what do you think are some overblown/exxagerated common narratives

[Texas Chuck]

I'm struggling to see what else you could have been implying?

I've already apologized. Can we please move on?

Of course. Just curious what you meant now.

[Owly]

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned (rather than be fired) after 1962.

Do you have a source on this?
My impression was that he didn't want to go to San Francisco and fwiw, this is what Wikipedia has as well.

Apparently he resigned due to having a sick son with cerebral palsy. He was in France when Gottieb called him about the team moving to San Francisco, and he declined. Resigned.

So, you're right- I can't find anything about the ostensible firing. My fault.

However, the fact still remains, he only coached 1 year, and couldn't land a job anywhere after it in the NBA.

Source:
https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball-ebook/dp/B000FCKGSY/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=bill+russell+wilt+chamberlain+rivalry+book&qid=1638037888&sr=8-2

I can't give specific page citations because I read it on a Kindle device. It's locations 3005 and shortly thereafter.

Are you referring to him not getting one pro job that he wanted (the Nats' job landed by Schayes, noted shortly [a page and 3/4] after why didn't move to SF) covered p177-178 in the hardback.

If so, not sure that it follows that he couldn't get a job, unless that was an (unintentionally?) unclear way of saying that he didn't get a specific job (though he did go on to be named to the HoF whilst still an active college coach, fwiw).

[70sFan]

Absolutely. I have no issue if any poster wants to push back against the black hole narrative. My issue isn't with the push back but with the dismissal of the entire board as Ben Taylor sycophants which is of course ridiculous.

Yeah, I agree with that as well.

I would never personally refer to Wilt as a black hole, but when you have the number of FGA/FTA Wilt has in some seasons, it's at least an idea that deserves some examination. Same as it has for other guys with that reputation through the years. You don't average 50 points for a season regardless of pace without a great deal of looking for your own.

We'd have to know how many of his attempts were from offensive rebounds and transition plays (Warriors played extremely fast!). Then we'd have to know how much he was doubled and how consistent he was at finding open teammates.

As I said, without more data we can only make an educated guess. My guess is that Wilt was a better passer and more dynamic playmaker than someone like Hakeem (based on available footage) and I've never heard someone calling Hakeem a blackhole.

[70sFan]

Where do you buy your games from/find them?

Various media archives, but they rarely have full games (almost never to be honest). I've been talking with the NBA as well, we'll see what I'll be able to get from them.

[McBubbles]

My guess is he converted at a .660 TS%. I would be interested in the data if you have it (and appreciate your data/research/footage immensely). If it is appreciably higher I would have to reevaluate my belief.

I think you overestimate how efficient you can be in isolation

My numbers gives 1974-79 Kareem a 56.5 FG% on 9.4 skyhooks per game. With the addition of fouls drawn, it gives us around 58.5 TS%.

Mind you that this is on massive volume and it's a tough shot. No other player reached that level of efficiency from shots taken away from the post on even close volume.

It's almost entirely a matter of how well I think both would translate into the modern game. Hakeem had a power game, deep two shooting range (that could extend to the three), and a finesse guard-esque scoring skillset, which I think would work tremendously today.

Is there any reason to believe that Kareem's game wouldn't translate? I mean, he was a very good ball-hander for his size in an era with restricted ball-handling rules. Kareem also had a power game - he was much better at establishing deep position than Hakeem.

The only concern with Kareem is his long range shooting, but he had the form and they were basically identical FT shooters.

Does this advantage continue or disappear when adjusted for the playoffs?

It doesn't, most of my tracked games are from playoffs anyway.

I also believe the talent differential of supporting casts makes a difference (though obviously with Rudy T Hakeem had better spacing than Kareem ever did)

Kareem had worse talent around him in 1977 and 1978 than Hakeem in 1993 or 1994 - these are the seasons which I have the most games from.

This is hard to tell. The lane was more clogged in the 70s than it was in the late 80s/early 90s, but Hakeem was the sole focus of opposing defenses for some years

I mean, it's always hard to adjust for eras. Kareem faced considerably more soft and hard doubles than Hakeem though, that's not up to debate.

I don't disagree, however I will note that very few teams exploited the illegal defense rules by placing non-shooters beyond the arc, at least through the early 90s. Hakeem also faced a lot of hard doubles since he was the sole option defensively.

This idea of exploiting illegal defense already eixsted in the 1994 and it made Hakeem's life far easier than earlier in his career (of course along with improved spacing).

I don't disagree, but Hakeem had superior shooting range.

It's true, but you don't want Hakeem to take contested midrange jumpers all the time. He's a good shooter, but he's not Dirk from there.

I don't think this is inherently a weakness since he could play inside-out pretty consistently, but any data on this would be interesting.

Sure

Hakeem took 73.5% of his post shots from the left block.

Kareem took 59.5% of his post shots from the left block.

I don't disagree, though I wonder how different they were in screening ability.

I can't quantify it unfortunately, it's just my observation.

I think this is negated by the fact that Hakeem was a superior spot-up shooter, especially from range.

Don't think it's that easy, Hakeem ate a lot of space inside due to his positioning.

Sure, but how many possessions a game does this impact?

Not a lot, around 2-3 per game at most. In comparisons like these though, everything should be taken into account.

I actually think offensive rebounding is an overrated aspect of today's game given the prevalence of three-point shooting. As such, I think all-time offensive rebounders such as Shaq, Moses, Wilt would be less impactful today (and again, I judge players based on how they would be in the present league).

If you don't feel strongly about offensive rebounding, then how you can have Shaq ahead of Kareem offensively?

Doesn't that mean Kareem, and not MJ or Dirk is actually the best mid range shooter of all time ?

[falcolombardi]

ben Taylor himself tracked wilt and said he was not a blackhoke by taking too many shots

he took so many shots because of insane pace + insane minutes per game, his share of team shots when on the court was fairly normal according to him

his criticism of wilt was based more on how few assists he got relative to how many field goal attempt he had back when he was scoring so much

[70sFan]

My guess is he converted at a .660 TS%. I would be interested in the data if you have it (and appreciate your data/research/footage immensely). If it is appreciably higher I would have to reevaluate my belief.

I think you overestimate how efficient you can be in isolation

My numbers gives 1974-79 Kareem a 56.5 FG% on 9.4 skyhooks per game. With the addition of fouls drawn, it gives us around 58.5 TS%.

Mind you that this is on massive volume and it's a tough shot. No other player reached that level of efficiency from shots taken away from the post on even close volume.

It's almost entirely a matter of how well I think both would translate into the modern game. Hakeem had a power game, deep two shooting range (that could extend to the three), and a finesse guard-esque scoring skillset, which I think would work tremendously today.

Is there any reason to believe that Kareem's game wouldn't translate? I mean, he was a very good ball-hander for his size in an era with restricted ball-handling rules. Kareem also had a power game - he was much better at establishing deep position than Hakeem.

The only concern with Kareem is his long range shooting, but he had the form and they were basically identical FT shooters.

Does this advantage continue or disappear when adjusted for the playoffs?

It doesn't, most of my tracked games are from playoffs anyway.

I also believe the talent differential of supporting casts makes a difference (though obviously with Rudy T Hakeem had better spacing than Kareem ever did)

Kareem had worse talent around him in 1977 and 1978 than Hakeem in 1993 or 1994 - these are the seasons which I have the most games from.

This is hard to tell. The lane was more clogged in the 70s than it was in the late 80s/early 90s, but Hakeem was the sole focus of opposing defenses for some years

I mean, it's always hard to adjust for eras. Kareem faced considerably more soft and hard doubles than Hakeem though, that's not up to debate.

I don't disagree, however I will note that very few teams exploited the illegal defense rules by placing non-shooters beyond the arc, at least through the early 90s. Hakeem also faced a lot of hard doubles since he was the sole option defensively.

This idea of exploiting illegal defense already eixsted in the 1994 and it made Hakeem's life far easier than earlier in his career (of course along with improved spacing).

I don't disagree, but Hakeem had superior shooting range.

It's true, but you don't want Hakeem to take contested midrange jumpers all the time. He's a good shooter, but he's not Dirk from there.

I don't think this is inherently a weakness since he could play inside-out pretty consistently, but any data on this would be interesting.

Sure

Hakeem took 73.5% of his post shots from the left block.

Kareem took 59.5% of his post shots from the left block.

I don't disagree, though I wonder how different they were in screening ability.

I can't quantify it unfortunately, it's just my observation.

I think this is negated by the fact that Hakeem was a superior spot-up shooter, especially from range.

Don't think it's that easy, Hakeem ate a lot of space inside due to his positioning.

Sure, but how many possessions a game does this impact?

Not a lot, around 2-3 per game at most. In comparisons like these though, everything should be taken into account.

I actually think offensive rebounding is an overrated aspect of today's game given the prevalence of three-point shooting. As such, I think all-time offensive rebounders such as Shaq, Moses, Wilt would be less impactful today (and again, I judge players based on how they would be in the present league).

If you don't feel strongly about offensive rebounding, then how you can have Shaq ahead of Kareem offensively?

Doesn't that mean Kareem, and not MJ or Dirk is actually the best mid range shooter of all time ?

Not at all, because Kareem usually took skyhooks inside the paint (although he took skyhooks from midrange area as well).

[70sFan]

ben Taylor himself tracked wilt and said he was not a blackhoke by taking too many shots

he took so many shots because of insane pace + insane minutes per game, his share of team shots when on the court was fairly normal according to him

his criticism of wilt was based more on how few assists he got relative to how many field goal attempt he had back when he was scoring so much

I know that, but it still leaves us with more questions than answers

- back then players didn't average a lot of assists in general, does Wilt look much worse than other centers during that time?

- Wilt grabbed a lot of offensive rebounds due to insane pace and lower efficiency as a whole. How many of his attempts were tips, putbacks and layups after offensive rebounds? These kind of shots usually don't give you opportunity to get an assist.

- Wilt played with horrible spacing in his first few years. I don't have a lot of materiak from 1962, but even if you compare 1964 SFW and 1965 PHI the difference is massive. How effective can a post playmaker be without spacing?

- how many hockey assists did Wilt average back in the 1962? We know that players like Shaq or Kareem created far more opportunities than their assist numbers suggest.

All of these questions are very hard to answer without more footage. Unfortunately, I don't have any new 1962 Warriors games on the horizon. The only hope is that I will get something from the NBA, but I am sceptical for now.

[Bookerte]

Career TS+:

Kobe: 104
Bird. : 104

And yet the difference in perception/narrative is wildly different. It's ridiculous.

[falcolombardi]

Career TS+:

Kobe: 104
Bird. : 104

And yet the difference in perception/narrative is wildly different. It's ridiculous.

overall perception aa players? bird still had some clear advantages over kobe beyond scoring , like passing (which kobe was very good at) and rebounding or arguably defense

overall perception as scorers/efficiency wise? i dont know how peopke perceive bird scoring but if they think he was significatively more efficient at volume scoring than kobe they would be definitely wrong

[penbeast0]

Not sure how anyone can rank Bird over Kobe for defense, though certainly for rebounding, passing, and probably intangibles. Kobe, when young and trying, was a very good defender, both man defense and off ball. Bird was never a good man defender though he did hunt the passing lanes.

[feyki]

Career TS+:

Kobe: 104
Bird. : 104

And yet the difference in perception/narrative is wildly different. It's ridiculous.

Bird's best 4 years stretch(85/88) is +820 and Kobe's(05/08) +535 and it's with Kobe's averaging 31 PPG, Bird's averaging 28 PPG. Bird had much more with even trying notably less.

Not comparable. Kobe was higher volume scorer, though(also better at creation at his own shots).

[Warriors Analyst]

I've never brought into the idea that the Cavs win the 2015 Finals if fully healthy. I think they stand a puncher's chance with Kyrie healthy, but I don't think Love helps them much at all in that series. If anything, I think he hurts them in a big way because the Warriors would have hunted him relentlessly and he'd have needed to bring serious value on offense to offset his defensive shortcomings. The 2016 Cavs had more bodies to go small and RJeff was huge in that series. The 2015 Cavs don't have a small-ball 4 on that roster other than LeBron.

[penbeast0]

I want t-shirts made up: "Ben Taylor Syncophant."

[Owly]

Career TS+:

Kobe: 104
Bird. : 104

And yet the difference in perception/narrative is wildly different. It's ridiculous.

Bird is showing 105 for me on basketball-reference, is that your source?