Better numbers?

[penbeast0]

Two well known players, each from their 3rd best season to represent a sort of "median peak" . . . which set of numbers would you want for your PF on a contending team?

Power Forward A -- 8.3 reb/2.1 ast/0.4 st/1.9 bl/20.9 pts
on .546 FG%/.818 FT%/.608 TS% 2nd team All-Defense

Power Forward B -- 11.9 reb/1.9 ast/1.0 st/0/6 bl/18.3 pts
on .557 FG%/.731 FT%/.616 TS% 2nd team All-Defense

[nate33]

Both players are equal defensively going by the 2nd Team All-Defense award so we are basically comparing their offensive disparity. The stats generally do a good job and measuring offense so I'm pretty comfortably going by the numbers.

Assuming the minutes are rougly the same, I'd go with Power Forward B. He has a slightly higher TS% and grabs an additional 3.6 boards per game while only scoring 2.6 fewer points.

One caveat: if their turnover numbers are radically different, it could change my opinion. Also, the minutes played are a factor. If A is putting up those numbers in just 34 minutes and B takes 39 minutes, then I'd prefer A.

[TheOUTLAW]

Those rebounds are more valuable IMO than the few extrap points. So I'd go with B as well.

[ITK9]

i pick player A.a shot blocker is a shot blocker.

[GJense4181]

Are these real players?

[penbeast0]

Kevin McHale and Buck Williams . . . contemporaries so no real league differences and minutes and turnovers are not significantly off (slight advantage to McHAle . . . 2.2 v. 2.7TO). McHale had 5 All-D nominations and 1 All-NBA award in his career (though it was a 1st team v. a 2nd), Buck had 4 All-D and 1 All-NBA; these are pretty typical peak numbers and without names, posters so far lean to Buck.

Yet, McHale is mentioned as one of the 5 greatest of all time where Buck is rarely even mentioned top 20. The only real differences are that McHale played with one of the most talented teams of all time so he has 3 rings plus Buck played a longer stretch as a solid role player past his peak and thus his peak gets discredited.

Just find it interesting that McHale's post-career rep is so high; people think he was a perennial All-NBA player but he really just had the one outlier year and his rebounding was weak by standards of his day.

[BrooklynBulls]

I think it would be a good idea to both Pace-adjust and minute-adjust these statistics...until that happens, I can't really pass judgment.

[bluestang302]

I think people look at the one really huge year McHale had, remember his sweet low-post moves (he was almost unguardable), and project his numbers upward on a different team.

It's a trade-off. I think he was a better rebounder than his numbers showed, because he played with Parish and Bird. Yet, he was generally always the 3rd best rebounder on the team. And when Bird got hurt in 88/89, Parish's rebounding went up noticeably while McHale's stayed the same.

On a less dynastic team, McHale's points per game could have seen a sharp increase while his efficiency (FG% being one his main selling points) would possibly have fallen with more defensive attention being on him (as well as losing the peerless passing of Bird). I tend to equate him with James Worthy alot in that regard. We'll never know if Worthy would have matched the gaudier numbers of his small forward peers at the time - English, Dantley, Aguirre, Kiki, Nique, etc.

How would everyone compare Williams and McHale with Larry Nance? Another long and lean forward in the McHale vein. Similarly average rebounder (relative to height and length), but a better shot-blocker. McHale had the better offensive game I would say, although Nance's scoring averages were very similar to McHale's throughout their career.

[nate33]

Kevin McHale and Buck Williams . . . contemporaries so no real league differences and minutes and turnovers are not significantly off (slight advantage to McHAle . . . 2.2 v. 2.7TO). McHale had 5 All-D nominations and 1 All-NBA award in his career (though it was a 1st team v. a 2nd), Buck had 4 All-D and 1 All-NBA; these are pretty typical peak numbers and without names, posters so far lean to Buck.

Yet, McHale is mentioned as one of the 5 greatest of all time where Buck is rarely even mentioned top 20. The only real differences are that McHale played with one of the most talented teams of all time so he has 3 rings plus Buck played a longer stretch as a solid role player past his peak and thus his peak gets discredited.

Just find it interesting that McHale's post-career rep is so high; people think he was a perennial All-NBA player but he really just had the one outlier year and his rebounding was weak by standards of his day.

To me, the surprising thing is that Buck Williams averaged 18 points per game in his 3rd best season. I only saw the latter half of his career and did not remember his as anything more than a defensive-oriented banger.

I like the thought experiment and it reveals something that I've always believed: McHale has been a little overrated by history. He was no doubt an exceptional player, but he's not among the top 10 or so PF's of all time as many on this board believe.

[wigglestrue]

Kevin McHale and Buck Williams . . . contemporaries so no real league differences and minutes and turnovers are not significantly off (slight advantage to McHAle . . . 2.2 v. 2.7TO). McHale had 5 All-D nominations and 1 All-NBA award in his career (though it was a 1st team v. a 2nd), Buck had 4 All-D and 1 All-NBA; these are pretty typical peak numbers and without names, posters so far lean to Buck.

Yet, McHale is mentioned as one of the 5 greatest of all time where Buck is rarely even mentioned top 20. The only real differences are that McHale played with one of the most talented teams of all time so he has 3 rings plus Buck played a longer stretch as a solid role player past his peak and thus his peak gets discredited.

Just find it interesting that McHale's post-career rep is so high; people think he was a perennial All-NBA player but he really just had the one outlier year and his rebounding was weak by standards of his day.

McHale has 3 All-D 1st teams and 3 All-D 2nd teams = 6.
Buck Williams has 2 All-D 1st teams and 2 All-D 2nd teams = 4.

[penbeast0]

Sorry Wiggles . . . still pretty roughly comparable with an edge to McHale though.

Brooklyn Bulls . . . don't need to do much adjustment since they were contemporaries.

Nate . . . I think McHale is top 10, just not top 5 (though it does depend on how much you count rebounding); more that like you, people dont remember that Buck Williams came into the league like Dwight Howard (though without Howard's youth and therefore upside).

And Bluestang, as purely PFs, Nance could get pushed around inside, the other two weren't so I'd rate him a little lower. On the other hand, Nance came in playing SF which neither of the other two had the quickness to handle so his versatility gives him extra value depending on your team needs.

[BrooklynBulls]

PenBeast, in the seasons you've selected, there's a 4+ minute disparity in playing time in Buck Williams' favor. As such, and considering that only the Celtics remarkable depth and quality allowed McHale to play fewer minutes (and not fouling issues or conditioning restraints), it would be most appropriate to compute these statistics per minute.

I've gone ahead and done it for you:

PER36 minutes:

Player A: 9.0reb/2.3asts/0.4stls/2.1 blks/21.8pts, on .623% TS

Player B: 11.4reb/1.5asts/.9stls/.6blks/17.5pts on .603% TS

With this comparison, and the fact that McHale had fewer turnovers, fouled less, yet played on the better team, the advantage is CLEARLY in McHale's favor.

2.4 rebounds do not outweigh the large disparities in almost all the other statistics.

Edit: You are correct that the pace's at which they played were nearly identical. Therefore, the per minute stats are not skewed in this way.

[wigglestrue]

Playing with Bird and Parish (both double figure or so rebounders) and DJ (a good rebounding PG) definitely dampened McHale's rebounding stats a little.