Do you think any players pre-73-74 ever had 10+ blocks and 10+ steals in a single game?

[dygaction]

Again, you go back to not able to defend your position but resort to question other people's credentials. Do you call me bluffing if I tell you I have a PhD in Physics ?

I don't need to defend anything. I already explained why you don't have a point here.

If you don't understand the difference between standard deviation in a process that is optimized for a certain value (industry, long jump competition) and in a random variable on a given population (height, weight), then I am pretty sure you don't have PhD in physics.

The league is indeed drawing talents from billions, as across the world every boy with talents almost always guaranteed to be discovered,

This is an American bubble at its finest The vast majority of the world population has no chance to play in the NBA for a number of reasons. The physical tools necessary to play professional basketball makes your billions estimation laughable. Add to that the fact that most countries are not a part of the NBA talent pool and you'd be lucky to get 1% of your estimation.

So throughout this thread you have
1. claimed current players' stats have higher standard deviation or outliers than 60s, factually wrong;
2. brushed 51% and 70% standard deviation/mean as the same, factually wrong;
3. assuming standard deviation should increase with mean increase, no base at all.
but hey, attacking me as don't know statistics must solve all the problems.

One more example for you, league scoring average vs. standard deviation:
2023: 114.7ppg with 2.78ppg STDEV;
1961: 118.8ppg with 4.49ppg STDEV;
Don't tell me the ratios are the same. 1.71ppg STDEV difference is HUGE, because at the 60s, good teams crushed others and the bad teams sucked much harder than nowadays. Large standard deviation almost always happens in weaker competitions.

[Mazter]

The statement that the NBA was a semi-professional league is factually wrong.

How that so?

How? Well, maybe that all of the NBA players were professional sportsmen. Not earning milions of dollars doesn't equate to semi-profesional league.

The fact that you need to work decides whether you are semi-pro. You have D-Leaguer making just 40-50k but being part of an NBA organization with a shot at a minimum of 953k makes them willing to take the risk and fully dedicated to basketball. The lack of a healthcare insurance, pension plan and a low career estimate income made a lot of players halfway through the sixties combine a NBA career with a summer job.

Ramsey said he didn’t touch a basketball after the Celtics season ended till training camp in September.

“I had a job on a farm or construction. I got up at 4 a.m., I worked and I went to bed early. I had three kids. I was just trying to survive. I didn’t have time to play ball,” he said.

I'm sure this man trained like a professional and lived for his sport during the season, but the fact he had to do the above fits the description of a semi-pro, no matter how you slice it. And this was a 7 time champion who averaged 24 minutes in a 10 year span ending in 1964. Of course, others had more fitting or physically less demanding jobs, but until the start of the ABA at least 70-80% of the league was semi-pro.

[HeartBreakKid]

How that so?

How? Well, maybe that all of the NBA players were professional sportsmen. Not earning milions of dollars doesn't equate to semi-profesional league.

The fact that you need to work decides whether you are semi-pro. You have D-Leaguer making just 40-50k but being part of an NBA organization with a shot at a minimum of 953k makes them willing to take the risk and fully dedicated to basketball. The lack of a healthcare insurance, pension plan and a low career estimate income made a lot of players halfway through the sixties combine a NBA career with a summer job.

Ramsey said he didn’t touch a basketball after the Celtics season ended till training camp in September.

“I had a job on a farm or construction. I got up at 4 a.m., I worked and I went to bed early. I had three kids. I was just trying to survive. I didn’t have time to play ball,” he said.

I'm sure this man trained like a professional and lived for his sport during the season, but the fact he had to do the above fits the description of a semi-pro, no matter how you slice it. And this was a 7 time champion who averaged 24 minutes in a 10 year span ending in 1964. Of course, others had more fitting or physically less demanding jobs, but until the start of the ABA at least 70-80% of the league was semi-pro.

You're not playing 80 game seasons if you can't support yourself. That doesn't make any sense, what would be their incentive? What semi-professional league demands that type of work schedule? Could you name a few currently, especially those that are not farm leagues?

Frank Ramsey is a man who was born and raised during The Great Depression. People worked a lot back then and the world was more rural. You're ignoring a LOT of context of their time.

Lou Thesz, who was the heavyweight champion of the world and one of the most famous people in USA worked non stop. When he was not wrestling he was working on a farm. He was a millionaire by today's standards. His predecessors did the same thing. The way people thought about money, survive-ability and security is entirely different from modern standards as economies and culture are heavily different from 100 years ago. Do you think that is not true?

The quote isn't clear either if Frank is exaggerating or talking about his earlier seasons. I also have no idea what Frank has done with his money, as there are recent NBA alumni today who have less money than me and I am certain NBA players are professional athletes today. I am not rich.

If you make 100k you are not a semi-professional. That is really cut and dry. I think I've seen you in the past say or imply you need to make millions of dollars to be considered a professional athlete and that isn't true, and it could even be rationalized without evidence why that wouldn't be true.

The 1960s was a time of rapid growth for the NBA. The start of it the wages were not good, by the end of they were already more than good than 99% of jobs you could get. By 1970 the average wage was already 250k which is about as much as what a director or even some VPs at a decent sized company in Silicon Valley would make. They did not have benefits and things like that but in terms of raw salary it was high.

If you never played or followed less mainstream sports then your perspective is likely heavily skewed.


The D-league guys made 20-30k and people cited how that is not a very livable salary. When it became the G-league it was boosted to 40-50k. By the end of the 60s guys in the NBA were making double that. Explain how that is semi-professional (which time frame are we even talking about, actually? ).

[70sFan]

So throughout this thread you have
1. claimed current players' stats have higher standard deviation or outliers than 60s, factually wrong;

I claimed there are just as big outliers today as they were back then. I admited I was wrong about standard deviation value though.

2. brushed 51% and 70% standard deviation/mean as the same, factually wrong;

No, I didn't say it's the same - I said it's not large.

3. assuming standard deviation should increase with mean increase, no base at all.

Let me get this straight - do you really think that the size of the measured thing has no influence on the value of standard deviation? To make it clear, let's analyze a simple example:

You have two group of animals - polar bears and foxes. A scientist weighed all animals and gave us mean and standard deviations:

Polar bears: 350 kg, standard deviation - 5 kg
Foxes: 5.8 kg, standard deviation - 3 kg

In absolute terms, the population of foxes has smaller standard deviation compared to bears, but does it really mean that they are more unified in terms of size? Technically, standard deviation says that, but it's because standard deviation wasn't used in a right way here. In reality, these polar bears show remarkable similarity in terms of size, while foxes population vary a lot in weight.

Do you understand now?

but hey, attacking me as don't know statistics must solve all the problems.

Tell me how you calculate standard deviation.

One more example for you, league scoring average vs. standard deviation:
2023: 114.7ppg with 2.78ppg STDEV;
1961: 118.8ppg with 4.49ppg STDEV;
Don't tell me the ratios are the same. 1.71ppg STDEV difference is HUGE, because at the 60s, good teams crushed others and the bad teams sucked much harder than nowadays. Large standard deviation almost always happens in weaker competitions.

This is a perfect example how people use statistical tools with no knowledge about it.

1. You post wrong data again, for 1961 season the average is 118.1 ppg with 2.88 ppg STDEV, so the difference actually doesn't exist.

2. Bolded part is facutally wrong:

Best team in the league in 2023: +6.5 Net Rtg
Best team in the league in 1961: +4.2 Net Rtg

Worst team in the league in 2023: -9.8 Net Rtg
Worst team in the league in 1961: -5.2 Net Rtg

3. You use ppg as the indicator of how close teams are, but it's worthless because teams don't try to maximize the ppg in basketball, but rather Net Rtg:

2023: 3.99 Net Rtg standard deviation
1961: 3.08 Net Rtg standard deviation

Wow, it seems that the standard deviation shows that the competition is actually weaker in 2023 than 1961 - will you be consistent and agree with that? Or will you admit that you have no idea how to use statistical tools?

[70sFan]

The fact that you need to work decides whether you are semi-pro.

They didn't need to, they earned way more money than the average US citizen. They could though, because they had time in off-season, so they did.

The lack of a healthcare insurance, pension plan and a low career estimate income made a lot of players halfway through the sixties combine a NBA career with a summer job.

This all happen in a lot of sports now, would you call all of them semi-pro?

I'm sure this man trained like a professional and lived for his sport during the season, but the fact he had to do the above fits the description of a semi-pro, no matter how you slice it. And this was a 7 time champion who averaged 24 minutes in a 10 year span ending in 1964. Of course, others had more fitting or physically less demanding jobs, but until the start of the ABA at least 70-80% of the league was semi-pro.

I'm pretty sure Ramsey earned way more than the average US citizen, so by this logic we didn't have professional crafts at all back then.

[kendogg]

It's far easier to rack up numbers today than in any other era including the 60's. Not only are the counting stats more liberal in their record keeping (what defines an assist, etc), but the offense has such an advantage due to rules and how the game is referee'd that it is easier to score today than ever before.

Certain counting stats in the 60's (namely points and rebounds) are higher entirely due to pace (well rebounds also due to the low offensive rating). Offensive rating was not recorded in the 60's but if you math'd it out it would be under 100. They played at a frantic pace back then because the defense had an advantage over the offense and the best way to get points was to tire out the defense. If we played at the same pace today we'd see games breach 200 points, similar to the Kings/Clippers game this season where they had 176 to 175 on 106.5 possessions. Clips had 175 points on 98 FGA, which is completely absurd.

The offense has more of an advantage today than ever before and it's not particularly close. Offensive rating in earlier eras was under 100. ORTg peaked around 108 in some years up through 2018. Today it is 115. It's so high today that a 50% clip on 2 pointers is actually a bad shot.

10 blocks or steals is extremely rare in any era (much less both in the same game) and only slightly less rare in the 60's due to Wilt and Russ being such outliers as athletes. They would be the best or maybe 2nd best athlete in any era. Only generational athletes like Jordan and LeBron could challenge them. The most absurd stat in history is Wilt averaging 48.5 minutes per game in an era where they had 130 possessions per game, without modern training or diets, wearing crappy converse all star shoes. I don't know if Wilt's supposed quintuple double is legit, as record keeping on blocks and steals back then was obviously not official and some did it only for Wilt and Russ because of how much they dominated the sport. I do doubt that anyone could pull it off today just because of spacing and how many 3pt shots are taken per game.

Also I would very highly doubt that any of the centers in the 60's had side jobs, or even most of the starters. The top 6 (of a 9 team league) were all all-stars. So Wilt's competition was strong even if the guards on the end of the bench might be G leaguers at best today.

[dygaction]

The fact that you need to work decides whether you are semi-pro.

They didn't need to, they earned way more money than the average US citizen. They could though, because they had time in off-season, so they did.

The lack of a healthcare insurance, pension plan and a low career estimate income made a lot of players halfway through the sixties combine a NBA career with a summer job.

This all happen in a lot of sports now, would you call all of them semi-pro?

I'm sure this man trained like a professional and lived for his sport during the season, but the fact he had to do the above fits the description of a semi-pro, no matter how you slice it. And this was a 7 time champion who averaged 24 minutes in a 10 year span ending in 1964. Of course, others had more fitting or physically less demanding jobs, but until the start of the ABA at least 70-80% of the league was semi-pro.

I'm pretty sure Ramsey earned way more than the average US citizen, so by this logic we didn't have professional crafts at all back then.

You must know more than Jerry West, who played at that time.

The NBA was a different “world” in the 60s and 70s, with the Los Angeles Lakers’ legend Jerry West talking to “NBA on TNT” host Ernie Johnson about the time he was playing.

West revealed that players were doing other jobs, after the end of the season, due to the low wages in the NBA. As a result, “no one trained year-round then,” West noted.

Some other quotes directly from West:
"People called us professionals because we were paid a small amount of money, we weren't paid very much".. "When the season was over then, people were not looking to have a good time. They had to work on the side just for themselves. No one trained year round, no one"... "It (the league) was almost like a seasonal thing, ok?"

https://www.talkbasket.net/83764-jerry-west-on-what-it-was-like-to-play-in-the-60s-and-70s-in-the-nba

[dygaction]

So throughout this thread you have
1. claimed current players' stats have higher standard deviation or outliers than 60s, factually wrong;

I claimed there are just as big outliers today as they were back then. I admited I was wrong about standard deviation value though.

2. brushed 51% and 70% standard deviation/mean as the same, factually wrong;

No, I didn't say it's the same - I said it's not large.

3. assuming standard deviation should increase with mean increase, no base at all.

Let me get this straight - do you really think that the size of the measured thing has no influence on the value of standard deviation? To make it clear, let's analyze a simple example:

You have two group of animals - polar bears and foxes. A scientist weighed all animals and gave us mean and standard deviations:

Polar bears: 350 kg, standard deviation - 5 kg
Foxes: 5.8 kg, standard deviation - 3 kg

In absolute terms, the population of foxes has smaller standard deviation compared to bears, but does it really mean that they are more unified in terms of size? Technically, standard deviation says that, but it's because standard deviation wasn't used in a right way here. In reality, these polar bears show remarkable similarity in terms of size, while foxes population vary a lot in weight.

Do you understand now?

but hey, attacking me as don't know statistics must solve all the problems.

Tell me how you calculate standard deviation.

One more example for you, league scoring average vs. standard deviation:
2023: 114.7ppg with 2.78ppg STDEV;
1961: 118.8ppg with 4.49ppg STDEV;
Don't tell me the ratios are the same. 1.71ppg STDEV difference is HUGE, because at the 60s, good teams crushed others and the bad teams sucked much harder than nowadays. Large standard deviation almost always happens in weaker competitions.

This is a perfect example how people use statistical tools with no knowledge about it.

1. You post wrong data again, for 1961 season the average is 118.1 ppg with 2.88 ppg STDEV, so the difference actually doesn't exist.

Wow, it seems that the standard deviation shows that the competition is actually weaker in 2023 than 1961 - will you be consistent and agree with that? Or will you admit that you have no idea how to use statistical tools?

Not wonder when we talking about
2023: Average rpg: 4.639; Standard deviation: 2.347; Ratio: 0.51
1961: Average rpg: 6.945; Standard deviation: 4.827; Ratio: 0.70
you call 0.51 vs. 0.7 ratio small difference because all you can appreciate is a 350kg polar bear and 5kg fox... Even by that standard, to match your small difference, you would need
Foxes: 5.8 kg, standard deviation - 2.96 kg for ratio 0.51, close to your 3kg.
Polar bears: 350 kg, standard deviation - 245 kg for ratio 0.70, quite different from your 5kg.

You also need to stop being misleading and keep giving wrong information hoping no one double check. Calculate again or show your formula of calculating standard deviation.

Philadelphia Warriors* 125.4
Cincinnati Royals* 123.1
Boston Celtics* 121.1
Syracuse Nationals* 120.7
St. Louis Hawks 118.9
Los Angeles Lakers* 118.5
Detroit Pistons* 115.4
New York Knicks 114.8
Chicago Packers 110.9

[oaktownwarriors87]

Depends. Are we using the Memphis score keeper?

[70sFan]

The fact that you need to work decides whether you are semi-pro.

They didn't need to, they earned way more money than the average US citizen. They could though, because they had time in off-season, so they did.

The lack of a healthcare insurance, pension plan and a low career estimate income made a lot of players halfway through the sixties combine a NBA career with a summer job.

This all happen in a lot of sports now, would you call all of them semi-pro?

I'm sure this man trained like a professional and lived for his sport during the season, but the fact he had to do the above fits the description of a semi-pro, no matter how you slice it. And this was a 7 time champion who averaged 24 minutes in a 10 year span ending in 1964. Of course, others had more fitting or physically less demanding jobs, but until the start of the ABA at least 70-80% of the league was semi-pro.

I'm pretty sure Ramsey earned way more than the average US citizen, so by this logic we didn't have professional crafts at all back then.

You must know more than Jerry West, who played at that time.

The NBA was a different “world” in the 60s and 70s, with the Los Angeles Lakers’ legend Jerry West talking to “NBA on TNT” host Ernie Johnson about the time he was playing.

West revealed that players were doing other jobs, after the end of the season, due to the low wages in the NBA. As a result, “no one trained year-round then,” West noted.

Some other quotes directly from West:
"People called us professionals because we were paid a small amount of money, we weren't paid very much".. "When the season was over then, people were not looking to have a good time. They had to work on the side just for themselves. No one trained year round, no one"... "It (the league) was almost like a seasonal thing, ok?"

https://www.talkbasket.net/83764-jerry-west-on-what-it-was-like-to-play-in-the-60s-and-70s-in-the-nba

I understand that West feels this way, he did the same things players are paid millions for. This quote doesn't change anything that was said here.

[70sFan]

Not wonder when we talking about
2023: Average rpg: 4.639; Standard deviation: 2.347; Ratio: 0.51
1961: Average rpg: 6.945; Standard deviation: 4.827; Ratio: 0.70
you call 0.51 vs. 0.7 ratio small difference because all you can appreciate is a 350kg polar bear and 5kg fox... Even by that standard, to match your small difference, you would need
Foxes: 5.8 kg, standard deviation - 2.96 kg for ratio 0.51, close to your 3kg.
Polar bears: 350 kg, standard deviation - 245 kg for ratio 0.70, quite different from your 5kg.

My example was to show how the value of standard deviation depends on the value of mean, it wasn't analogous to rebounding averages. One has nothing to do with the other.

Are you doing this on purpose, or you fail to understand such a simple thing?

You also need to stop being misleading and keep giving wrong information hoping no one double check. Calculate again or show your formula of calculating standard deviation.

Philadelphia Warriors* 125.4
Cincinnati Royals* 123.1
Boston Celtics* 121.1
Syracuse Nationals* 120.7
St. Louis Hawks 118.9
Los Angeles Lakers* 118.5
Detroit Pistons* 115.4
New York Knicks 114.8
Chicago Packers 110.9

Chicago Packers didn't exist in 1961 season. It seems that you used 1962 numbers, which is your mistake - not mine.

Now, care to explain standard deviation in Net Rating?

[dygaction]

Not wonder when we talking about
2023: Average rpg: 4.639; Standard deviation: 2.347; Ratio: 0.51
1961: Average rpg: 6.945; Standard deviation: 4.827; Ratio: 0.70
you call 0.51 vs. 0.7 ratio small difference because all you can appreciate is a 350kg polar bear and 5kg fox... Even by that standard, to match your small difference, you would need
Foxes: 5.8 kg, standard deviation - 2.96 kg for ratio 0.51, close to your 3kg.
Polar bears: 350 kg, standard deviation - 245 kg for ratio 0.70, quite different from your 5kg.

My example was to show how the value of standard deviation depends on the value of mean, it wasn't analogous to rebounding averages. One has nothing to do with the other.

Are you doing this on purpose, or you fail to understand such a simple thing?

No, I think I am done with you on the statistics. You don't seem to fail to understand such a simple thing but want to ignore such big difference.

You also need to stop being misleading and keep giving wrong information hoping no one double check. Calculate again or show your formula of calculating standard deviation.

Philadelphia Warriors* 125.4
Cincinnati Royals* 123.1
Boston Celtics* 121.1
Syracuse Nationals* 120.7
St. Louis Hawks 118.9
Los Angeles Lakers* 118.5
Detroit Pistons* 115.4
New York Knicks 114.8
Chicago Packers 110.9

Chicago Packers didn't exist in 1961 season. It seems that you used 1962 numbers, which is your mistake - not mine.

Now, care to explain standard deviation in Net Rating?

Hmm, I really used 1962..

[dygaction]

They didn't need to, they earned way more money than the average US citizen. They could though, because they had time in off-season, so they did.


This all happen in a lot of sports now, would you call all of them semi-pro?


I'm pretty sure Ramsey earned way more than the average US citizen, so by this logic we didn't have professional crafts at all back then.

You must know more than Jerry West, who played at that time.

The NBA was a different “world” in the 60s and 70s, with the Los Angeles Lakers’ legend Jerry West talking to “NBA on TNT” host Ernie Johnson about the time he was playing.

West revealed that players were doing other jobs, after the end of the season, due to the low wages in the NBA. As a result, “no one trained year-round then,” West noted.

Some other quotes directly from West:
"People called us professionals because we were paid a small amount of money, we weren't paid very much".. "When the season was over then, people were not looking to have a good time. They had to work on the side just for themselves. No one trained year round, no one"... "It (the league) was almost like a seasonal thing, ok?"

https://www.talkbasket.net/83764-jerry-west-on-what-it-was-like-to-play-in-the-60s-and-70s-in-the-nba

I understand that West feels this way, he did the same things players are paid millions for. This quote doesn't change anything that was said here.

So you don't care Bosh who were not born, and also don't care West who played in that era, you must know more than both.
West as a superstar at the time thinks themselves as seasonal players; No one trained during the off seasons; Almost everyone needed to work on a second job to make life work; He believes they were called professionals only because they were paid a small amount of money... Those combined fit the word "semi-professional".

[penbeast0]

I am reopening this thread. Remember that it is about players before 73-74 that might have had 10 blocks and steals. Not about whether the league was professional or semi-pro and in which years.