Henry Abbott – of TrueHoop – posted a lengthy story on Kobe Bryant on Monday entitled “To Be Determined: Kobe Bryant’s Place in History”. Towards the end of his story (which is a lengthy but good read) is a comparison of Kobe and Pistol Pete Maravich. Just like Pistol Pete, Kobe is the leading scorer on a team that does not contend for a title. Just like Pistol Pete, Kobe is often accused of dominating the ball and reducing the involvement of his teammates. And just like Pistol Pete, Kobe appears to respond to this criticism by, at times (apparently) refusing to shoot.
Although Kobe’s team has not been a contender since Shaq departed in 2004 (and as it is currently constructed, will not contend in 2007-08), the inability to win consistently cannot be attributed to Kobe. Of all the players taken in the 1996 draft, Kobe has been the most productive. This past season Kobe produced more wins than any other shooting guard in the Association. In sum, Kobe is a really good basketball player (although with a career WP48 – Wins Produced per 48 minutes — of 0.202, he would not be defined as a Super-Star).
What of Pistol Pete?
Abbott’s mention of Pete Maravich led me to wonder — exactly how good a player was the Pistol? Yes, he was a legendary scorer. In college he averaged 44 points per game. Although he was less prolific as a pro, he did finish his career with a per-game average of 24 points.
His teams, though, were never consistent winners. In his first nine seasons Pistol Pete only played for a winning team once, and overall, his teams had a 0.425 winning percentage.
Midway through his tenth season he was waived by the Utah Jazz and a few days later was signed by the Boston Celtics. Boston finished that season with 61 victories. But given that Maravich only played 442 minutes for the Celtics, though, it’s hard to attribute Boston’s success in 1979-80 to Pistol Pete.
Of course, the Kevin Garnett saga in Minnesota demonstrates that even one outstanding player cannot make up for a poor supporting cast. So perhaps Pistol Pete was truly outstanding, but was just cursed with teammates who were less than capable. In fact, this seems to be the conventional wisdom with respect to his career.
So we have two possibilities. The conventional wisdom is that Pistol Pete was a great player but cursed with bad teammates. The alternative to this story is that Pistol Pete, despite his prodigious scoring, was really not an effective player.
To settle this dispute (which is probably not a dispute beyond the confines of this forum), let me begin with my memory of Pistol Pete’s performance in the NBA. Pete Maravich began his NBA career in 1970 and retired ten years later after the 1979-80 season. When he retired I was ten years old, so I never actually saw him play. So much for my memories.
I have seen the highlights, and he certainly looked like a great basketball player. Of course, highlights tend to be about the good things that people do on the field of play. In other words, highlights tend to make everyone look good. What we want to know is how good Maravich was in between the highlights.
Although I never saw him play, some people managed to watch every game he played in the NBA. And these people recorded every point he scored, every shot he missed, every rebound he grabbed, every assist, and every personal foul. Starting with the 1973-74 season people started to note each offensive rebound, defensive rebound, steal, and blocked shot. And in 1977-78, someone noted every turnover he committed. In sum, the people who watched every game Maravich ever played left us with a wealth of information we can use to evaluate his performance.
We can find this data today at Basketball-Reference.com. Or you can look at the following table where Maravich’s career averages are detailed (as well as the performance of Kobe Bryant and an average NBA guard today). As we can see, Pistol Pete was no Kobe. In fact, I think the evidence suggests that Pistol Pete was not even “good”.
Table One: Maravich’s Career Performance
What people remember most about Maravich is his ability to score. He finished his career with 15,948 points, for – as noted — an average of 24.2 points per game.
In The Wages of Wins we observed that scoring totals are often what people focus upon in evaluating players. But it’s shooting efficiency (along with rebounds and turnovers) that matters most when it comes to wins and losses. And when we look at efficiency we see that Pistol Pete misfired quite a bit.
We can see this when we consider how many points he scored per field goal attempt. Of his 15,948 career points, 3,564 came from the free throw line. This means that he scored 12,348 points from his 14,025 field goal attempts. A bit of simple division reveals that Maravich scored 0.88 points per shot from the field (which is exactly the same mark he had in college). An average player from 1973-74 to 1979-80 scored 0.94 points per field goal attempt. In sum, Maravich was below average as a scorer. Yes, he was prolific, but this was because he took a large number of shot attempts.
What about other aspects of Maravich’s performance? Per 48 minutes he averaged 5.4 rebounds, 7.0 assists, and 3.7 personal fouls. Relative to players today (the table looks at players from 1993-94 to 2004-05), his rebounding totals are above average for a point guard and about average for a shooting guard (Maravich probably played a bit at each position). His assist numbers are below average for a point guard, but above average for a shooting guard. And his propensity to commit personal fouls was average for any guard. One should note that were more rebounds to be had in the 1970s, so his above average rebounds could be just a product of his era.
When we turn to steals, blocked shots, and turnovers we have less data to work with. Steals and blocked shots were only kept for the last seven years of his career. His numbers indicate, though, that he was about average with respect to each. As for turnovers, we only have three years of data. And for these three years he appears to quite turnover prone.
If we put the whole picture together we see that Maravich was above average with respect to scoring, but his inefficient shooting tells us that his ability to score did not help his team win. And he was not exceptional with respect to any other aspect of the game. In fact, with respect to turnovers, he was quite poor.
Looking at these numbers, I think it’s hard to conclude that Maravich was actually a very effective NBA player. So it’s not surprising to see that his NBA teams, which were built around him, didn’t often win.
By the way, I think you can make the argument I have made – i.e. Maravich was not a very effective player – without looking at a Wages of Wins metric. Still, you will note the above table does report the career Win Score for Pistol Pete (based on his last seven years as a pro). Per 48 minutes, Maravich’s Win Score was only 3.2. This is quite a bit below average for a guard (and only a third of what Kobe offers), which again tells us that Pistol Pete tended to misfire in between all those wonderful highlights.
An Early Answer
Let me close this post with the following observation: When we look at Pistol Pete we see an inefficient scorer who tends to commit turnovers. The inability of his teams to win is often blamed on his teammates, but it was Maravich’s performance that probably played an important role in the lack of team success we observed. Regular readers of the WoW Journal will note that this story is quite similar to what we have said about “The Answer” – Allen Iverson. Like Maravich, Iverson is a prodigious scorer. Like Maravich, Iverson is turnover prone. Like Maravich, Iverson’s teams have tended to be less successful. And like Maravich, Iverson’s teammates tend to be blamed for the many losses seen on the court. In sum, it looks like Pistol Pete was an Early Answer.
– DJ
The following posts have more on The Answer – Allen Iverson
Creating Shots in Philadelphia
Early Returns on Iverson and Anthony
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
Wins Produced and Win Score are Discussed in the Following Posts
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Wages of Wins Journal 
Will
August 9, 2007
I watched and listened to Maravich exploits on radio some when my team played him in the SEC as a real youngster and then caught a bit of him in the pros as a teen as much as limited national tv back then provided. As a pro his career reminded me a lot of other “one way” high usage offensive perimeter stars of the 70s. But he did his own brand of “magic” before Earvin arrived (and so did some of the 70s offensive stars) and that
was worth something in entertainment value.
Shooting efficiency does matter and I agree with the fairly strong case against him on that in an evaluation on team value.
But unlike the comparison to average pts per shot you cite, his TS% or offensive rating doesnt appear it was as much below league averages in that decade, aided by 7 free throws a game.
On weak teams, risk is considered a wise strategy though to try to buck the odds. Maravich was a showboat and inconsistent but he was also trying to buck the odds and win. It didnt work for him and his team. His case is somewhat like Iverson but he shot a little worse from field, got fewer correcting free throws that scorers rely on and had worse team results. McGrady is another case only mildly better than Maravich.
How much Pistol could have been on efficiency if he had the 3 pointer available for his whole career as another weapon and to open up the drive is a big question for those inclined for historical what ifs. I think he would have benefitted from that quite a bit and his teams might have done better.
Owen
August 9, 2007
Good one. I made a similar comment in that True Hoop thread, to the effect that Pete Maravich had a career TS% of 50%, which wouldn’t come close to being good in the current NBA. I can’t believe it’s changed so much. Walt Frazier wasn’t known for being a great offensive player but his career average was 54.2, and he had several years where he averaged above 56%. You are absolutely correct, not a great basketball player….
Pulp
August 9, 2007
Just from a quick glance, it looks like rebounds are overvalued in the winscore system. I think this is because the actual statistic of either offensive or defensive rebound does not give you much information. For instance, there are many uncontested rebounds. Just a thought.
Michael
August 9, 2007
Does the points per attempt adjust for the
lack of a 3 pt. line up to Maravich’s final
season?
Clev
August 9, 2007
Good article! This type of players actually hurt the team’s chance to win big, rather than help the team. They wish their teammates defend for them and do all the other little things that are necessary for the team to win, so they can save their energy to just shoot the ball to boost their individual stats (or PER). The sad thing is that some media members and many fans pay more attention to who score more after a game (it doesn’t matter that he plays NO defense and often gives up more pts), which promotes this type of selfishness. What I don’t understand is that why some GM/coach think this type of players will lead them to win big. Aren’t they paid to know that the history has clearly demonstrated that this type of players will NOT lead (or help) a team to win a championship???
William
August 10, 2007
Great post. I’m working on a new blog about the Charlotte Bobcats – it will use WP48 as the baseline for all discussion.
I suspect that Raymond Felton and Pistol Pete have a LOT in common.
dberri
August 10, 2007
William,
Looking forward to your entries on the Charlotte Bobcats.
mrparker
August 11, 2007
You guys are making me nervous. If this
blog keeps on being this good, all
of this research is going to become common
knowledge. I am praying that this won’t
happen.
Something like this has already happened
in pro football. David Lewin published
some great work on the connection between
good pro qbs and college career. His premise
was seriously jacked by Gil Brandt and
reported on espn.com as his own work.
Search plagerism and Gil Brandt to find
some of the specific writings on the subject.
I hope this doesnt happen to you. If I were
you I would stop posting anything about
your method online. The evidence of it
being correct is too convincing.
Plus, if people catch on to what you are
preaching then my own system(a little
different, nearly the same results in player
ranking) will become useless to me.
MT
August 13, 2007
Despite being a Pistol fan growing up, I agree with your assessment objectively. Still, I would note that it is hard to compare pre-3-point era with post-3 point era for someone who was basically a shooter. Another point I would add is that Pete’s college era stats were inflated by the fact that he usually played against white players and his father ran the team to showcase Pete’s skills.
Another interesting take on Pete is the fact that by his putting fans in seats both LSU and Atlanta were able to obtain funding for new arenas. Maybe not WoW stuff, but still economic value nonetheless.
I recommend a reading of Pistol a bio of him that came out last year. Very, very good.
TDDG
August 13, 2007
Something hit me as I was reading this piece, and I’m wondering if anyone has looked into it. If a player is on a bad team, isn’t he more likely to take bad shots? Say when he took a shot the point expectency was 0.88, but his teammates was 0.75? Wouldn’t he be maximizing his contribution by taking as many shots as possible?
chris
October 19, 2007
ok just about every “great” guard was paired at one point with a great big man. magic johnson had kareem and kobe had shaq. All the players you’ve mentioned were on if nothing else decent teams, pete maravich never played with another great, and you should also take into account that he blew out his knee his 7th year in the league.
jim
October 26, 2007
So, do you take into account the number of minutes he played per season on all the losing teams and correlate that number to how effective he was? You seem to do this with the Celtics season. Not that I may not agree but it seems you should do this for consistency sake.
Do you take into account the distance from which most of his shots were taken? Does this affect your metric?
What about the fact that he played for an expansion team in New Orleans that basically mortgaged their foreseeable future of draft picks in order to get him so they could turn a profit?
How many years did he play with all-stars or a decent big man and who were they? Take Kareem from Magic, McHale from Bird, Lew from Oscar, Shaq from Kobe and how much did they win? Or even Scottie from Michael. He only had Hudson early in his career.
Do you take into account that his teammates at times admittedly refused to involve him in the game because they were bitter about his record breaking rookie salary?
How does your system reflect Maravich’s knee injury and how it changed his game?
Too many unaccounted for factors to make a statement.
By the way, didn’t the NBA itself say he was one of the 50 best—-EVER? Hmmmmm.
jim
October 26, 2007
Clev,
You can make a claim that all great players are selfish–at least at times. Tell me that Bryant, Jordan, Erving, Magic, Chamberlain, et al couldn’t be considered selfish. Anyone that wins a scoring title or comes in in the top five could be considered selfish.
The bottom line is you need a supporting cast to win championships. Press Maravich tried to recruit african american players at LSU and he was told no. Pete never had a supporting cast from college or the pros and the players he did have were just as selfish as he was. Hudson, Truck Robinson and the other center that skipped to the ABA all complained about Maravich’s notoriety. The Hawks were not going to pony up the money that these guys wanted so they left.
Jerry
October 31, 2007
Yes, nn many ways Pete is like Iverson. However the premise of this article is faulty – you estimate turnovers for seasons where such stats were not recorded. That is far from scientific. Your sample is flawed and thus your results are tainted.
Jerry
October 31, 2007
Anyone who has ever played a pick-up game of basketball realizes how teamates effect your performance. And is why, I believe, that basketball is not a great sport for economic number crunching (as opposed to, say, baseball).
In basketball, there are just way too many variables to establish any kind of MEANINGFUL comparsions. (Free throw shooting is the one exception).
Maravich is a great example. Just look at Pete’s shooting percentages, in his last year, when he signed with Boston. He shot career highs from the floor – almost 50% (more accurate than teammate Larry Bird).
Maybe it’s because the Pistol, for the first time since high school, had to beat just ONE guy.
Just check out Jordan without Pippen, or Kobe without Shaq, to get an idea of what Pete went through.
Bob
February 19, 2009
Fact, When Pistol Pete scored 40 point or more his team won 82% of those games. Michael Jordan? 68%, Allen Iverson? 69%.
Pistol Pete gets the most raw deal of any player in NBA history. Just when the Hawks are doing well he goes to one of the worst teams in history, the expansion Jazz. It wasn’t until a few years later they had ONE good player to go along with Pete, Truck Robinson. The Jazz’ record before Truck arrived when Pete played (he was hurt a bit) 93-92!
The Hawks had Dr. J for a while with Pete and they played 3 exhibition games together, Pete was thrilled to pass the ball, he averaged like 14-15 assists in those games. Dr. J was the only player who could catch Pete’s passes.
In Pistol Pete you are talking about perhaps the greatest passer who ever lived, forget about the scoring. You are also talking about the greatest ball-handler who ever lived.
Remember Jordan early on was a “gunner” not a “winner”. Now imagine when the Bulls were starting to get good Jordan gets shipped to the worst expansion team in the league and blows his knee out 4 years later.
If the Hawks kept Dr. J, we would be talking about NBA champion Pistol Pete who set assist records that would never be broken.
If Pistol Pete played today, he would be a God – Isiah Thomas.
I learned all my tricks from Pete Maravich – Kobe Bryant.
“(Oscar) Robertson was the best guard I ever played against. Jerry West was the best I ever played with. And Pete is the best I’ve ever seen.”–Elgin Baylor
“Today’s game is about spacing, drawing double teams, and shooting off the pass. No one in the history of the game was better at that than Pete. He could do more things with the ball than anyone who ever played, and do them all well.”–Alvin Gentry – Current Coach, Trailblazers
Don Taylor
April 29, 2009
Pete Maravich was responsible to play winning basketball in his era, with his teammates. Not in the future with a 3 point line or with some imaginary teammates he didn’t have. Many people have played efficiently on bad teams before during and after the Pistol’s era. As a youth coach I can say that the celebration of the Ooo and Ahh gunner destroys sound play