Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today

Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#81 » by Kabookalu » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:24 pm

If you think Magic is still the more valuable playmaker in spite of Stockton's "more efficient" passing, then that really debunks the value of the stat and the concept of "efficient passing".
Read on Twitter
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#82 » by Official » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:28 pm

passing and playmaking are not the same.
User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#83 » by Kabookalu » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:31 pm

Point still stands I don't really know where you're going with this "efficient passing" mumbo jumbo.




Read on Twitter
User avatar
Optimism Prime
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 3,373
And1: 31
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#84 » by Optimism Prime » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:44 pm

Official wrote:Analogy:

I generate a higher percentage of my companies sales (AST) when I am at work. I only make 10 (FGA,FTA,TOV) calls.

You generate a lower percentage of your companies sales (AST) when you are at work. You make 12 (FGA,FTA,TOV) calls.

I am a more efficient sales person.


TSherkin generates more revenue for the company. He's a better salesperson.
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.

I'm on a horse.
Warspite
RealGM
Posts: 13,327
And1: 1,099
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: Surprise AZ
Contact:
       

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#85 » by Warspite » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:47 pm

I seriously question any stat that says Stockton "used" 18% of the plays. Stockton spent more time touching the ball than I did touching Mrs Warspite on our wedding night (and every night since) :( .

Actualy I have a theory that a high ast% is a bad thing. High ast % means very bad ball movement and a very predictable offense.

I dont get the whole right hand dribble argument. MJ dribbled with his right hand 75-80% of the time. He went right 75% of the time. Look how he turned out. Tim Hardaway had one of the GOAT crossovers but you know what?? He always ended up with the ball in his right hand. You dont have to use your left you merely have to show the threat of a left hand.

One of the things I liked to do was drive with my left hand and then cross over and go right. My left hand was not very good but my right was. So I started left and crossed over to the right and exploded to the basket. I loved to dribble with the left hand on the baseline and the defender would try to cut me off from a layup and I would cross him over and go with my right hand into the paint and shoot a skyhook from 5ft away while my defender guarded against the reverse layup. That play was good for 10ppg.

Oh and another note about Jerry West. IMHO Jerry West has the quickest release on his jumpshot I have ever seen. He also jumps a bit higher on his jump shot than most players in a MJ like manner he hangs in the air and then BAM the shot is gone. Hes a legit stud in any era and when people hate on him its generaly ignorance or racism. You be the judge which is which.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,413
And1: 19,948
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#86 » by tsherkin » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:02 pm

Official wrote:While on the floor, Stockton is responsible for 50.2% of his teams assists while using up 18.9% of his teams plays.

While on the floor, Magic is responsible for 40.9% of his team assists while using up 22.3% of his teams plays.

Stockton is a more efficient at generating assists for the Utah Jazz than Magic is for the Lakers.


No, you're still mistaking the difference in role for having something to do with efficiency. Watch a Utah game with Stockton, he was on the ball constantly whenever he was on the floor. That's not efficient, that's ball-dominant, only instead of shooting, he was delivering passes. That's not efficiency, that's prolific production. They are not synonymous.

Meantime, as I said before, USG% does a terrible job of showing you how much a high-volume distributor is on the ball, so it cannot be used directly in conjunction with USG% to get an idea of how many possessions a player was using at a glance, which is how you're using the stat.

Furthermore, I never said Magic was inefficient.


You're implying that as a passer, he was inefficient, even though all you're proving is what we can see with AST/g, that Stockton produced more of them, and that he produced a larger proportion of assists (and fewer points of his own) while he was on the court than did Magic.

1) Choosing to shoot over pass is obviously detrimental to individual efficiency in generating assists while on floor.


No, it's detrimental to the proportion of assists that happen on the floor and your overall average. You continue to define production of an assist to be the same thing as "efficiency in passing."
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#87 » by Official » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:03 pm

First, USG% for all great passing points guards is low.

I will spell it out for you.

Definition of efficiency : The ratio of output to input.

While on the floor.

1) Stockton's input, using 18.9% of his teams plays. Stockton's output, producing 50% of his team's assists.

2) Magic's input, using 22.3% of his teams plays. Magic's output, producing 40.9% of his team's assists.

Unless you have some numerical statistic to measure the amount of times Stockton touched the ball versus Magic Johnson, your argument is purely subjective. Would you not agree?
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,413
And1: 19,948
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#88 » by tsherkin » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:23 pm

Official wrote:USG% for all great passing points guards is low. The discrepancy between how much Magic and Stockton handle the ball is meaningless. The difference is negligible.


And your comment is empty, that's my point. It's not a difference of efficiency, it's a difference of quantity and a higher proportion, but simply producing a higher proportion of team assists while you're on the floor doesn't make you more efficient, nor does being represented lower in USG because you almost never shoot do anything to describe your passing in any capacity other than simple ratios.

This isn't efficiency. It's simply a difference in rate defined by their difference in ability as scorers.
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#89 » by Official » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:40 pm

Ok let me make sure I understand you here. We are comparing passing (as defined by assists) between Johnson and Stockton right? The simple fact that Stockton produces a higher proportion of the team assists while he is on the floor proves that he is a more efficient passer. It really is a pretty simple concept. At the most elementary level, higher proportion equates to higher efficiency. I'm not sure how you are missing it?

Again do you have some sort of other measure of efficiently better than what I described? If so the floor is all yours?
User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#90 » by Kabookalu » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:44 pm

Handing out more assists doesn't mean you're more efficient, it makes you more prolific, which is what tsherkin already.




Read on Twitter
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,346
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#91 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:51 pm

Official wrote:The simple fact that Stockton produces a higher proportion of the team assists while he is on the floor proves that he is a more efficient passer.


It's just totally arbitrary to call that "efficiency". There's not any precedence that I'm aware of to call that efficiency, and it doesn't really make much intuitive sense to me.

Do I have a better definition? Eh, well it's not really how I think about passing/playmaking at all. Utah was racking up tons of assists before Stockton was a starter, and before the offense was even competent (terrible offensive efficiency) - it just means that you really can't say anything conclusively based on assist stats. A great floor general is involved in every possession, resulting in success around 50% of the time, but only getting assist credit a small fraction of that.

Of course I mention the word "efficiency" in there - it can be a very useful concept in some areas. Overall points produced per possession? Incredibly important. The assist stat however depends much on how a scorekeeper sees things - and a player making the great pass before the final easy pass gets no credit no matter what.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#92 » by Official » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:55 pm

Choker wrote:Handing out more assists doesn't mean you're more efficient, it makes you more prolific, which is what tsherkin already.


I am arguing that Stockton's AST% is higher not his count of assists. Prolific would be count. AST% would be efficiency.
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,413
And1: 19,948
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#93 » by tsherkin » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:06 am

Official wrote:Ok let me make sure I understand you here. We are comparing passing (as defined by assists) between Johnson and Stockton right? The simple fact that Stockton produces a higher proportion of the team assists while he is on the floor proves that he is a more efficient passer. It really is a pretty simple concept. At the most elementary level, higher proportion equates to higher efficiency. I'm not sure how you are missing it?


Well, your first mistake is assuming the basic comparison between the two is the meaning. But efficiency is a judgement of value, not a judgement of simple, raw proportion. It means "with a minimum of waste or unnecessary effort," or perhaps "high output, low input."

But Johnson isn't wasting anything, he's simply replacing passes with scoring opportunities. In the context of basketball, that's not a difference in efficiency, that's a simple difference in who's scoring the bucket.

Again do you have some sort of other measure of efficiently better than what I described? If so the floor is all yours?


Man, assist-to-turnover ratio is a better (if still crude) means of judging passing efficiency, especially if you're using only passing turnovers. Hollinger's Pure Point Rating, too. None of them are really awesome. Like defense, passing is tough to really categorize and evaluate except subjectively through visual observation.

Higher proportion alone does NOT imply efficiency; higher proportion without some description of him doing something better does not equate to efficiency. I'm inclined to say that Magic's the more efficient passer because he's balancing volume passing with all of his other responsibilities.

The mere fact that Stockton sacrificed shooting to pass more, and in so doing produced a higher proportion of team assists, isn't meaningful; he's not using fewer possession (lower input) to produce that higher output, he's replacing shooting possessions with passing possessions.

Again, AST% doesn't represent passing efficiency; it represents how often a guy is passing versus doing anything else, especially in Stockton's case. You'll notice that most of the high AST% guys are guys who almost never shoot... which is how the AST% GETS that high in the first place. That means that most of the possessions they end up using, the ones that USG% tends not to account for, end up being passes INSTEAD OF ANYTHING ELSE.

That's not efficiency, that's simply moving the possessions around. It's like change-of-state; water doesn't get eliminated when it boils, it just turns into something you can't see, a change of state. Same deal here.
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#94 » by Official » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:09 am

Ok, lets not take things to the extreme. Clearly Stockton had a certain amount of the under-appreciated "hockey assist" which makes that point mute unless you are trying to say Magic Johnson had a significantly higher number of hockey assists.

My point here is clearly ALL statistics are flawed in someway. However, up to this point nobody in this thread has provided a better measure of efficiency outside of subjective references to being a "floor general", "making the extra pass", or "playing in different systems". So until someone can provide a better numerical statistic assist percentage is the most logical way of measuring passing ability. All great passing point guards have high assist percentages and low usage rates.
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,413
And1: 19,948
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#95 » by tsherkin » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:23 am

Official wrote:Ok, lets not take things to the extreme. Clearly Stockton had a certain amount of the under-appreciated "hockey assist" which makes that point mute unless you are trying to say Magic Johnson had a significantly higher number of hockey assists.


Or you could counter and say that if the hometown scorers weren't so easy with the assists, his proportion would be lower. And there are more reasons to believe that this is a meaningful point than anything about hockey assists.

My point here is clearly ALL statistics are flawed in someway. However, up to this point nobody in this thread has provided a better measure of efficiency outside of subjective references to being a "floor general", "making the extra pass", or "playing in different systems". So until someone can provide a better numerical statistic assist percentage is the most logical way of measuring passing ability. All great passing point guards have high assist percentages and low usage rates.


No it isn't, your point is that AST% represents passing efficiency, and you're wrong. And simply because there isn't a superior measure of efficiency doesn't make AST% any more valuable in a measure of passing efficiency in and of itself. It still only tells you that a player is involved in lots of passing plays while he's on the floor, and this pretty much universally means he barely shoots at all, which is why his USG% will be concurrently low.

Great point guards have high AST% because they spend most of their time passing; they have low USG% because they don't shoot a lot. The numbers don't tell you anything other than that. It speaks not at ALL to the efficiency of their play, only to the proportion of the activities that they take while they are on the floor. This isn't a measure of passing ability.

Like I said, Brevin Knight's AST% is 40% on his career, and no one in his right mind would suggest that he's a better passer than Magic... or Tim Hardaway, or Jason Kidd, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas, etc, etc, etc. Knight's career average is .23% below Nash's... are they then comparable passers?

No, of course not, because there's no value to AST% aside from the fact that it remarks on the proportion of activity a player takes. Jose Calderon has a pair of seasons at or over 41% AST; he's about the most uncreative passer I've ever seen. His AST% is high because he's a PG, so it's his role on the floor to pass a lot, and the team's offense revolved heavily around the PG running PnRs and passing either to the PF or to a shooter, almost always for an immediate shot. VERY much like the Utah offense during Stockton's career.

AST% is largely useless at measuring passing ability... because it tells you nothing of ability, only proportion and role. It speaks not at all to the nature of those passes. Calderon's AST% doesn't tell you that he kills the fast break in order to slow down and run the PnR. It doesn't tell you that he won't make a risky pass because it might be a turnover, even if it would get a higher-percentage look than the play he's about to run. It doesn't tell you that Stockton had one of the best scorers in NBA history as the finisher for his play, or that the entire team was set up to play off of the two-man game between him and Malone.

It DOES tell you that as soon as Hornacek came along, Stockton started to be involved in fewer passing possessions. This coincideded with a big leap in Utah's regular season and playoff success, and a decline in Stockton's AST%... and they bounced back and forth a bit in the first 1.5, 2 seasons, then Hornacek's AST% started going up, Stockton's down, and team success consistently up.
User avatar
Optimism Prime
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 3,373
And1: 31
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#96 » by Optimism Prime » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:33 am

If arguments made by tsherkin and Doctor MJ don't sway you, nothing will.

You guys are wasting your time at this point. ;)
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.

I'm on a horse.
User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#97 » by Kabookalu » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:36 am

tsherkin, off topic, but I'm curious as to your thoughts of Calderon the past season that wrapped up. You've probably seen me tout this theory around that when Calderon starts, he plays more like Steve Blake, but when he comes off the bench, his playing style is closer to Steve Nash--and not to get it twisted, I'm not comparing them directly as players, but by playing style. As a result of injury and because Jarrett Jack was playing so well in his place, Calderon came off the bench for a lot of games and produced similar numbers in fewer minutes. "Watching him play with my own eyes" speaking, he was the opposite of what you describe of him; a creative passer, ran the fast break pretty well, went for the "risky" play more often, ran the pick n' roll with Amir Johnson to damn near perfection, and was making shots off the dribble. As soon as he was inserted back into the starting lineup, it's like by the magical flip of a switch, he turned back into being that safe, no risk, fast break killing point guard. I'm wondering if you think the same?




Read on Twitter
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#98 » by Official » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:37 am

tsherkin wrote:
Or you could counter and say that if the hometown scorers weren't so easy with the assists, his proportion would be lower. And there are more reasons to believe that this is a meaningful point than anything about hockey assists.


Once you start talking about conspiracy theories you are clearly grasping for straws

No it isn't, your point is that AST% represents passing efficiency, and you're wrong. And simply because there isn't a superior measure of efficiency doesn't make AST% any more valuable in a measure of passing efficiency in and of itself. It still only tells you that a player is involved in lots of passing plays while he's on the floor, and this pretty much universally means he barely shoots at all, which is why his USG% will be concurrently low.

Great point guards have high AST% because they spend most of their time passing; they have low USG% because they don't shoot a lot. The numbers don't tell you anything other than that. It speaks not at ALL to the efficiency of their play, only to the proportion of the activities that they take while they are on the floor. This isn't a measure of passing ability.


If all great passing point guards have a high AST% than it is a measure of great passing ability.


Like I said, Brevin Knight's AST% is 40% on his career, and no one in his right mind would suggest that he's a better passer than Magic... or Tim Hardaway, or Jason Kidd, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas, etc, etc, etc. Knight's career average is .23% below Nash's... are they then comparable passers?

No, of course not, because there's no value to AST% aside from the fact that it remarks on the proportion of activity a player takes. Jose Calderon has a pair of seasons at or over 41% AST; he's about the most uncreative passer I've ever seen. His AST% is high because he's a PG, so it's his role on the floor to pass a lot, and the team's offense revolved heavily around the PG running PnRs and passing either to the PF or to a shooter, almost always for an immediate shot. VERY much like the Utah offense during Stockton's career.


Outliers don't disprove anything. Any statistic you provide Tsherkin I can provide an out-lier to discredit it as well. It is humorous that your argument has degraded to the point that you are comparing Calderon and Knight to Stockton and Magic. Would you not a Agree?

I already conceded Magic Johnson is a better player than John Stockton. We are talking purely about assist efficiency "NOT scoring ability." Once, you introduce Johnson is scoring on some possessions this discussion changes from passing to who the better player is. The fact Magic Johnson scores means he is theoretically passing up assists. Therefore, Magic is delivering a smaller percentage of his team's assists while on the floor (AST%). Stockton delivers a higher percentage of his team's assists while on the floor. Stockton is more efficient at delivering assists in the Utah offense than Magic was in the Laker offense.
tsherkin
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 78,413
And1: 19,948
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#99 » by tsherkin » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:52 am

Choker wrote:tsherkin, off topic, but I'm curious as to your thoughts of Calderon the past season that wrapped up. You've probably seen me tout this theory around that when Calderon starts, he plays more like Steve Blake, but when he comes off the bench, his playing style is closer to Steve Nash--and not to get it twisted, I'm not comparing them directly as players, but by playing style. As a result of injury and because Jarrett Jack was playing so well in his place, Calderon came off the bench for a lot of games and produced similar numbers in fewer minutes. "Watching him play with my own eyes" speaking, he was the opposite of what you describe of him; a creative passer, ran the fast break pretty well, went for the "risky" play more often, ran the pick n' roll with Amir Johnson to damn near perfection, and was making shots off the dribble. As soon as he was inserted back into the starting lineup, it's like by the magical flip of a switch, he turned back into being that safe, no risk, fast break killing point guard. I'm wondering if you think the same?


Calderon is infinitely better playing 25 mpg than he is playing 30+. He moves more quickly, he takes a few more risks, he even pretends like he understands the fastbreak a little. He plays a LITTLE better on defense and he's more inclined to pass to anyone besides Bosh. He is a VERY good 6th man. I would be extremely happy to have him play 20-27 mpg on any team you'd care to name. He is one of the worst starting PGs I've ever seen, however.
User avatar
Official
Veteran
Posts: 2,721
And1: 321
Joined: Apr 14, 2009

Re: Could any NBA players from the 50s or 60s make the NBA today 

Post#100 » by Official » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:55 am

You don't have to tell me the relation of AST% to USG% is not a perfect way to measure assist efficiency. I already know this. You are wasting your breath. Until you provide a better way of measuring assists efficiency this way is the best way. You always convolute arguments with extraneous information and subjective comments.

Return to Player Comparisons