RealGM

This is a continuation of this thread. The OP of that one was sort of a mess, as it started as a moved discussion from a thread about Dolph Schayes, and then sort of spawned a monster on-going project.

For anyone not familiar with the project, I'm going thru any/all available game footage of old games [70sFan is being amazing helpful and generous in providing me with games] and creating play-by-play logs, box totals (plus a few extra stats not on a typical box [like FT-assists, hockey assists, offensive fouls drawn, and "great contests/defensive hustle plays"]), and shot location data for each and every player involved. At some point I intend to figure up some on/off data for certain players, too.

Links to the play-by-play logs and the shot location data are provided below. As this thread will eventually fall into the back pages of the forum, I am going to link this thread in the stickied "Project Consolidation Thread".


Games I've logged [updated regularly] at this point (*indicates On/Off finished):
1/7/50 (rs game, ~85% of game): Pistons @ Knicks
12/16/50 (rs game, ~85% of game): Pistons @ Knicks
10/25/59 (rs game): Lakers @ Royals
10/19/61 (rs game): Packers @ Knicks
12/1/61 (rs game): Nationals @ Knicks
4/18/62 (game 7 NBA Finals, ~25% of game): Lakers @ Celtics
4/24/63 (game 6 NBA Finals): Celtics @ Lakers
4/24/64 (game 4 NBA Finals, 2nd half): Celtics @ Warriors
4/18/65 (game 1 Finals, ~25% of game): Lakers @ Celtics
3/30/66 (game 4 EDSF, 2nd half): Celtics @ Royals
4/28/66 (game 7 Finals, ~40% of game): Lakers @ Celtics
4/9/67 (game 4 EDF, 2nd half): 76'ers @ Celtics
12/9/67 (rs game, ~50% of game): Pistons @ Knicks
12/24/67 (rs game, ~95% of game): Warriors @ Sonics
2/14/68 (rs game): Rockets @ Knicks
4/6/69 (game 1 EDF): Celtics @ Knicks
5/5/69 (game 7 NBA finals, 4th quarter): Celtics @ Lakers
10/18/69 (rs game): Pistons @ Bucks
10/28/69 (rs game): Hawks @ Knicks
2/25/70 (rs game, ~25% of game): Bulls @ Warriors
3/7/70 (rs game, ~75% of game): Royals @ Warriors
3/18/70 (rs game, ~80% of 2nd half): Celtics @ Lakers
4/11/70 (game 1 EDF [highlights]; *~5% of game logged): Bucks @ Knicks (*discontinued due to pro-NY skewing of highlights)
5/4/70 (game 5 NBA Finals; ~45% of game [somewhat highlight skewed]): Lakers @ Knicks
5/8/70 (game 7 NBA Finals): Lakers @ Knicks
10/17/70 (rs game, ~90% of game): Bucks @ Hawks
10/24/70 (rs game): Pistons @ Braves
11/27/70 (rs game; ~90% of game): Knicks @ Bucks
12/25/70 (rs game): Hawks @ Suns
1/10/71 (rs game; ~55% of game): 76'ers @ Celtics
2/28/71 (rs game; ~95% of game): Knicks @ Bullets
4/4/71 (game 6 WCSF): Lakers @ Bulls
4/30/71 (game 4 NBA Finals, 2nd half): Bucks @ Bullets
1/7/72 (rs; ~45% of game): Lakers @ Hawks
1/9/72 (rs game): Lakers @ Bucks
2/16/72 (rs; ~8 minutes of 4th quarter): Lakers @ Suns
4/14/72 (game 3 WCF, ~35% of game): Lakers @ Bucks
4/16/72 (game 4 WCF; ~73% of game): Lakers @ Bucks
5/7/72 (game 5 NBA Finals; ~85% of game): Knicks @ Lakers
12/26/72 (rs game): Knicks @ Celtics [in process]

Additional games for which I've logged Shot Location Data only:
n/a


Play-by-Play logs - early 50's
Play-by-play logs - early 60's
Play-by-Play logs - late 60's
Play-by-play logs - '70 and '71
Play-by-Play logs - '72 and '73
Shot location data
Select Player Game Logs/Box stats


I (circa-October 2020) added one feature to the shot location data spreadsheet: a column that states the sample-size (# of games) each player has in the data-set. The specific games are then listed to the right of that.
NOTE: in cases of partial game footage, I did not list a game [or include it in the sample size total] for a player if he is NOT shown in the partial game footage. Examples: I recently finished logging G7 of the '66 NBA Finals (video includes about 40% of the game)--->guys like Don Nelson and Darrall Imhoff DID play in that game.......however, they never make an appearance in the segments of the game included in the video; so I do not list that game as one that is included in their sample size.

Tangential to this: I suspect, in many cases of partial-game footage, that the footage included is skewed towards segments where the stars are on the court (so the "effective sample size" might be marginally larger than was is listed for some star-level players).

On the game-log spreadsheets, there are multiple games per sheet (the tabs at the bottom show which game you're looking at). I've arranged the tabs in chronological order of date played.

You're doing an amazing work!

I have a confession to make.... (part 1)

It sort of relates to a topic 70sFan and I have touched on in private messages. This will seem a long way around about making a point pertaining to that, but I hope it will be thought-provoking.

But before I make my confession, I need to provide an honest assessment of what I am as a basketball player, or rather what I was 15(ish) years ago [I'm well past my prime now]; you'll see why this is relevant eventually…..


I'm about 6'0" tall [certainly at least that in basketball shoes; probably closer to 5'11" without shoes].
I weighed about 160 lbs soaking wet. It might be fair to say I was somewhat "wirey strong" for my size, but still: that's fairly small in basketball terms [particularly if comparing to the higher levels of competition].

I used to think I had sort of long arms for my height [and maybe compared to the average Joe, I do]. But on a visit to the Collegiate Basketball HOF, I discovered that compared to basketball players [at least to NBA players] I do not. They had this wall where you could measure your wingspan: mine was about 5'10.25". There was also a chart showing many examples from players in the NBA, and it seems that the average NBA player has a wingspan:height ratio of 1 or just >1. So mine [which was just <1] is barely pedestrian by their standards.

I have small hands; I cannot palm a basketball.

The highest I've EVER managed to elevate off a running one-footed jump was about 30-31". My best two-footed jump was more like 27". Although, fwiw, I did get to where I could consistently elevate at least 20-23" for a jump-shot (off a legal dribble, and maintaining accuracy on the shot).

For the next few aspects of my athleticism, I'll give a generic verbal assessment (e.g. "good", "poor", "average", etc). And please note I'm rating myself relative to competition I have first-hand experience against; basically a collage of: a) the high-school competition I faced [I went to a middle-American highschool where our graduating class was ~150 students, so we were facing similar-sized schools], b) college pick-up games, and c) men's mixed-age recreational leagues.
So.....

I had very good forward-moving first step quickness; was also very quick in coming to stop and redirecting in the opposite direction. I'd not go so far as to call my first-step quickness "elite", but it was "very good". Again: relative to the level(s) of competition mentioned above. Compared to modern division I college competition, I'm sure it's very pedestrian [probably even kinda poor].

My lateral quickness wasn't quite as good as my first step, but still probably a little above average.

My open-court speed was mediocre. I remember running suicides in highschool basketball practices.....don't know if I ever finished first on the team [maybe once or twice when everyone else was dogging it and I (purely for pride) ran my heart out]. Generally though, I never finished first. I was at an advantage over nearly everyone on the team in my ability to do the stop and re-direct back in the opposite direction quicker; but I lost ground in the actual running (probably only around the 40th percentile on my team). So....pretty mediocre. And again, that's relative to the competition above. Compared to D1 NCAA or the NBA, I'd probably look like I was running thru shallow water.

Though I worked awfully hard, my stamina was ultimately probably only average or barely better. You see, I'm a mild asthmatic like Bobby Jones. So I don't have endless motor, and after bursts of HEAVY exertion I can get severely winded.

Body control, hand/eye coordination......idk, pretty good I think. Nothing exceptional though.

So that gives you a good picture of the athlete that I was. Now on to skills [which again, I'll be comparing to the types of competition I know]....

I was not a great ball-handler [particularly for someone whose size dictates I must be a guard]. Not terrible, but not good either.

My passing was perhaps entirely mediocre as well. I had the occasional flash of brilliance [specific plays I remember like yesterday], and I was good at making post entry passes, fwiw. But overall, I was not great at setting up teammates [part of that related to my limited handle]. I can't work terribly well as the ball-handler on a pnr, for example. My assist rates were pretty low-moderate.
I seem to naturally [instinctively] endeavor to avoid contact, too (which limits my foul-draw rate).
To my credit, I had a fairly low-moderate turnover rate, though.

I was, however, a remarkable shooter. And I will stand by the adjective “remarkable” [again: compared to the competition I've experienced first-hand].
I once (just shooting around in the gym, no defense) hit 21/25 threes (including 13 in a row); that with the old highschool/college 19'9" 3pt line. I extended my range out 4' to the NBA line, fwiw, though obviously the efficiency fell substantially in doing so. I do remember consistently hitting 8-10 out of 25 from 24+’ while shooting around (no defense).
My all-time record out of a 100 FT's (again, just shooting around) was 98 [in which I hit a personal best 89 in a row].

In actual competition, well….
In my sophomore year of highschool, I had a '15 Kyle Korver-like season, except I can't claim to have had the gravity he did, because tbh they were mostly WIDE open 3's I was being allowed. This was in the mid-90's, just coming out of the time when the 3pt line was seen as little more than a gimmick. But I had embraced it as my preferred shot, while most of the defenses were coached to deny the paint (I wasn't much of a driving threat).

I shot almost 54% from 3pt range that year [the line was still at 19'9" at that time] on 3.9 attempts per game. I was also just over 90% at the FT line (29/32 for the year); my TS% was something obscene like 73%.
By the very next year, it seemed teams were becoming more wise to the 3pt line, and suddenly they weren't as open and easily given. My shooting % fell as a result (though still like 43-44% from beyond the arc over my junior and senior years). fwiw, my FT% fell into the high 70's, too.
I also shot a little >50% from 2pt range over those three years of highschool, despite being primarily a jump-shooter.
So I could shoot.

That said, I must acknowledge the release on my 3pt shot was not fast; I needed to be open on catch-and-shoots. I mean, it wasn’t slow like opening a cumbersome umbrella, but it is NOT fast.
I could not come tearing around a screen at high speed and catch-and-shoot on the move like that; I really needed to be set when I caught the ball.
I could shoot it out of a triple-threat position, but again, my release was not lightning-quick like a Steph Curry.
I could shoot from beyond the arc off the dribble if it was a forward dribble (like a trot-up transition three) or dribbling to my right (perhaps on a high screen), though my accuracy fell relative to a catch-and-shoot.
For a legit off-the-dribble jump-shot, my range really only extended out to about 18-19’ (that is: just INSIDE the 3pt line). For 3pters it was more shots where my feet were set.


Despite being small, I was a fundamentally sound low-post defender. Despite being averse to contact on offense, I was not at all that way on defense. I was [and still am] a very physical [some might even say a pinch "dirty"] defensive player; and this comes out particularly in the post. This is because I was actually tall for my age around 7th-8th grade, so I started out as a post player. But my growth rate slowed dramatically in highschool (and practically stopped by age 17); plus I became such an adept shooter that I naturally transitioned to a wing.

As far as my offensive low-post skills, I’m sort of limited. I can post up very well; that is: I’m good at sealing the defender on my hip [even bigger defenders] and I show my hand clearly where I want the entry pass [which I intuitively put in a place the passer can deliver]. But then I only have a couple of moves in my bag of tricks: 1) I can do a turnaround fade-away, though only turning over my left shoulder; and 2) I can do a little jump-hook with my right hand [oh, I’m right handed, btw] if I’m pretty close. That’s pretty much it. If I’m low enough upon getting the entry pass, I suppose I can do a bit of a drop-step, but I’m so small I’m not easily moving anyone AND such a shot is in danger of being blocked by bigs lurking behind me.
I never had the calm and patience to master any great post fakes and counter-moves.

My defensive IQ now is very good (I think). But I really don’t play anymore (too punishing at my age, and I’ve hit the point where I’m frustrated that I can’t get my body to do the things it used to). My defensive IQ 15 years ago was…...meh, probably only so so. Effort was ALWAYS there defensively: then and now I’ve always operated on the philosophy that if you need to catch your breath, you do it on offense. And that’s despite my primary value being on offense. But imo you just don’t compromise your teammates by not showing up on each and every defensive possession. And I had a “fiery” competitive spirit defensively.


So now you hopefully have a reasonable mental picture of what I brought to the table as a player. I was a good [not great] highschool player (maybe an average starter-level player my senior year, at least among the smallish schools I was playing with/against [barely above that at best); I’ve done well in various casual or organized pick-up games and men’s leagues…….which is probably as much as MOST posters here could say.

My basketball IQ [despite the fact that I’ve barely played in the last few years] has basically peaked like NOW; with age [and study] comes wisdom, I guess.
My skills peak was probably around age 27-29; my physical peak was my early-mid 20’s.
So my overall peak was probably around my late 20’s [or mid-late 20’s]: skills were at their peak, athleticism not at all far removed from my peak, and my IQ was slowly growing (better at 27 than at 22, for example).
One spring in my mid-20s, while working on my doctorate at a major division 1 university, I decided I was going to train my butt off and try out for that university’s men basketball team in the fall.
I certainly had no illusions that I was going to be a “relevant” player at that level. My goal was to simply make the team in any capacity: even if it was just someone who only got to participate in practices, and never got to dress for games. Didn’t expect I could ever play in a game, other than maybe a minute or two of garbage time if I was lucky (a “Rudy-esque” success).
And maybe even that was delusional, I don’t know. At the very least, I was hoping I wouldn’t embarrass myself in finding out I was so far out of my league. Unfortunately [or perhaps fortunately], I never got the chance to find out. I contacted the assistant coach and discovered that my NCAA eligibility had already expired [as the school-year in question would have been my 7th year of post-highschool education…...your NCAA eligibility only extends to the first six].


OK OK…..if you’ve read this far you must be wondering “what’s the confession already?”. And what the hell does it have to do with the content of this thread? I’m gonna force you to read on in part 2 to find out….

I have a confession to make.... (part 2)

You know how many posters denigrate some of the earlier eras of basketball, particularly anything [roughly] pre-merger? There was a thread not long ago in which a poster said that if you *time-machined [*time-machine analogies being the worst, but I’ll touch on that more shortly] Steph Curry back into the late 60s, Jerry West wouldn’t know what to do with him; that the first crossover he put on West would leave Jerry behind flat-footed and confused like “what just happened?”.

*In actuality, a typical crossover by Curry (or any modern player) would get called for carrying and succeed in nothing except turning the ball over to the other team in the late 60s. And if [instead of time-machining him back] Steph Curry were simply born 50 years earlier, he wouldn’t dribble like that anyway. Because people learn/adopt what they’re taught or shown; and any modifications upon the standard are small, and to some degree dictated by what the rules would allow: baby steps in game evolution, not quantum leaps.

This goes for ALL aspects of the game, too; not just ball-handling.


Incidentally, this perception [by some] of this era of basketball makes me wonder how modern players would be perceived if the only view we got of them was something with far less “shine” and spectacle than what we get now:
Like suppose instead of the immaculately cleaned/waxed/protected courts they get today, they played on the more scuffed courts [that had been repeatedly trampled on by hundreds of street shoes] of 50+ years ago, and were forced to wear the generic flat-soled thin-bodied shoes of 50+ years ago (old-school Converse all-stars, basically)......how much would that alone slow players down, and cause them to be more cautious in their movements?

Imagine also that they had play in much simpler uniforms, including the dorky-looking short shorts.
And imagine no break-away rims (thus no showy merciless dunks), and imagine a quiet stadium [none of the thunderous amped up music and dance routines, pyrotechnics, etc], and none of the animated rafters, screens, replays and kiss-cams…….and further imagine watching all of this with just a single [or maybe two] camera angle of very poor resolution (+/- being B&W).

How much would these things change the way we perceive the game, and the perceived awesomeness of the guys who play it? I tend to think quite a lot.


SO WHAT’S THE CONFESSION?!?

The confession is: I used to be one of these people denigrating that era, and really not even all that long ago. I recall believing as recently as ~9 years ago that if I sent a prime version of myself back in time [again: time-machine being the worst way to consider this], that I would have been a near-dominant player in the NBA in the early 60s, and still at least a decent/capable player in the NBA by circa-1970.

We all can get delusions of grandeur, and will occasionally overestimate ourselves, but you read in part one what I bring to the table as a player.
For counterpoint, I want to now look at who some of my “professional peers” would be circa-1970, focusing more on lower tier players…..

Odie Smith
Odie Smith was just about the smallest player to take the court in the game linked below, but he’s still ~1.5” taller and 20-22 lbs heavier than me. The only guy smaller than Smith in this game was Al Attles [who was also marginally bigger than me].

You can get an idea of how Smith can move at the 7:35 mark [beats his man off the dribble, though misses the lay-up], and the 12:08 mark in the video [sneaking out in transition]; bear in mind this is post-prime [33-year-old] Adrian Smith.

These plays are not the sort he was known for, though. He was mostly an outside shooter (and he does hit one from about 21’ in this game). But you can perhaps get a better idea of his shooting in the second video below, where he’s among some old NBA stars shooting around together on All-Star weekend. If you start around the 7-minute mark in the video, you see him taking lots of shots [he’s the guy in the light blue T-shirt and gray shorts]. Notice the simple quick release [I’d noted mine isn’t particularly quick], and look how most of them are going swish, swish, swish [including a couple from NBA 3pt range].
Bear in mind Odie Smith is a long-retired 50-year-old man in this video.
Also consider he was a career 83.8% FT shooter (peaking at a league-leading 90.3%).

What about the player [myself] I described in part one sounds like it could do any better than (or even as good as) Odie Smith?
And Odie Smith was NOT a dominant player, even in the early 60s. In fact, he peaked as nothing more than a basically average player [yeah, I know he was an All-Star once, but that was while having a mere 18/4/3 season on mediocre efficiency despite playing >37 mpg]; and by age 33 in the first video below, he was probably slightly SUB-replacement level.







Howard Komives
Komives was ~1.5” taller and 25 lbs heavier than me. You can get an idea how he moves on the play at the 41:31 mark of the first video below [that’s him making the shot, and then watch him on defense the following play; and actually him moving with the ball at around 41:45 too-->not too bad handling against pressure, under the rules of the time].

And watch the play at 51:30 in the second video [he’s #30]. He goes to the rim with Kareem defending the paint [and scores]. It doesn’t look like an amazing play by NBA standards [and it’s not]. Point is I could never in a million years imagine myself going to the tin with a 7’2” Kareem in the vicinity. No friggin’ way. Pretty sure I’d get stuffed if I tried.

Conclusion is that Howard’s a clearly better athlete than me. And he was a career 83.0% FT shooter (peaked at 86.8%) who had some outside touch, and better handles than me.

Komives at his absolute best was a replacement-level player in the circa-1970 league; most of the time he was somewhat BELOW that (an outright scrub some years).






George Wilson
Wilson is listed at 6’8” and 225 lbs, and seems a decent athlete (gets a partial block on 6’11” Bob Lanier on the play at 37:20 mark in the first video linked in Komives's section), and can be seen looking comfortable shooting from the outside multiple times (at the 28:50 mark can be seen draining a 19-footer).

He was a career 67.7% FT shooter (peaked >81% in the very year depicted in the video).

I mean, seriously, how often in men’s leagues or pick-up games did you actually face someone that big, who was a decent athlete, and had at least a little modicum of skill and shooting ability? If you did, that person likely dominated the game due to his size alone, amiright?

George Wilson was a career scrub who washed out of the league before his 29th birthday.


Em Bryant
Although I’m comfortable saying I am definitively a better outside shooter than Bryant [for whatever that’s worth in an era without a 3pt line], he was 6’1” and 175 lbs [once again, bigger than me].......he’s far FAR quicker and faster than me, and appears a superior leaper as well, and a better motor too [my asthma].
Look at the play starting 29:03 in first video in Howard Komives’s section: wicked double-crossover at a time where it has to be REALLY tight to not commit a carry, ultimately creating for a teammate. FAR better ball-handler and creator than me. And a scrappy defender.

Bryant, like the others, was never better than a replacement-level player in the NBA of the late 60s, and mostly less than that in the early 70s.


Bob Quick
6’5”, 215 lbs (in an era before weight-lifting was really facilitated). Look at the quickness, smooth body control on a play like that which occurs at 41:12 in that same video (1st link in Komives section); appears to be a strong finisher in general based upon this game. Multiple other spots in that game where you can see some ups and strength on this guy too (defensively, or on the boards).

Shoots 78.4% at the FT-line in the season from which that video comes (goes 2 for 3 from outside of 16’ in this particular game, too fwiw), which happens to be his peak season…….he was still probably not quite even a league-average player that year.


John Hummer
Hummer is 6’9”, 230 lbs. Good mobility for his size (there’s one play in this game where he’s trying to hustle back on transition defense and he’s REALLY moving; can’t remember where it is). Can be seen making a 19’ jumper at the 7:31 mark of that same video I keep referring to (1st video linked in Komives section).

Seriously, a guy that big who could move that well, with ANY degree of skill in basketball would have crushed any highschool game, pick-up game, men’s league game I ever played in.
He was a total scrub in the NBA of the early 70s who washed out of the league by his 28th birthday.


I’ll stop there, but one is hopefully getting the picture.
Even if I were time-machined back to this era [with all the “advantages” of modern mentoring, etc], I STILL don’t even compare to the scrubs and replacement level players of that era. Those scrubs would be better [at times far better] than me.

As much as people will poo-poo on these relatively antiquated years of pro basketball, and make off-hand judgements like “even I would be a good player in that era”......the truth (the very very apparent truth if you slow down and REALLY start looking closely and REALLY be honest about the player you see in the mirror) is that no: none of us [with very rare exception] would be a player in any capacity in this era. Likely not even close in most instances.

The average player in the NBA of the 60s/70s is FAR better than many are willing to give them credit for.

That's amazing post trex! People often say bad things about average players from that era, but very few people know anything about them and have the willingness to watch and analyze old games. You're doing an outstanding job for all of us.

I was a "basketball player" myself when I was in HS. I live in Poland, so you have to keep in mind that the level of basketball in Poland is much worse than in America. I was never a good player to be honest, but I always worked hard on defense and I set very solid screens. I was small (5'11 and ~170 lbs) for someone who always wanted to play like a big. The only things I did at respectable job was defending someone one on one, setting screens and playing in the post against guys my size and slightly bigger (I spent so many hours polishing my version of skyhook that I can hit them with either hand even now comfortably against taller man). That's all relative to terrible competition I faced in Poland. The absolute best players I've played against are now in the main Polish league, but they were much better than anyone on our team.

Since I stopped playing basketball, I gained a lot of knowledge (I'm still not a very good at analyzing games though). I'm well aware how bad basketball player I was and I'd be nothing in US HS, but I can realize when I see a talented basketball player. We're used to call NBA players scrubs, but we all know they are really good. To be honest, I've never watched 1960s NBA game in which I found a player I thought that was "terrible". Every scrub I've seen on the NBA court looks talented physically and quite skilled in one way or another.

Trex just posted the game I sent him not long ago and when you watch some of it, you have to keep in mind that these teams were bad by 1970/71 season standards. In fact, Braves team was very bad - they didn't have anyone notable in historical sense in their roster. This team was full of scrubs, do they look amateur-ish? I don't think so.

Wow, 32 offensive rebounds from the Suns against Atlanta is mind blowing

70sFan wrote:Wow, 32 offensive rebounds from the Suns against Atlanta is mind blowing

Yeah, 12 [12!] by Paul Silas. I was getting really used to writing "Offensive rebound by P.Silas" in the log.

It's part of why the Suns had ~30 more FGA than the Hawks in this game (that and the Hawks turning it over a lot, and also the Suns getting to the FT-line less). There is a small stretch of game [in 4th quarter] missing, wherein 6 pts were scored by the Suns and 4 pts by the Hawks. Otherwise it's full-game footage.

Glad you popped on here, I was just about to post wrt some observations/impressions from this game......

Disparity in quality
This relates to the game I logged just prior to this one: the Knicks/Bucks game from same season.
The difference in quality going from that game to ^^this game was REALLY striking; like it's actually hard to believe these teams are from the same league [in the same season, no less]. It makes me wonder if teams like the '71 Bucks and the Knicks of this era were frequently just playing down to their competition. But it was almost kind of startling.

I mean, watching:
Kareem, with that remarkable combination of height and athleticism, and his fabulous touch in the close-range (that hook-shot).....
Reed, with his fantastic mid-range touch, savvy maneuvers around the rim, physical defense, and general unselfishness.....
Frazier, with his understated athleticism, excellent handles, brilliant mid-range shooting, fantastic shot selection, as well as his quick hands and defensive instincts......
And Robertson, with his big body, mid-range post skills, brilliant mid-range shooting, and calm methodical approach....

I mean, right there are four players who are better than ANYONE playing in the Hawks/Suns game (and frankly Bob Dandridge might be just about as good as anyone in this Hawks/Suns game, too, especially given Hawkins doesn't have a particularly good game [early foul trouble kinda stalled out his 1st half]).
And then the players going further down the roster just seem better, too.


It was harder to score in the paint or via penetration in this era
Clogged paint aside, look at the offensive fouls called at 13:59, 44:49, 57:04, 1:03:49, 1:12:13, and 1:23:30.........I'm not sure ANY of these gets called for an offensive foul in today's league (and at least one or two I'm pretty sure get called the OTHER way, if anything).

Also look at the traveling called on Fred Taylor at 1:24:43.......I'm not really seeing a travel, personally; at any rate I'm pretty confident saying that's unlikely to be called in today's league.


Pete Maravich
I'm so far not too impressed with Maravich. Granted the games I've logged so far are from his rookie year, but still....
His defense is horrid. Dick Van Arsdale goes off like a scoring god in part because Maravich was defending him for some of the game. As bad as his on-ball defense frequently is, I think it's his off-ball defense that really sets him apart [in a bad way] from the pack. Good example of the kinds of costly possessions I'm referring to can be seen at 30:30.
That's not the only example; for instance, it happens really early if you look at the 2:50 mark in the video, but he's bailed out by Walt Bellamy on that particular blunder.
His passing sometimes seems like more flash than substance (recall one instance where he didn't deliver the ball at the most opportune moment or suck the defense in enough because he was too busy putting the razzle-dazzle on the pass).

Not sure what to think about his shooting so far. I mean, certainly his reputation is that he could shoot, and we frequently say that he'd be better today with a 3pt line and whatnot. So far, it's just not coming thru in the numbers (though I've got barely two games of his logged, so...).
But thru these almost two games, he is 3 of 20 (15%) from outside of 16' (3 of 19 from 16-23.75', and 0 of 1 on his one try from ~24').
He's done much better in close to the basket.

I want to talk about Sweet Lou Hudson's sweet stroke from the outside mid-range, but I think I'm going to do a separate post pertaining specifically to some shot data about multiple players. Hudson's got a nice shot, though.


Paul Silas
He's everywhere in this game. Doesn't score a ton, and his defender is frequently comfortable backing way off him [even when he's only like 16' or so from the rim].....but he's all over the offensive glass, as noted above; game-high 18 total rebounds in this one. He also came up with 7 assists, 5 steals*, and a block in this game.

*Important to note that if one defender pops the ball loose or deflects the pass and it just lands in the hands of another defender [right place, right time], I'm in the habit of crediting the steal to the guy who poked it loose or deflected it. I know that might not be how it is frequently recorded "officially", but I feel it's appropriate to credit the guy who actually created the turnover, and not the guy who was just lucky to be standing in the right place at that moment.


I'll stop there; will be back to comment on some shot data soon.....

trex_8063 wrote:

Watch on YouTube

70sFan wrote:Wow, 32 offensive rebounds from the Suns against Atlanta is mind blowing

Yeah, 12 [12!] by Paul Silas. I was getting really used to writing "Offensive rebound by P.Silas" in the log.

It's part of why the Suns had ~30 more FGA than the Hawks in this game (that and the Hawks turning it over a lot, and also the Suns getting to the FT-line less). There is a small stretch of game [in 4th quarter] missing, wherein 6 pts were scored by the Suns and 4 pts by the Hawks. Otherwise it's full-game footage.

Glad you popped on here, I was just about to post wrt some observations/impressions from this game......

Disparity in quality
This relates to the game I logged just prior to this one: the Knicks/Bucks game from same season.
The difference in quality going from that game to ^^this game was REALLY striking; like it's actually hard to believe these teams are from the same league [in the same season, no less]. It makes me wonder if teams like the '71 Bucks and the Knicks of this era were frequently just playing down to their competition. But it was almost kind of startling.

I mean, watching:
Kareem, with that remarkable combination of height and athleticism, and his fabulous touch in the close-range (that hook-shot).....
Reed, with his fantastic mid-range touch, savvy maneuvers around the rim, physical defense, and general unselfishness.....
Frazier, with his understated athleticism, excellent handles, brilliant mid-range shooting, fantastic shot selection, as well as his quick hands and defensive instincts......
And Robertson, with his big body, mid-range post skills, brilliant mid-range shooting, and calm methodical approach....

I mean, right there are four players who are better than ANYONE playing in the Hawks/Suns game (and frankly Bob Dandridge might be just about as good as anyone in this Hawks/Suns game, too, especially given Hawkins doesn't have a particularly good game [early foul trouble kinda stalled out his 1st half]).
And then the players going further down the roster just seem better, too.


It was harder to score in the paint or via penetration in this era
Clogged paint aside, look at the offensive fouls called at 13:59, 44:49, 57:04, 1:03:49, 1:12:13, and 1:23:30.........I'm not sure ANY of these gets called for an offensive foul in today's league (and at least one or two I'm pretty sure get called the OTHER way, if anything).

Also look at the traveling called on Fred Taylor at 1:24:43.......I'm not really seeing a travel, personally; at any rate I'm pretty confident saying that's unlikely to be called in today's league.


Pete Maravich
I'm so far not too impressed with Maravich. Granted the games I've logged so far are from his rookie year, but still....
His defense is horrid. Dick Van Arsdale goes off like a scoring god in part because Maravich was defending him for some of the game. As bad as his on-ball defense frequently is, I think it's his off-ball defense that really sets him apart [in a bad way] from the pack. Good example of the kinds of costly possessions I'm referring to can be seen at 30:30.
That's not the only example; for instance, it happens really early if you look at the 2:50 mark in the video, but he's bailed out by Walt Bellamy on that particular blunder.
His passing sometimes seems like more flash than substance (recall one instance where he didn't deliver the ball at the most opportune moment or suck the defense in enough because he was too busy putting the razzle-dazzle on the pass).

Not sure what to think about his shooting so far. I mean, certainly his reputation is that he could shoot, and we frequently say that he'd be better today with a 3pt line and whatnot. So far, it's just not coming thru in the numbers (though I've got barely two games of his logged, so...).
But thru these almost two games, he is 3 of 20 (15%) from outside of 16' (3 of 19 from 16-23.75', and 0 of 1 on his one try from ~24').
He's done much better in close to the basket.

I want to talk about Sweet Lou Hudson's sweet stroke from the outside mid-range, but I think I'm going to do a separate post pertaining specifically to some shot data about multiple players. Hudson's got a nice shot, though.


Paul Silas
He's everywhere in this game. Doesn't score a ton, and his defender is frequently comfortable backing way off him [even when he's only like 16' or so from the rim].....but he's all over the offensive glass, as noted above; game-high 18 total rebounds in this one. He also came up with 7 assists, 5 steals*, and a block in this game.

*Important to note that if one defender pops the ball loose or deflects the pass and it just lands in the hands of another defender [right place, right time], I'm in the habit of crediting the steal to the guy who poked it loose or deflected it. I know that might not be how it is frequently recorded "officially", but I feel it's appropriate to credit the guy who actually created the turnover, and not the guy who was just lucky to be standing in the right place at that moment.


I'll stop there; will be back to comment on some shot data soon.....

Yeah, but to be fair - it's just one game and the difference in quality has always been enormous between top teams and weak ones (just look at some non-playoff teams in 2020 and compare it to Lakers and Celtics for example).

It's nice that you underlined how offensive fouls were called back then - players from 2010s would have to make huge adjustments in how they attack defenders. You could run through a defender and it was much harder to create a separation, especially with combination of much stricter traveling rules.

By the way, how would you compare 1970 Hawks team to 1971? I always thought that Caldwell-Pete exchange was poor for them (worse on both sides of the floor, especially on defense) and I sometimes wonder if Bellamy was as good player as his stats suggest at this point of his career. Also, do you have any thoughts about Connie Hawkins from that game?

trex_8063 wrote:The confession is: I used to be one of these people denigrating that era, and really not even all that long ago. I recall believing as recently as ~9 years ago that if I sent a prime version of myself back in time [again: time-machine being the worst way to consider this], that I would have been a near-dominant player in the NBA in the early 60s, and still at least a decent/capable player in the NBA by circa-1970.

Wow, I kinda thought I was low on that era but not that low. I'm 6'8 and reasonably skilled/athletic - played college ball at a small school (coincidentally coached by Cazzie Russell - the guy getting schooled by Oscar in your clip). But I never considered myself to be NBA material in any era (well possibly the early, early Mikan era). 60's/70's players were legit

70sFan wrote:
It's nice that you underlined how offensive fouls were called back then - players from 2010s would have to make huge adjustments in how they attack defenders. You could run through a defender and it was much harder to create a separation, especially with combination of much stricter traveling rules.

Yeah, it's a pretty striking difference. Although on the other side of the coin there are some aspects that make it EASIER for a perimeter player to score efficiently, too: for instance the automatic FT for non-shooting personal fouls [which are usually occurring on the ball-handler]--->two FT's if it occurs while in the backcourt or in the penalty.

70sFan wrote:By the way, how would you compare 1970 Hawks team to 1971? I always thought that Caldwell-Pete exchange was poor for them (worse on both sides of the floor, especially on defense)

Well, it's very apparent the '71 Hawks were the worse team. This is the problem with Maravich, and the biggest reason why I think he's grossly overrated by the mainstream. The mainstream media and casual fans have ALWAYS overrated/over-valued volume scoring; it's especially overrated when it's on mediocre shooting efficiency and mediocre to poor turnover economy (Maravich qualifying for BOTH those distinctions). And then when it also does not appear to correspond with any notable positive impact [or even seems to correlate with an offensive DECLINE for the team.....which is the case with Maravich], it really really REALLY begins to look overrated.

The '70 Hawks had the starting back-court of Walt Hazzard and Joe Caldwell, with the front-court of Bill Bridges, Lou Hudson, and obtained Walt Bellamy as a late-season acquisition--->pushing Jim Davis [a nice back-up PF/C, not really someone you'd relish starting] to the bench. Butch Beard was another bright spot on the bench, which was otherwise mediocre.
That core managed a #1-rated +3.3 rORTG, won 48 games, and made it to the division finals.

fwiw, a year previously in '69 with the same basic starting core [except it was Zelmo Beaty in place of Bellamy] they'd had a +1.9 rORTG, again won 48 games, and again made it to the division finals.

In '71 they've replaced Joe Caldwell with Pete Maravich, which is the ONLY change to the starting line-up. They did have some turnover on the bench, though it's mostly net-neutral change with the exception of losing Butch Beard [which has to be seen as a small net-loss to the bench strength]; still have Jim Davis, fwiw.
The result is they fall from a +3.3 rORTG to a -0.3 rORTG, worsen by 12 wins (by -1.61 SRS compared to '70 [-3.36 compared to '69]), easily bounced in the 1st round of playoffs.

They would improve in subsequent years, but NEVER return to the level they'd been at PRIOR TO Maravich's arrival. Their best year with him would be '73 in which they'd have a +1.2 rORTG and manage 46 wins [though still a negative SRS (-0.46 relative to '70, -2.21 relative to '69)].


At most other points in his career we don't see this DECLINE in teams upon his arrival and/or IMPROVEMENT upon his leaving......but nor do we see the opposite. We see more of a net-neutral effect the rest of his career [with this one net negative effect on his arrival to the Hawks].

His in-season WOWY [by my crude investigations] appears MOSTLY positive during his career, but only by a small degree. Elgee's WOWYR gives him a +0.4 for his prime, +0.3 for career. So.....fairly pedestrian.

By my limited eye-test, what I see with him is a guy who is a versatile scorer and certainly capable of creating for himself and others, BUT someone who also is a bit turnover-prone AND overall a fairly mediocre efficiency scorer.......and he also happens to be godawful on defense.

I think the combination of flash, volume, and college reputation [which placed an expectation on his pro career] have all combined to inflate perception of his actual importance and "general goodness" at basketball. But he's ultimately just not that good. A worse defensive version of DeMar DeRozan is about the most complimentary I think I can be [and DeRozan's longevity/durability probably have already out-matched Maravich's career, too].

70sFan wrote:and I sometimes wonder if Bellamy was as good player as his stats suggest at this point of his career.

As much as I think Bellamy got underrated on the last top 100 project, I certainly must concede he's NOT as good as his stats suggest.
He too [like Maravich] sustains a bit of a disconnect between his box-based metrics and perceived impact. One could even suggest that the disconnect is even larger in Bellamy's case [though only because his box numbers are that much better than Maravich's].

His defense strikes me as inconsistent. He'll have moments of brilliance and laudable effort, but then follow it up with stretches of meh defense and shoddy effort. Sort of reminds me of prime DeMarcus Cousins in this regard.
I don't know what he represents in terms of locker room presence or team leader/cancer, but I do note that at one or two points in his career, his team seemed happy to be rid of him.

He did net a pretty good trade upon leaving the Bullets for NY. And depending upon what one thinks of Dave DeBusschere, you could say it was an equitable(ish) trade that sent him to Detroit: the Knicks sent him and Howard Komives to Detroit for DeBusschere [though anecdotally I heard Red Holzman was practically skipping with joy at the trade].

But within a year Detroit was done with him and sent a 30-year-old Bellamy on his way, trading for *only John Arthurs in return [Arthurs was a wash-out scrub who played a grand total of just 86 minutes in the NBA].
*I don't know if there were other factors at play here, such as freeing up some cash to make other moves. But that is otherwise a VERY striking move: they were basically GIVING Bellamy away.


Side-note observations and data on Bellamy....
I've now got nearly five and a half games of Bellamy logged. Going into this, I guess I was somewhat expecting to see a guy with a myriad of low post moves to achieve his very special scoring numbers.
But his game down there is actually pretty basic. He was just so big and athletic, though, that he was frequently able to get the ball in very deep position where he was very hard to stop.

The shot-location data so far does reveal some willingness to take some outside shots [at least by the mid-later part of his career [in NY, Det, and Atl], though it's unclear as to whether or not he was a credible threat out there (warranting an actual "floor-spreading" effect); sample size still too small to say for sure.
From OUTSIDE of 16' he's so far just 4 of 13 (30.8%), and was 2 of 6 (33.3%) from 10-16'. Those 13 attempts from 16-23.75' represents the 2nd-most common range for him in this sample, fwiw.

But the vast majority of his attempts are coming right under the basket: a whopping 55.1% of his attempts came from <3' (this proportion being comparable to prime Shaq). He finished a very nice 73.7% of those, frequently assisted (his overall proportion of buckets that were assisted is 68.4%). He might be a little hot over this sample of games: he's showing a 55.1% FG% over this sample; though truthfully that's only a little above his actual averages (he was 51.6% for his entire career).

The other thing he's frequently achieving in getting these deep paint touches is getting to the line: his FTAr over this sample of games is .623 (again prime Shaq territory). This too is really only a little higher than what is expected of him based on his career figures: Bellamy had a career FTAr of .527 (peaking at .633 in '71, which is the season more than a third of my sample came from).

So it seems he was more of a "Shaq prototype" in terms of his scoring style.


Hard to say if this is true over his whole career, but he does appear turnover-prone in this sample: his modified TOV% over these ~5.4 games is 15.83% (which is VERY high, even for a big man).
That being said, it is likely skewed quite a bit by his rookie debut [which is in this sample] in which he had 10 turnovers.

Although those 10 turnovers highlight another noted difference between today's league and then: seriously like SIX of those turnovers were 3-second violations. And I have noted [not just in that game, but in general] the refs are REALLY quick on the draw to call 3-seconds in this era. And at times when the player is only partially in the paint: I've seen instances where a player had only part of one foot in the paint for ~3 seconds, and they called it. I saw other instances that were clearly more like 2 seconds and they jumped the gun and called it.
Watching the 2020 Finals, I noted a few instances where Dwight Howard in particular was flashing in the paint hoping for a pass under the basket, but was a pinch slow to get back out.....but it never got called [even one instance that was at least 4 seconds before he got himself fully out].

70sFan wrote:Also, do you have any thoughts about Connie Hawkins from that game?

Hard to get a feel based on just one game; and particularly THIS game for Hawkins. He picked up his 3rd personal relatively early in the 1st Q, but Cotton does NOT take him out. But consequently, you see Hawkins playing very soft/cautiously, particularly on defense.
As a result my impression of him defensively is not very complimentary, but that may not be accurate.

He does ultimately finish with an efficient 20 pts and 8 reb [though also 4 tov]. I was hoping to see more playmaking by him, but there's not much in this game.
Dick Van Arsdale and Paul Silas were the clear stand-outs for Phoenix in this game.

Thank you for respone, I appreciate that.

I wonder how Bellamy style really was. We only have one full game from his prime and that's not enough to draw a solid conclusion. I get Shaq comparison (he relied on physicality and strength heavily), but on the other hand he seemed to attack the paint from outside far often - I've seen him trying to drive past his opponent quite often with powerful moves. I'm also interested in how well he really shot from midrange - I doubt he was elite (quite disappointing FT%), but he could be at least decent - which would be another diferential from Shaq.

I agree with everything you said about Maravich and I don't think there is much of a case to think otherwise. He wasn't terrible player and he had a lot of talent, but he never turned it into something tangible.

Are you ready for the first 1971/72 game?

70sFan wrote:Thank you for respone, I appreciate that.

I wonder how Bellamy style really was. We only have one full game from his prime and that's not enough to draw a solid conclusion. I get Shaq comparison (he relied on physicality and strength heavily), but on the other hand he seemed to attack the paint from outside far often - I've seen him trying to drive past his opponent quite often with powerful moves. I'm also interested in how well he really shot from midrange - I doubt he was elite (quite disappointing FT%), but he could be at least decent - which would be another diferential from Shaq.

I didn't see him attacking the paint from outside of it more than I remember Shaq doing. With prime Shaq [when he still had the quickness], I recall him getting the ball just outside the paint [~1-3' off the block], quick face-up, fake one way, then power drive [usually just one dribble] the other way to come in for dunk/foul/both or a short jump-hook.

Certainly he shoots more in the mid-range than Shaq. With Shaq, 92.5% of his attempts ('97-'11) came from <10', vs just 72.5% for Bellamy so far. But in terms of shots at the rim (<3') and FTAr, he's almost identical to Shaq. He doesn't finish as "thunderously" as Shaq, but basically no one did at this time before break-away rims and show-boating dunks contests.

It's not a perfect analogy, just the closest one I can come up with. Maybe a poor-man's Shaq/DRob hybrid is an apt description of his scoring game??


The other thing I've noted with Bellamy that I forgot to mention is that he's a pretty decent outlet passer. He's turning to look very quickly, and more than once ignites the fast-break; couple of instances [in the same game, iirc] where he throws a "touchdown" pass for lay-up, actually.


As to what is his prime, he's a little harder to hammer down than most. I mean, if we're looking at ONLY the years where he had the REALLY big numbers, it seems like his prime is a mere 4 years ('62-'65), ending when he's just 25 years old. Or if you want to be marginally more generous, it lasts '62 thru '68 or '69 (either way that's ending before his 30th birthday).

But I'm not 100% convinced that a guy who had NO injury issues, and who was still a solid major-minute contributor thru '74 (at age 34), was out of his prime before age 30 (and definitely not by age 25)......especially in looking at the quality of year he had in '72 at age 32 (and to a lesser degree '73, at age 33).
I'm more wondering if it's just his role and usage that changed with circumstance.

If we're saying his prime ended in '65 (again, I'd disagree), then yes only a small portion (about 18.5%) of this sample comes from his prime.
If, otoh, we say it ended in '69, then nearly half this sample comes from his prime.
And if we say his "extended prime" (term I coined, used when including some marginal/late-prime years) goes to '72 or '73, then ALL of this sample is from within his extended prime.

So we might have a better idea than you're suggesting, based on this sample.

70sFan wrote:Are you ready for the first 1971/72 game?

Sure. Still working on the Bulls/Lakers game, but it's best to have the next one in que.

trex_8063 wrote:I didn't see him attacking the paint from outside of it more than I remember Shaq doing. With prime Shaq [when he still had the quickness], I recall him getting the ball just outside the paint [~1-3" off the block], quick face-up, fake one way, then power drive [usually just one dribble] the other way to come in for dunk/foul/both or a short jump-hook.

I've seen Bellamy driving fairly often in clips and highlights, although it's tough to make any solid scouting report from that. He played more in the high post than Shaq and I think this is not arguable.

Certainly he shoots more in the mid-range than Shaq. With Shaq, 92.5% of his attempts ('97-'11) came from <10', vs just 72.5% for Bellamy so far. But in terms of shots at the rim (<3') and FTAr, he's almost identical to Shaq. He doesn't finish as "thunderously" as Shaq, but basically no one did at this time before break-away rims and show-boating dunks contests.

Yeah, completely agree here. He was just very physical finisher inside (and one of the best ever relative to era - based on your shooting data and very high FG%).

It's not a perfect analogy, just the closest one I can come up with. Maybe a poor-man's Shaq/DRob hybrid is an apt description of his scoring game??

I feel I like this comparison. Not as big as Shaq and not as quick as Robinson, but somewhere between them and with comparable scoring repertoire.

The other thing I've noted with Bellamy that I forgot to mention is that he's a pretty decent outlet passer. He's turning to look very quickly, and more than once ignites the fast-break; couple of instances [in the same game, iirc] where he throws a "touchdown" pass for lay-up, actually.

I think that he was quite good passer from technical perspective - I've seen him finding cutters during drive in one of Hawks games for example. He could also find open men from high post.
The problem is probably consistency - he wasn't used as a passer and I don't think he approached the game in that way.

From random observation - I remember him setting screens quite often on P&Rs - is it right? Or is it my memory starting to erode?

As to what is his prime, he's a little harder to hammer down than most. I mean, if we're looking at ONLY the years where he had the REALLY big numbers, it seems like his prime is a mere 4 years ('62-'65), ending when he's just 25 years old. Or if you want to be marginally more generous, it lasts '62 thru '68 or '69 (either way that's ending before his 30th birthday).

But I'm not 100% convinced that a guy who had NO injury issues, and who was still a solid major-minute contributor thru '74 (at age 34), was out of his prime before age 30 (and definitely not by age 25)......especially in looking at the quality of year he had in '72 at age 32 (and to a lesser degree '73, at age 33).
I'm more wondering if it's just his role and usage that changed with circumstance.

If we're saying his prime ended in '65 (again, I'd disagree), then yes only a small portion (about 18.5%) of this sample comes from his prime.
If, otoh, we say it ended in '69, then nearly half this sample comes from his prime.
And if we say his "extended prime" (term I coined, used when including some marginal/late-prime years) goes to '72 or '73, then ALL of this sample is from within his extended prime.

So we might have a better idea than you're suggesting, based on this sample.

Yeah, you might be right. He was still producing at high level in the early 1970s and he played on more talented teams. 1962 Bellamy season is definitely an outlier caused by playing on all-time bad team.

I'm having fun looking at the shot location data; I feel like it's getting robust enough to tell something useful about a few players, anyway.

For anyone who has not taken a peek, I've now got at least part of a game logged for 207 different players, ranging from as little as a quarter of a game, up to the guy I have the MOST logged for: Dick Barnett, for whom I now have a sample of more than 8 games logged.

And it's an even distribution of hot, cold, and average games for Barnett (he cumulatively shoots 47.2% from the field in this sample, which is almost exactly what he shot overall in the same years [both rs and playoffs]). So I feel it's probably hedging to being somewhat representative of him, especially in terms of WHERE his shots were coming from.

Barnett was a mid-range and outside shooter: 63% of his attempts came from OUTSIDE 10'. There's a nearly even distribution between the 10-16' range and the 16-23.75' range (basically 33% coming in the 10-16', 30% from 16-23').
And despite the weird exaggerated/flailing kick he does with his legs on his jump-shot, he's a good shooter in these mid-ranges: he's hit 18 of 42 (42.9%) from 10-16', and 18 of 38 (47.4%) from 16-23' (total of 45% from 10-23').
Those are %'s that stand up pretty well even by today's standards.
He very rarely shoots from WAY outside: the vast majority of that 16-23' sample are roughly at or inside of 20'. I could go back thru and look, but off-the-cuff [iirc] it's probably only about a half-dozen of them that were from 21+'.

His accuracy falls as he gets into the interior or close-range [but not at the rim] shots: just 36% (9 of 25) from 3-10'. This is a common trend for many players today, too, given these shots are almost always in traffic, heavily contested, and often with other added degrees of difficulty [runners, off-balance, etc].

At the rim he's so far finishing at a VERY nice [for perimeter player] 68.2%, BUT it's clear these are only opportunistic plays. He is NOT a player who attacks the rim, and in fact many [I think most] of these were him slipping out in transition. But as you can see on the table, shots at the rim comprise only 17.3% of his total attempts (so, fewer than 2 of every 11 shots).
His FTAr is also a fairly modest .260 (despite the FT rules I mentioned in a prior post).

And it seems Barnett doesn't totally need to be spoon-fed his shots, nor is he strictly a catch-and-shoot guy. These are quite frequently off the dribble, and the proportion of his buckets that were assisted is only slightly over half (51.7%, to be precise).

fwiw, in terms of turnover economy, he's so far got a modified TOV% of 8.35%, which is basically mediocre or average for a SG/combo guard.



I'll also touch on his NY mate in the backcourt: Walt Frazier, who I've got more than 6 and a third games logged for.

It needs to be noted that, as efficient of a scorer as Clyde was, he's EXTRA efficient in this sample. That is: mostly hot-shooting nights included in this sample. He's actually 61.6% (61 of 99) total from the field in the games I've logged; that's about 10% better than what he actually was in these years. Still, it's maybe worth taking a look at.

What I'm noting with Frazier is that he's not super-comfortable from the outside, particularly the further you go. It's clear his comfort zone really only goes out to about 19' or so, almost never shooting beyond that. He's still pretty accurate out to ~19', but it's clear he'd prefer to get closer. His "sweet-spot" is definitely more in the 13-16' range, where he is absolute money.

He's so intuitive in hunting those shots, too: in the games I've logged, 46.5% of his attempts are coming in the 10-16' range. He, quite simply, gets to his spots. He's so far hit a remarkable 63% on those 10-16' attempts, too; though obviously I don't think that's remotely sustainable (like I said, this is a hot-shooting sample). But I could believe something like 50-53%, which would still be utterly fantastic.

The 16-23' range comprises 23.2% of his total attempts; that is: only HALF the number he took from 10-16'. Again, he seems to know his sweet spots, and he gets to them.
He still hit from the outside pretty well, at 43.5% (10 of 23); again, the VAST majority of those from inside 20'.

As mentioned above, the 3-10' range is a difficult one (traffic, contact, off-balance, etc), and Walt has [seemingly instinctively] avoided them: they comprise just 6.1% of his total attempts (he hit 2 of 6 of them).

He's finishing a remarkable 83.3% (20 of 24) at the rim; though again: I doubt that's sustainable [or even anything close to it].
This is just a hot sample. Could he have been a 70% finisher, though? I could believe that.
fwiw, shots at the rim have comprised 24.2% of his total attempts thus far; that's a figure I could believe is relatively accurate for him.

His FTAr so far is .364.
His turnover economy has been excellent in this sample: mTOV% of 6.56%. That's fairly elite, or bordering on it, even for a PG. It's not quite Chris Paul level, but very close.


I'll stop there, though will try to touch on a few other players soon.

We still have quite a lot of Frazier games (8 games from 1971/72 and 1972/73 and I think one or two from 1974 and 1975), so don't worry - there is still a possibility of normalizing his efficiency

Ben Taylor just mentioned your work on his latest video about shooting. You're getting famous and rightfully so!

70sFan wrote:

Watch on YouTube

Ben Taylor just mentioned your work on his latest video about shooting. You're getting famous and rightfully so!

Ha! Well I'm flattered. Sadly I've totally stalled out on the game logging since we started the top 100 project.

trex_8063 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Watch on YouTube

Ben Taylor just mentioned your work on his latest video about shooting. You're getting famous and rightfully so!

Ha! Well I'm flattered. Sadly I've totally stalled out on the game logging since we started the top 100 project.

I just hope that you won't abandon this project, as I have still a lot of games for you

70sFan wrote:I just hope that you won't abandon this project, as I have still a lot of games for you

I have not abandoned. It just went on hiatus during the top 100 project; also my work schedule changed [to much more busy] as of last fall.
But I'm gonna try to get back to it. As evidence: I finished logging the 4/4/71 Lakers/Bulls game.


Sadly, it stands as more evidence that the stat-keeping in that era was highly questionable at times, and perhaps sensationalizing some of the stars.
The boxscore for this game has Wilt as snaring 33 rebounds........but he wasn't even close to that. You can review the log, but I have him for nabbing 23 rebounds.
I was searching for where such a discrepancy could come from: like maybe just adding rebounds that never happened, giving credit for a board each time he wins an opening tip, or perhaps crediting a rebound to Wilt each time possession is "retained" after a Laker misses the first of two FT attempts.
But actually the TOTAL rebounds for the team [49] matches mine......they've just given Wilt credit for way more than he actually got. On my account, that 49 includes five "team rebounds" [i.e. where the Lakers get possession with the ball going out-of-bounds after a missed shot, with no individual actually securing the ball]. They must have credited Wilt with all of those, PLUS given him some of the boards secured by his teammates [Goodrich in particular, I have with 5 rebounds, but the official box has him with just 2].

They also credit Wilt with 9 assists, whereas I only credit him for 7. And I'm pretty generous on assists: you'll note I credit the Lakers as a team with 22 assists [vs 19 on the official boxscore], and the Bulls with 28 [vs 24 on the official box--->bbref actually says "34" for the team, but if you add up the individuals, it only comes to 24, so it's clearly a typo].

I credit the Bulls with 3 additional rebounds and 4 additional shot attempts than the official box, which I imagine is primarily me being a little more generous in crediting a tip as an offensive rebound and FGA: my rule is if it looks like an obviously controlled tip attempt OR even if it's a wild flail [just trying to make enough contact in the scrum to tip the ball closer to yourself or away from opponent] BUT the ball gets back on top of the rim [making contact] as a result: I call it an OReb and FGA.


So, what else you got? Anything OLDER than the stuff I've done? Late 50s? Or even early 50s with Mikan?
I mean, I'm going to subscribe to your Patreon soon too. But if you have something good ready to go, please PM me.

trex_8063 wrote:

70sFan wrote:I just hope that you won't abandon this project, as I have still a lot of games for you

I have not abandoned. It just went on hiatus during the top 100 project; also my work schedule changed [to much more busy] as of last fall.
But I'm gonna try to get back to it. As evidence: I finished logging the 4/4/71 Lakers/Bulls game.


Sadly, it stands as more evidence that the stat-keeping in that era was highly questionable at times, and perhaps sensationalizing some of the stars.
The boxscore for this game has Wilt as snaring 33 rebounds........but he wasn't even close to that. You can review the log, but I have him for nabbing 23 rebounds.
I was searching for where such a discrepancy could come from: like maybe just adding rebounds that never happened, giving credit for a board each time he wins an opening tip, or perhaps crediting a rebound to Wilt each time possession is "retained" after a Laker misses the first of two FT attempts.
But actually the TOTAL rebounds for the team [49] matches mine......they've just given Wilt credit for way more than he actually got. On my account, that 49 includes five "team rebounds" [i.e. where the Lakers get possession with the ball going out-of-bounds after a missed shot, with no individual actually securing the ball]. They must have credited Wilt with all of those, PLUS given him some of the boards secured by his teammates [Goodrich in particular, I have with 5 rebounds, but the official box has him with just 2].

They also credit Wilt with 9 assists, whereas I only credit him for 7. And I'm pretty generous on assists: you'll note I credit the Lakers as a team with 22 assists [vs 19 on the official boxscore], and the Bulls with 28 [vs 24 on the official box--->bbref actually says "34" for the team, but if you add up the individuals, it only comes to 24, so it's clearly a typo].

I credit the Bulls with 3 additional rebounds and 4 additional shot attempts than the official box, which I imagine is primarily me being a little more generous in crediting a tip as an offensive rebound and FGA: my rule is if it looks like an obviously controlled tip attempt OR even if it's a wild flail [just trying to make enough contact in the scrum to tip the ball closer to yourself or away from opponent] BUT the ball gets back on top of the rim [making contact] as a result: I call it an OReb and FGA.


So, what else you got? Anything OLDER than the stuff I've done? Late 50s? Or even early 50s with Mikan?
I mean, I'm going to subscribe to your Patreon soon too. But if you have something good ready to go, please PM me.

I may look wrong, but it seems that you only updated Lakers game up to the end of 3rd quarter.