If your kid had those skills, you'd probably run your team's offense thru him as well.
Should Clark's record have an *?
- Thread starter stickman80
- Start date
If your kid had those skills, you'd probably run your team's offense thru him as well.
Dale Brown is lying. You can watch hours of PP highlights and his game is drive and dish, drive and get fouled, drive and assist and drive and turn it over. He never attempted that many long range shots. Likely discouraged by coaches since their value was the same as a lay up. His NBA 5 assist to 4 turnovers/game is horrible.
His scoring average dropped over 20 points per game. 20 points!!!
Yep……h had much better caliber of teammates in the NBA than he had at LS U….his “responsibilities” lessened as a result…..plus the longer season and you know he got the shit knocked out of him every game….he still passed and distributed the ball at a high rate of efficiency….Teddy Baseball only hit .400 once in his career…..you think his hitting went south the last 10 years of his career where pitchers no longer feared him?
You're likely built for pickleball but just don't know it.....yet. DM me next week...
No he didn't. He averaged 5 assist to 4 turnovers per game. Fran would even have benched Conner with that ratio...
I'm just throwing this out there to help muddy the waters.
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961 when the AL expanded from a 154 game season to a 162 game season. Consequently, they put an asterisk next to his 61 HRs that season as the record he broke, Babe Ruth's 60 HR season occurred in a 154 games. However, Maris actually hit his 61 home runs in a 152 game span, as he did not hit a HR in the first 10 games of the season. So, he actually hit 61 HRs in 152 games, whereas Ruth's previous record 60 was hit in a 154 games.
To add to the confusion, 2 of Ruth's HRs would have been ground rule doubles as they bounced over the fence, which at the time he played, counted as a HR. So, by the same metrics Maris's HR record would have beaten Ruth by a 61-58 score.
Make of that whatever you will.
Carry on.
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961 when the AL expanded from a 154 game season to a 162 game season. Consequently, they put an asterisk next to his 61 HRs that season as the record he broke, Babe Ruth's 60 HR season occurred in a 154 games. However, Maris actually hit his 61 home runs in a 152 game span, as he did not hit a HR in the first 10 games of the season. So, he actually hit 61 HRs in 152 games, whereas Ruth's previous record 60 was hit in a 154 games.
To add to the confusion, 2 of Ruth's HRs would have been ground rule doubles as they bounced over the fence, which at the time he played, counted as a HR. So, by the same metrics Maris's HR record would have beaten Ruth by a 61-58 score.
Make of that whatever you will.
Carry on.
The nuance about crediting Maris for hitting 61 in 152 because he didn’t homer in his first 10 games is a weird one. Babe Ruth didn’t HR in his first 3 games that year, either.I'm just throwing this out there to help muddy the waters.
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961 when the AL expanded from a 154 game season to a 162 game season. Consequently, they put an asterisk next to his 61 HRs that season as the record he broke, Babe Ruth's 60 HR season occurred in a 154 games. However, Maris actually hit his 61 home runs in a 152 game span, as he did not hit a HR in the first 10 games of the season. So, he actually hit 61 HRs in 152 games, whereas Ruth's previous record 60 was hit in a 154 games.
To add to the confusion, 2 of Ruth's HRs would have been ground rule doubles as they bounced over the fence, which at the time he played, counted as a HR. So, by the same metrics Maris's HR record would have beaten Ruth by a 61-58 score.
Make of that whatever you will.
Carry on.
With all of this stuff, it always seems like people are laser focused on defending one side vs the other. This is “greater” than that. The game in 1961 was much different than in 1927. Different parks, different weather, the league as integrated(ish) in 1961. Ruth played without lights and generally had dirtier baseballs plus the splitter. They’re just different, so you go with the total number. Now the record is owned by a guy who juiced.
I don’t like the asterisk for Maris either. I think an asterisk should only come into play if there are circumstances that would likely prevent the record from ever being broken or if the record was largely due to fundamental changes in the game. For instance, if Caitlin hadn’t broken the records this year and then came back for a 5th full season and blew way past them, that might warrant one, as it’s unlikely anyone else would get 5 full seasons. Still inherently don’t like the asterisk, but there can be reasons for them. This isn’t one of those cases.
For your first question, why does it matter what he knew? What matters is that the three point line he used to award three pointers to Pete is different than the line Clark is judged by. And how could he really accurately do that in any event, given the tech involved in the late 60s and early 70s?
I’m not sure what to make of your second question. He didn’t play his freshman year. There are no stats. Are you suggesting we should extrapolate the three years and credit him with a fourth, and thus another 1,000 shot attempts to give him 1,500 more than Clark rather 500 more?
Last edited:
You don't need a vagina to play women's sports. You only have to appropriate womanhood.
She also has well over 1,000 assists. She is so complete as a player.
No, what I am saying is Pete's total comes from three years and not four. That is a huge difference.
Which makes his shooting volume over those three years all the more bonkers.
Is her mom the coach encouraging her to shoot 40 times per game? She leads the country in assists per game.
Wow! You are jumping all over the place. I am not in any way trying to discount Clark's achievements as you are Maravich's.
I could be VERY wrong on this... and I'm certain Pete had a fair amount of natural athleticism, but in 2024 I am willing to bet the training, weightlifting, nutrition, etc all the off the court stuff that affects the game are MUCH better now. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, jump higher, etc than 50 years ago. They really play two different games from two different eras.
The one counterpoint to Maravich only playing 3 years (which is true) is that in those 3 years he took more shots than Clark did in 4 (which is also true).
Essentially, Pete is a really interesting and high quality apple and Caitlin is a really interesting and high quality orange.
Yes, good analogy. The shot volume of Pete is not intrinsically negative, it is simply a response to "Oh yeah, Pete did it in 3 years and it took Caitlin 4" and "Pete didn't have a three point line to boost his numbers".
Yep. His dad rode that horse all the way to a fourth place finish in the NIT.
They are good at making schlock movies. Well played.Just throwing into this thread for the hell of it....
Similar threads
