Hypothetical Bias & Lewis or Tatum & Brown for 10+ years?

[Roy H.]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

While I get the logic of your post, it doesn’t always hold.

Look at Shaquille O’Neal. He was one of the most dominant centers in the NBA has seen. However, in college he played three years and never finished better than third in a week SEC conference, nor did he ever make it out of the second round in the NCAA tournament.  Or Charles Barkey:  he played three years and his team qualified for the NCAA tournament once, where he lost.

[Moranis]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

While I get the logic of your post, it doesn’t always hold.

Look at Shaquille O’Neal. He was one of the most dominant centers in the NBA has seen. However, in college he played three years and never finished better than third in a week SEC conference, nor did he ever make it out of the second round in the NCAA tournament.  Or Charles Barkey:  he played three years and his team qualified for the NCAA tournament once, where he lost.

Shaq's teams were 23-9, 20-10, and 21-10 and he put up monster stats (at least his 2nd and 3rd years).  I'll give you Barkley though.  He didn't put up the stats and his team wasn't very good (Auburn actually got better after he left).  And there have been some more recent players, but given that most of them are 1 and done it is much harder to get a real read on them.  And it certainly doesn't work the other way i.e. a guy who puts up monster stats in college may or may not be a good pro (Adam Morrison is a very recent example of that).  But by and large the guys that are the MVP type NBA players either put up monster stats in college, lead a team to a lot of wins and success, or and most commonly do both.

[Surferdad]

Voted Bias/Lewis simply because Reggie is my favorite Celtics player ever.

This is hard to say because we had no idea what Bias would have become, if the hype was true he was slated to be the next great player but more often then not that falls through. Reggie obviously showed he was developing into being a perennial all star, leader of the C's, like Tatum.. so i guess it's a matter of if you think Bias would have surpassed Jaylen.

Yes, exactly my rationale, and I do believe Bias would have been better than Jaylen, so the choice was pretty easy.

[Moranis]

Voted Bias/Lewis simply because Reggie is my favorite Celtics player ever.

This is hard to say because we had no idea what Bias would have become, if the hype was true he was slated to be the next great player but more often then not that falls through. Reggie obviously showed he was developing into being a perennial all star, leader of the C's, like Tatum.. so i guess it's a matter of if you think Bias would have surpassed Jaylen.

Yes, exactly my rationale, and I do believe Bias would have been better than Jaylen, so the choice was pretty easy.

Do you think Brown will be better than Lewis though?  I mean the description of Lewis pretty easily fits Brown who was the best player on a team that made the ECF (or at least the #1 scoring option if you want to call Horford the best player), who this year bumped up to a 20/6.5/2 player on pretty solid scoring efficiency all while playing excellent defense of multiple positions. 

Lewis was obviously a very good player and the #1 scoring option, but he also always had Parish and McHale on his teams (and Bird for all but the last one).  Maybe he would become a 25 ppg type player, but he hadn't been that 6 years into his career.  He was a mediocre rebounder and an ok passer/distributor.  He played solid, but not elite defense. 

As I've said in this thread, I believe you could quite easily say that Brown last year in his 4th year had a better season than any season in Lewis' brief 6 season career and I only expect Brown to get better while I think Lewis had pretty well plateaued (his 5th and 6th seasons are very similar if not actually some regression).  Brown is also a much better defender than Lewis ever was.   

[Silas]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

[Moranis]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

[Silas]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

You're right. However, I've always thought Bias would have been great in the NBA because he had an amazing jump shot. 

[Roy H.]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

[Moranis]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year? And his senior year he did have a future NBAer on his team (a guy that played 683 games in the league albeit he was a freshman in Massenburg).  That is why I said they have huge numbers or lead a team to a lot of success (or both).  His numbers were good, but they weren't elite.  They weren't elite pretty much any season, even when he was playing with guys older than him that would play in the league i.e. Coleman and Branch for his first 2 years and Branch only for his 3rd year.  Every single year Bias was at Maryland he had at least 1 other player that would play in the NBA.  They were role players, but they were still NBA guys.  He also had an excellent coach in Lefty Driesell. 

It is all opinion since he let his demons take over and kill him, but you have to use what you can see and in that I don't think Bias was destined to be a MVP caliber player.  Just my opinion, but I just don't see it from what I can see of his time at Maryland.

[Roy H.]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year? And his senior year he did have a future NBAer on his team (a guy that played 683 games in the league albeit he was a freshman in Massenburg).  That is why I said they have huge numbers or lead a team to a lot of success (or both).  His numbers were good, but they weren't elite.  They weren't elite pretty much any season, even when he was playing with guys older than him that would play in the league i.e. Coleman and Branch for his first 2 years and Branch only for his 3rd year.  Every single year Bias was at Maryland he had at least 1 other player that would play in the NBA.  They were role players, but they were still NBA guys.  He also had an excellent coach in Lefty Driesell. 

It is all opinion since he let his demons take over and kill him, but you have to use what you can see and in that I don't think Bias was destined to be a MVP caliber player.  Just my opinion, but I just don't see it from what I can see of his time at Maryland.

Is 23 / 7 on 54% shooting really non-elite?  He had equal or better scoring numbers than Walter Berry and Johnny Dawkins, the two POY winners that season.

[Moranis]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year? And his senior year he did have a future NBAer on his team (a guy that played 683 games in the league albeit he was a freshman in Massenburg).  That is why I said they have huge numbers or lead a team to a lot of success (or both).  His numbers were good, but they weren't elite.  They weren't elite pretty much any season, even when he was playing with guys older than him that would play in the league i.e. Coleman and Branch for his first 2 years and Branch only for his 3rd year.  Every single year Bias was at Maryland he had at least 1 other player that would play in the NBA.  They were role players, but they were still NBA guys.  He also had an excellent coach in Lefty Driesell. 

It is all opinion since he let his demons take over and kill him, but you have to use what you can see and in that I don't think Bias was destined to be a MVP caliber player.  Just my opinion, but I just don't see it from what I can see of his time at Maryland.

Is 23 / 7 on 54% shooting really non-elite?  He had equal or better scoring numbers than Walter Berry and Johnny Dawkins, the two POY winners that season.

He played 37 mpg though.  If Maryland, was winning a bunch of games, then those numbers would be fine, but Maryland wasn't winning at a great rate.  I just don't think he was contributing to winning basketball much.  And sure I get his teammates weren't great, but we've seen plenty of guys with less than stellar teammates dominate. 

BTW, here is a pretty decent analysis of his stats and how they might have played out.  I think this fits pretty well with what I've been saying.  That Bias would be a very good player, but not a MVP type player.  The article basically called him a poor man's James Worthy.  Still a very good player (HOFer even), but certainly not one of those special players. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexf7b7.html?p=4011

[bdm860]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year? And his senior year he did have a future NBAer on his team (a guy that played 683 games in the league albeit he was a freshman in Massenburg).  That is why I said they have huge numbers or lead a team to a lot of success (or both).  His numbers were good, but they weren't elite.  They weren't elite pretty much any season, even when he was playing with guys older than him that would play in the league i.e. Coleman and Branch for his first 2 years and Branch only for his 3rd year.  Every single year Bias was at Maryland he had at least 1 other player that would play in the NBA.  They were role players, but they were still NBA guys.  He also had an excellent coach in Lefty Driesell. 

It is all opinion since he let his demons take over and kill him, but you have to use what you can see and in that I don't think Bias was destined to be a MVP caliber player.  Just my opinion, but I just don't see it from what I can see of his time at Maryland.

Is 23 / 7 on 54% shooting really non-elite?  He had equal or better scoring numbers than Walter Berry and Johnny Dawkins, the two POY winners that season.

He played 37 mpg though.  If Maryland, was winning a bunch of games, then those numbers would be fine, but Maryland wasn't winning at a great rate.  I just don't think he was contributing to winning basketball much.  And sure I get his teammates weren't great, but we've seen plenty of guys with less than stellar teammates dominate. 

BTW, here is a pretty decent analysis of his stats and how they might have played out.  I think this fits pretty well with what I've been saying.  That Bias would be a very good player, but not a MVP type player.  The article basically called him a poor man's James Worthy.  Still a very good player (HOFer even), but certainly not one of those special players. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexf7b7.html?p=4011

Thought this closing paragraph sums up the article and probably Moranis's thoughts pretty nicely:

I'm not saying he would be a bust or even that it would have been impossible for him to be a star, but I am saying that we might have allowed Bias' tragic and untimely passing to distort the way we viewed his potential. Just like anyone who died before their time, there's the tendency to idealize the person and put them up on a pedestal, projecting onto them everything we wished and hoped they could someday be. In Bias' case, what my dad and so many other Celtics fans wanted was for him to become Larry Bird's heir at the helm of the Boston dynasty. Unfortunately, given his important performance indicators in college, that probably wasn't the most realistic expectation in basketball history.

[Roy H.]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year? And his senior year he did have a future NBAer on his team (a guy that played 683 games in the league albeit he was a freshman in Massenburg).  That is why I said they have huge numbers or lead a team to a lot of success (or both).  His numbers were good, but they weren't elite.  They weren't elite pretty much any season, even when he was playing with guys older than him that would play in the league i.e. Coleman and Branch for his first 2 years and Branch only for his 3rd year.  Every single year Bias was at Maryland he had at least 1 other player that would play in the NBA.  They were role players, but they were still NBA guys.  He also had an excellent coach in Lefty Driesell. 

It is all opinion since he let his demons take over and kill him, but you have to use what you can see and in that I don't think Bias was destined to be a MVP caliber player.  Just my opinion, but I just don't see it from what I can see of his time at Maryland.

Is 23 / 7 on 54% shooting really non-elite?  He had equal or better scoring numbers than Walter Berry and Johnny Dawkins, the two POY winners that season.

He played 37 mpg though.  If Maryland, was winning a bunch of games, then those numbers would be fine, but Maryland wasn't winning at a great rate.  I just don't think he was contributing to winning basketball much.  And sure I get his teammates weren't great, but we've seen plenty of guys with less than stellar teammates dominate. 

BTW, here is a pretty decent analysis of his stats and how they might have played out.  I think this fits pretty well with what I've been saying.  That Bias would be a very good player, but not a MVP type player.  The article basically called him a poor man's James Worthy.  Still a very good player (HOFer even), but certainly not one of those special players. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexf7b7.html?p=4011

That same analysis suggests that Kenny Walker should have been on about Jordan’s level and better than Chris Mullin, so I’m not sure how much it is worth.

[nickagneta]

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year?

That's easy. Two words. Lefty Driesell.

Lefty was never known as an offensive genius or someone that pushed pace for lots of possessions. He liked slowing the game down. And he wasn't one to change his system to maximize the talent of one particular player.

And yet, in Bias' last year Bias was responsible for 33% of Maryland's points and 22% of their rebounds. And, as discussed elsewhere, other than Bias, that team had little to no talent.

[Moranis]

Saw Bias play at least 10 games his last two years at Maryland. The kid was an absolute stud. Every game I saw him play in the tournament his last two years, he was a man amongst boys. Just dominant. Unfortunately, there was very little talent on the squads other than Bias.

At 21 years of age, he was the best player of the 4 at that age. Sorry, as good as Tatum was last year, I think Bias at that age was the better player.

I would go with Bias and Reggie with the caveat that I think the difference in the duos is razor thin.

I didn't watch any Maryland basketball during this time, but Bias' senior year he played 37 mpg and averaged 23.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 1 apg, 0.8 spg, 0.4 bpg, 2.8 tpg with a 61.3 TS%.  Maryland was 19-14 that year and made the 2nd round (so it wasn't like Bias had them rolling).

Jayson Tatum in his 3rd year in the NBA, which would have been his senior year played 34.8 mpg and averaged 23.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.2 tpg with a 56.2 TS% doing so as the best player on one of the better teams in the world (If you want to call him 2nd best player to Walker I'm not going to nitpick). 

Now I get it was a different era, but Tatum's competition far exceeded what Bias faced at Maryland and he outperformed him basically across the board.  I don't see how anyone could claim that Bias was better than Tatum 4 years removed from high school.  Now if you wanted to argue that Bias had a higher ceiling, I'd listen to arguments on that, though I just don't see it. If all 4 of those players reached their absolute best case scenarios I'd rank them Tatum, Bias, Brown, and Lewis.  As much as we all love Reggie, I think you could argue with a straight face that Tatum and Brown are both already better than him and Lewis was far enough into his career he wasn't going to get appreciably better while Tatum and Brown both should.

Comparisons between college and the NBA just don’t work.  As a junior, Michael Jordan averaged 20 / 5 / 2.  As a rookie he was up to 28 / 6 / 6. 

I mean, do you buy this?  In what would have been his sophomore year, Tyreke Evans averaged 20 / 6 / 6 in the NBA.  That’s better than the college sophomore stats of Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul etc., despite playing against greater competition.

Maryland wasn't very good though (they were with Adrian Branch (a NBAer), but when he graduated they fell off considerably).  It is very rare that a player who can't lead a team to a bunch of wins in college ends up being an all time great.  It is sort of an empty stat type of thing.  Jordan was on a team that 28-3 and he played with three other NBA players including a #1 pick.  If Bias was really destined for greatness, on that Maryland team, Bias should have been shooting more than 15 a night (especially given he played 37 mpg) and they should have been winning a lot more games (while he was a freshman, that team also had Tony Massenburg on it who played 683 games in the NBA).   Bias always struck me as an uber athlete that could do well as a man amongst boys, but I'm not really sure how well he would have transitioned to the pros.  I'm sure he would have been a good player, maybe even a HOFer (like a Pierce type player), but I'm not so sure he would have been one of those truly special players that so many think he could have been.  I think Tatum can be a truly special player.

I disagree.  Bias made four straight NCAA tournaments while at Maryland, making the Sweet 16 in 1984 and 1985

Yes when Adrian Branch was on the team.  I noted that.  And for the record they lost in their second game in 84.  Technically the sweet sixteen, but they had a 1st round bye.  Bias wasn't very good in that game against Illinois they lost either.  He was even worse against Villanova next year when they were eliminated (4 of 13 in a 3 point loss).  Branch was a far more consistent player and when he left Maryland, the school fell off significantly because they needed his steady presence.  Bias had a much higher peak, but he also had much lower valleys than someone like Branch (who had 130 games over 4 seasons in the NBA).  That is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on Bias as a special player.  I think he would have been good, I just don't see him as a consistent MVP type player like I believe Tatum can be.  No question though that Bias probably would have extended Larry's career and because of that Boston might have won another title or two.

I wonder, though: is bias being punished here for having relatively poor teammates?

Yes, Michael Jordan won a NCAA title, but that team had James Worthy and Sam Perkins.  His junior year (when NC lost in the tourney) he had five future NBAers on his team!

If bias had that supporting yes, what would his record have been?

But then his numbers should have been higher.  Why wasn't he scoring more, grabbing more rebounds, etc. especially his senior year? And his senior year he did have a future NBAer on his team (a guy that played 683 games in the league albeit he was a freshman in Massenburg).  That is why I said they have huge numbers or lead a team to a lot of success (or both).  His numbers were good, but they weren't elite.  They weren't elite pretty much any season, even when he was playing with guys older than him that would play in the league i.e. Coleman and Branch for his first 2 years and Branch only for his 3rd year.  Every single year Bias was at Maryland he had at least 1 other player that would play in the NBA.  They were role players, but they were still NBA guys.  He also had an excellent coach in Lefty Driesell. 

It is all opinion since he let his demons take over and kill him, but you have to use what you can see and in that I don't think Bias was destined to be a MVP caliber player.  Just my opinion, but I just don't see it from what I can see of his time at Maryland.

Is 23 / 7 on 54% shooting really non-elite?  He had equal or better scoring numbers than Walter Berry and Johnny Dawkins, the two POY winners that season.

He played 37 mpg though.  If Maryland, was winning a bunch of games, then those numbers would be fine, but Maryland wasn't winning at a great rate.  I just don't think he was contributing to winning basketball much.  And sure I get his teammates weren't great, but we've seen plenty of guys with less than stellar teammates dominate. 

BTW, here is a pretty decent analysis of his stats and how they might have played out.  I think this fits pretty well with what I've been saying.  That Bias would be a very good player, but not a MVP type player.  The article basically called him a poor man's James Worthy.  Still a very good player (HOFer even), but certainly not one of those special players. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexf7b7.html?p=4011

Thought this closing paragraph sums up the article and probably Moranis's thoughts pretty nicely:

I'm not saying he would be a bust or even that it would have been impossible for him to be a star, but I am saying that we might have allowed Bias' tragic and untimely passing to distort the way we viewed his potential. Just like anyone who died before their time, there's the tendency to idealize the person and put them up on a pedestal, projecting onto them everything we wished and hoped they could someday be. In Bias' case, what my dad and so many other Celtics fans wanted was for him to become Larry Bird's heir at the helm of the Boston dynasty. Unfortunately, given his important performance indicators in college, that probably wasn't the most realistic expectation in basketball history.

Yes, that is exactly my point.  I think Bias would have been a very good player.  He was an incredible athlete, but I'm not sure he would have turned into this truly special either.  He was a tweener before being a tweener was a real thing.  He was too small to play PF full time, but didn't have the ball handler, passing, etc. skills to really play SF full time either.  He was such a gifted athlete I'm sure he would have made it work pretty well, but making it work pretty well doesn't translate to being an all timer either. 

There is enough evidence that Bias greatness has been significantly overstated and it is probably in a large part because of his death (him being drafted by the C's also probably contributes to that).  He was the savior of the basketball mecca or so it was written. He was the next big thing as they say.  But as we've seen time and time again, it is incredibly rare for the next big thing to actually hit.  For every Kobe Bryant or Lebron James there are hundreds of Andrew Wiggins, Isaiah Riders, or Markelle Fultz's.  Guys who have something, but having something and putting it all together are two different things.  Even if Bias put it all together, there is no guarantee his peak was that of a MVP either.  Maybe he is a Robert Parish and not a Larry Bird (I don't mean skill set, but more impact).