Frazier didn't have 19 assist in G7 of 1970 finals

[studcrackers]

how many more points were scored in the la/knicks series in comparison though?

[Doctor MJ]

how many more points were scored in the la/knicks series in comparison though?

57% more assists were credited in 1970 compared to 2010, while only 26% more points were scored. Big difference.

I'm going through the years though and it's not as big of a deal as I thought.

Among NBA finals, while 1970 had 54 APG, and 2010 had only 34 APG, 1985 had 63 APG.

In NBA seasons, 2010 had 42 APG, and 1970 had 49 APG, 1985 had 53 APG.

So the trends:

-1980s was the era of most plentiful assists (which we already knew)
-However 2000s era basketball does not have the inflated assists of the 1980s
-But the amount of assists we're seeing in modern NBA finals is well below what we're seeing in typical modern NBA games, whereas finals used to have more assists than in regular games.

I'll try to come up with some graphs shortly.

[MacGill]

how many more points were scored in the la/knicks series in comparison though?

57% more assists were credited in 1970 compared to 2010, while only 26% more points were scored. Big difference.

I'm going through the years though and it's not as big of a deal as I thought.

Among NBA finals, while 1970 had 54 APG, and 2010 had only 34 APG, 1985 had 63 APG.

In NBA seasons, 2010 had 42 APG, and 1970 had 49 APG, 1985 had 53 APG.

So the trends:

-1980s was the era of most plentiful assists (which we already knew)
-However 2000s era basketball does not have the inflated assists of the 1980s
-But the amount of assists we're seeing in modern NBA finals is well below what we're seeing in typical modern NBA games, whereas finals used to have more assists than in regular games.

I'll try to come up with some graphs shortly.

Good info Doc,

what intrigued me even more was Dipper's newspaper articles regarding rebounding game totals between Russell & Wilt, some pretty big discrepencies

I know the footage is more limited but is there anyway available to research this further as well?

[Dipper 13]

I know the footage is more limited but is there anyway available to research this further as well?

I believe there is a lot more footage from that time we have not seen. When it will actually be released is the question. For example, we know the '68 Sixers televised every (road) game locally. Surely other teams must have done so as well.








What ever happened to this "digital archive" they were working on a few years ago?


http://news.cnet.com/NBA-to-create-huge ... 89364.html

"I (might) want to see the three times (Milwaukee Bucks Hall of Famer) Oscar Robertson fouled out with less than 10 seconds left," said SGI's Estes. "Just as a fan, to bring fans into the game, it's just amazing. And from a business standpoint, this allows the NBA to monetize" its archive.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUjYzeVZvRM

There is no way that only the last few seconds of Game 7 from the 1965 EDF exists. Not when we can the same clips with multiple camera angles from different points in the game.


Below another example is Game 4 of the 1967 EDF. We will see the exact same Chet Walker baseline shot over Havlicek & Russell. One of them in color, the other in black/white.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJaFNsa-Bqs#t=9m49s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpufnh4fmRk#t=17m16s



Same for the 4th quarter clip when Guokas & Russell trade clutch baskets. This game had to have been broadcast in color from start to finish, yet all the NBA makes available is a single half of black/white footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJaFNsa-Bqs#t=40m13s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrhKI63e80#t=11m17s



Same for the Wilt dunk in the 3rd quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJaFNsa-Bqs#t=9m

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw#t=5m5s

[MacGill]

^^^ Wow, $6.00 for boxseats !! Imagine that today!

They most have kept this footage, in the vaults maybe, I may not be certain but don't they have older full game footage of MLB?

One would think by the 60's all pro popular sports would be kept on file, no?

[Sedale Threatt]

LOL, that caught my eye too.

This is pretty interesting. I understand how assists are open to interpretation. Even blocked shots can be tricky. But rebounds? They either go out of bounds, or somebody grabbed it. That should be pretty clear-cut. I don't see how you could get some of the discrepancies as listed above.

To have those Wilt/Russell totals totally flipped is pretty fishy.

[Warspite]

LOL, that caught my eye too.

This is pretty interesting. I understand how assists are open to interpretation. Even blocked shots can be tricky. But rebounds? They either go out of bounds, or somebody grabbed it. That should be pretty clear-cut. I don't see how you could get some of the discrepancies as listed above.

To have those Wilt/Russell totals totally flipped is pretty fishy.

Its not fishy if you lived at the time and understand that the NBA is a business its not a sport. Its only with watergate in the early 70s do we mistrust and question everything to the point of disbelief of the obvious.

Russell was the hero of Boston. You cant have him outplayed in Boston Garden so you have to do what has to be done to make sure your guy looks good.

[Dipper 13]

But rebounds? They either go out of bounds, or somebody grabbed it. That should be pretty clear-cut. I don't see how you could get some of the discrepancies as listed above.

How about keeping the ball alive anywhere near the offensive backboard tipping it towards a teammate? Would this below count as an offensive rebound for either Chamberlain or Jackson? Perhaps also a field goal attempt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jIemiXiPs#t=29s



Or this below where Wilt attempts to keep possession alive before Nate snags it down. Was this recorded as a rebound and/or FGA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrhKI63e80#t=27m27s



Or this in the '68 playoffs vs. NY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jIemiXiPs#t=16m41s


The subjectivity as to what apparently qualified as an offensive rebound may explain the large discrepancies. To me Russell is easily the best defensive rebounder in league history, while Wilt was best on the offensive backboards. The Sixers home court "advantage" also aided their rebounding, while in Boston Garden the rims were loose, therefore benefiting the Celtics outside shooters.



Christian Science Monitor - Apr 8, 1966

Philadelphia replaced its old basket and backboard setup before the season with a single post model. This post has a steel finger coming off the top which holds both backboard and basket in a very rigid position. And this is perfect for a physically powerful team like the 76ers, who score so many of their baskets in close, and who depend so heavily on Chamberlain for the turnaround dunk. But a tight hoop should work against the Celtics' outside shooters. The ball also rebounds differently on this type of backboard. It is usually a very active rebound, generally high and often deep.

[tonyreyes123]

The NBA was fishy before Stern I see.

[shawngoat23]

I'm pretty disappointed to hear about this. I never compare players directly based on statistics, especially across eras with such different styles of play, but it makes indirect comparisons that much more difficult. Good job to the OP (DavidStern?) for taking the time to do this.

57% more assists were credited in 1970 compared to 2010, while only 26% more points were scored. Big difference.

I'm going through the years though and it's not as big of a deal as I thought.

Among NBA finals, while 1970 had 54 APG, and 2010 had only 34 APG, 1985 had 63 APG.

In NBA seasons, 2010 had 42 APG, and 1970 had 49 APG, 1985 had 53 APG.

So the trends:

-1980s was the era of most plentiful assists (which we already knew)
-However 2000s era basketball does not have the inflated assists of the 1980s
-But the amount of assists we're seeing in modern NBA finals is well below what we're seeing in typical modern NBA games, whereas finals used to have more assists than in regular games.

I'll try to come up with some graphs shortly.

I think one thing to consider is that the game today is more perimeter-oriented. As a consequence, a significantly greater proportion of points today come from the three-point line. I'm not sure whether a three-point basket is more likely to be assisted than a two-point basket, but with the three point shot, obviously you get 3 points but only 1 assist, which would skew the ratio of points to assists.

Furthermore, there is probably also a small contribution from the greater frequency of free throws awarded today on two-point attempts; moreover, because of the increased emphasis on perimeter offense, free-throw shooters on average are now slightly more likely to convert from the line. As a result, a slightly greater proportion of points are likely to arise from (obviously unassisted) free throws.

Finally, beginning with Michael Jordan and continuing with subsequent generations of perimeter scorers, you see a rise in one-on-one isolation basketball, which would further decrease assist totals.

In comparing the NBA Finals in 1970 and 2010, you see this effect magnified. You have an excellent three-point shooting team in Boston contributing to the first factor. In addition, both teams contain star perimeter players who are excellent at drawing fouls and getting to the free-throw line, as well as contributing at the charity stripe. This results in a disproportionately large effect of the second factor.

However, I do believe bias from the scorer's table may also account for some of the disparity in assist totals. Miscounting 10 of 19 credited assists is just mindboggling.

[MIK AGER]

What ever happened to this "digital archive" they were working on a few years ago?


http://news.cnet.com/NBA-to-create-huge ... 89364.html

"I (might) want to see the three times (Milwaukee Bucks Hall of Famer) Oscar Robertson fouled out with less than 10 seconds left," said SGI's Estes. "Just as a fan, to bring fans into the game, it's just amazing. And from a business standpoint, this allows the NBA to monetize" its archive.

Didn't sell well enough and there was rampant piracy with the games (being redistributed) so the service was eventually pulled.

Sad really.

[TrueLAfan]

First .. about rebounds. The NBA did change the way they kept track of/considered rebounds over the years. We didn’t get the current “system” until 1969, when the NBA stopped counting “team rebounds” (when the ball goes out of bounds after a shot and possessions goes to the previous defensive team) as rebounds made/grabbed by the members of the team. Then, and now, about 10-14% of shots taken where a rebound is given are “team rebounds.” That’s why, when you look at the average rebounds grabbed by a team prior to 1969, you get a skewed picture. The average team in 1964, for instance, did NOT grab 5269 rebounds (65.86 a game). They grabbed about 4610 rebounds. That’s still a lot—over 57.6 rebounds a game—but it’s a substantial change if you‘re comparing between eras.

(btw, you can see this discrepancy if you add up all the rebounds credited to a player on a team, and compare to team total rebounds for a season. Sticking with 1964 … the Cincinnati Royals did not grab 5400 rebounds. Add up the player totals, and you get 4824…about 89% of the listed total number the team grabbed.)

With respect to Frazier’s game and the (huge) discrepancy in assists between what he was listed with and what he actually had … it doesn’t surprise me. Right off the bat, the Knicks ran a heavy duty motion offense with multiple passers/cutters and player movement without the ball. Frazier was never a high assist guy in the conventional sense because of that. He only had two seasons over 7 assists a game in his career, and never averaged over 8.2 a game for a season. By assist numbers, Jose Calderon is a far better passer than Walt Frazier. That’s more of an indictment of assists and overvaluing them as a stat than anything else, but still.

Still, it seems pretty suspicious that a guy like that on a team like that would have a game like that … a game where he assisted on 55% of his team’s baskets (he accounted for 20% for his team’s assisted baskets in the regular season) in a system that hardly broke down or functioned n an odd way. It just feels … wrong. I don’t see anyone ever getting 19 assists in Holzman’s offense (in the same way that I can’t imagine someone getting 19 assist in the triangle…Scottie Pippen’s career high with the Bulls was 15.) This doesn’t detract for my respect for Clyde, but that’s the way it is. I think Dipper 13 makes the great point that, in the past, statisticians were (sometime much) bigger homers than they are now. That's pretty much the start and of this for me as it relates to this single game.

The excellent points by shawngoat need to be considered. It’s true that you still only get one assists for a three…but the fact is that the percentage of assisted on baskets made has generally risen since the 1960s/1970s…in the late 1960s, assists were given on about 52% of baskets made, and had been around that number for a while for a while. In the 1970s, it went up to 59% by the time the three was introduced. It stayed around 59-61% for the next 25 years, although it's dropped a bit recently, as DoctorMJ notes, in the last 5 or 6 years. But the spacing and style of play was different, and that affects statistics in a million ways. I imagine there were about 10-15% more blocks in the 1960s and 1970s because there was no spacing and the game was more interior based (which allows accounts for some of the emphasis on center play). But it was less of a one on one game then, which should account for more assists…and it doesn’t seem to. It’s an awful thing to say for a guy that loves numbers like I do, but I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that statistical comparisons between eras are inherently flawed because of the lack (or inadequate) accounting for bias and style and the insufficient understanding and ability to quantify individual qualities that benefit team play. (I was at the SABR convention in July, and the vast, vast number of baseball analysts think basketball analytic tools are, at best, marginally useful.)

Still, in the end, we’re in a sports world dominated by raw numbers. the public likes numbers they can latch on to, and the league and franchises like to market those players and numbers. I’ve never paid a lot of attention to Clyde’s 19 assist Game 7, other to say it was a great game. It was. The fact—and I am sure it is fact—that his assist numbers are wrong is indicative of homerism, but really emphasizes the poor understanding of the real meaning or worth of raw numbers to the layman, then and now. I think the NBA systematically did/does these things (with average height, allowance of palming, etc.) that affect numbers in a significant way. But I think it’s good whenever an extreme example is pointed out—like this one.

[colts18]

Im fascinated by rebound differential. If it's true that Russell got a huge boost, that has to make people look at him differently. I'm assuming those 10 block games of his didn't happen as often as some sportswriter said.

[vincecarter4pres]

Extremely interesting and simultaneously disheartening thread.

BTW, I had a long post ready to go, but I would rather I make the blanket statement and let other older posters do the dirty work, but to me as a younger fan relying more on statistics with the proper perception because of assumed thoughts that are backed up by a thread like this, along with seeing some games, Russell is one of the most overrated players in NBA history.

I think it's a total joke that people throw him in their top 3 or even top 5 of all time, I don't even think he's even necessarily top 10.

[Doormatt]

well then i think you need to watch some more Bill Russell, and read some of the posts on the top 100 list, because if anyone is overrated from that era, its Wilt, who i would definitely consider ranking out of the top 5 or 10 before Russell.

[Mamba Venom]

Wilt only had 80 points?

[ThaRegul8r]

What ever happened to this "digital archive" they were working on a few years ago?


http://news.cnet.com/NBA-to-create-huge ... 89364.html

"I (might) want to see the three times (Milwaukee Bucks Hall of Famer) Oscar Robertson fouled out with less than 10 seconds left," said SGI's Estes. "Just as a fan, to bring fans into the game, it's just amazing. And from a business standpoint, this allows the NBA to monetize" its archive.

Didn't sell well enough

Why would it?

Look at all the disrespect anyone who's not playing in the here and now gets. Anyone not playing right now is a scrub who would be lucky to get off the bench. You constantly see modern fans disparage past players. You can't even mention anyone from the past without someone inevitably coming in to talk about how inferior they were and how much of a joke they are compared to today's player. The "majority" don't give a damn about anyone who came before they started watching basketball. So it baffles me as to why on earth anyone would think the NBA would publicly release any games from some alleged archive. Why would they? What on earth would they possibly get out of it? The very few people who would care is not enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor. Promoting Kobe, LeBron, and all of today's stars who "most people" actually care about is what's going to make money for them. That's why the current generation of stars is always "the best ever." It's why Shaq was named a Top 50 player after, what, three seasons in the league? It's why everyone kept saying Kobe was better than Jordan at the same age, and people were saying he could be GOAT. It's why people then started saying LeBron could be the GOAT. It's the recency effect. Everything newer is better. No one cares about the past.

[doctorfunk]

Extremely interesting and simultaneously disheartening thread.

I agree great post one of the best reads of the month on realgm

[Dipper 13]

Didn't sell well enough and there was rampant piracy with the games (being redistributed) so the service was eventually pulled.

Sad really.

Sad indeed. What a shame.

[Jordan23Forever]

What ever happened to this "digital archive" they were working on a few years ago?


http://news.cnet.com/NBA-to-create-huge ... 89364.html

"I (might) want to see the three times (Milwaukee Bucks Hall of Famer) Oscar Robertson fouled out with less than 10 seconds left," said SGI's Estes. "Just as a fan, to bring fans into the game, it's just amazing. And from a business standpoint, this allows the NBA to monetize" its archive.

Didn't sell well enough and there was rampant piracy with the games (being redistributed) so the service was eventually pulled.

Sad really.

What do you mean "didn't sell well enough"? As far as I know it was never made available to the public to begin with. Was it supposed to be a pay service? Their literature and press releases regarding the service implied that it was free.