Doctor MJ wrote:I think your issue here is that you're trying to conflate different standards into one list, and to be honest this is not only a common problems, but something I've seen a lot in this project.
If we made a list about the most era dominant players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes. If we made a list about the most Hall-worthy players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes. If we made a list about the most influential players in history, I may have already voted for Schayes.
I guess I'd need some clarification on what you mean by "Hall-worthy", but otherwise these are all valuable (though not equally so) considerations for all-time ranking to me.
By Hall-worth I essentially mean of being important in describing the NBA's history. So older legends do a lot better on a list like that than they would on a more straight up "how good were they at basketball" discussion, but on the other hand, so would someone like Allen Iverson. I would put Iverson in the Hall before Ray Allen because he's far more historically important, but certainly not because he was more effective at basketball over his career.
My point here though really is that these are all slightly different criteria, and confusing them together makes your list less meaningful. I understand how you can feel like these are all good things, and hence a list that factors in all the good things feels like some kind of ultimate list, but unless you can precisely describe your criteria to others, any discussion you have with them is bound to have people talking past each other.
EDIT: Okay, let me apologize and clarify as I've been told I sound like a real prick here.
I've been ranking things a long time. One of the things I've found is that if you don't give yourself a precise definition of what you're ranking by, you're going to be inconsistent in your application, and your results therefore will be less clear in what they indicate - hence less meaningful.
When I make statements like this though, I don't mean to imply that my lists are perfect either. I'll tell you right now my list here is imperfect on many levels, including the one I'm warning other people about right now. Just the nature of being a human looking at complex things we can't completely quantify. So what I'm doing in talking about this issue is just pointing out something I've had trouble because it's coming up when I talk to someone else.
I apologize that there's a presumed arrogance to me saying "you're doing it wrong", but remember this discussion came up because people were specifically talking about meta things in the first place. I might come off as a particular douchy part of the conversation, but I'm not the only one talking about it.
Doctor MJ wrote: By Hall-worth I essentially mean of being important in describing the NBA's history. So older legends do a lot better on a list like that than they would on a more straight up "how good were they at basketball" discussion, but on the other hand, so would someone like Allen Iverson. I would put Iverson in the Hall before Ray Allen because he's far more historically important, but certainly not because he was more effective at basketball over his career.
My point here though really is that these are all slightly different criteria, and confusing them together makes your list less meaningful....
In your opinion. By having a narrower criteria you can perhaps have more precision.....but imo it comes at the expense of excluding consideration of a lot of important factors (many of which aren't based on speculation ).
I mean, you somewhat suggested what I mean already:
Doctor MJ wrote:If we made a list about the most era dominant players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes. If we made a list about the most Hall-worthy players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes. If we made a list about the most influential players in history, I may have already voted for Schayes.
But we're not voting on a list for any one of these narrow criteria, are we? We're voting about our own definitions of "All-Time Greatness".
What is All-Time Greatness? Is it about in-era dominance (and there are obv multiple objective means by which to gauge this)? Is it about contribution to winning? Is it about statistical footprint? Is it about stylistic imprint or contribution to the evolution of the game? Yes, to me it's about all of those things (and to a smaller degree, a few others as well).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
lorak wrote:It's interesting that the same people, who voted for Russell/Oscar/Wilt/West/Baylor now are using "different era" card against Schayes. I wonder if you all realize that difference between Schayes' era and 60s was much smaller than between 60s and now (and in fact players from pre shot clock era were doing fine - or even good if we adjust for age - in shot clock era, even in the 60s). Or that Schayes played 7 (!) seasons in the same league as Bill Russell and was multiple all NBA player and in top 10 MVP voting during those years - and that includes a couple in the 60s.
Baylor aside, I think you are underestimating the degree that Russ, Wilt, West and Oscar dominated their era. There was some degree of an era discount but Schayes seems more along the lines of a Lenny Wilkens/Hal Greer level of play relative to his peers than a (Russell, Wilt, Oscar and West) type domination.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Obv with all this discussion, era portability's something I've been thinking a lot on. I recognize that there's a fair bit of subjectivity in assessing era strength, too (although certainly less guesswork). But something occurred to me, and I have a genuine query to put out there for discussion.
I'd alluded to this in a prior post, talking about the smaller player pool 60+ years ago: the game was not at all global at that time, there was no financial up-shot to pursuing hoop dreams, there was not yet the apparent cultural resonance within Black America for the game as there seems to be today, much much MUCH less broad appeal or popularity, no significant media exposure for the game, etc, all being contributing factors.
How this relates to era portability speculation?......Well, if we're considering a modern era player and projecting him on to a past era, we typically just consider his attributes and how it would translate on to that game, right? But what if he simply DIDN'T play back then. Again, for reasons mentioned above (and on prior post), there were A LOT fewer athletes being attracted to or otherwise drawn into the game......so what if some of these modern era guys, if born 50-70 years earlier, were one of the millions of athletes who simply never came to this game? Again, we're not just doing the hot-tub time machine, right? We're trying to assess how they might have translated if they'd grown up in the same era with the same advantages/disadvantages or circumstances that were present at the time. Even taking racial discrimination out of the picture (seems only fair that we wipe that one away when speculating), what if the result of those circumstances was that some of these guys never find their way to the game?
This ends up being a particularly pertinent point for any foreign player. Dikembe, for example: had he been born (in the Congo) 50 years earlier, I'd say it's a near-certainty that he'd never have been a basketball player. Ditto Dirk in being born in Germany circa 1935. Ginobili likely never picks up a basketball either. And so on.
If one thinks Schayes, for instance, couldn't be an elite player in any other era, he might say Schayes was awfully lucky to have been born when he was, so that he had opportunity to dominant in the only era in which that was even possible. But it's equally true to say that Dirk and Dikembe and Manu (and many others) were lucky to have been born when they were.....as they may have never even touched a basketball otherwise.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
lorak wrote:It's interesting that the same people, who voted for Russell/Oscar/Wilt/West/Baylor now are using "different era" card against Schayes. I wonder if you all realize that difference between Schayes' era and 60s was much smaller than between 60s and now (and in fact players from pre shot clock era were doing fine - or even good if we adjust for age - in shot clock era, even in the 60s). Or that Schayes played 7 (!) seasons in the same league as Bill Russell and was multiple all NBA player and in top 10 MVP voting during those years - and that includes a couple in the 60s.
Baylor aside, I think you are underestimating the degree that Russ, Wilt, West and Oscar dominated their era. There was some degree of an era discount but Schayes seems more along the lines of a Lenny Wilkens/Hal Greer level of play relative to his peers than a (Russell, Wilt, Oscar and West) type domination.
I agree that Schayes wasn't as dominant as Oscar and Russell, but he also was much more dominant than Greer or Wilkens. Danny was kind of like Pettit or Karl Malone - second tier superstar, sometimes very close to the best players, but never was no 1.
Now I look at Pettit numbers from that era and Schayes numbers in their contemporary years and I see a major difference. Pettit WAS the best player between Mikan and Russell, and it was pretty clear; Schayes was competing with Macauley, Johnston, and the like a tier down.
Schayes was a guy who generally but not every year made 1st team All-NBA (6 1st teams, 6 2nd teams), was only once above 5th in MVP voting in an 8 team league (2nd in 59), only twice above 4th in any major statistical category (2nd in scoring in 58, 1st in reb/game in 51), had a good but not great defensive rep . . . in an 8 team league, that's not up to the level of a Bob Pettit or Karl Malone.
For contrast, Pettit was 1st team All-NBA every year he was in the league except his final year where he missed half the year with injury. Pettit won the NBA's 1st MVP and another in 59 (plus 2 2nds, a 3rd, and 3 4th place finishes), except for that final injury year, he never finished LOWER than 4th in the league in scoring winning 2 titles, only finished lower than 4th in the league in rebounding once (despite Wilt and Russell from his 3rd and 5th year on). That's an all-time great; not an all-time very good player.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0 wrote:Now I look at Pettit numbers from that era and Schayes numbers in their contemporary years and I see a major difference. Pettit WAS the best player between Mikan and Russell, and it was pretty clear; Schayes was competing with Macauley, Johnston, and the like a tier down.
Schayes was a guy who generally but not every year made 1st team All-NBA (6 1st teams, 6 2nd teams), was only once above 5th in MVP voting in an 8 team league (2nd in 59), only twice above 4th in any major statistical category (2nd in scoring in 58, 1st in reb/game in 51), had a good but not great defensive rep . . . in an 8 team league, that's not up to the level of a Bob Pettit or Karl Malone.
For contrast, Pettit was 1st team All-NBA every year he was in the league except his final year where he missed half the year with injury. Pettit won the NBA's 1st MVP and another in 59 (plus 2 2nds, a 3rd, and 3 4th place finishes), except for that final injury year, he never finished LOWER than 4th in the league in scoring winning 2 titles, only finished lower than 4th in the league in rebounding once (despite Wilt and Russell from his 3rd and 5th year on). That's an all-time great; not an all-time very good player.
If you want to look at all NBA teams and MVP voting, then I don't understand how you can compare Schayes (6x 1st team, 6x 2nd team, 6x top10 MVP - including one 2nd place behind Russell and ahead of Pettit!) to Greer (0x 1st team, 7 x 2nd, once in top10 MPV) or Wilkens (0 all nba teams, 1x top10 MVP)...
Greer is 2nd 7 times because he's behind West and Oscar who are, as I said earlier, among the most dominant players of their era to ever play -- as dominant in terms of guard play for their era as Jordan was for his. Wilkens probably isn't a good comp; you are right about that. But then, neither is Pettit or Karl Malone. Macauley or Johnston are better comps than either.
My point is that I look for dominance over a sustained stretch relative to era strength. Schayes was one of the best of one of the weakest eras, but not dominant in that era like Mikan, Pettit, or even Bob Cousy who dominated the guards of the 50s more than Pettit did the bigs. Maybe Bill Sharman is a better comp for Schayes. But with that era being so weak, I think it's too early for someone who didn't really stand out among the Sharmans, Johnstons, and Macauleys of that time (though he may have been the best of the bunch, it's far from clear).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0 wrote:Greer is 2nd 7 times because he's behind West and Oscar
Greer averaged +30MPG from '61 to '71. During that span West and Oscar weren't the only guards ahead of Greer on all NBA teams:
1961 - Cousy, Costello (!), Shue (!)
1962 - Cousy, Guerin
1968 - Bing (!)
1969 - Monroe (!)
1970 - Frazier, Hudson (!)
1971 - Bing (!), Frazier
So Greer had plenty occasions to make 1st team or more 2nd teams, but he didn't because he wasn't good enough. Look, Schayes has 7 straight seasons with WS/48 0.200 or better. Greer ZERO and even once wasn't close to that mark. Pettit also 7, but not during consecutive years.
lorak wrote:It's interesting that the same people, who voted for Russell/Oscar/Wilt/West/Baylor now are using "different era" card against Schayes. I wonder if you all realize that difference between Schayes' era and 60s was much smaller than between 60s and now (and in fact players from pre shot clock era were doing fine - or even good if we adjust for age - in shot clock era, even in the 60s). Or that Schayes played 7 (!) seasons in the same league as Bill Russell and was multiple all NBA player and in top 10 MVP voting during those years - and that includes a couple in the 60s.
Speaking for myself:
I lobbied hard for Russell and pretty hard for Oscar & West.
I also lobbied hard against Wilt, MIkan, and Baylor.
I'm lobbying hard against Schayes for reasons given, but were we talking about his contemporary Paul Arizin I wouldn't be. (Arizin's not my top choice right now, but were he to get momentum at this point it wouldn't bother me.)
So I think I'm pretty consistent in being someone who you can't say I'm a slave to anything as simple as being biased against the '50s.
But with that said, yes I think there's a massive difference between 1955 and 1965. Quite possibly bigger than the difference between 1965 and 2015 if we're talking about player talent. Where I've been consistent is in this:
I spend a lot of time thinking about how the guys played, whether it would work across eras, and also how well they adapted to the changes that were thrown their way.
trex_8063 wrote:If one thinks Schayes, for instance, couldn't be an elite player in any other era, he might say Schayes was awfully lucky to have been born when he was, so that he had opportunity to dominant in the only era in which that was even possible. But it's equally true to say that Dirk and Dikembe and Manu (and many others) were lucky to have been born when they were.....as they may have never even touched a basketball otherwise.
All true, I'll add another:
Dirk is lucky to be born with far more basketball talent than Dolph.
In all seriousness, the question I'd say is which types of "luck" are worth adjusting for.
Doctor MJ wrote: By Hall-worth I essentially mean of being important in describing the NBA's history. So older legends do a lot better on a list like that than they would on a more straight up "how good were they at basketball" discussion, but on the other hand, so would someone like Allen Iverson. I would put Iverson in the Hall before Ray Allen because he's far more historically important, but certainly not because he was more effective at basketball over his career.
My point here though really is that these are all slightly different criteria, and confusing them together makes your list less meaningful....
In your opinion. By having a narrower criteria you can perhaps have more precision.....but imo it comes at the expense of excluding consideration of a lot of important factors (many of which aren't based on speculation ).
I mean, you somewhat suggested what I mean already:
Doctor MJ wrote:If we made a list about the most era dominant players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes. If we made a list about the most Hall-worthy players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes. If we made a list about the most influential players in history, I may have already voted for Schayes.
But we're not voting on a list for any one of these narrow criteria, are we? We're voting about our own definitions of "All-Time Greatness".
What is All-Time Greatness? Is it about in-era dominance (and there are obv multiple objective means by which to gauge this)? Is it about contribution to winning? Is it about statistical footprint? Is it about stylistic imprint or contribution to the evolution of the game? Yes, to me it's about all of those things (and to a smaller degree, a few others as well).
Sure, but then: What are you talking about when you're in a project with a bunch of other people if that's the criteria you're using?
Answer: The criteria itself. Hence why you jumped in with a pro-Schayes argument based on getting people to weigh more heavily the fact that Schayes was as dominant as he was in some point in history. The assumption is then that we all know what Schayes was, and we're simply decided what criteria to use to make the list. This is problematic on a number of levels but to me the big one is this:
The goal of the list is not the list, it's the discussion. It's about thinking about basketball, and learning. That isn't what we do when we make arguments simply based on how much of a factor it should be that we can all agree that Schayes was at one time one of the best players on the planet.
But look, there's always some of this. I'm not saying you're the only one, I'm not saying I don't do it too, but I am saying that it's important to keep actual goals in mind when approaching any complex task, because otherwise you can veer off-course.
Best remaining player here- dominant two-way peak, impacted the game in every possible way- on the boards, on the high block, with his passing, with his shooting, with his shot blocking, with his hustle. Everything you could want in a player besides health.
Fascinating discussion about era portability here. I'm already on board with trex's way of looking at it for the most part, and I'll also join him in my continued vote for Dolph Schayes. While I agree that he played in a weaker era than other likely candidates here, I don't think his in-era excellence over the span of 10+ years can be matched by anybody else. If I have time, I'll post some era and position specific numbers for Schayes that I have been working on for others.
penbeast0 wrote:Players with long, consistent careers . . . mainly wings: English, Dantley, Sam Jones, or Vince Carter. Dolph Schayes would go here too. My personal favorite is Dantley, my head says English, my heart says Jones, and my gut says Carter. Would like to see some comps between these guys.
....
Vote: Alex English but willing to change my mind.
Glad to see English and Dantley at least in the conversation. I've probably bored everyone silly at this point with my pro-Dantley posts (he's my all-time favorite), but English is one of my favorites as well. Just a smooth, silky, electric player.
One small thing to consider in a Dantley/English comparison: Dantley has a notable edge in their head-to-head matchups. In seasons where they each averaged at least 27 MPG:
Player Year W L Vs. Exp PPG Rel RPG Rel APG Rel TS Rel Dantley 1979 4 0 +8.40 23.75 +6.42 NA NA NA NA NA NA English 1979 0 4 -8.40 13.50 -2.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA Dantley 1980 1 1 +2.17 36.50 +8.51 NA NA NA NA NA NA English 1980 1 1 -2.17 12.00 -2.93 NA NA NA NA NA NA Dantley 1981 4 2 +5.88 40.83 +10.18 NA NA NA NA NA NA English 1981 2 4 -5.88 20.83 -2.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA Dantley 1982 3 3 +4.26 42.00 +11.67 NA NA NA NA NA NA English 1982 3 3 -4.26 26.50 +1.11 NA NA NA NA NA NA Dantley 1983 1 0 +6.80 43.00 +12.27 NA NA NA NA .8783 +.2170 English 1983 0 1 -6.80 25.00 -3.37 NA NA NA NA .5315 -.0297 Dantley 1984 6 5 -3.06 33.64 +3.03 NA NA NA NA .6725 +.0205 English 1984 5 6 +3.06 27.91 +1.48 NA NA NA NA .5911 +.0214 Dantley 1985 3 8 -1.38 23.18 -3.40 NA NA NA NA .6452 +.0380 English 1985 8 3 +1.38 27.82 -0.11 NA NA NA NA .5625 +.0013 Dantley 1986 2 2 -1.96 30.75 +0.92 5.50 +0.30 4.25 +0.78 .6364 +.0078 English 1986 2 2 +1.96 29.75 -0.05 5.50 +0.50 4.00 +0.05 .5399 -.0218 Dantley 1987 2 0 +8.85 22.00 +0.49 6.50 +2.40 2.50 +0.50 .6773 +.0632 English 1987 0 2 -8.85 33.00 +4.40 4.00 -0.20 5.00 -0.15 .5548 +.0054 Dantley 1988 1 1 -3.14 24.00 +4.00 4.00 +0.71 1.50 -0.98 .6961 +.0770 English 1988 1 1 +3.14 33.00 +8.00 6.00 +1.34 5.50 +0.79 .6425 +.1080 Dantley 1989 1 1 +6.70 22.50 +2.24 5.50 +0.56 2.50 -0.02 .5575 +.0111 English 1989 1 1 -6.70 14.50 -12.02 4.00 +0.02 2.50 -2.17 .3607 -.1704 Dantley 1990 1 1 -3.36 16.50 +1.79 6.50 +2.68 1.00 -0.78 .5222 -.0334 English 1990 1 1 +3.36 20.00 +2.09 5.50 +1.93 5.00 +2.19 .4617 -.0600 Dantley Total 29 24 +1.26 30.68 +3.82 5.58 +1.16 2.67 +0.05 .6558 +.0318 English Total 24 29 -1.26 24.91 -0.20 5.08 +0.68 4.33 +0.13 .5571 -.0009
trex_8063 wrote:If one thinks Schayes, for instance, couldn't be an elite player in any other era, he might say Schayes was awfully lucky to have been born when he was, so that he had opportunity to dominant in the only era in which that was even possible. But it's equally true to say that Dirk and Dikembe and Manu (and many others) were lucky to have been born when they were.....as they may have never even touched a basketball otherwise.
All true, I'll add another:
Dirk is lucky to be born with far more basketball talent than Dolph.
In all seriousness, the question I'd say is which types of "luck" are worth adjusting for.
Can you give us your opinion then on your last statement? In your opinion what factors should we adjust for and why?
Doctor MJ wrote:I spend a lot of time thinking about how the guys played, whether it would work across eras, and also how well they adapted to the changes that were thrown their way.
I'm also hoping you will expound more on this. How do you determine how a guy playing under say 1960's rules and conditions would play he if was born 40 years later? I really struggle with this personally.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
IMO the best defender left on the board and he was dominant defensively for a long time.
Great rebounder.
Solid offensively.
Was a big part of some impressive play-off results. The 8 Nuggets over the 1 Sonics, the Sixer run to the Finals where AI typically gets the credit, but that team advance on defense which was led by Deke. He had more WS than AI and his ortg was 122 compared to the rest of the regulars who were right at or below 100.
His longevity is a little less impressive than it looks based on total years played, but he had a solid 12 year prime and was a very useful part-time player for another 4.
Obviously not the all-around player some recent bigs getting in were, but his dominance defensively means its about time for him to get some serious consideration.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
- 15 year career - 12x all NBA (6 1st, 6 2nd) - 3 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes - 1x NBA champion - 24th all time in RS WS/48 - 15th all time in PS WS/48 - Retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history*
*This includes NBL play, which I know technically doesn't count for this project. Let's just leave it as a fun fact. He was an ironman regardless.
My post from last thread (click spoiler):
Spoiler:
What stands out most was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in 50-51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.
From the footage i've seen (currently looking for more), he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRTG).
Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In 54-55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.
As I've said in past threads, there can't be an exact science to comparing eras and "era portability". I take a combination of how a player performed relative to his era, the strength of that era, and to a lesser degree how his game would translate in the modern era. Playing "time machine" is inherently subjective when you go back to the 50s and 60s. There's no way of knowing how those players would translate.
At the least, you have to acknowledge that using modern training programs and other ways of developing skill / physical ability would help these old era players adapt to the game. For schayes specifically, you can tell that he was a gifted player skill set-wise, and the set shot was only part of his game. He was known for having a very high arc on his shot, and he could also shoot on the move. I look at pettit getting voted in at 21 (who I'd say I was an average advocate for in that range), and to me schayes is a deserving pick 20+ spots later.
Schayes’ longevity and consistency throughout his career can be attributed to great mental toughness and work ethic. This is timeless. Per Jeremiah Tax of Sports Illustrated:
This is Dolph Schayes talking—the 6-foot-8, 220-pound Syracuse National who has been chosen on more All-Star squads than any player in NBA history and whose all-round skill is attested by consistent near-the-top leadership in three areas: allover scoring, the precise art of free throws, and rebounding. To some his words will carry a ring of naivete, which in this instance is, sadly, the price of sincerity:
"The most important thing any athlete does is 'get up' mentally before the competition starts. It's the difference between the ordinary, average performance and the extra effort that wins the game, the race, or whatever he's going to do … A lot of players in our league aren't really trying. Don't get me wrong, they give everything they've got—physically. But they just haven't learned how to get that extra something that comes from being 'up' mentally. The ones I admire most are guys like [Bill] Sharman and [Neil] Johnston. It's the psychological edge they bring along that makes them great."
"Dolph was all adolescent arms and legs in college," says NYU Coach Howard Cann. " He was a good player—no more than that. But his mind was set on being great. He was in the gym practicing every spare minute. We had to chase him out." Today, after seven years as a pro, Schayes is still pushing himself; according to Coach Paul Seymour, they have to turn out the lights at the Syracuse gym where the Nationals practice before he quits for the day.
Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview:
[sidenote: i get that SLAM isn't the foremost authority on the state of the NBA, but an interview is an interview -- this is what the player said. Also, Lang Whitaker ran SLAM for years, and I've always respected his opinion relative to plenty of other "journalists". He's one of the good ones.]
SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?
SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding.
SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?
SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.
I also came across a post from APBRmetrics on comparing eras which was pretty well said:
Spoiler:
The issues you mentioned are just a few of the reasons why normalizing stats across eras is so difficult.
It's funny you mentioned free throw %, because that is probably the most "pure" and directly comparable stat out there, however, even FT% for the same player would be subject to some adjustment. Lighting was worse, the rims less consistent, and it wouldn't surprise me if guys were shooting at 9'11" baskets one night and at 10'1" baskets the next.
First, there is the question of what you're trying to measure: how a player instantly transplanted from 1950 would do in 2009, or how a player from 1950, given the training, nutrition, and equipment available today would produce in 2009. The latter assumption is at least somewhat possible to approximate, because we can see a constant evolution in how people play as they bridge various eras and gain access to new innovations/developments: Russell played against Chamberlain, who played against Jabbar, who played against Parish, Malone, Olajuwon, etc.
Rules changes: how would West perform with a 3 pt line and Reggie Miller without? How much do you add to West's point production, and given the change in strategy, how much would you subtract from a big man West was playing with?
Stat interpretations: how many assists would Oscar Robertson accumulate with a more liberal interpretation of an assist? On average, you would think his numbers would be higher, but what if the Cincy scorekeeper was using a liberal definition of assist back in the day? Applying a league avg. ast/FGM ratio might overstate the adjustment materially.
Pace adjustment: we can normalize pace, but that is a purely linear adjustment that impacts players consistently. Changing the pace of play could actually positively impact some players' touches per possession, while negatively impacting others. For example, it is observable that the slower the pace, the higher the frequency of high usage players. It is a lot more common to find a 28% usage player today than it was in the early 80s, even controlling for expansion. Presumably, that's because teams take more time to get the ball to their key player. At a slower pace, your number three option might have a reduced role in the offense while your number one option might play a larger role. For example, if Moses Malone's Sixers played a Knicks-style pace from the mid 90s, his scoring might not drop as much as you'd expect from a linear assumption, because the Sixers would more deliberately go to him on the offensive end. On the other hand, I could see a player like Steve Nash thrive even more playing at 105 possessions/game.
Talent around a player: this one is just about impossible due to the usage/efficiency guesswork, but if Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain switched teams, what would happen to their production?
League strength: we can measure the production of the same pool of players year over year and measure this against some baseline to get some sense of how league quality changes over time. For instance, if the same 200 players produce more the following year, we can assume the league got weaker. The issues of how much weaker and what the baseline expectation should be is open to debate.
Position evolution: some of this ties into rules changes, but casting that aside for a second, some positions (notably shooting guard) probably weren't fully developed and exploited. This was partially due to the lack of the 3, but ignoring this, the numbers posted from players at the "2" weren't very impressive. SGs were either your #2 ball handler or your #1 ball handler who also happened to be your best outside scorer. Just looking at the 10 NBA seasons prior to competition from the ABA, very few guys cast as a shooting guard were getting estimated PERs of 17+. Using a pretty liberal definition of shooting guard, there were only 4 who actually managed to pull it off for three of those ten years: Jerry West (PG/SG), Richie Guerin (PG?), Sam Jones, and Hal Greer.
General playing style issues: It's quite possible that some of Chamberlain's physical advantages would diminish in the modern era as he was so far ahead of the curve in strength training vs. his contemporaries. It's also entirely possible that a center on a slower pace modern team like an Ilgauskas or Smits wouldn't have the wheels needed to play an early 60s pace.
Normalizing play across eras will generally get you closer to a "pure" estimate of a player's production. The issue is that so many assumptions are being normalized that the margin of error becomes pretty substantial.
Carter and McGrady were no question 2 of the greatest talents of their generation. Freak athlete playmakers who could do a little bit of everything on the court. I think I give McGrady the benefit of the doubt more than the average fan regarding the 1st round exits. Between his injuries and just not being on great teams for part of his career, I can’t put it all on him. In respect to the project, though, his longevity leaves something to be desired.
The way carter has re-invented himself in his later years is no doubt impressive, but he may have wasted a good chunk of his career having not made that mental transition earlier. It’s a little disconcerting when you see a guy hustle more in his mid to late 30s than he did in his prime. I think both are deserving soon, but have some blotches on their career that make me think twice about them here.
[And of course this is a total what if, but who knows what their legacies look like if they stayed in toronto together.]
English's longevity as a great volume scorer is no doubt impressive. His main shortcomings would be the lack of many deep playoff runs, but when he did advance in the playoffs, he simply lost to the better team. Schayes to me still had the better overall career, but i'll certainly be considering English soon.
).
