RealGM

I watched game 7 of 1970 finals and created box score and play by play from that game. As we all know Frazier had great game, he was really hot from the field (12/17 FG), but he didn’t have so many assists as official (? here: http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm) box score says (19 assists). By my count he had 9 (and that includes some doubtful ones like for example assist when Bradley takes three dribbles). As a proof I created video with all of NYK’s field goals made in that game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953IPz0fJcA

Here's list of all field goals made and who assisted:
1st Q
1. Reed, Frazier AST (1)
2. Reed, Barnett AST (1)
3. DeBusschere, Bradley AST (1)
4. Bradley, Frazier AST (2)
5. DeBusschere, Barnett AST (2)
6. Bradley, no AST (1)
7. Frazier, no AST (2)
8. DeBusschere, Bradley AST (2)
9. Frazier, no AST (3)
10. Frazier, no AST (4)
11. Barnett, Bradley AST (3)
12. Bradley, Frazier AST (3)
13. Frazier, no AST (5)
14. DeBusschere, no AST (6)
15. Frazier, no AST (7)

2nd Q
16. DeBusschere, Reed AST (1)
17. Bradley, Frazier AST (4)
18. Bradley, Riordan AST (1)
19. Riordan, DeBusschere AST (1)
20. Riordan, Bradley AST (4)
21. Frazier, no AST (8)
22. Stallworth, no AST (9)
23. Barnett, no AST (10)
24. Barnett, no AST (11)
25. Russell, no AST (12)
26. Frazier, no AST (13)
27. Frazier, no AST (14)
28. Bowman, Frazier AST (5)

3rd Q
29. Bradley, Barnett AST (3)
30. Frazier, no AST (15)
31. Frazier, no AST (16)
32. Frazier, no AST (17)
33. DeBusschere, Bradley AST (5)
34. Bradley, Bowman AST (1)
35. Bowman, Frazier AST (6)
36. Barnett, Frazier AST (7)
37. DeBusschere, no AST (18)
38. DeBusschere, no AST (19)
39. Barnett, Frazier AST (8)

4th Q
40. Barnett, no AST (20)
41. Barnett, no AST (21)
42. Frazier, Barnett AST (4)
43. Barnett, Bradley AST (6)
44. Bradley, Stallworth (1)
45. Bowman, DeBusschere (2)
46. Barnett, Frazier AST (9)

So NYK total FG MADE: 46
21 unasisted
Frazier 9 AST
Bradley 6 AST
Barnett 4 AST
DeBusschere 2 AST
Reed 1 AST
Riordan 1 AST
Bowman 1 AST
Stallworth 1 AST





As I said above I created box score from that game, but beside normal things like PTS, RBS or AST I also counted good/bad plays on defense and screens. And I want to say that Reed was amazing – he had the most good defensive plays (9) of all NYK players and rarely made mistakes on defense. He also had 9 screens after NYK scored (scoring screens). That’s more than whole Lakers team. Overall Knicks were much better organized offensively, many screens, when Lakers usually played 1on1. And what surprising West was the only Lakers player, who regularly sets screens (he had 3 scoring screens and 6 screens, which give other Lakers players good position).

However on defensive end West was very bad, Frazier not better. Both of them often gambled for steals and Frazier sometimes looks even completely lost on defense (Frazier 6 bad defensive plays, 3 good and 5 STL; West 9 bad D, 3 good D and 2 STL).

On the other hand Bradley looks surprisingly good on D (8 good D, 6 STL and 5 bad D) and of course DeBusschere was very active and smart on defensive end (6 good D, 6 STL, 1 BLK, 4 bad D)

Among Lakers players the most impressive defensively was Erickson. 10 good D plays and only 3 bad D plays. He always know where he was, what to do, how to rotate, when to help. Really smart player.
Baylor also defensively looked better that I thought he will be (9 good D, 3 bad D, no STL or BLK), but he was something like Kobe – he could play very good D when he wanted to, but sometimes he simply didn’t care much about D.

And of course there’s Wilt. Overall he had the most good D plays (12), but also the most bad D plays (10). He usually played very bad D on screens, didn’t like to come high and Knicks often scored that way.

And there weren't many blocks in that game. Wilt had game high with... 2. But Knicks were really hot that day and hit many, many shots from the outside.

As for tournovers only one Knicks player had as many as 3 (Barnett), other 2 or less. Among Lakers West had 6, Garrett 5 and Wilt 5

That's a big discrepancy.

Yes, very big. That's why I created this thread. General perception of 60s is that it was harder to get assist than now, but it seems opposite is true (some of these 19 Frazier's assists must be made up, created ex nihilo ;]).
And it also raises question how many other great moments from the past are false.

DavidStern wrote:General perception of 60s is that it was harder to get assist than now, but it seems opposite is true

I wasn't aware 1970 was "the 60s."

Semantics. 1969/70 season is part of the 60s. And "it was harder to get assist" also apply to 70s (or at least to first part of that decade). I simply should also mention 70s.

But it really isn't important here, ThaRegul8r. What's important is how many of Frazier's assists were made up and how many other great events from the past was created the same way.

It's a typo. If you add up the assists from the first 6 games: 6+11+7+11+12+7 (reasonable amounts) you end with a sum of 54 assists, which is 9 short of the OFFICIAL composite box score of 63.

pancakes3 wrote:It's a typo. If you add up the assists from the first 6 games: 6+11+7+11+12+7 (reasonable amounts) you end with a sum of 54 assists, which is 9 short of the OFFICIAL composite box score of 63.

Could you link to that official box score? Because here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... inals.html
Frazier have 73.

Also during the game commentators said that he had 4 assists after 1st quarter (by my count he had 3) and 11 by halftime (in reality - 5).

Also in numerous official sources everybody are saying that he had 19 assists, for example:
http://www.nba.com/knicks/history/knick ... azier.html
Dished out a playoff record 19 assists against the Los Angeles Lakers in the Game 7 victory during the 1970 NBA Championships

or

http://www.nba.com/history/legends/walt ... index.html
Then he turned the spotlight over to Frazier, who responded with one of the greatest performances ever in a Finals Game 7: 36 points, 19 assists and five steals

So I doubt it's a typo. I also found that: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/05/clyde ... -the-show/
"Once Walt got his jump shot going, I knew it was going to be a long night for us,'' Garrett said. "But I've looked at the tape of that game, and they were very generous with his assists.''
(Garrett was guarding Frazier for most of the game)

yeah, my bad. i was looking at Reed's rebounds instead of Frazier's assists. hm. i dunno. seems odd especially since he didn't have astronomical numbers in the first 6 games.

Makes you wonder about some of those 20 plus rebounds and blocks games, doesn't it?

If you'v ever stat-tracked a game, you know that the way assists are doled out if a very gray and subjective process. That's why

(1) People look at conservative (Phoenix) versus liberal (LAL) scorekeepers.
(2) Assists aren't always a measure of anything that valuable, since innocuous passes still lead to scores.

I feel like someone accidentally read or wrote 19 instead of 9 and it was just never checked out and assumed to be accurate. That's a shame because it's often cited as one of the best finals performances of all time, and 36 and 9 is nowhere close to 36 and 19.

jaypo wrote:Makes you wonder about some of those 20 plus rebounds and blocks games, doesn't it?

not really

ElGee wrote:If you'v ever stat-tracked a game, you know that the way assists are doled out if a very gray and subjective process. That's why

True. But here is very big discrepancy. I was very generous with some of Frazier's assists and I count "only" 9. So it seems as scorekeepers at this game literally made up some of Frazier's assists. That's inexcusable.

(2) Assists aren't always a measure of anything that valuable, since innocuous passes still lead to scores.

Agree. I found assists less and less valuable as more I learn about the game.

BTW, defensive mistakes or good plays on defense are extremely hard to recognize. From obvious reasons (you could play great D and still someone would score on you) to more difficult - for example we don't know teams pre game defensive tactic, so it's sometimes hard to say that if center stays in the middle it's his defensive mistake or coach ask him to do so.

J~Rush wrote:I feel like someone accidentally read or wrote 19 instead of 9 and it was just never checked out and assumed to be accurate.

Commentators during the game said that Frazier had 4 assists in 1st Q (by my count 3) and 11 after 2nd Q (5). So it seems like something was wrong with scorekeepers at the game.

This has been happening for a long time and still does. Stat-padding is very pronounced in today's game as well. See it all the time, especially with the star players. Just like getting calls. Makes them look good for all stars and such. One of the reasons I don't hold stats in too high esteem.

I can remember some games where assists recorded in particular games were ridiculous in recent years. Same holds true when it comes to rebounds, blocked shots and turnovers. About the only thing that I think they keep pretty accurately is scoring.

Couple of assists here or there I can see, but getting +10 imaginary assists never happens today. If it did we'd know of it, people already make a big deal of an assist here or there, but 5...or 10 more assists? Doesn't happen to that extent. Chris Paul has a couple of suspect assists and they end up going all over youtube. LeBron is mistakenly credited an assist and it's up on youtube later that night so his haters can act like most of his assists are fishy.

Another example of this would be Shaq's 15 block game against New Jersey (Shaq's never even had a 10 block game before). Several people who have watched the game noted that he only had like 8 or 9 blocks. I've only seen the first half of the game, a long time ago, but I do remember that half of the blocks that he actually did have were goaltends anyway (and I'm talking about the type of goaltends that leave no doubt in your mind). What you ended up getting was essentially a 4-5 block game turned into a 15 block game. Interesting to note that Shaq was playing in his hometown (Newark) against the Nets in this game, maybe the scorerkeeper was a high school buddy lol.

I don't know how the NBA didn't review it, when you see a statline like 15 blocks, you'd think someone would go back and check it out, especially considering it was just TWO blocks shy of the record (17, held by Elmore Smith). Couple of years ago they took a rebound away from LeBron because he only semi-controlled the ball or something, and yet you allowed a guy to put up the second highest blocks total with half of them not even existing. I think stats are more accurate now than ever before, mainly because the scrutiny they receive due to youtube. If a scorekeeper cooks the books, he WILL get exposed.

1. Its New York and MSG. Im upset and disapointed but not shocked. Apperantly We know where the Salt Lake City score keeper was working before the 80s.

2. I believe its most likely a typo and jouarnalist never care about the facts only the hype so they didnt investigate it. Lets not forget that the NBA was still trying to draw fans and stay solvent. Any amount of hype and press they coukld get they would run with.

WOW

Warspite wrote:1. Its New York and MSG. Im upset and disapointed but not shocked. Apperantly We know where the Salt Lake City score keeper was working before the 80s.

2. I believe its most likely a typo and jouarnalist never care about the facts only the hype so they didnt investigate it. Lets not forget that the NBA was still trying to draw fans and stay solvent. Any amount of hype and press they coukld get they would run with.

Can you point to ONE GAME where you think the SLC scorekeeper was blatantly lying?

Just curious.

DavidStern: Great work!

I'm kind of blown away here. My first thought was to look at total assists for the series figuring that if they were a low or comparable number compared to today than that would give me a hint toward a true error as opposed to something completely faked.

What do we see?

Knicks 192 assists, Lakers 185

By comparison, in 2010 (our last 7 game series):

Celtics 138, Lakers 102

W.T.F!

Need to look more into this.