iggymcfrack wrote:I feel the same way about scaled PER. PER is a metric that's already done relative to league average. If fewer players are excelling far above average due to an even split in roles at a given time, I don't see why that makes what the players who did take on heavy roles for their team any easier of a task.
It's not an "easier" task; that's not what I'm saying. It's about not holding circumstances against one group. As you say in the underlined portion: if there were circumstances that
prevent or
disallow the same kind of primacy that stars enjoy in more disparate eras, that should not be held
against them. And there almost surely was something about the circumstances contributing to this.
I don't know how we can look at such wildly differing historical trends, and suggest that there wasn't.I can only speculate on all the factors that contribute to this more "even split in roles", but one which is certainly a contributing factor is pace. Over a certain league avg pace threshold, faster pace [relative to league avg] has a
negative correlation with team ORtg. This isn't speculation; I've done the studies, this appears concrete. I'm not exactly sure where that threshold is, but I've looked at two arbitrarily-selected thresholds of all seasons where league avg pace is >107 and years where it's >115. The correlation is already emerging in the >107 grouping, is more apparent/definitive in the >115 grouping.
I can talk to you about the appearance of trend lines and correlation coefficients, but if that's not your cup of tea, some general observations within the data will likely be illuminating:
Within the years of >115 league avg pace (145 data points or teams in this sample)....
*There were 19 teams with a rORTG of +3.0 or better........only ONE out of those 19 had a rPace >0 (+1.3).
**There were 4 teams with a rORTG of -5.0 or worse.......THREE of the 4 had a rPace that was not only greater than avg, but >+2.0 rPace; the other was basically right at avg with -0.1 rPace.
***Of the 13 fastest paced teams in this entire sample, ALL THIRTEEN had a rORTG <0.
****Of the 7 slowest paced teams in this sample, ALL SEVEN had a rORTG >0.
Bottom line is that over a certain pace threshold (I suspect somewhere around 105), teams are
actively engaging in a certain degree of "offensive indiscretion" (
which would include not always getting shots from their best options) to further increase the pace. And this would, in part, account for why we don't see [in these eras] as wide a margin from the low-end players either. Because it's not just about the guys on the top-side of average who aren't distancing themselves as far from the mean; BELOW average players are also not distancing themselves from the mean as much as the below avg players in other years (likely because they're getting more touches in these circumstances of "offensive indiscretion").
And where Reed specifically is concerned, league avg pace was >107 every year of his career, >115 in seven of the 10 (twice >120).
iggymcfrack wrote:Furthermore, this seems like a stat that's inevitably used to prop up older players from a much weaker era.....
No, this was not the direct intent (even if it appears to be the result). It was initiated in the spirit of the
purple statement above, and meant to level the field slightly for circumstance if definitive trends exist....which they did. And then---once establishing that trends exist----hopefully get myself and others to think about
why they exist.
"Truth is hidden only to the masses who are not inquisitive."
iggymcfrack wrote:......and it seems like any adjustment for it being harder to excel in a league where the roles are split evenly should be counteracted x10 for the fact that the average player in the 70s was much worse at basketball than the average player now. If two people exceeded the average by the same amount, one in 1972 and one today, I think it takes some real mental gymnastics to think the task accomplished by the older player is the one that represents more skill at basketball.
This too I have not directly said, nor have I suggested all eras should be considered equal in level of competitiveness.
That said, I feel you take opinions of past eras to extemes. A modicum of discounting of some eras is likely appropriate; near-total
disregard is inappropriate.
I'd like to walk thru and draw you out in a more Socratic manner as to why you feel this way, but it just takes too long; and I’ve had enough of these conversations that I already know all the reasons….
Modern players are taller…..Negligible. The average height of NBA players has increased by ~1”
or less in the last half-century. And frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if that 1” change is more the result of factors like not being raised in an era where practically every adult smoked (possibly stunting growth of some individuals), or improved perinatal nutrition.
.....and bigger/stronger/faster….Modern players have many more resources (by way of equipment, facilities, trainers and improved training methods, dieticians, etc) available to them than past players did. Additionally, physical training is now geared toward strength, quickness, explosiveness, leaping ability, etc [i.e. the very qualities that seem improved]; whereas it was once geared largely toward just cardio.
At one point, weight training was actively
discouraged among basketball players, on the theory that extra weight being carried would cause players to fatigue quicker, and also that increased upper body mass/strength would [negatively] effect one’s shot. The latter myth was STILL sporadically present even around the time I was in highschool in the 1990’s.
Footwear (and floor conditions) are other underappreciated aspects of the quickness we perceive in past-era players.
Have you ever played on cruddy, poorly-kept courts? You can’t always explode laterally or change direction quite like you’d like to. The vectors of force you apply with your legs to move need to be slightly less lateral and slightly more vertical (to avoid slipping). Now let’s further complicate things by not providing you with sturdy footwear with good ankle, adequate cushioning, or a nice contoured sole…..instead, you get to wear something like the old-school Converse All-Star: a canvas shoe with a thin, FLAT sole and minimal ankle support. How are you inclined to move now? Probably slightly more cautiously. I don’t see Russell Westbrook, for example, flying around at a million mph in these conditions like he normally does (or I see him busting an ankle fairly early on if he tried).
Explosive moves
with the dribble have a whole other layer of difficulty associated with them (more on that below)....
Past players dribble funny, like they barely know how…..As an experiment, next time you’re in the gym, attempt to make an explosive dribble-drive move to the basket, or perhaps a sudden change of direction [with the dribble], or even simply dribbling in a straight line at a full sprint….but WITHOUT putting your hand under
or even on the side of the ball.
If you’re doing it “legally” by the rules of the 50’s/60’s (and to a lesser degree the early 70’s), you likely now look very similar to how they did. They didn’t dribble that way because they couldn’t figure out how to do it better; they dribbled that way because that was what was allowed at the time. Players of the early 1960’s, for example, would have about as much use for a modern cross-over or spin move as they would for learning to dribble with their butt cheeks.
People like to think someone like Kyrie or Curry would be doing all kinds of fancy dribbles all over everyone in past eras. No. If raised in that era, they’d be dribbling like everyone else. At best they could be pioneers pushing the envelope like a Cousy or a Bob Davies in the 1950’s, or like a Frazier or Monroe in the late 60’s/early 70’s…..because that’s the limit of what was allowed at the time(s).
Past players often have goofy shooting form….Again, hate to break it to you, but if reared in the same environment (with the same coaching, mentoring, visual influences to model your game from, etc), today’s players would have had shots that looked basically the same. Mechanics have improved, no question. But these kinds of changes happen(ed) slowly over time, just like improvements in nearly any other field (particularly pre-Information Age).
Past players seem to poorer bball IQ’s (slower on rotations, poorer shot selection, etc)....True, but not because they’re stupid individuals. Perhaps almost NO ONE 50 years ago had the basketball IQ that basically any assistant coach in the league has today. Game theory and analytics have brought us an awful long way, and provided a ton of nuance, which professional teams attempt to be cognizant of it ALL. This too is a function of the slow progression/development of game analytics and the gradual dissemination of information, theory, and practice. Once again, if past players were availed some of this which is now commonplace knowledge among much of the professional basketball community, most would have drastic spikes in their bball IQ (this isn’t rocket-science, after all; it’s a game).
Likewise, modern players, if reared in a different time period would have been just as ignorant [of developments which had not yet occurred] as past players.
In short, precious little of the differences you perceive between the old game and the new have anything to do with the players as individuals, and have A LOT more to do with circumstance. Criticizing a past player for not having a modern quality to his game makes about as much sense as declaring Thomas Edison was a moron because he wouldn’t know how to use a smart phone.
Humans haven’t inherently changed in a span of 2-3 generations. Any actual physical changes are the result of environmental influences; you level the playing field for environment, and you see the players of then and now are very very similar.
Just about the only truly valid argument pertaining to strength of era stems directly from size of player pool. Just about everything else is environment/circumstance.
"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
. ANyway, attacking other members on the board (mods or not) is not acceptable. Consider this a verbal warning.