PDA

View Full Version : Best Ever for Gonzaga



former1dog
01-17-2017, 06:44 AM
Looking at the records thread and reviewing on the court results, the best ever player for Gonzaga- Matt Santangelo

Discuss.

gonzagafan62
01-17-2017, 07:09 AM
Best ever? We talking since 99 right? I like Danny D
... he won't be up there with records but he's also a transfer


Most important though has to be Ronny Turiaf

zagfan24
01-17-2017, 07:28 AM
Best ever has a lot of interpretations, it seems. Best overall GU Career? Highest peak within a GU career? Best overall career (including pro)? Most important? Most valuable? I suspect all of those could have different answers.

former1dog
01-17-2017, 08:01 AM
Best ever has a lot of interpretations, it seems. Best overall GU Career? Highest peak within a GU career? Best overall career (including pro)? Most important? Most valuable? I suspect all of those could have different answers.

Santangelo had the biggest statistical impact with the best overall results of any player in the history of Gonzaga basketball.

Santangelo, best ever player for Gonzaga.

zagfan24
01-17-2017, 08:21 AM
Santangelo had the biggest statistical impact with the best overall results of any player in the history of Gonzaga basketball.

Santangelo, best ever player for Gonzaga.

Not disagreeing with you, per se. All things considered he may have had the best overall career and certainly has as good of an argument as anybody at least in the past 3 decades. Started nearly every game over 4 years and was certainly a catalyst that help put Gonzaga on the map. I didn't follow Zag basketball closely enough at that time to speak to his defense and other intangible qualities but have no reason to doubt given his incredible athleticism and dedication that he wasn't a great all around player. He's easily on the Mount Rushmore.

As the prior threads about best all time starting 5 can attest to, it's a crowded field when we talk about best ever player. The "old timers" like Vermillion and Burgess, the post-GU career of Stockton, then you throw in Calvary, Dickau, Stepp, Morrison, Turiaf and more into the mix and it really becomes an eye of the beholder debate. Stats are incredibly useful and meaningful (and the team's NCAA performance certainly adds to the tapestry for each play) but don't tell the entire story. Beyond on-court intangibles, who one is playing with and against matter a great deal. If you are looking at body of work as a cumulative thing, the 4-year-starters like Santangelo, Stepp, and Pangos certainly stand out to an extent.

I still believe that, despite his often less-than-stellar defense, Morrison at his peak was the most impactful player for Gonzaga. I think he proved that a GU player could be considered the best in the country and truly get national attention. I understand that's not what you're asking about, but I often think it goes overlooked just how much Ammo's junior season paved the way for future recruiting of high level players.

mgadfly
01-17-2017, 08:38 AM
It was a different time with different expectations. If wins and losses count as a statistic and impact, then just imagine what the Zags community would do if a GU point guard took us to a 15-12 record, 8-6 in conference good for fifth place.

He took us to the Elite 8, but would we be that patient now? Pangos or Harris might be in the running if we are basically giving them credit for staying all four years.

The most important player, as said above, is Morrison. Our program shed itself of the mid-major label and allowed us to attract the attention of guys dreaming of the next level because he showed you could come to GU (get national attention) and get picked high enough to make the big money.

siliconzag
01-17-2017, 08:44 AM
In general I eschew best ever Threads, but it is hard to disagree with Former 1 on this for me personally. I have a great deal of respect for Matt as a person as well. He is affable and humble, despite all of his many accomplishments. He is a great family man as well. He once told me about what it was like to play basketball in Italy, where I currently reside. He said the fans over here are very passionate and once showed up after his team lost throwing insults, eggs, and tomatoes at the team.

Anyway, getting back to Matt. He was a great leader. He had great court vision. He inspired his team mates to excel. He was the glue of the 99 team. He destroyed Stanford for which I will always be grateful. No GU team has yet accomplished what the 99 team did. They were so close to making the FF and a couple of crucial possesions and bad calls near the end of the game worked in U Conn's favor. I once asked Matt if the team knew they would beat Minnesota, he answered quickly, "of course we knew that." And Stanford, "Absolutely" and Florida, "No doubt about it" I smiled and said, that I suspected as much. He then added, "We thought we would beat U Conn too." The twinkle in his eye was unbelievable.

What a great Zag, and thanks F1D for bringing it up. Whether he is the best Zag or not, I can't for sure say, but he is my favorite Zag.

former1dog
01-17-2017, 08:55 AM
In general I eschew best ever Threads, but it is hard to disagree with Former 1 on this for me personally. I have a great deal of respect for Matt as a person as well. He is affable and humble, despite all of his many accomplishments. He is a great family man as well. He once told me about what it was like to play basketball in Italy, where I currently reside. He said the fans over here are very passionate and once showed up after his team lost throwing insults, eggs, and tomatoes at the team.

Anyway, getting back to Matt. He was a great leader. He had great court vision. He inspired his team mates to excel. He was the glue of the 99 team. He destroyed Stanford for which I will always be grateful. No GU team has yet accomplished what the 99 team did. They were so close to making the FF and a couple of crucial possesions and bad calls near the end of the game worked in U Conn's favor. I once asked Matt if the team knew they would beat Minnesota, he answered quickly, "of course we knew that." And Stanford, "Absolutely" and Florida, "No doubt about it" I smiled and said, that I suspected as much. He then added, "We thought we would beat U Conn too." The twinkle in his eye was unbelievable.

What a great Zag, and thanks F1D for bringing it up. Whether he is the best Zag or not, I can't for sure say, but he is my favorite Zag.

:)

krozman
01-17-2017, 10:05 AM
I like matt, but he can't even pronounce the name of the school correctly on radio broadcasts.

gonzagafan62
01-17-2017, 11:10 AM
I like matt, but he can't even pronounce the name of the school correctly on radio broadcasts.

Doesn't he say GonZAYga? They pronounced it the same way on the Mark Few show for a local grocery/deli store too I think.... they eventually had the same store correct the pronounciation

jazzdelmar
01-17-2017, 01:20 PM
DDD. (Drops mic)...

And an update on my all time team: DD, Ammo, KO, the Bonus and NWG.

gonzagafan62
01-17-2017, 01:21 PM
DDD. (Drops mic)...

And an update on my all time team: DD, Ammo, KO, the Bonus and NWG.

David. Never knew that. Now I do

Ezag
01-18-2017, 08:42 AM
Matt also had a 43" standing vertical which is on par with Vince Carter.

ZAG 4 LIFE
01-18-2017, 08:51 AM
John. Stockton.

kitzbuel
01-18-2017, 09:44 AM
NWG is really, really good.

The outcome of this season could set new heights in lots of ways.

former1dog
01-18-2017, 10:26 AM
John. Stockton.

Best point guard to ever play the game. College career versus college career, though, he is inarguably inferior to Matt Santangelo.

23dpg
01-18-2017, 11:24 AM
Best point guard to ever play the game. College career versus college career, though, he is inarguably inferior to Matt Santangelo.


I think it is an argument and I would side with Stockton.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/john-stockton-1.html

Vs

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/matt-santangelo-1.html

seacatfan
01-18-2017, 11:36 AM
I'm pretty sure I saw a few folks throw around best ever at GU talk w/ Sabonis last year, haven't seen his name come up in this thread. NWG has been great, but 17 games into his GU career? It's kinda hard to compare the 2 year guys to the 4 year guys (if NWG stays next year, which isn't a given). I don't even have an answer to the question, there's been a bunch of good players.

23dpg
01-18-2017, 11:44 AM
People forget how good Matt was, I agree. He was an all timer. But people vastly underrate Stockton's college career.

He didn't play as many games or minutes as Matt. That was due to more games scheduled during Matt's regime and the fact that John didn't play much as a freshman. Maybe he wasn't good enough or maybe it was a sign of the times. Freshman usually had to sit and defer to the upper classmen back then. It was only a decade before Stockton came to GU that freshmen were even allowed to play.

John's senior year he was POY for the WCC. 21 points, 7 assists and 4 steals a game! For his career he shot 56% vs 40% for Matt. If you pick Matt, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just disagree. But I do think you're wrong if you don't even think it's debatable.

kitzbuel
01-18-2017, 12:07 PM
I'm pretty sure I saw a few folks throw around best ever at GU talk w/ Sabonis last year, haven't seen his name come up in this thread. NWG has been great, but 17 games into his GU career? It's kinda hard to compare the 2 year guys to the 4 year guys (if NWG stays next year, which isn't a given). I don't even have an answer to the question, there's been a bunch of good players.

If Dan Dickau is in the discussion, NWG has to be on the radar at least.

LongIslandZagFan
01-18-2017, 12:40 PM
I'm going to toss another name into the mix here. Richie Frahm... he played behind another player his frosh year, beyond that his numbers were right up there with Santangelo.


...slowly sneaks away to appreciate the chaos he has caused from a distance.

seacatfan
01-18-2017, 12:55 PM
If Dan Dickau is in the discussion, NWG has to be on the radar at least.

I'm just saying 17 games isn't a very big sample size, especially for historical context.

MDABE80
01-18-2017, 12:56 PM
This 'll come up sometime. The present team looks to be the most talented team since the AMMO , JP years ( oh how I loved JP!!...too bad he couldn't jump much) . The present group is likely more talented as a team.
The one thing Matt's 99 team had was HEART. Those guys were just tough.
If the present team develops that (toughness), FF awaits.
Outside of Stockton though, I do think Santangelo was the all around best we've had. I still don't know why he never made to the NBA.

If Nigel continues his tear though, he won't be far behind. He's really a superior player and kid. How amazing is next year's team if they all stay!!!(just threw that in)

Zagger
01-18-2017, 02:12 PM
Boy, I sure couldn't pick a Best Ever for Gonzaga. For one I haven't been a fan for all that long and two, there are a decent number of notable guys. More than one Zag sticks out above others and there's a good chance there are more than 2-3 on the team right now who we'll be mentioning in the future - especially if they extend their stay at GU. We might better try and pick a player per season or a group of years. Sort of a timeline thing with notable players. Trying to single out one or just a few makes my head swim!

bartruff1
01-18-2017, 02:19 PM
OMG....who is going to tell the University that 12 and 44 will have to come down....

cggonzaga
01-18-2017, 06:29 PM
We aren't seriously having this conversation without talking about Blake Stepp are we? If NWG is in the conversation then the original NWG needs to be in it.

tyra
01-18-2017, 07:24 PM
Judge Burgess STILL holds the scoring record. He played theee years. There was no three point line. Jerry Vermillion's rebounding was insane. Until last year, he had the top four seasons of all time.

gonzagafan62
01-18-2017, 07:34 PM
Judge Burgess STILL holds the scoring record. He played theee years. There was no three point line. Jerry Vermillion's rebounding was insane. Until last year, he had the top four seasons of all time.

Burgess could nail them from 30 feet out with no problem too. Hell of a player .... not sure who showed me but someone showed me a newspaper column with picture from when he played and his signature 30 foot shot was on there. Really cool

kitzbuel
01-18-2017, 09:10 PM
I'm just saying 17 games isn't a very big sample size, especially for historical context.

Agreed, but if this team's potential pans out and his play stays at the current level, he is in the discussion.

Zagceo
01-18-2017, 09:36 PM
As a student and broadcast student I watched/worked a lot of JS games....big fan.....but I ask

Could JS get playing time on today's roster?

tyra
01-18-2017, 10:07 PM
Gosh Zagceo, lots of folks consider John Stockton the greatest point guard in NBA history. Yes, serious folks. All time assist leader -- something like 4000+ ahead of the next nearest guy (named Magic Johnson as I recall) and the all time steal leader. Yes, John Stockton could play on this team.

ZAG 4 LIFE
01-18-2017, 10:30 PM
Stocks would be the best player on this current team.

jazzdelmar
01-19-2017, 03:38 AM
Stocks would be the best player on this current team.

......and now.

krii
01-19-2017, 07:42 AM
I loved the idea of separating different categories in here:

1. Best overall GU Career:

2. Highest peak within a GU career (and by peak I mean a single season):

3. Best overall career (including pro):

4. Most important for Gonzaga programme:

5. Most valuable for Gonzaga programme:


Now:

1. Best overall GU career in terms of Gonzaga's success and all 'measurable' stats, advanced stats, eye-test, game records etc. It might be Karnowski (who would likely finish up as the winningness player in the history of Gonzaga), Stockton, Santangelo but also Pangos or Morrison.
2. Highest peak in a single season which would make Sabonis' last year run a great option for such a category
3. Best overall career is pretty easy (and I believe JStockton is lock for winning this category but I'd love to hear reasoning for other players as well)
4. Most important in terms of the programme. It could be Morrison and his impact on Gonzaga status as a school, it could Stockton as the very symbol of Gonzaga university and its alumnis but it might be any Santangelo for his great play in 1990s. In other words it doesn't have to be stat-related peak but rather a person that had the greatest impact on Gonzaga's success as a school.
5. Most valuable means the person who had the most impactful career in Gonzaga history, sport-wise. The difference between 4th and 5th category is that in 4th it could be any player that had a great impact on the programme and the school's history, whilst the 5th is focused on sport-wise impact of the player (ie. Olynyk and 'Olynyk clinic' for transfers).

What do you guys think? :)

SwainZag
01-19-2017, 11:16 AM
I am a huge Blake fan, but in tournament games, he was abysmal to say the least.

2/5 against Virginia. 1/4 on 3's
1/4 against Indiana St. 0/2 on 3's
3/11 against Michigan St. 2/10 on 3's
2/8 against Cincinnati. 1/4 on 3's
1/13 against Wyoming. 0/5 on 3's
9/24 against Arizona. 5/14 on 3's (Also missed the game winner, but I won't hold that against him)
2/11 against Valpo. 1/9 on 3's.
3/18 against Nevada. 1/12 on 3's.

He had a great Zags career, but in my book to be a legend and considered best ever, you gotta step up in big games. 23/94 (.244) and 11/59 (.186) for a career .417 and .381 shooter........I gotta hold it against him a little.

Hooray4Daye&Gray
01-19-2017, 12:11 PM
I'm glad this thread was created, because until the question was asked, I always assumed 90%+ would answer Adam Morrison without hesitation.

MDABE80
01-19-2017, 12:38 PM
Adam shines but he's one of many. The pearl of the group is obviously someone we could see play. Vermillion was before my time but the data was spectacular and likely never seen again. The pearl of the group is just so obviously John Stockton . BUT lots of ways to define "best ever". At what? Most valuable to his team? Best stats? Highest drafted?... it's not quite clear.
All around though, Stocks is the one. I'd even put Matt Santangelo after him and ahead of Adam.
Terms must be defined in this type of issue.

bartruff1
01-19-2017, 12:44 PM
I do not know who or how the players are selected to have their numbers retired, but I assume that the Athletic Department, including Few, are involved.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, as am I, and it is my opinion that they knew what they were doing when they retired #44 and # 12. I would assume they are the best.

I am certainly no expert but I have seen all the teams and players since Gonzaga became a D1 program in 1958 and there is no doubt in my mind that Frank Burgess was the best college player ever at Gonzaga. No one else is even close.

229SintoZag
01-19-2017, 09:15 PM
I do not know who or how the players are selected to have their numbers retired, but I assume that the Athletic Department, including Few, are involved.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, as am I, and it is my opinion that they knew what they were doing when they retired #44 and # 12. I would assume they are the best.

I am certainly no expert but I have seen all the teams and players since Gonzaga became a D1 program in 1958 and there is no doubt in my mind that Frank Burgess was the best college player ever at Gonzaga. No one else is even close.

Yep. Spot on Bart. If we are talking only about what a player did while at GU during his career, it's Burgess and it really is not close. It's too bad there is no film of him while he played at GU. We all know what Ammo did in just 3 years and with a 3 point line and a shot clock. Some in this thread have even voted Ammo as best ever.

Yet Burgess eclipses Ammo in almost every respect and he played only 3 seasons as well.

maynard g krebs
01-19-2017, 09:25 PM
On Burgess/Adam, it was a lot easier for a scorer to put up big numbers in Burgess' day. Maravich averaged 44 for his college career. Johnny Neumann (sp?) averaged 38 or 39 at least one year at Mississippi. Dantley about 35 at Notre Dame. The latter two aren't household names. If the refs called fouls today as they did then, every player would be fouled out in the first 5 minutes of every game.

Jr year Adam would have averaged 35-40 in the 60's w/o any 3 pt line. Everybody who was watching back then knows this.

Zagceo
01-19-2017, 09:39 PM
"Best ever for Gonzaga"............I could make a strong argument for the German....Calvery

maynard g krebs
01-20-2017, 11:22 AM
"Best ever for Gonzaga"............I could make a strong argument for the German....Calvery

Agree. Guards are a dime a dozen. Big men are hard to come by for mid majors, as GU was then. Seven tourney wins over 3 years w/ Casey, 2 of them directly due to his heroics. Including a carryover from one set of guards to the next. He was the leader in 2001. He might be the biggest key to this whole thing getting traction.

229SintoZag
01-20-2017, 08:04 PM
On Burgess/Adam, it was a lot easier for a scorer to put up big numbers in Burgess' day. Maravich averaged 44 for his college career. Johnny Neumann (sp?) averaged 38 or 39 at least one year at Mississippi. Dantley about 35 at Notre Dame. The latter two aren't household names. If the refs called fouls today as they did then, every player would be fouled out in the first 5 minutes of every game.

Jr year Adam would have averaged 35-40 in the 60's w/o any 3 pt line. Everybody who was watching back then knows this.

This is a common misperception. Hoops were ten feet back then; the court was the same size. Our atmosphere had the same relative percentage of oxygen. Balls were inflated to the same pressure.

I am not sure I follow what your thesis is exactly, but it appears to be that it was easier for Burgess to score in 1961 than it was for Morrison to score in 2006. Apparently because of officiating being tougher back then. And despite the fact that Burgess could not make a 3 point shot because there was no option to do that, and he had many fewer possessions because of the lack of a shot clock.

Here is the problem: the historical numbers of scoring over the decades don't appear to support your thesis. In fact, scoring went up over time, not down, until the past 10 years when scoring declined again to where it was in the 1950s. In fact, many of the national scoring leaders in the 40s-60s had scoring averages that were less than both Ammo and Burgess.

Frank Burgess suffers from a chronological bias where today's fans think that today's game and players are better than the old school guys. But it just ain't so. And there is certainly nothing in the numbers to support your thesis. Maravich did not score more points than anyone in NCAA history (in only 3 seasons) because the refs called tighter games. He scored more points than anyone in NCAA history and led Division 1 in all 3 of his years playing for LSU because he was one of the best basketball players in college of all time. Nobody else from any era has averaged 44 points a game for 3 seasons in NCAA division 1 history. Maravich was simply amazing and is in a league of his own. To claim the game was easy in the 60s because Maravich did what he did is nuts. If it was so easy why didn't everyone playing in the 60s average 44 points a game for their career?

Frank Burgess is the best to ever don a Zags jersey. Stockton and others did more as pros but if we are talking best while on the floor for Gonzaga, it is Burgess, followed closely by Ammo, then everyone else.

maynard g krebs
01-20-2017, 10:10 PM
This is a common misperception. Hoops were ten feet back then; the court was the same size. Our atmosphere had the same relative percentage of oxygen. Balls were inflated to the same pressure.

I am not sure I follow what your thesis is exactly, but it appears to be that it was easier for Burgess to score in 1961 than it was for Morrison to score in 2006. Apparently because of officiating being tougher back then. And despite the fact that Burgess could not make a 3 point shot because there was no option to do that, and he had many fewer possessions because of the lack of a shot clock.

Here is the problem: the historical numbers of scoring over the decades don't appear to support your thesis. In fact, scoring went up over time, not down, until the past 10 years when scoring declined again to where it was in the 1950s. In fact, many of the national scoring leaders in the 40s-60s had scoring averages that were less than both Ammo and Burgess.

Frank Burgess suffers from a chronological bias where today's fans think that today's game and players are better than the old school guys. But it just ain't so. And there is certainly nothing in the numbers to support your thesis. Maravich did not score more points than anyone in NCAA history (in only 3 seasons) because the refs called tighter games. He scored more points than anyone in NCAA history and led Division 1 in all 3 of his years playing for LSU because he was one of the best basketball players in college of all time. Nobody else from any era has averaged 44 points a game for 3 seasons in NCAA division 1 history. Maravich was simply amazing and is in a league of his own. To claim the game was easy in the 60s because Maravich did what he did is nuts. If it was so easy why didn't everyone playing in the 60s average 44 points a game for their career?

Frank Burgess is the best to ever don a Zags jersey. Stockton and others did more as pros but if we are talking best while on the floor for Gonzaga, it is Burgess, followed closely by Ammo, then everyone else.

What a bunch of arrogant gibberish in that first paragraph. Young fellow (harumph,LOL) I have been playing basketball and folllowing the college game since 1963. Hand checking and all the current bumping and jostling in the post didn't start till the 80's. Before then it was a non contact sport.

Ron Goodman, a running back on Notre Dame's national champ football team in 1973 who played rec league ball with retired Sonics like Freddie Brown years ago and reffed and coached bb on the hs and club level around here for many years, once told me at our gym "football used to be a contact sport and basketball a non contact sport; now football's a collision sport and basketball's a contact sport".

Pete Newell (heard of him?) talked of the rule of "daylight in the post" in his coaching days. Since I'll assume from your post that you don't know what that means, it means that whoever established their post position first, defensive or offensive player, the other player had to leave space between himself and the opponent; bumping the other player like today wasn't allowed. This from a Withers feature when he had a lunch interview with Newell, Wooden and Harshman. The game is VASTLY different; you weren't around,so you just don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

Third paragraph: Here are the numbers that "support my thesis": from the 1957-8 season through 1977-8, Burgess' 32.4 is the third lowest leading season average. (That's in 21 seasons, since you appear to need some remedial help with the math). In that span, the leading scorer averaged better than 35 a game 12 times. You don't get to muddy the waters here with talk about total team scoring; this is about scoring leaders. There's also more depth/balance today.

The last time anyone averaged 30 was 20 years ago, Charles Jones of Long Island at 30.1. Only he and Glenn Robinson at 30.3 have averaged 30 in the last 25 years.

In the last 21 seasons, Adam's era, his 28.1 has been exceeded 6 times and tied a couple more. Without doing the exact math, the average top scorer was around 26-27. In the judge's era, his 32.4 was exceeded 18 years out of 21. The average leading scorer was probably around 36, give or take.

So yes, all the comparative data says Adam would have averaged around 36-38 a game in the Burgess era.

For clarity, I never saw Burgess and made no statement about who was the better player. My only point, and frankly I'm in a far better position to know than you are, is about how much Adam would have scored in that era.

If you want to go all snarky, it's helpful to have a clue, or it'll get you the same in return, with ACTUAL facts to make you look foolish. ( I'd prefer a polite discussion, but apparently that's not your style.) Remember that next time. Can we safely say "you've been served"?

ETA as to "chronological bias", don't make false assumptions. I much prefer the way the game was played by my generation, and think players today are more athletic due to weights/supplements etc but have a much weaker understanding of how to play the game due to the devolution of the NBA. As Lionel Hollins once put it, "players today don't have the skills we had."

229SintoZag
01-20-2017, 11:31 PM
What a bunch of arrogant gibberish in that first paragraph. Young fellow (harumph,LOL) I have been playing basketball and folllowing the college game since 1963. Hand checking and all the current bumping and jostling in the post didn't start till the 80's. Before then it was a non contact sport.

Ron Goodman, a running back on Notre Dame's national champ football team in 1973 who played rec league ball with retired Sonics like Freddie Brown years ago and reffed and coached bb on the hs and club level around here for many years, once told me at our gym "football used to be a contact sport and basketball a non contact sport; now football's a collision sport and basketball's a contact sport".

Pete Newell (heard of him?) talked of the rule of "daylight in the post" in his coaching days. Since I'll assume from your post that you don't know what that means, it means that whoever established their post position first, defensive or offensive player, the other player had to leave space between himself and the opponent; bumping the other player like today wasn't allowed. This from a Withers feature when he had a lunch interview with Newell, Wooden and Harshman. The game is VASTLY different; you weren't around,so you just don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

Third paragraph: Here are the numbers that "support my thesis": from the 1957-8 season through 1977-8, Burgess' 32.4 is the third lowest leading season average. (That's in 21 seasons, since you appear to need some remedial help with the math). In that span, the leading scorer averaged better than 35 a game 12 times. You don't get to muddy the waters here with talk about total team scoring; this is about scoring leaders. There's also more depth/balance today.

The last time anyone averaged 30 was 20 years ago, Charles Jones of Long Island at 30.1. Only he and Glenn Robinson at 30.3 have averaged 30 in the last 25 years.

In the last 21 seasons, Adam's era, his 28.1 has been exceeded 6 times and tied a couple more. Without doing the exact math, the average top scorer was around 26-27. In the judge's era, his 32.4 was exceeded 18 years out of 21. The average leading scorer was probably around 36, give or take.

So yes, all the comparative data says Adam would have averaged around 36-38 a game in the Burgess era.

For clarity, I never saw Burgess and made no statement about who was the better player. My only point, and frankly I'm in a far better position to know than you are, is about how much Adam would have scored in that era.

If you want to go all snarky, it's helpful to have a clue, or it'll get you the same in return, with ACTUAL facts to make you look foolish. ( I'd prefer a polite discussion, but apparently that's not your style.) Remember that next time. Can we safely say "you've been served"?

ETA as to "chronological bias", don't make false assumptions. I much prefer the way the game was played by my generation, and think players today are more athletic due to weights/supplements etc but have a much weaker understanding of how to play the game due to the devolution of the NBA. As Lionel Hollins once put it, "players today don't have the skills we had."

Ok, so you never saw Burgess but you just know Ammo was better because you know who Pete Newell is (so do I and so does everyone who is a college hoop fan by the way) and you've spoken to a Norte Dame football guy while playing rat ball at your local gym. Yep, you've reall "served" me! How will I ever recover?

Here's a bit of logic 101 for you: that Burgess had the third lowest leading scoring average from a 21 year span says nothing to support your original claim that it was "easier" to score in the 1960s than it is today.

And your original statement was that it was indeed easier to score back then because refs called games tighter. If that is true, it would apply to all players on the floor of all teams, not just to the national scoring leaders like Burgess and Ammo. So the fact that scoring went up and not down in the aggregate is concrete evidence that your thesis is false. Tell me why m wrong.

And the discussion about "daylight in the post" is interesting but odd and irrelevant since neither Burgess nor Adam (nor Maravich for that matter) were post players who scored by posting up.

I'm tired of Burgess being disrespected on these boards and not getting his due.

Interesting that you have no response to my accurate points about Maravich. What's the mater--cat got your tongue?

Zagceo
01-21-2017, 12:51 AM
Agree. Guards are a dime a dozen. Big men are hard to come by for mid majors, as GU was then. Seven tourney wins over 3 years w/ Casey, 2 of them directly due to his heroics. Including a carryover from one set of guards to the next. He was the leader in 2001. He might be the biggest key to this whole thing getting traction.

Exactly and therefore "best ever for Gonzaga"

maynard g krebs
01-21-2017, 10:24 AM
Ok, so you never saw Burgess but you just know Ammo was better because you know who Pete Newell is (so do I and so does everyone who is a college hoop fan by the way) and you've spoken to a Norte Dame football guy while playing rat ball at your local gym. Yep, you've reall "served" me! How will I ever recover?

Here's a bit of logic 101 for you: that Burgess had the third lowest leading scoring average from a 21 year span says nothing to support your original claim that it was "easier" to score in the 1960s than it is today.

And your original statement was that it was indeed easier to score back then because refs called games tighter. If that is true, it would apply to all players on the floor of all teams, not just to the national scoring leaders like Burgess and Ammo. So the fact that scoring went up and not down in the aggregate is concrete evidence that your thesis is false. Tell me why m wrong.

And the discussion about "daylight in the post" is interesting but odd and irrelevant since neither Burgess nor Adam (nor Maravich for that matter) were post players who scored by posting up.

I'm tired of Burgess being disrespected on these boards and not getting his due.

Interesting that you have no response to my accurate points about Maravich. What's the mater--cat got your tongue?

Not at all. I was around to see Pete play, quite a bit both at LSU and in the pros. His 44 a game was a point and a half better than Frank Selvy's 42.5 in 1953-4, and 4+ better than 2nd team AA Johnny Neumann in 71. Five or 6 more than Freeman Williams and Billy McGill, and 7+ more than the great Howie Komives. Just for context. In today's game, with bigger, stronger, faster (if generally not as skilled in the team offensive game) players and more advanced defensive tactics, I'd project Maravich to average low to mid 30's.
Here's some data:

Averages of season scoring leaders, rounded to nearest whole number, 1957-8 to 1977-8:

35
33
34
32.4 Burgess
39
30
37
37
33
30
44
44
45
40
36
34
33
33
37
36

Average around 36; 35 or a shade below if you want to throw out Pete as an outlier.

Now we'll go 95-96 thru '16:
27
30
29
25
25
29
29
27
26
28.1 Adam
28.1
28
28.6 Curry
26
28.9 Jimmer
26
25
27
23
27

Average around 27, give or take a cpl tenths, maybe.

About a 9 ppg difference over 2+ decades. Either it was a lot easier for stars to score big back then, or the star players have gotten a hell of a lot worse at scoring, including Jimmer, Curry, and Adam. And having seen hundreds of games in both eras, it's obvious to me it's the former.

So over a 21 year period, Burgess had the 19th best average, 3-4 ppg below the average leader for his era. Over the last 21 years, Adam was tied for the 7th best average, about a point per game above the average leader.

Somewhat subjective, as you can't totally objectively compare eras; too many variables. But as I said in the beginning, I was there and saw the players. That simply puts me in a better position to make an observation. I remember your posts fawning over the judge; hardly puts you in a position to be objective, does it?

I'm pretty confident Adam would have scored like guys like Howie Komives or Freeman Williams back in the day. It's a different game now, and the numbers I presented prove it beyond debate. The only thing you can argue is why, and that's not relevant to the numbers. You can only compare players to what they do against their peers. That says Adam 36-38 a game conservatively back then, and the judge around 26 or so in the modern game. Math as well as logic.

Done here. Got any more nonsense?

ETA- I just mentioned the daylight in the post thing as an example of how much more physical the game is now; it applies on the perimeter as well, and to drivers.

As to the issue of aggregate scoring v star scoring, that gets conjectural, but I'd say there wasn't the depth of talent, so stars were more the focus of the offense, and that maybe there wasn't as much or as good help defense. And I didn't say it was entirely because the refs called it tighter; that was one factor of several. But all that is really an attempt to distract on your part; this started because I pointed out that scoring leaders scored a lot more in those days, and I believe Adam would have followed that trend. So would Curry, Jimmer, et al. That's all that's relevant; the rest is just a lame attempt to distract from what I said, because it's objectively true, as the data proves beyond REASONABLE doubt.

Hell, Curry might have averaged 50 in those days. He's quicker than Pete was, and a better shooter.

One more thing, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Adam was better than Burgess; I went out of my way to reiterate that I didn't see him and and was not comparing them. Boggles the mind that you're an attorney with that kind of reading comprehension. My ONLY statement was that Adam would have scored more back in the day. Go back and reread. I'll gladly accept your apology.