Who is the greatest PG in SU history?

[Jake]

That was a good post by Jake, but I completely disagree with your assessment of Sherman being "meat and potatoes." Categorically disagree with that, in fact. Meat and potatoes was Jason Hart. Sherman Douglas was the most exciting player in program history, including Pearl. He might not have had Pearl's superlative handle--but no other player we've had [including Flynn / Autry] have. But his creative flair exceeded Pearl's in terms of orchestrating a high powered attack. Pearl was a good passer, but the majority of his creativity was to get himself shots. Sherman not only got himself shots, he got EVERYBODY else shots. As far as the "more talent" argument, it isn't nearly as big of a factor as what people are suggesting. Sherman absolutely MADE Seikaly's career--both at the collegiate level, and when they played together in the NBA. In defense of Pearl, he could do things with the ball on a string that almost nobody else could do. I have watched a 1986 BET semifinals game, where we beat Georgetown, and they would literally try to press him full court with the entire team. You heard me, with the entire team. Pearl would have two guys on him and two other guys racing to get to him, and he'd dribble around, through, and past them. You never see stuff like that today. But to claim that he was caviar while Sherman was ordinary--nah, not by a long shot. I'll take the ultimate competitor over someone who was inherently lazy any day. And in terms of exciting ball--yeah, Pearl was exciting. Sherman was even more exciting. Sherman's teammates didn't make him, it was the other way around. The best way I can describe it is that Pearl had million dollar talent but a ten-cent work ethic. Sherman had $750K talent, but was so competitive and quarterbacked the team at such a high level that he truly made his teammates better. And ultimately, that is the mark of a truly elite point guard. Not just sizzle.

I understand you prefer Sherm, which is fine, but the narrative that Pearl didn't play a lick of defense or didn't create for others is just inaccurate, and statistics prove otherwise.

 

[RF2044]

I think people are really undervaluing the passing ability of Pearl. He averaged over 6apg each season, was 6.7 for his career and was 7.8 his junior season before leaving. Since Sherm, nobody has had a career apg higher than Pearl, nobody higher than that junior season, and only 2 seasons has anyone had more than that 6.7. And while he had some very good talent like Raf, it wasn't anything like DC, Owens, Thompson and an experienced Rony.

He was an amazing passer.

But you hit the nail on the head--other than Sherman. Because Sherman set the gold standard in terms of passing. Pearl was next best.

Great player, but not as good as Sherman when it came to play making. Or winning.

And you are underselling the talent Pearl played with. His junior year, that team was rated as high as top 5, with Rafael Addison [top 10 scorer in program history], a smooth Wendell Alexis, and an athletic sophomore Seikaly. I don't dispute that Seikaly was better as a junior, nor that DC was phenomenal. But let's not pretend that those guys made Sherman--he pushed the ball at a break neck pace that capitalized on the fact that those guys could run.

 

[rrlbees]

When the Dome was an Oyster: YouTube Video

I could watch Pearl break Georgetown ankles all day.

 

[RF2044]

I understand you prefer Sherm, which is fine, but the narrative that Pearl didn't play a lick of defense or didn't create for others is just inaccurate, and statistics prove otherwise.

Statistics? Steals are great. But they are only a small part of what constitutes defense. And I never said that he didn't create for others, just that he wasn't as good as it as Douglas. And both the statistics and the eye test bear that out.

I get that you prefer Pearl, but I think you're laying it on a bit thick and waxing superlative. I love Pearl, too. But I have a DVD collection hundreds of games long, dating back to the early 80s. I've watched plenty of Pearl games over the years, not just when he played. So for every phenomenal game in the BET or amazing individual performance he had, he also took a lot of games off. He let guys from out of conference, lesser programs have big games against him because he would merely go through the motions. He was big and strong, but was also out of shape, and preferred to reach and gamble and conserve energy for offense.

Pearl was a terrific player for us. And he got the ball rolling on our national profile--no question. But pound for pound, Sherman was the better point guard. And I suspect that if you placed those two lead guards on the same teams and had them play [with the other same personnel], that Sherman's teams would win more frequently than they'd lose.

 

[Jake]

Chill. As I said in my original post..Pearl took plays off. I'm not waxing poetic about anyone.

I'm taking a pretty objective viewpoint.

You on the other hand said "is there even a debate" and "Pearl didn't play a lick of defense".

Which one of us is over the top?

 

[RF2044]

Chill. As I said in my original post..Pearl took plays off. I'm not waxing poetic about anyone.

I'm taking a pretty objective viewpoint.

You on the other hand said "is there even a debate" and "Pearl didn't play a lick of defense".

Which one of us is over the top?

Jake, if you consider either of those statements "over the top," just because they don't agree with your perspective, then you're taking this too personally.

No need to take a fun topic and get agitated. I get it--you prefer Pearl. To each their own.

And while this doesn't really matter much [besides just the general court of board public opinion], it seems like there are a landslide of posters who agree that the General was the better point guard in the poll. So are my opinons really "over the top," given that they reflect what the majority of posters seem to believe about this debate?

 

[cuseguy]

Dave Bing

But that's another topic for another day

 

[rrlbees]

But you hit the nail on the head--other than Sherman. Because Sherman set the gold standard in terms of passing. Pearl was next best. Great player, but not as good as Sherman when it came to play making. Or winning. And you are underselling the talent Pearl played with. His junior year, that team was rated as high as top 5, with Rafael Addison [top 10 scorer in program history], a smooth Wendell Alexis, and an athletic sophomore Seikaly. I don't dispute that Seikaly was better as a junior, nor that DC was phenomenal. But let's not pretend that those guys made Sherman--he pushed the ball at a break neck pace that capitalized on the fact that those guys could run.

You portray and even said that Sherm facilitated for others while Pearl facilitated for himself. Fact is, no matter how you look at assists, Sherm only averaged a little more than 1 apg than Pearl and Sherm in fact, took more shots per 40 mins than Pearl. While Pearl had some very good players, Sherm had superstars. And as for excitement alone? Pearl every day. Every time the ball was in his hands it was magic and excitement.

 

[RF2044]

You portray and even said that Sherm facilitated for others while Pearl facilitated for himself. Fact is, no matter how you look at assists, Sherm only averaged a little more than 1 apg than Pearl and Sherm in fact, took more shots per 40 mins than Pearl. While Pearl had some very good players, Sherm had superstars. And as for excitement alone? Pearl every day. Every time the ball was in his hands it was magic and excitement.

No, that isn't what I said. What I in fact said was that Pearl's flashiness was primarily about getting himself shots. He WAS a good passer. by my count, I think we've only had three or four individual seasons where guys have approached how many assists Pearl had [off the top of my head, Laz, MCW, maybe Flynn's sophomore year?].

Pearl's playmaking was perfectly fine. But when he was dialed in, he would try to take over and most of the amazing highlights that people remember about Pearl were of him creating offense for himself. That is a completely different thing than your interpretation of the point I was making.

 

[RF2044]

You portray and even said that Sherm facilitated for others while Pearl facilitated for himself. Fact is, no matter how you look at assists, Sherm only averaged a little more than 1 apg than Pearl and Sherm in fact, took more shots per 40 mins than Pearl. While Pearl had some very good players, Sherm had superstars. And as for excitement alone? Pearl every day. Every time the ball was in his hands it was magic and excitement.

Sherman also scored more than Pearl, while also amassing more assists. He wasn't quite as flashy in terms of creating his own offense, but he was quite a scorer while also setting the NCAA record for assists in three years.

And do these statistic / numbers you're quoting factor in Sherm's freshman year into the calculation? Honest question. Do they compare Pearl's three seasons at SU to Sherman's final three? Because I'd imagine that would make an enormous difference.

 

[obliterata]

And you are underselling the talent Pearl played with.

I don't think so.

Pearl basically played with one guy who scored over 1500 career points, that was Addison. Seikaly scored that many points too but he was an underdeveloped fr and soph when he played with Pearl.

Sherm played with 4: DC, Thompson, Owens, and jr/sr Seikaly.

It's a lot easier to rack up assists and wins when you're playing with those guys.

 

[Jake]

Sherman also scored more than Pearl, while also amassing more assists. He wasn't quite as flashy in terms of creating his own offense, but he was quite a scorer while also setting the NCAA record for assists in three years. And do these statistic / numbers you're quoting factor in Sherm's freshman year into the calculation? Honest question. Do they compare Pearl's three seasons at SU to Sherman's final three? Because I'd imagine that would make an enormous difference.

Mine did. I either prorated the assists over 40 minutes, or discounted Sherman's Freshman year in my steals per game.

Pearl sure got a lot of steals per game for someone who "didn't play a lick of defense."

You undersold pearls abilities, exaggerated his shortcomings to fit your perspective.

I think it's a very debatable argument...I have no problem with people who prefer Sherm.

You don't think its worth a debate because essentially Pearl was a lazy, flashy player who didn't play a lick of defense and created more for himself than other players. Those are all your words, not mine.

 

[rrlbees]

No, that isn't what I said. What I in fact said was that Pearl's flashiness was primarily about getting himself shots. He WAS a pretty good passer. by my count, I think we've only had three or four individual seasons where guys have approached how many assists Pearl had [off the top of my head, Laz, MCW, maybe Flynn's sophomore year?]. Pearl's playmaking was perfectly fine. But when he was dialed in, he would try to take over and most of the amazing highlights that people remember about Pearl were of him creating offense for himself. That is a completely different thing than your interpretation of the point I was making.

I was interpreting that you said Pearl was a good passer and that Sherm crested shots for others. That to me is under selling Pearl who only averaged a little more than 1 assists per 40 fewer with much less talent around him. I'm not downplaying Sherm. Have no problem with people thinking he was the all time best. But I do think several people and several posts have down played Pearl. I would love to have seen Pearl with some of those guys Sherm had.

 

[rrlbees]

Sherman also scored more than Pearl, while also amassing more assists. He wasn't quite as flashy in terms of creating his own offense, but he was quite a scorer while also setting the NCAA record for assists in three years. And do these statistic / numbers you're quoting factor in Sherm's freshman year into the calculation? Honest question. Do they compare Pearl's three seasons at SU to Sherman's final three? Because I'd imagine that would make an enormous difference.

The stats are per 40 not per game. And Pearl didn't have a senior season where he might have averaged 10apg.

 

[RF2044]

Mine did. I either prorated the assists over 40 minutes, or discounted Sherman's Freshman year in my steals per game.

Pearl sure got a lot of steals per game for someone who "didn't play a lick of defense."

You undersold pearls abilities, exaggerated his shortcomings to fit your perspective.

I think it's a very debatable argument...I have no problem with people who prefer Sherm.

You don't think its worth a debate because essentially Pearl was a lazy, flashy player who didn't play a luck of defense and created more for himself than other players.

Those are all your words, not mine.

Here are Sherman's career statistics: http://www.orangehoops.org/sdouglas.htm

Here are Pearl's: http://www.orangehoops.org/dwashington.htm



Sherman's last three seasons, where he started, he amassed 289, 288, and 326 assists. He also scored more, and had a career FG% of 53.8 -- eye popping for a guard.

Pearl's three seasons he amassed 199, 188, and 250 assists.

Something doesn't add up, if your numbers calculate that Douglas only averages 1 more assist over 40. I'd like to see that data, because it doesn't add up at face value.

 

[obliterata]

I'm a fan of all Syracuse players and wish them all the best but playing with Coleman, Owens, Thompson, and Seikaly makes a PG's life easier than playing with Addison, Alexis, Hawkins, and Monroe.

 

[rrlbees]

Here are Sherman's career statistics: http://www.orangehoops.org/sdouglas.htm Here are Pearl's: http://www.orangehoops.org/dwashington.htm Sherman's last three seasons, where he started, he amassed 289, 288, and 326 assists. He also scored more, and had a career FG% of 53.8 -- eye popping for a guard. Pearl's three seasons he amassed 199, 188, and 250 assists. Something doesn't add up, if your numbers calculate that Douglas only averages 1 more assist over 40. I'd like to see that data, because it doesn't add up at face value.

His per 40 are correct. You're looking at totals for a season where SU played more games with Sherm. Almost 20% more.

 

[RF2044]

His per 40 are correct. You're looking at totals for a season where SU played more games with Sherm. Almost 20% more.

Ah, okay. I stand clearly corrected.

That's what happens when you're trying to post with a screaming 7 month old who's sick diverting 85% of my attention.

 

[Digger]

Here are Sherman's career statistics: http://www.orangehoops.org/sdouglas.htm

Here are Pearl's: http://www.orangehoops.org/dwashington.htm



Sherman's last three seasons, where he started, he amassed 289, 288, and 326 assists. He also scored more, and had a career FG% of 53.8 -- eye popping for a guard.

Pearl's three seasons he amassed 199, 188, and 250 assists.

Something doesn't add up, if your numbers calculate that Douglas only averages 1 more assist over 40. I'd like to see that data, because it doesn't add up at face value.

Sherm played in 16 more games and 605 more minutes than Pearl in those three years.

 

[RF2044]

Mine did. I either prorated the assists over 40 minutes, or discounted Sherman's Freshman year in my steals per game.

Pearl sure got a lot of steals per game for someone who "didn't play a lick of defense."

You undersold pearls abilities, exaggerated his shortcomings to fit your perspective.

I think it's a very debatable argument...I have no problem with people who prefer Sherm.

You don't think its worth a debate because essentially Pearl was a lazy, flashy player who didn't play a lick of defense and created more for himself than other players. Those are all your words, not mine.

Jake--you'd make a great tabloid reporter.

And for the record, some of those criticisms aren't underselling anything. Pearl WAS lazy. He DID take games off. He WAS out of shape. He DIDN'T always play hard [do you honestly dispute any of that?]. When he did, when the bright lights were on, he was phenomenal. But to point out some of his less flattering tendencies isn't exaggerating those shortcomings.

I don't think its a debate [and way to attach too much emphasis on a flip comment I made in my first post, by the way] because I think that Sherman was a better point guard. I love Pearl; I certainly don't have a problem with people thinking Pearl's better--I just don't agree with that opinion. And not that the poll means anything, but I think it is probably a representative % of how most non-casual SU fans would trend in this debate.

 

[TheCusian]

Only one PG in our history won a NCAA championship.

 

[Jack Hall]

Only one PG in our history won a NCAA championship.

But was he REALLY a SG? Lol

 

[Eric15]

I was just looking at the stats for the 1986 SU team. Every single starter (Pearl, Addison, Triche, Alexis, Seikaly) averaged between 53 and 55% from the field.

That is incredible.

 

[Jake]

I was just looking at the stats for the 1986 SU team. Every single starter (Pearl, Addison, Triche, Alexis, Seikaly) averaged between 53 and 55% from the field. That is incredible.

Life before the 3 point line. Lots of teams shot greater than 50% as a team from the field. Almost none does today.

 

[Guinness]

I am a Pearl guy, He built the dome and an argument can be made for building the program by coming here. That said Sherm was a much better all around PG. He is the reason we were lob city and a mini, college version of Showtime. There has not been a PG here since that was anywhere near him.