NRR: Steph Curry versus Pete Maravich

I do think it is a generational thing. I think that younger people (which, in this case, probably includes everyone under the age of about 55) tend to overestimate the skills of current athletic stars relative to their earlier counterparts. The converse is probably also true for older observers.

I think that Maravich, at his best -- in college and as a professional -- would compare very well with anyone today as a shooter, ball-handler, and passer. I've seen efforts to calculate, with some precision, what his scoring record would have been if a three-point line had been in place during those years, since many of his shots were in that range. Obviously, there are all kinds of problems with such projections, but I do believe that, If the three-point shot had been recognized during his peak years, Maravich's statistics would be staggering. (At the college level, they still are.) And if Steph Curry were playing under the rules in place during Maravich's best years, his reputation would be considerably less elevated than it is today, although there has always been a place for a fairly short but very quick sharpshooter and playmaker.

Ha. Old people sure did like their Converse back in the day.

Good post, AN.

Interesting that both athletes had basketball men as fathers.

Curry is infinitely better than Maravich. Infinitely. Maravich shot a ton and missed a lot, and few of his teams (especially at LSU) actually won very much. Maravich may be the most over-rated player of all-time.

If you want to talk about oldtimey white guards who were really good, well, let's see, there was Jerry West, and, umm .... Jery West.

Pistol Pete came up in a thread a couple weeks ago about Curry and the Warriors. I looked up the stats on them both and compared them. I think Pistol Pete was an amazing scorer for sure, but Curry looks like a better shooter.

Career stats:

Maravich: 44.1% FG, 80.2% FT

Curry: 47.7% FG, 90.2% FT (and 44.4% 3pt)

Curry hits a higher % of 3s than Maravich hit for FG%.

Curry became one of only 7 NBA players to ever join the 50-90-40 club (50% FG, 90% FT, 40% 3s) for a season.

One thing that would be not disputable.

Three point line in College, Pete would have avg'ed 58.0 per year as a collegian, or close.

Not the 43.5 he av'ged, Pete one of three to four greatest College players ever.

Pete also THE greatest ballhandler that ever played, almost inarguable, if you ever saw him play, plus at 6'5 would have posted and toasted Curry

It is just the eye test as they say

Several more points:

College Career

1. LSU was a dog team when Maravich joined, and they were one of the best when he left. Also, in light of the caliber of his supporting cast, he could get double- and triple-teamed throughout the whole game.

2. Freshmen were not allowed to play varsity back then, so his insane college career scoring records were achieved in just three seasons, while he was being double- and triple-teamed, and with no three-point line (which would have been within his shooting range for a high percentage of his shots)..

HIs college career really was special. When I was a kid, I lived halfway around the globe, in a little village on a dirt road in a non-English-speaking country, and I had no connection whatsoever to LSU or the swamps of Louisiana. But every day I looked for the latest LSU game score to see what crazy numbers he had put up, and every day I played basketball wearing droopy shots to imitate Maravich's style. For a college athlete, he was a really, really big deal.

Professional Career

1. Atlanta was a pretty bad team, and it was an even worse match for Maravich. But he still developed into one of the best players in the league, becoming one of its top scorers and being named to the All-Star Team in his third and fourth yearsl

2. New Orleans was a worse team -- a godawful expansion team where he had almost no supporting cast. Nevertheless, he did reasonably well during his first two seasons with the team, and then had one of the all-time great individual seasons in 1976-77, again without the benefit of the three-point line. Even with all of his injuries and team travels and travails, he was a five-time All Star and a unique influence on the game.

Avocado's Number wrote:

droopy shots.

droopy socks (Maravich's sartorial trademark)

Curry by far the better pure shooter -- Curry career eFG% (.575); Maravich career eFG% (.441). Curry higher assist numbers (6.9); Maravich (5.4); rebounds about even -- Curry (4.3), Maravich (4.2). It's a little like comparing apples to oranges as Maravich was not a pure point guard. In those days there wasn't the point guard/shooting guard distinction there is now. Guards were expected to do a little of everything. Both have great handles and are/were good passers. Maravich could do more with a ball than probably anyone ever in the NBA. A lot of it was trick shot stuff, like Steph shooting from the tunnel, but Maravich also did it in games. He was probably the most creative player with a ball ever. This did not mean his creativity helped his team win more games, however. His coaches kind of tore their hair out trying to get him to be more of a team player. By the time he did his knees were shot and his career was over. Both guys good, but not great athletes. Goes to show you don't have to have Russell Westbrook-type athleticism to excel. They both have superlative basketball skills, however, which more than make up for their average athleticism. Oh yeah, and both are going to be in the Hall of Fame.

Without a doubt Curry is a way better athlete than Maravich. So of course he would be a better basketball player. But I took the OP to mean basketball skills. That makes for an interesting debate. Maravich's all around basketball skills were incredible. Other great bball players testify to that and the highlights show it. The big question with Maravich is whether he was a team player who truly wanted to win championships. Or was he just a showman type bball player where the game was just an art for him to practice. The evidence is conflicting. A lot of highlights seem to show him making plays just for the sake of making a play with unnecessary flash. But I've also heard it said that he never played with any good talent around him, so he was forced to be selfish. I'm not sure of the answer.

Seems Nice wrote:

Curry is infinitely better than Maravich. Infinitely. Maravich shot a ton and missed a lot, and few of his teams (especially at LSU) actually won very much. Maravich may be the most over-rated player of all-time.

If you want to talk about oldtimey white guards who were really good, well, let's see, there was Jerry West, and, umm .... Jery West.