King Kelly may have scored 6000 points if they had the three point shot in his day. Ervin Stepp's total also would be MUCH higher.

 

Stepp was open when he was in the parking lot. Dude could shoot lights out. Wish I'd have had a chance to see Coleman play.

Shocker on this list? JJ Hylton from Belfry.

I didn't know Coleman was a long range shooter.

Wow, didn't realize Tim Couch was a 3,000 point scorer for Leslie. Just think about how much higher some of those marks could be if some of those guys had the three point line while playing.

I believe Couch had a foot injury for a big part of his senior basketball season. His totals would have been higher if not for that.

He also led the state in scoring average his junior season.

I didn't know Coleman was a long range shooter.

 

I did not see him play, but I have researched his career through the years. He shot from inside, from outside, from the parking lot. Could, and did, score from everywhere.

If anyone wants to contact the KHSAA, Darel Carrier's playing career covered five years: 1956-1960...as per adding up the points and years from the Park City Daily News (the Bowling Green newspaper.) And his first name does have just one "r." His brother Harel was also a good high school player at Bristow (now Warren East.)

As far as saying "if so and so had the 3 point line in his day, he had scored WAY more"...well, that definitely isn't necessarily true, and in fact said player may have scored LESS points with it. Hear me out.

 

Long 2 point shots were not guarded the way 3 point shots are today. Why? Well, I'd rather King Kelly take a 23 footer in 1955 rather than drive to the basket and hit a two footer and possibly even get fouled doing so. After all, that 23 footer gets him no more than the 2 footer, and there is less chance he hits it.

 

Now, lets say he DID play with the 3 point line. Defenses change. They are much more likely to close out and defend the 3 point line. Maybe King Kelly shoots a whole lot more long range shots because they are worth more now. Shooting percentages go down because he shoots more 3's, less close range 2's. Good probability it all washes out in the end and he ends up about where he would have. Also just as good a probability that he finishes with LESS than he did cause he's hitting fewer shots and the 3's don't make up for that.

 

Everything doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Good point BigV. And, considering that he was a phenomenal rebounder, just having him be that far from the basket would have given the other team a better shot at victory.

As far as saying "if so and so had the 3 point line in his day, he had scored WAY more"...well, that definitely isn't necessarily true, and in fact said player may have scored LESS points with it. Hear me out.

 

Long 2 point shots were not guarded the way 3 point shots are today. Why? Well, I'd rather King Kelly take a 23 footer in 1955 rather than drive to the basket and hit a two footer and possibly even get fouled doing so. After all, that 23 footer gets him no more than the 2 footer, and there is less chance he hits it.

 

Now, lets say he DID play with the 3 point line. Defenses change. They are much more likely to close out and defend the 3 point line. Maybe King Kelly shoots a whole lot more long range shots because they are worth more now. Shooting percentages go down because he shoots more 3's, less close range 2's. Good probability it all washes out in the end and he ends up about where he would have. Also just as good a probability that he finishes with LESS than he did cause he's hitting fewer shots and the 3's don't make up for that.

 

Everything doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 

All valid points. An interesting issue.

As far as saying "if so and so had the 3 point line in his day, he had scored WAY more"...well, that definitely isn't necessarily true, and in fact said player may have scored LESS points with it. Hear me out.

 

Long 2 point shots were not guarded the way 3 point shots are today. Why? Well, I'd rather King Kelly take a 23 footer in 1955 rather than drive to the basket and hit a two footer and possibly even get fouled doing so. After all, that 23 footer gets him no more than the 2 footer, and there is less chance he hits it.

 

Now, lets say he DID play with the 3 point line. Defenses change. They are much more likely to close out and defend the 3 point line. Maybe King Kelly shoots a whole lot more long range shots because they are worth more now. Shooting percentages go down because he shoots more 3's, less close range 2's. Good probability it all washes out in the end and he ends up about where he would have. Also just as good a probability that he finishes with LESS than he did cause he's hitting fewer shots and the 3's don't make up for that.

 

Everything doesn't happen in a vacuum.

For the guys that pulled up from 26-28 ft.....the defense wouldn't have made any difference....who defends well from 28ft?

For the guys that pulled up from 26-28 ft.....the defense wouldn't have made any difference....who defends well from 28ft?

 

Sounds good...but in reality no one was hitting anything with any consistency from 28 foot...then, or now. Those are the old "fish" stories...gets longer with time. Sure, some of these guys hit a really long one every now and then, just like I saw CJ Penny hit one from about 40 feet to win the 8th region at the buzzer in 2009. But it wasn't happening every night, 4 or 5 times a night back then like the old stories make it sound.

Should there be any differentiation between those who played four years vs. those who played five?

If you do that, you might have to differentiate between guys who played for bigtime programs and those from small schools. As a rule, guys with lotsa talent played earlier/more at small schools.

Sounds good...but in reality no one was hitting anything with any consistency from 28 foot...then, or now. Those are the old "fish" stories...gets longer with time. Sure, some of these guys hit a really long one every now and then, just like I saw CJ Penny hit one from about 40 feet to win the 8th region at the buzzer in 2009. But it wasn't happening every night, 4 or 5 times a night back then like the old stories make it sound.

 

A computer program put on Rick Mount's Big 10 record 61 point game vs. Iowa in 1970 showed that he would have had 74 with the three-point line.

It's true: "guesstimating" shot distances tends to get legendary. I think most broadcasters got a little more accurate in their play-by-play when we had the 3-point line to use as a judge for shot distance.

I didn't know Coleman was a long range shooter.

 

Kelly Coleman

A computer program put on Rick Mount's Big 10 record 61 point game vs. Iowa in 1970 showed that he would have had 74 with the three-point line.

 

And I guarantee there would have been nights he would have chucked up a bunch of 3's, had an off night and scored 22 in stead of 37. Works both ways. And remember, he probably would have been defended differently as well.