A good reference is Devil in the Blue Dress, as she has seen most of our greats play live more than just a few times, even Heyman.

So, these are not "absurd conclusions" in my book.

ricks
Why thank you, ricks! Your kind words make me sound like a maven in addition to being a diva.;)

It is true that having the opportunity to witness so many achievements and performances in person is a bit different than watching film.

[ricks68]

Half? Come on, that's 141 3PM in 27 games, 5.2 per game. Only one person in NCAA history has ever hit that mark for a season.



300 3PM? He played 80 games, so 3.75 per game. Only six players, and none from a major conference, have hit that mark for a career (min 200 makes).

Look, I'm not trying to denigrate the man, but when you're talking about "converting" stats in such a way as to assume that they were NCAA record-breakers (and, oh by the way, let's just sweep segregation under the rug while we do this), that's pretty aggressive in my book.

If he was fouled just once a game while attempting a three, that would knock the average 3-pointers down a full point, wouldn't it? Also, OF's stats that he is basing his conclusions on are valid and not absurd. He wasn't basing his conclusions on how many games were played, but on the number of points scored per games played. We're talking averages here, not total points over a career. If we were doing that, then we would have to factor in how many more games are played now compared to then, and then add the extra year. Remember, in those days, if we didn't win the ACC Tournament, we didn't go to the NCAAT.

Oh, and by the way, OF didn't add any more shots being made. Verga made them. That's already an established fact. Where he made them from is undisputed, also. It's just simple mathematics.

I think that you may be the "pretty aggressive" one here, and might consider toning it down a little. We're a friendly community here. While we may not agree on things, we do try to respect each other's opinions, and try to learn from them in a constructive way.

ricks

[vick]

As far as your record book is concerned, we scored way, way higher than the NCAA average in those years, also. Unless you really saw Verga play, as few did because of very little TV coverage in those days, generalizing with stats just won't cut it. Substitute 2 points for the 3's that JJ got, along with the extra foul shot, and see what JJ's average would have been. Then compare those stats with what you have on Verga, and then you might realize why you have to put all these "stats" in their proper perspective.

Duke certainly scored above average in those days. But let's just look at this mathematically for a second. In 1967, Duke averaged 82.9 points in 27 games (2237 total). OK let's take Olympic Fan's "conservative" 100 3s. So that's 2337 total. So even if no other player hits a three pointer, we're sitting at 2337/27 = 86.6 PPG for the team. For reference, here are the leading scoring teams from last year (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1):

Iona - 80.4
NWSt - 80.0
ISU - 79.4
LIU-B - 78.7
Indiana - 78.6

So, as you guys would have it, it's reasonable to "convert" stats in such a way that our 60s players, if they played today, would score far more than any other team, by a rather huge margin. I think this is pretty obviously incorrect.

[Bob Green]

So, as you guys would have it, it's reasonable to "convert" stats in such a way that our 60s players, if they played today, would score far more than any other team, by a rather huge margin. I think this is pretty obviously incorrect.

The way I see it the discussion isn't how many points per game Bob Verga would average today, but how many points per game Bob Verga would have averaged in '65, '66 and '67 with today's 3-point rule in effect.

[ricks68]

Duke certainly scored above average in those days. But let's just look at this mathematically for a second. In 1967, Duke averaged 82.9 points in 27 games (2237 total). OK let's take Olympic Fan's "conservative" 100 3s. So that's 2337 total. So even if no other player hits a three pointer, we're sitting at 2337/27 = 86.6 PPG for the team. For reference, here are the leading scoring teams from last year (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1):

Iona - 80.4
NWSt - 80.0
ISU - 79.4
LIU-B - 78.7
Indiana - 78.6

So, as you guys would have it, it's reasonable to "convert" stats in such a way that our 60s players, if they played today, would score far more than any other team, by a rather huge margin. I think this is pretty obviously incorrect.

If anyone else thinks it's really necessary to respond to this, go for it. I'm done. Have a nice day. :)

ricks

[dukeofcalabash]

I'm skeptical. Verga enjoyed a substantially higher-paced environment than players today--points per game in the NCAA were between 75 and 78 in the three years he played varsity basketball, compared with just 68 in 2012 (2013 was even lower I believe but I don't have that in my record book). You can't just add some hypothetical three pointers made to pre-three era players and get their "today" points without also deflating their points to adjust for the massive pace advantage they enjoyed, otherwise you find yourself reaching absurd conclusions, e.g., that for, say, 1966, where teams averaged 78 points, those guys could come in and average ~85 points today (significantly more than any team did last year).

No shot clock in those days and no three point rule. Verga was much better than today's "shooters".

[OZ]

. . . and wipe out one case of ill-timed stomach flu, and there would probably be another Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

My memory is not my strongest suit any longer, but my memory is Verga was hospitalized with strep throat. I had tickets to that final four and about lost my breakfast when the paper's headlines read "Verga Hospitalized."

[Duvall]

No shot clock in those days and no three point rule. Verga was much better than today's "shooters".

No reason for defenses to pay extra attention to long-range shots and no black or international players, either. Let's not go overboard here.

How physical was the perimeter defense during this period?

[sagegrouse]

Actually, it was a throat infection, not a stomach flu.

.


The stomach flu belonged to freshman Bobby Hurley before the 1990 finals against LV.

sagegrouse

[Olympic Fan]

The stomach flu belonged to freshman Bobby Hurley before the 1990 finals against LV.

sagegrouse

Hate to be picky (again!) but Hurley was bothered by the flu for the Saturday afternoon semifinals against Arkansas, not so much in the finals against UNLV Monday night.

From Game of My Life, Hurley said: "I was good to go by tipoff. I was in bad shape after the game Saturday, but by Monday night I felt fine."

Technically, I guess Saturday was before Monday, so you could say he had the stomach flu before Monday's finals. I suppose he was weakened by the illness (he was not able to participate in Sunday's practice), but he was not sick during the finals. Amazing how many Duke fans I've run into who insist that they remember Hurley leaving the court during the finals to race to the locker room ... when that actually happened in the semifinals against Arkansas.

As for Verga, he never had strep throat. That's what they first thought it was and why he spent three days and four nights in Duke Hospital between the East Regional victory over Syracuse Saturday night in Raleigh and the trip to College Park. But they determined it was a different throat infection. He was definitely below par for the semifinals -- he played 28 minutes, but was just 2-of-7 from the floor and scored our points in a four-point loss to Kentucky. Just 24 hours later, he was much veter. He played29 minutes in the third-place game with Utah and scored 15 points of 7 of 13 shooting.

[ricks68]

Hate to be picky (again!) but Hurley was bothered by the flu for the Saturday afternoon semifinals against Arkansas, not so much in the finals against UNLV Monday night.

From Game of My Life, Hurley said: "I was good to go by tipoff. I was in bad shape after the game Saturday, but by Monday night I felt fine."

Technically, I guess Saturday was before Monday, so you could say he had the stomach flu before Monday's finals. I suppose he was weakened by the illness (he was not able to participate in Sunday's practice), but he was not sick during the finals. Amazing how many Duke fans I've run into who insist that they remember Hurley leaving the court during the finals to race to the locker room ... when that actually happened in the semifinals against Arkansas.

As for Verga, he never had strep throat. That's what they first thought it was and why he spent three days and four nights in Duke Hospital between the East Regional victory over Syracuse Saturday night in Raleigh and the trip to College Park. But they determined it was a different throat infection. He was definitely below par for the semifinals -- he played 28 minutes, but was just 2-of-7 from the floor and scored our points in a four-point loss to Kentucky. Just 24 hours later, he was much veter. He played29 minutes in the third-place game with Utah and scored 15 points of 7 of 13 shooting.

While the official time for the semi is 28 minutes, it sure didn't seem that way. Most of that time he just stood around trying to just stand up. Some of his shot attempts didn't even reach the basket. All the Duke fans around us were very upset watching him struggle. He appeared exhausted, and if it had not been the FF, it was obvious that he would have been in bed. What a shame.

Even if he had been healthy, and me being a homer, I have to admit that I believe Texas Western would have beaten us in the finals. While I truly believe we would have beaten Kentucky, no one that year could have won against TW in the NCAAT. During warm-ups, while it was not common for many players to dunk the ball in college bball, all of the Texas Western players except 1 (I think) could----and with authority. After watching the warm-ups close up, I knew what the result would be even before the game started. Their guards were quicker and faster than any others in the FF, and "Big Daddy" was so strong that he appeared to grab the ball anywhere near the basket and shove it through----even with the Kentucky player still hanging on!

But then, you never know.

ricks

[Jim3k]

While the official time for the semi is 28 minutes, it sure didn't seem that way. Most of that time he just stood around trying to just stand up. Some of his shot attempts didn't even reach the basket. All the Duke fans around us were very upset watching him struggle. He appeared exhausted, and if it had not been the FF, it was obvious that he would have been in bed. What a shame.

Even if he had been healthy, and me being a homer, I have to admit that I believe Texas Western would have beaten us in the finals. While I truly believe we would have beaten Kentucky, no one that year could have won against TW in the NCAAT. During warm-ups, while it was not common for many players to dunk the ball in college bball, all of the Texas Western players except 1 (I think) could----and with authority. After watching the warm-ups close up, I knew what the result would be even before the game started. Their guards were quicker and faster than any others in the FF, and "Big Daddy" was so strong that he appeared to grab the ball anywhere near the basket and shove it through----even with the Kentucky player still hanging on!

But then, you never know.

ricks

For historical and reputational purposes, it's better for Duke that Kentucky took that loss. Rupp was an acknowledged racist. Duke had just turned the corner in 1962 (I think) insofar as getting rid of the whites-only clause in the endowment and in 1963 had admitted its first African-American undergraduates. Still, our 1964-65 team and Kentucky's were both all white. C.B. Claiborne, Bubas's first black recruit arrived on campus in the fall of 1965, a scant five months after the Texas Western win. Rupp did not sign a black player until 1969--Tom Payne. So let Rupp take the public's comeuppance and be happy we dodged that bullet.

[77devil]

For historical and reputational purposes, it's better for Duke that Kentucky took that loss. Rupp was an acknowledged racist. Duke had just turned the corner in 1962 (I think) insofar as getting rid of the whites-only clause in the endowment and in 1963 had admitted its first African-American undergraduates. Still, our 1964-65 team and Kentucky's were both all white. C.B. Claiborne, Bubas's first black recruit arrived on campus in the fall of 1965, a scant five months after the Texas Western win. Rupp did not sign a black player until 1969--Tom Payne. So let Rupp take the public's comeuppance and be happy we dodged that bullet.

Your dates are off but I agree with the historical sentiment. Claiborne was on campus in March of 1966 when TW beat Kentucky, but as a freshman would not have been on the bench.

[jv001]

Bob Verga and Tate Armstrong are two guys that could play in any era and be quite successful. Plus they are two of my all time favorites. Never could get over Bones McKinney starting George Lehman over Verga with the old Carolina Cougars. GoDuke!

[TruBlu]

Actually, it was a throat infection, not a stomach flu.




Thanks for the correction. (I guess I only wounded that brain cell, instead of completely killing it.)

Didn't another member of that team also have the same illness during the Final Four? Reidy? Kennedy? (Too lazy to look it up myself.)

[wsb3]

The way I see it the discussion isn't how many points per game Bob Verga would average today, but how many points per game Bob Verga would have averaged in '65, '66 and '67 with today's 3-point rule in effect.

It would have to be 30+ especially for the year he averaged 26. But it does make me wonder also about him playing with a shot clock and no 21-20 games.. Thanks Dean.

I was a young boy and they sure did not televise the amount of games they do today but he sure did seem to take a lot of long range shots... Even in the games that I listened to on the radio.;)

His jersey belongs in the rafters. Biggest oversight in my opinion..(for what that is worth)

[Olympic Fan]

Even if he had been healthy, and me being a homer, I have to admit that I believe Texas Western would have beaten us in the finals. While I truly believe we would have beaten Kentucky, no one that year could have won against TW in the NCAAT. During warm-ups, while it was not common for many players to dunk the ball in college bball, all of the Texas Western players except 1 (I think) could----and with authority. After watching the warm-ups close up, I knew what the result would be even before the game started. Their guards were quicker and faster than any others in the FF, and "Big Daddy" was so strong that he appeared to grab the ball anywhere near the basket and shove it through----even with the Kentucky player still hanging on!


I'm not sure if you are remembering the real Texas Western team or the make-believe version that Hollywood created for the movie Glory Road. I don't how many players on the team could dunk, but in reality, they only had one dunk against Kentucky in the title game. As for "Big Daddy" Lattin -- he was actually smaller than Duke center Mike Lewis ... he just looked huge in the title game because he was going up against Rupp's Runts -- they didn't have anybody to guard him -- Duke did.

Of course, it wasn't Lattin who beat Kentucky, it was the backcourt pressure of Bobby Joe Hill and Nevin Shed -- with help from 5-6 Willie Worsley. I'm sure they would have pressed the heck out of Duke too -- but that was a Duke team that responded very well to pressure. It first climbed to No. 1 in December when they shredded UCLA's zone press on back-to-back nights in Durham and Charlotte. To prepare for that UCLA press, Bubas had developed a system utilizing all five players to break the press. In Vacendak, Verga and Marin, Bubas had three superb ballplayers.

Then there is the matter of Harry Flournoy's injury. The senior forward was Texas Western's best defensive forward, but he was hobbling in the Final Four. He got a token start in the title game, but quickly gave way to Worsley, which made the Miners MUCH smaller. They could do that against Rupp's Runts, but it would have been tough against a Duke frontline of Lewis, Marin and Reidy. Jack Marin would have presented them with major issues. In the semifinals, Utah's Jerry Chamber's almost singlehandedly defeated Texas Western in the semifinals (he would become the only player in NCAA Final Four history to win the MVP Award playing for the fourth place team). With Flournoy hobbled nobody could guard him -- until Jerry Armstrong finally slowed him down enough to allow the Miners to win.

I don't think there's any question that Haskins would have had to use Armstrong to contain Marin. As it was, Marin burned Kentucky's Pat Riley (the future coach) for 29 points on 11 of 18 shooting from the floor. Armstrong might have done the job -- but if Haskins had used a white forward in a key role, we wouldn't be hearing about what a racial watershed 1966 was -- three years earlier as Loyola team with four black starters had won the title.

I know that Vic Bubas always believed Duke -- a healthy Duke -- would have beaten Texas Western. Whether he's right or not, I don't know -- but I know that Duke would have had a hell of a chance.

And let's get the timeline straight ... Don Haskins wrote in his story of that season that when Texas Western won the title, there wasn't a single black player in the ACC. That's wrong -- Maryland's Billy Jones broke the ACC color line in that same season (1965-66). CB Claiborne played for the Duke freshman team that season and Pete Johnston was redshirted at Maryland that season. That was the spring when Dean Smith landed Charlie Scott. He's not the only one -- for the Kentucky-Texas Western title game, Charlie Davis and Gil McGregor were seated behind the Kentucky bench. Those two black prep stars were there as guests of the University of Maryland -- their host was Gary Williams, a player for the Terps at that time.

[johnb]

Projecting Verga's scoring average in the 21st century is a bit like estimating JJ's Duke scoring average if he had only played against white players from the 1960's. It's a futile effort to compare eras. We do have a similarly-sized Jersey guy who held his own (Hurley), but do we really think Verga as a scoring guard would beat out our own Rasheed for PT? I'd have to think that instead of averaging 26 ppg, he'd be looking at single digits in the upcoming season. OTOH, I've been wrong before.

[dukeofcalabash]

Projecting Verga's scoring average in the 21st century is a bit like estimating JJ's Duke scoring average if he had only played against white players from the 1960's. It's a futile effort to compare eras. We do have a similarly-sized Jersey guy who held his own (Hurley), but do we really think Verga as a scoring guard would beat out our own Rasheed for PT? I'd have to think that instead of averaging 26 ppg, he'd be looking at single digits in the upcoming season. OTOH, I've been wrong before.

Ridiculous to throw race into the picture. You might want to consider styles instead. All of the slapping and hands on defense since the '60s does not mean that a player would fare better if he could go back to the '60s when fouls were called for poor defensive efforts. No point in arguing, however, as Bob Verga was one of the greatest the ACC ever had.

[johnb]

Ridiculous to throw race into the picture. You might want to consider styles instead. All of the slapping and hands on defense since the '60s does not mean that a player would fare better if he could go back to the '60s when fouls were called for poor defensive efforts. No point in arguing, however, as Bob Verga was one of the greatest the ACC ever had.

I agree that it's only fair to compare people from within an era.

It does seem reasonable to mention that the vast majority of the top 500 best basketball players on the current planet would not have been allowed to play against or with Verga. It wasn't his fault. He was an amazing player playing in the environment into which he happened to have been born. There are other changes related to styles, rules, etc, over the past 45 years, but the biggest change is the inclusion of black players. And it does seem likely that he would have had trouble getting off his shot as a 6'0" shooting guard (I assume he was a shooting guard; I couldn't find clarification about whether he was more of a PG). And that is probably why he was only a 3rd round NBA draft pick despite having been such a star at Duke.

Don't mean to nitpick... from all accounts, he was a big reason that Duke developed a reputation as a basketball school in the 60's, setting the stage for the late 70's success, and then the big success since the mid 80's. I realize I'm inserting an asterisk, but I do think he deserves whatever praise he gets.

[Jim3k]

Your dates are off but I agree with the historical sentiment. Claiborne was on campus in March of 1966 when TW beat Kentucky, but as a freshman would not have been on the bench.

Yep. Conflated some memories incorrectly. :o CB was already there as a freshman.

[ricks68]

I'm not sure if you are remembering the real Texas Western team or the make-believe version that Hollywood created for the movie Glory Road. I don't how many players on the team could dunk, but in reality, they only had one dunk against Kentucky in the title game. As for "Big Daddy" Lattin -- he was actually smaller than Duke center Mike Lewis ... he just looked huge in the title game because he was going up against Rupp's Runts -- they didn't have anybody to guard him -- Duke did.

Of course, it wasn't Lattin who beat Kentucky, it was the backcourt pressure of Bobby Joe Hill and Nevin Shed -- with help from 5-6 Willie Worsley. I'm sure they would have pressed the heck out of Duke too -- but that was a Duke team that responded very well to pressure. It first climbed to No. 1 in December when they shredded UCLA's zone press on back-to-back nights in Durham and Charlotte. To prepare for that UCLA press, Bubas had developed a system utilizing all five players to break the press. In Vacendak, Verga and Marin, Bubas had three superb ballplayers.

Then there is the matter of Harry Flournoy's injury. The senior forward was Texas Western's best defensive forward, but he was hobbling in the Final Four. He got a token start in the title game, but quickly gave way to Worsley, which made the Miners MUCH smaller. They could do that against Rupp's Runts, but it would have been tough against a Duke frontline of Lewis, Marin and Reidy. Jack Marin would have presented them with major issues. In the semifinals, Utah's Jerry Chamber's almost singlehandedly defeated Texas Western in the semifinals (he would become the only player in NCAA Final Four history to win the MVP Award playing for the fourth place team). With Flournoy hobbled nobody could guard him -- until Jerry Armstrong finally slowed him down enough to allow the Miners to win.

I don't think there's any question that Haskins would have had to use Armstrong to contain Marin. As it was, Marin burned Kentucky's Pat Riley (the future coach) for 29 points on 11 of 18 shooting from the floor. Armstrong might have done the job -- but if Haskins had used a white forward in a key role, we wouldn't be hearing about what a racial watershed 1966 was -- three years earlier as Loyola team with four black starters had won the title.

I know that Vic Bubas always believed Duke -- a healthy Duke -- would have beaten Texas Western. Whether he's right or not, I don't know -- but I know that Duke would have had a hell of a chance.

And let's get the timeline straight ... Don Haskins wrote in his story of that season that when Texas Western won the title, there wasn't a single black player in the ACC. That's wrong -- Maryland's Billy Jones broke the ACC color line in that same season (1965-66). CB Claiborne played for the Duke freshman team that season and Pete Johnston was redshirted at Maryland that season. That was the spring when Dean Smith landed Charlie Scott. He's not the only one -- for the Kentucky-Texas Western title game, Charlie Davis and Gil McGregor were seated behind the Kentucky bench. Those two black prep stars were there as guests of the University of Maryland -- their host was Gary Williams, a player for the Terps at that time.

While I understand your reasoning, I will tell you that I avoided seeing the movie because I lived that season at Duke, and all we had to follow most away games with was the radio. We followed TW through the paper, yet watched them never ascend to the #1 ranking in spite of having only one loss. (The word was that they were an unknown team that didn't play the same high caliber competition that the "big boys" did.) I do not want any of those memories distorted and twisted by Hollywood, so I will not see it.

Those of us that were at the game saw every single black player, including Willie Worsley, dunk the ball during warm ups with authority. (In fact, when Worsley did it, we just went nuts.) Their athleticism was outstanding, and since they were the ones that were no doubt going to be the ones actually playing, we pretty much saw the handwriting on the wall. We thought Kentucky had a slim to none chance of winning. We can all speculate all we want, but I think one has to be there up close, sometimes, to form a more accurate opinion. Sure we would have had some chance, as Vic Bubas is certainly not going to believe he couldn't have won that game given a fair shake. But to say that we would have beaten TW because we had a bigger front line is not a reasonable conclusion, I believe, since we certainly didn't do it against those same Rupp's Runts-----and they didn't even have a tough center like Lattin or anyone close in height to compete with our front line. Since I also was not a bball maven back then, I did not notice that TW was playing a 6-8 center (Shed) in the back court for additional pressure. Are you sure about that, as I am not that knowledgeable?

In addition, both Lewis and Lattin were listed at 225, with Lewis being an inch taller. While Lewis was a load, Lattin was considered even stronger. What I, and those around me, witnessed was pure power from him. While I can verify that Lewis was a bull, as I used to see him often up close because I played with him that prior summer on an intramural softball team. Lattin appeared to be a stronger bull, however, on the court---again, from what I saw.

I think that, unfortunately, we will never know what would have happened, had Verga been well. I always welcome your astute observations and conclusions, but on this one, I think I will just have to agree to disagree. Still looking forward to your next college basketball history lesson, however.:)

ricks

[Tappan Zee Devil]

In addition, both Lewis and Lattin were listed at 225, with Lewis being an inch taller. While Lewis was a load, Lattin was considered even stronger. What I, and those around me, witnessed was pure power from him. While I can verify that Lewis was a bull, as I used to see him often up close because I played with him that prior summer on an intramural softball team. Lattin appeared to be a stronger bull, however, on the court---again, from what I saw.

ricks

If he was stronger than Lewis and I am not sure that is possible, because Mike was really a beast - but then he would have been - well, stronger than a beast.

[Atldukie79]

I am delighted to see Bob Verga's name and picture at DBR. He was my hero in the late 60's.

Projecting stars into different eras in perhaps fun, but futile. (If Verga played Sulaimon...)
Speculating on what might have been in their era with different rules and circumstances is mor interesting to me.

Vera's scoring average and total points have been mentioned throughout this thread.
Vic Bubas was innovative and intelligent and would no doubt have leveraged Vergas incredible long range bombing with a 3 pointer even more than he did.
I have no doubt his average would have increased. Would defenses have come out more than they did already? I suppose ... but Verga's high shooting percentage from range probably caused that anyway.

The more interesting question is where Verga would have ranked on the all time scoring chart with:
1) A 3 pont line
2) Nearly double the number of varsity games. (Freshman eligibility and longer seasons with more opportunity for post season play)

Without consulting resource material, I guess the Verga era players played around 80 games as opposed to 130+ today.
I can't know what would have happened to his average with more physical defenses, shot clocks, more black players etc...but I could do the math to see how a 130 game career with a high average would rate.

Verga was a STAR in his time. Too bad people look at career scoring lists for Duke and perhaps disregard the games played discrepancy.

[sagegrouse]

I know that Vic Bubas always believed Duke -- a healthy Duke -- would have beaten Texas Western. Whether he's right or not, I don't know -- but I know that Duke would have had a hell of a chance.

.

I think Bubas was right. -- sage

[ricks68]

I just gotta add that Vic Bubas was quoted not that long ago that he considered the 1966 team his best team ever, by the way. That was some compliment when you think about the fact that he had Mullins and Heyman together not that many years before.

ricks

[Olympic Fan]

Just one final comment in the debate about Mike Lewis, vs. Big Daddy Lattin comparison.

I don't understand the retroactive deification of Mr. Lattin ... as I noted, Lewis was bigger and every bit of evidence I can find suggests that he was stronger -- certainly he was a more effective player.

In 1966, Lattin did average more points -- 14.0 to 13.5, but whereas Lewis shot 59.4 percent from the field, Lattin was 10 percentage points lower at 49.4 percent. Lewis was also a much more effective rebounder -- 11.0 per game to Lattin's 8.6.

Doesn't prove anything, but interesting that both guys played in the pros and Lewis played longer and put up better stats. He played 337 games with career averages of 12.1 ppg and 11.9 rpg. Lattin played 263 games with career averages of 7.2 ppg and 5.1 rpg.

Ricks, I understand that you came away impressed by Texas Western, but it's hard to suggest they were some clearly superior team in the final four. To get to the title game, they beat Cincinnati in overtime, beat Kansas in double overtime and had to rally from behind to beat Utah in the semifinals. I don't mean to diminish their accomplishment, but you make it sound like they were some super team and poor Duke didn't have a chance.

That was a Duke team that twice routed a No. 1 ranked UCLA that started three players off national championship teams (Mike Warren, Kenny McIntosh and Mike Lynn -- plus Kenny Washington, who was the star of UCLA's 1964 title game victory over Duke). They went to Detroit and beat a No. 3 ranked Michigan in overtime -- a team that still boasted Cazzie Russell, Oliver Darden and John Clawson off a team that had played in two previous Final Fours. They edged No. 5 St. Joe's in the Sweet 16 -- the team with Matt Goukas. They beat Dave Bing and Syracuse in the East finals.

Yeah, they lost to Kentucky in the semifinals -- on a night when Verga was in a coma.

No way they beat Texas Western without a healthy Verga, but at full strength, it's a heck of a matchup. That Duke team had played and beaten some of the best teams in college basketball.

[ricks68]

Just one final comment in the debate about Mike Lewis, vs. Big Daddy Lattin comparison.

I don't understand the retroactive deification of Mr. Lattin ... as I noted, Lewis was bigger and every bit of evidence I can find suggests that he was stronger -- certainly he was a more effective player.

In 1966, Lattin did average more points -- 14.0 to 13.5, but whereas Lewis shot 59.4 percent from the field, Lattin was 10 percentage points lower at 49.4 percent. Lewis was also a much more effective rebounder -- 11.0 per game to Lattin's 8.6.

Doesn't prove anything, but interesting that both guys played in the pros and Lewis played longer and put up better stats. He played 337 games with career averages of 12.1 ppg and 11.9 rpg. Lattin played 263 games with career averages of 7.2 ppg and 5.1 rpg.

Ricks, I understand that you came away impressed by Texas Western, but it's hard to suggest they were some clearly superior team in the final four. To get to the title game, they beat Cincinnati in overtime, beat Kansas in double overtime and had to rally from behind to beat Utah in the semifinals. I don't mean to diminish their accomplishment, but you make it sound like they were some super team and poor Duke didn't have a chance.

That was a Duke team that twice routed a No. 1 ranked UCLA that started three players off national championship teams (Mike Warren, Kenny McIntosh and Mike Lynn -- plus Kenny Washington, who was the star of UCLA's 1964 title game victory over Duke). They went to Detroit and beat a No. 3 ranked Michigan in overtime -- a team that still boasted Cazzie Russell, Oliver Darden and John Clawson off a team that had played in two previous Final Fours. They edged No. 5 St. Joe's in the Sweet 16 -- the team with Matt Goukas. They beat Dave Bing and Syracuse in the East finals.

Yeah, they lost to Kentucky in the semifinals -- on a night when Verga was in a coma.

No way they beat Texas Western without a healthy Verga, but at full strength, it's a heck of a matchup. That Duke team had played and beaten some of the best teams in college basketball.

Like I said before, it's too bad we will never know. It was, and still is, a bummer for me---especially after we could have (should have) won it just a few years before, leaving one of the greatest coaches in the game without a national title.:(

ricks

[dukeofcalabash]

Just one final comment in the debate about Mike Lewis, vs. Big Daddy Lattin comparison.

I don't understand the retroactive deification of Mr. Lattin ... as I noted, Lewis was bigger and every bit of evidence I can find suggests that he was stronger -- certainly he was a more effective player.

In 1966, Lattin did average more points -- 14.0 to 13.5, but whereas Lewis shot 59.4 percent from the field, Lattin was 10 percentage points lower at 49.4 percent. Lewis was also a much more effective rebounder -- 11.0 per game to Lattin's 8.6.

Doesn't prove anything, but interesting that both guys played in the pros and Lewis played longer and put up better stats. He played 337 games with career averages of 12.1 ppg and 11.9 rpg. Lattin played 263 games with career averages of 7.2 ppg and 5.1 rpg.

Ricks, I understand that you came away impressed by Texas Western, but it's hard to suggest they were some clearly superior team in the final four. To get to the title game, they beat Cincinnati in overtime, beat Kansas in double overtime and had to rally from behind to beat Utah in the semifinals. I don't mean to diminish their accomplishment, but you make it sound like they were some super team and poor Duke didn't have a chance.

That was a Duke team that twice routed a No. 1 ranked UCLA that started three players off national championship teams (Mike Warren, Kenny McIntosh and Mike Lynn -- plus Kenny Washington, who was the star of UCLA's 1964 title game victory over Duke). They went to Detroit and beat a No. 3 ranked Michigan in overtime -- a team that still boasted Cazzie Russell, Oliver Darden and John Clawson off a team that had played in two previous Final Fours. They edged No. 5 St. Joe's in the Sweet 16 -- the team with Matt Goukas. They beat Dave Bing and Syracuse in the East finals.

Yeah, they lost to Kentucky in the semifinals -- on a night when Verga was in a coma.

No way they beat Texas Western without a healthy Verga, but at full strength, it's a heck of a matchup. That Duke team had played and beaten some of the best teams in college basketball.

Texas Western won so many 'close' games that you have to wonder if they had a little biased help.

[Duvall]

Texas Western won so many 'close' games that you have to wonder if they had a little biased help.

Well okay then.

[ricks68]

Texas Western won so many 'close' games that you have to wonder if they had a little biased help.

On the other hand, maybe they were so good that they overcame the biased "help" and won in spite of it.:o

ricks

[dball]

And that is probably why he was only a 3rd round NBA draft pick despite having been such a star at Duke.


Verga was the 25th player picked in the NBA draft, which I believe was the first pick of the third round as the NBA had just expanded to 12 teams. That would make him a first round pick today.

Of course, he elected to go to the ABA and played quite well there, averaging around 20 pts a game.

[Olympic Fan]

Verga was the 25th player picked in the NBA draft, which I believe was the first pick of the third round as the NBA had just expanded to 12 teams. That would make him a first round pick today.

Of course, he elected to go to the ABA and played quite well there, averaging around 20 pts a game.

The only reason Verga wasn't picked higher in the NBA draft that he had already signed with the Dallas team of the ABA before the NBA draft. There was a bidding war between the two leagues at the time ... St. Louis picked him 25th in the NBA draft in order to obtain his rights in case he became disenchanted with the ABA or the league folding -- they would retain his rights.

Verga was hurt as a rookie in 1968 and played just 31 games. He averaged 24.5 ppg in his second season. Playing for the Carolina Cougars in 1970, he averaged 27.5 ppg and was first-team All-ABA

As long as we are talking pro production from members of those 1966 teams, it should be noted that those Texas Western players who so dazzled ricks produced exactly two pros -- Lattin (whose career was substantially less than Mike Lewis') and Willie Worlsey, who played 24 games in the ABA. The heart of the team -- Bobby Joe Hill, Nevil Shed, Willie Cager and Harry Flournoy -- never played one day of pro basketball.

In contrast, all five Duke starters in 1966 played pro basketball -- Jack Marin played 849 games and scored 12,541 points in the NBA ... Verga 342 games and 6918 points in the ABA and NBA ... Vacendak played parts of three seasons and averaged 12.5 points one season for the Minnesota Pipers .. Mike Lewis played 337 games and scored almost 5,000 points ... admittedly Bob Reidy had just a cup of coffee in the ABA (23 games), but sophomore backup forward Joe Kennedy ended up playing two seasons in the NBA and one in the ABA.

I'm just saying, don't underrate the talent on the '66 Blue Devils.