Antoine Davis

[Kfanarmy]

83 games vs 144 games is 57.6%
21 shots per game vs 38 is 55.2%

So despite playing all those extra games, Davis still only took 2,987 shots to Maravich’s 3,166. Maravich also attempted 1,152 FTs making only 77.5% compared to Davis who shot 89.2% on only 715 attempts.

It gets tiresome how people just see Maravich’s per game average and act like he was some shooting wizard that was unstoppable. He was a great player on a pretty mediocre team coached by his dad who let him shoot as much as he wanted in an era when defense was less aggressive and players were less athletic in general. Oh and pace of play was much faster.

So would that mean Davis was a good player on a really bad team facing mostly middling defenses in an era when the three-point shot allowed him to accumulate points up to 50% faster?

I don't get the jealousy here. Maravich could have added a couple of hundred points, perhaps more, simply by having the three-point line.

Not sure why you say pace of play was faster? Where does that come from; do you have the data? Dean Smith and others were using the Four Corners offense to stall their way to wins.

[Steven43]

83 games vs 144 games is 57.6%
21 shots per game vs 38 is 55.2%

So despite playing all those extra games, Davis still only took 2,987 shots to Maravich’s 3,166. Maravich also attempted 1,152 FTs making only 77.5% compared to Davis who shot 89.2% on only 715 attempts.

It gets tiresome how people just see Maravich’s per game average and act like he was some shooting wizard that was unstoppable. He was a great player on a pretty mediocre team coached by his dad who let him shoot as much as he wanted in an era when defense was less aggressive and players were less athletic in general. Oh and pace of play was much faster.

Do you really think the defenses that Antoine Davis faced over his five seasons (yes, FIVE) were keying on trying to stop him to anywhere near the level that defenses were to the renowned Pete Maravich?

Maravich was a legend while still in college. In comparison, hardly anybody even knew who Antoine Davis was until the final few games of his fifth season.

[AGDukesky]

So would that mean Davis was a good player on a really bad team facing mostly middling defenses in an era when the three-point shot allowed him to accumulate points up to 50% faster?

I don't get the jealousy here. Maravich could have added a couple of hundred points, perhaps more, simply by having the three-point line.

Not sure why you say pace of play was faster? Where does that come from; do you have the data? Dean Smith and others were using the Four Corners offense to stall their way to wins.

Jealousy is a bizarre choice of words. My point is that people just accept Maravich as the greatest scorer in NCAA history because of his points per game without looking closer at the numbers. He shot at a ridiculous rate with an efficiency well below many other greats. I just don’t find his record that impressive other than his ability to shoot so much.

CDU has posted a couple of times in this thread comparing the pace of play and it was much faster in Maravich’s day.

Edit: see post #61 where CDU states teams had 35-40 more possessions a game.

[DarkstarWahoo]

One other thing I haven't seen mentioned but could have missed - Maravich played in the era when every foul resulted in at least one free throw. I have no idea how those numbers stack up with the extra points he could have had from 3-pointers and will not be doing any research or math.

[AGDukesky]

Do you really think the defenses that Antoine Davis faced over his five seasons (yes, FIVE) were keying on trying to stop him to anywhere near the level that defenses were to the renowned Pete Maravich?

Maravich was a legend while still in college. In comparison, hardly anybody even knew who Antoine Davis was until the final few games of his fifth season.

Oh I agree Davis does not belong in the conversation with Maravich as a great player. Just don’t use games played as a reason to dismiss Davis when Maravich still took over 170 more shots.

[sagegrouse]

Do you really think the defenses that Antoine Davis faced over his five seasons (yes, FIVE) were keying on trying to stop him to anywhere near the level that defenses were to the renowned Pete Maravich?

Maravich was a legend while still in college. In comparison, hardly anybody even knew who Antoine Davis was until the final few games of his fifth season.

Wasn't Maravich famous in HS?

[rsvman]

The three-pointer would have made a huge difference. Pete was not afraid of taking long shots.

[CDu]

Not sure why you say pace of play was faster? Where does that come from; do you have the data? Dean Smith and others were using the Four Corners offense to stall their way to wins.

Not in the late-60s. I've shared the data before, but teams back then averaged around 100 possessions per game. Today? It's around 65. Dean Smith's 4 corners came en vogue about a decade later.

From the 1967-68 to 1969-70 seasons (Maravich's college career), LSU averaged between 74 and 76 FG attempts per game and about 25-29 FT attempts per game.
Today? Detroit averaged around 58 FG attempts per game and 16 FT attempts per game. That doesn't consider turnovers, which weren't a stat back in the 60s but are substantially less common now than in the past (teams have gotten much more careful with the ball over time).

It's absolutely true that the pace of play was WAY faster in the late-60s than in today's era. Like 50% faster pace of play. And that's ignoring that, because the pace of play was faster, there were way more possessions in which the shots were taken in a fast break/transition setting (i.e., not against a set defense). Teams ran up and down the floor, and defense just wasn't nearly as good back then. Offense wasn't nearly as good either of course, as only a couple of guys on any team could even dribble with either hand.

That's not to say Antoine Davis is anywhere near as good as Pete Maravich was relative to his era. He isn't. Maravich was the #3 pick in his draft, whereas Davis won't be drafted. And Maravich was an occasional All Star, whereas Davis probably won't even make the league. But people keep pointing to the advantages Davis has had while ignoring (or not realizing) the advantages Maravich had.

[DarkstarWahoo]

I think it's true both that Maravich was a better player than Davis (maybe much better) and that Maravich played in a way, or was allowed to play in a way, that drastically distorted his stats in a way that means his numbers likely won't be challenged in modern basketball. Look up any guy we'd think of as a gunner over the past 25 years (Iverson, Jimmer, Monta Ellis, take your pick) and they're probably pretty far behind Maravich's shots per game. It's pretty much the extreme example of what happens when a coaches son has the offense designed around his strengths and has a perpetual green light.

[AGDukesky]

I think it's true both that Maravich was a better player than Davis (maybe much better) and that Maravich played in a way, or was allowed to play in a way, that drastically distorted his stats in a way that means his numbers likely won't be challenged in modern basketball. Look up any guy we'd think of as a gunner over the past 25 years (Iverson, Jimmer, Monta Ellis, take your pick) and they're probably pretty far behind Maravich's shots per game. It's pretty much the extreme example of what happens when a coaches son has the offense designed around his strengths and has a perpetual green light.

This is an excellent summary of my position. Many people just see Maravich’s scoring average and then add “and if the 3-point shot existed it would be even more amazing!” I just wish people would do a little bit more investigation and see that there are plenty of mitigating circumstances that helped Maravich and somewhat inflate the record.

[kako]

Antoine Davis was 4 points shy of Pete Maravich despite a 144-game career. Maravich played in only 83 games.

Detroit Mercy tried to buy their way into a year-end tournament despite a 14-19 record this year. It did not work.

Davis "felt cheated", he said.

So it goes.

https://lsutigerswire.usatoday.com/2...ravich-record/

I would say that Mercy "tried to buy their way in" is technically incorrect. They had to be invited, after which they would need to pay, as all CBI teams need to do.

"Rick Giles, the president of the Gazelle Group which runs the CBI, did confirm that they received emails and voicemails asking to exclude UDM to protect Maravich’s record, though he emphasized that played no role in the decision."

Also while it's not a good look for Davis to say he feels cheated, it's also not a good look for others to call and complain to the CBI that they can't take in Mercy just to protect PP's record. Both sides seem petty to me.

9F

[Steven43]

This is an excellent summary of my position. Many people just see Maravich’s scoring average and then add “and if the 3-point shot existed it would be even more amazing!” I just wish people would do a little bit more investigation and see that there are plenty of mitigating circumstances that helped Maravich and somewhat inflate the record.

Not sure why you find it necessary to try to find mitigating circumstances that “helped Maravich and somewhat inflate the record”. What is your motivation for this?

You could literally take any record in existence and find mitigating circumstances that helped a player achieve said record.

[CDu]

I think it's true both that Maravich was a better player than Davis (maybe much better) and that Maravich played in a way, or was allowed to play in a way, that drastically distorted his stats in a way that means his numbers likely won't be challenged in modern basketball. Look up any guy we'd think of as a gunner over the past 25 years (Iverson, Jimmer, Monta Ellis, take your pick) and they're probably pretty far behind Maravich's shots per game. It's pretty much the extreme example of what happens when a coaches son has the offense designed around his strengths and has a perpetual green light.

Yep. Combine that with the reality that Maravich played for a historically bad program in essentially a mid-major conference (the SEC back then was basically Kentucky and a bunch of nobodies) in an era in which teams ran up and down the court and shot WAY more than they do today, and you get an environment conducive to generating the individual volume necessary to set Maravich's mark. Heck, a guy named Johnny Neumann might well have threatened Maravich's mark had he not chosen to take a hardship case and leave Mississippi after just one season (the year after Maravich went pro).

Maravich was a fantastic talent, and was definitely better relative to his era than Davis by a comfortable margin. But his college scoring totals were definitely INflated by the era and circumstance, not DEflated by them. A player of similar quality to Maravich (relative to his competition) in today's game would be lucky to top 25 ppg unless he played for his dad in a low-level team and/or in a mid-level conference. And even in that circumstance, scoring 30 ppg would be borderline impossible. The slower pace of play, fewer transition opportunities and thus tougher defense, and better spread of quality players much more than offsets the lack of a year and the three point line, let alone the advantage of playing for his dad in a program designed specifically to let him shoot it as much as he wanted.

[CDu]

Not sure why you find it necessary to try to find mitigating circumstances that “helped Maravich and somewhat inflate the record”. What is your motivation for this?

Because everyone else seems to find it necessary to denigrate Davis' achievement and ignore those advantages Maravich had.

You could literally take any record in existence and find mitigating circumstances that helped a player achieve said record.

Of course. Which is why it seems silly that so many folks in this thread are so offended by the discussion of Davis potentially breaking Maravich's record. But here we are.

It just feels inappropriate for folks to hail Maravich's great achievement and talk about the advantages Davis has had while ignoring the advantages Maravich had.

[AGDukesky]

Not sure why you find it necessary to try to find mitigating circumstances that “helped Maravich and somewhat inflate the record”. What is your motivation for this?

You could literally take any record in existence and find mitigating circumstances that helped a player achieve said record.

Because, as I said, people seem to ignore the circumstances that helped Maravich and just accept it is some amazing record. It really is just not that impressive when you look into the numbers.

In this case, the mitigating circumstances are a huge part that literally no one else had. I mean if you look at the FG attempts for other great players or others in the top 10 all-time scorers, you are hard-pressed to find people shooting even close to 60% of the shots. Many shot less than half the shots a game.

Whatever I will stop because my point is not to say Maravich isn’t a great player or his record is meaningless. I just feel it is highly overrated and do not care if someone like Antoine Davis eclipses it, which many seem to feel.

[rsvman]

Seems like there are a fair number of anti-Pete-ites in this thread. Put an asterisk next to Pete's name in the record books because the game was different back then. Oh, and while you are at it, make sure to put his dad's name in parentheses next to Pete's, since we all know it was his dad who was largely responsible for his son's scoring record.


Think about it. The game back then was the game back then, and neither Pete nor his father made the game that way. It wasn't just LSU that played fast and had lots of transition opportunities. And what was Press supposed to do, dealt the hand that he was dealt? Tell Pete not to shoot so much? Tell him to let the other kids play, too? This wasn't pee-wee rec league basketball. The institution hired Press and asked him to field a competitive team. Whether Pete was his son or not is not germane. He was clearly the best player on the team and it wasn't close. If Pete had played for Tulane instead, do you really think the Tulane coach would have admonished him not to score so much? LOL

[CDu]

Seems like there are a fair number of anti-Pete-ites in this thread.

I don't think there's a single person who is "anti-Pete" in this thread.

[kako]

I don't think there's a single person who is "anti-Pete" in this thread.

Agreed. And I think that perception is the problem. No one is being anti-PP. CDu is just pointing out some facts. PP is a great all-time player. Davis will never be a great all-time player, but that doesn't mean he didn't score a ton of points. And it has been amazing. IMO too much "well it wasn't like that back in my day" thinking, trying to "protect" PP. He doesn't need protecting, he's a legend. But I for one can simply marvel at the number of points Davis scored without trying to compare him to PP. If he had scored more points than PP, I would never think less of PP as a player. Did anyone think PP is less of a player when Kevin Bradshaw scored more points than him in a single game? No. It would be the same here.

Seems like there are a fair number of anti-Pete-ites in this thread. Put an asterisk next to Pete's name in the record books because the game was different back then. Oh, and while you are at it, make sure to put his dad's name in parentheses next to Pete's, since we all know it was his dad who was largely responsible for his son's scoring record.


Think about it. The game back then was the game back then, and neither Pete nor his father made the game that way. It wasn't just LSU that played fast and had lots of transition opportunities. And what was Press supposed to do, dealt the hand that he was dealt? Tell Pete not to shoot so much? Tell him to let the other kids play, too? This wasn't pee-wee rec league basketball. The institution hired Press and asked him to field a competitive team. Whether Pete was his son or not is not germane. He was clearly the best player on the team and it wasn't close. If Pete had played for Tulane instead, do you really think the Tulane coach would have admonished him not to score so much? LOL

Asterisks are silly. A number is a number. As time moves on, there are more and more changes that make it impossible to truly compare apples to apples. But the number is the number. Just list the highest number and move on.

9F

[CDu]

Agreed. And I think that perception is the problem. No one is being anti-PP. CDu is just pointing out some facts. PP is a great all-time player. Davis will never be a great all-time player, but that doesn't mean he didn't score a ton of points. And it has been amazing. IMO too much "well it wasn't like that back in my day" thinking, trying to "protect" PP. He doesn't need protecting, he's a legend. But I for one can simply marvel at the number of points Davis scored without trying to compare him to PP. If he had scored more points than PP, I would never think less of PP as a player. Did anyone think PP is less of a player when Kevin Bradshaw scored more points than him in a single game? No. It would be the same here.

Asterisks are silly. A number is a number. As time moves on, there are more and more changes that make it impossible to truly compare apples to apples. But the number is the number. Just list the highest number and move on.

Yep. Despite the fact that his win total blows everyone else's away, nobody thinks Cy Young is the greatest pitcher of all time. His win total will all but certainly never be broken, nor will it even be remotely approached. But he pitched in the dead ball era when guys threw one or two pitches, and when it wasn't at all uncommon for a starter to have 45-50 starts in a season, and they almost always pitched the entire game. So guys regularly won 30+ games. Hell, at the time he entered pro ball, it wasn't uncommon for a pitcher to threaten 50 wins in a season, and only 6 years prior to his arrival the single season record of 60 wins was set.

Young was only voted the best pitcher of his year twice, and only led the league in wins in 5 of his 22 seasons. But he was a very good and very capable pitcher who chose to play for a long time, and did so in an era in which players didn't keep playing forever because the baseball life was tough and not that profitable. So he racked up a ton of wins. So even though he wasn't even the best pitcher of his era (Christy Mathewson was better), he is by far the all-time wins leader.

It would be absurd to compare any pitcher's win total today to Young's totals, because the era was so totally different. Young was an excellent player, but his record is absolutely a function of the era and circumstance as opposed to his relative greatness.

Maravich is in sort of a similar situation. He was, like Young, an excellent player. But his point total at LSU is absolutely a function of the era and circumstance.

And that's okay. It doesn't diminish Maravich to acknowledge this. He was an amazing player. But it's ridiculous to denigrate players of today in comparison to Maravich without acknowledging the substantial advantages Maravich had in accumulating those point totals. Just like it would be ridiculous to denigrate pitchers of today in comparison to Young.

[Phredd3]

Because, as I said, people seem to ignore the circumstances that helped Maravich and just accept it is some amazing record. It really is just not that impressive when you look into the numbers.

Beg to differ. It IS impressive. It's well ahead of players from the same era with the same advantages and disadvantages that Pete had, too. It's a unicorn achievement, and very impressive indeed. It's also not like Pete owes his record to the fact that he played for his dad. This is a player who was a 5-time NBA all-star who led the NBA in scoring for a season, and who had his number retired by three different NBA franchises. It's not like he's some hick from the sticks who got propped up by his old man. He was a legitimately great player, and the scoring record is clear evidence of that despite the advantages (and disadvantages) he may have had.

It's kind of odd to me to say Pete's achievement is not that impressive, and then lament that a player who challenged it is the one getting dissed. If Davis can't break such an unimpressive record, that doesn't say much about Davis, does it?

Personally, I think both achievements are amazing. YMMV.