One_and_Done wrote:You continue to misrepresent my position. I'm not sure if it's because you're arguing against the position of a former antagonist, or it's just too nuanced for you. I've explained this like 10 times to you though, so I'm not sure what part isn't penetrating. I'm going to try again, so please read closely down to the level of each word.
My position is not that it was equally easy to score in every era, and it never has been. My position is, and always has been, that a flat adjustment for TS% based on the average for that era is not an appropriate method of determining era differences. League TS% might be lower because defence was better, or it might be lower because on average people sucked at shooting. Or it could be a mix of both. I don't want to reward guys for the latter, and because there's no formula to tell us how much is Column A and how much is Column B we can't use a formulaic deduction.
I think you specified that in our earlier discussion and that's why I didn't bring up rTS% numbers this time. You think I misunderstand your position, but I know why you don't use rTS% and I don't use this stat in our discussions, so it's strange that you repeat this again.
Now I have no problem with people making the argument that your context affected you because of ABC reasons.
I think you have, because every time someone tries to explain you why players had their efficiency lower in the pre-3P line era, you just repeat that you won't reward players for playing in worse eras. If having no three point line and significantly stricter offensive rules isn't context affecting efficiency, then I don't know what is...
I don't think it's coincidence for example that Kobe's efficiency spikes after the 05 rule changes, and is generally much lower before then (and I have said so).
Kobe's efficiency wasn't really "much lower" before 2005:
2004 Kobe: 55.1 TS%
2005 Kobe: 56.3 TS%
For bigger samples:
2001-04 Kobe: 54.9 TS%
2005-10 Kobe: 56.4 TS%
The gap is not insignificant, but I wouldn't call it "much lower".
The early 00s are rightly famed as a era of brutal slow defence, which is why the rules got changed.
We don't need to look at the early 2000s, Shaq averaged 58.4 TS% (57.3 TS% in the playoffs) in the 1990s, which you described as easier to score due to illegal defense rules in Duncan vs Hakeem discussion. That's still a mediocre efficiency for a high volume star today.
On the other hand I don't think people shot poorly in 1957 due to tough defence. I just don't think they were good at shooting, and I'm not going to reward a guy for being a competent shooter in a league of sucky shooters. That would be punishing players who were born later.
The problem is that explaining everything by "sucky shooters" missing the context you underlined earlier.
In 1963, the league average efficiency was 49.3 TS%.
In 2023, the league average efficiency was 58.1 TS%.
If we make the three point line disappear from 2023 league, the league average now would be 51.9 TS%.
There is still a notable difference (yes, shooters are better now) and it's a very crude way to estimate this, but it shows how massive influence three point line has on shooting efficiency. That doesn't include things like ball-handling rules, offensive fouls, moving screens, traveling violations etc. and we can go further with equippment things (much better balls, shoes, rims etc.).
Nobody denies that the league is more talented and better at shooting now than ever, but you can't explain 9 percentage points difference in efficiency by "sucky shooters", because you miss context that is necessary to take into consideration (which you agreed with earlier). It doesn't mean that you have to do a linear adjustments, but using your words: "I have no problem with people making the argument that your context affected you because of ABC reasons", so do not have problems with that.
If we teleported high midrange shooting role players into 1957 they'd look like efficiency gods, but they wouldn't be better players. Only their context would change.
Again, that's not true. Midrange shooting roleplayers usually don't go beyond 48% efficiency from midrange and they have poor foul rates. Assuming an increase in raw efficiency even to 50% (which is very unlikely considering outside circumstances, but let's be generous) that gives us around 50 FG% and let's that translate to 52 TS%. That's very good efficiency for that era, but nothing close to "efficiency gods". It's nothing special for the 1960s.
Let's take more specific example:
CJ McCollum (who wasn't a roleplayer by any means) shot remarkable 47.3 FG% from midrange shots in 2017 season. He averaged 23 ppg on 58.5 TS%. He took 5.5 threes which wouldn't be available in the 1960s. Let's assume that due to weaker defenses faced, his midrange efficiency would go up to 49%. Let's also assume that his FTr would go up from 20% to 25%. His rim attempts likely wouldn't go up because of reduced ball-handling rules, but we can also exchange his threes to the short midranges. Let's also assume that worse balls wouldn't change his FT%.
He'd go from 58.5 TS% in 2023 to 55.9 TS%. That would be very good for the 1960s, but it's not "efficiency god". Again, that's unlikely that all of his efficiency numbers would remain the same considering external factors, but it's just a guess game.
My assessment is all about context, to work out what your actual ability to impact basketball at the highest level is. And no, that level wasn't reached in the 60s or 70s. That doesn't mean old timers can't be good, though it's less likely, because some players transcend their bad league.
The problem I have with that logic is that you arbitrary decide who "transcended" their leagues and who didn't. You think Kareem transcended his league, but you don't think Wilt/Russell/Oscar/West did for example. You have no objective, or even subjective but consistent criteria how to judge who did that and who did not.
It is honestly perplexing that you are so wound up about my willingness to rank some older players highly. I'd have thought you'd be more annoyed if I dismissed them all. Somehow a balanced, context driven approach is 'inconsistent'. I couldn't disagree more.
That's because I don't find your approach "balanced, context driven". I can be wrong and maybe I indeed don't understand your approach (though I doubt it, it's not complicated), but from my perspective it looks like you give a head start to players you like or find their game attractive and your whole argumentation is post facto.
