Hal14 wrote:
Interesting numbers.
However, we all know (or should know) that advanced stats strongly favor modern players. If we only looked at advanced stats, then Russell, Wilt, Pettit, Schayes, West, Robertson, Frazier wouldn't be ranked as high as they are.
I'd be curious to see those same numbers - but adjusting to reflect not where these players are rank for these various advanced metrics all-time, but instead where they rank relative to other players from their era....and also relative to other players who played the same position as them. Even better, how they rank relative to other players from their same era who played the same position.
Players in the 50's/60s and even 70s - they played in a league with different rules, they played with a ball that was more difficult to dribble and shoot, played with sneakers that were painful to wear and far less comfortable/supportive than what modern players wear, played with less padding, less taped ankles, star players played more mins per game and there was far less advancements in strength and conditioning and athletic training and sports medicine which meant players were much more susceptible to injury back then, and they played hurt more back then which means they'd have shorter careers. The game's strategy and philosophy for both offense and defense was much different back then - they were essentially playing a different sport than Giannis and Harden play today. Yet we're going to just plug their stats into some algorithm and have the advanced stats spit out a rankings list? We mine as well not even watch the games then - just look at the advanced metrics. Curry is ranked no. 24 on here. His best attribute is 3 point shooting. Guess what? If he played before the 80s, he wouldn't have been able to shoot 3's! Harden wouldn't have been able to shoot 3's either - and if he played before the 90s, he'd be getting called for a travel every other trip down the floor.
Just some food for thought..
Well thanks for the perspective, but most of what you're saying is either preaching to the choir or a touch off the mark in its reasoning.....
1) [re: "preaching to the choir"] I never cast even a third ballot for Curry, and have in the past been vocal about his [relatively] lacking portability to pre-3pt eras.
More generally regarding the differences/difficulties of that era, I daresay there are few posters who have been MORE vocal than myself in pointing out the differences. One recent instance is in posts 3 and 4 of
this thread, though I've also made frequent other mentions of the differing officiating, quality of shoes [in combination with quality of floors], the changes in the ball itself [such as it being an actual rubber bladder inside a leather case (with sewn seam) prior to '53], etc.
2) The "it's easier for players to put up big numbers, so their advanced stats will be higher" argument is largely false. Even if it's true box numbers are inflated today, PER is calibrated to the circumstances and league average of the year in question [league-average EVERYTHING is literally the entire formula construct, and league average is ALWAYS 15.0 (even if what actually IS average in the two years being compared may be vastly different)]. Ditto WS/48.
e.g. we might take Player A from '70, who had a PER of 16.2 and a WS/48 of .120.......and find Player B from '20 who had the EXACT same box-statline [same volume and efficiency in everything across the board] in the EXACT same playing time for a team that sports the EXACT same win% and MOV, yet his PER may only be 15.0 and WS/48 .100.
Why? Because numbers are inflated today compared to '70......but these metrics already calibrate to that new league norm.
EDIT: More recent players do get the "luxury" of lower minutes, which arguably helps. otoh, modern players also have to cover more ground [literally] when on the court due to the spread of the floor, which will tire one out quicker, too. So I don't know how much weight that argument carries, but it was alluded to in the above listings, and mentioned again below.
3) Regarding the bolded portion of your quoted post: what you're referring to has already been accounted for in the listing from my prior post. You'll note the first two categories say "Peak
Scaled PER" and "Peak
Scaled WS/48":
that's why [for instance] Dantley's '84 PER is listed as 26.74 (in raw terms it was only 24.64), or that 75 Cowens is listed as 20.44 (when in actuality it was 19.3).
The standard deviation-based scaling attempts to correct for any era differences in how superstar-primacy is utilized or other factors which may contribute to parity/disparity. You might not think it's adjusting enough to only push Cowens to 20.44......but he was, in fact, only the 11th-highest PER in an 18-team league.
Minutes per game is still a factor [which tends to be higher for old players]; I assume most people realize that as they read it, and while I didn't list mpg, I did at least note which players had a notably LIGHT load of minutes.
And that for the "Total Value Above Replacement" metric also explicitly states that
"scaled" PER and WS/48 were utilized (and minutes played are already baked right into that one).
The last two metrics are the only two utilizing raw PER and WS/48 (though they also utilize mpg and a few raw totals, which edge slightly in favour of older players vs recent ones).
4) Your tone comes across as sort of pro-old/anti-recent defensive. So I just want to point out that I didn't make any sort of new guys rule/old guys drool type of argument. I merely presented some data/info as dispassionately as I am able, while making no attempt whatsoever to otherwise influence opinion [nor even to interpret or valuate the information for others].
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
