trex_8063 wrote:fwiw, that wasn't aimed at you. That was aimed at anyone else reading who would have the tendency to, for instance, say "McHale in this runoff because Schayes played in the 50's.".
Yeah, fair enough.
Yes, absolutely. I've argued against having era portability being too heavy a factor in your criteria because it's---probably by far---the noisiest criterion available. It's not just purely subjective, it's also purely hypothetical. We're speculating on non-real hypothetical events, and basing our speculation on the eye-test (this doesn't sound like something that's gonna carry a ton of accuracy). I only switched gears and attempted to defend Schayes along this line of reasoning because others are using it as a significant chunk of their criteria. But I disagree with making such heavy use of it.
Very good. We'll call that the source of our disagreement and then call "agree to disagree." I respect the way you've supported your stance, I just do not agree with the points you are making, so that's about as far as we can go on this one. Almost, as I've got one other major card to play here.
I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you on this point. Schayes was never a huge volume scorer, even in that rush-paced era.
Was it, though? A "rush-paced era?"
Schayes' career started in 49-50, roughly a half-decade BEFORE the first shot clock game (the test scrimmage game; the shot clock was implemented for 54-55). His rookie year, his team scored 84.8 ppg and took 82 shots per game.
I think the perception of his career is as if he were part of the 60s, which WERE a much faster era, but that was not really the case.
Dip into his career-high season, 24.9 ppg in 57-58. 102 shots per game. That's a lot of shots, for sure. It's about 10 more shots per game than the 82 Lakers took. That, that's fast. But you'll notice that his efficiency was actually BETTER at that point in his career than it was in the slower, earlier portions of his career. Some of that is career arc, of course, player development, but you also have to wonder about transition points, which are actually higher-percentage and higher-draw than half-court points. Those are a boon, not a bane. 3P% in transition, for example, is usually quite high, for a contemporary comment.
So I just wanted to caution you that he had 5 full seasons before he ever had to deal with the shot clock, which sort of puts a damper on your pace-based commentary on his FG%.
