Comparing Clark and Maravich is really apples to oranges. Both of them are outstanding for various reasons. It really is like the argument of the greatest HR hitter in MLB history. Many people will say Babe Ruth because of the sheer dominance he had over everyone else even though Bonds has the most in the final tally.
Arguments are over shots per game with Clark and Maravich. Yes he took many more and each one was worth two points. An LSU official went back over the shot charts that they had kept for Pete’s games and awarded that extra point for what would have been a 3 in today’s game. Pete would have averaged 57 a game based on the data! While the charts may have not been precise, one could safely say he would have been around 52-53 PPG. The discrepancy in FGA pretty much disappears right there if he is averaging 24-25 points per game more than her. Wow. Also, remember that the women play with a smaller ball. How many baskets did Pete lose due this fact that Clark had an extra 2 inches of space to utilize? It also would make his shooting percentages lower.
It is not my intention to bring Clark’s achievements down. What I mean to point out is how incredible Maravich was. LSU was not a good team when he arrived. Pete made them respectable. It is a shame they didn’t have a 64-68 team tourney field back when he played. So many great players never got to showcase their talents to the country.
Well, Bonds was using designer PEDs, while Babe Ruth was using hot dogs and beer.
And there were less teams, so Bonds got to go against worse pitchers.