Did they understand the hidden game of basketball better in the 1960s?

Grumpy old men and stat nerds hold hands and sing!

12 months ago John R 30 comments 0 recs |

Comments

"My hunch is he would be viewed today in the same light the public views Tyson Chandler or Marcus Camby."

Ha. I was just having this exact conversation with my brother yesterday. Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain would honestly be nothing to writer about in today’s game. Conversely, if you put Josh Powell in a time machine and sent him to pay during the 50’s and 60’s, HE’D be renowned as one of the world’s best. No doubt.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Jun 1, 2011 4:22 PM PDT reply actions

Why does Josh Powell get a time machine and baby Bill Russell doesn't get to come to the future to train and play against the era's best to get ready?

by John R on Jun 1, 2011 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions

First of all, have you ever flown with a baby?

I’m saying that adult Bill Russell transplanted into today’s game would be eaten alive (or at least a far from from being an 11 time champion) and that Josh Powell could body the scrubs of the olden days.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Jun 1, 2011 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions

far cry*

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Jun 1, 2011 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think that was the article's point, though

It was saying that Bill Russell could put up those same awesome numbers now, and he’d be no more praised than Tyson Chandler or Marcus Camby, who deserve a hell of a lot more praise than they have gotten. Bill Russell would just be a “great roleplay” or “anchor center” but not a star, like he truly is. Then, guys like Blake or Amare, as flashy as they are, gets all the attention despite not playing much defense. Or at least that was my take.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Jun 1, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions

^This

I just didn’t want to have to be the one to say it.

by John R on Jun 2, 2011 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Pardon me if I'm a little sarcastic...

I think some other factors contributed to Dwight’s snub this year. I mean the main one people point to is that Dwight had a down year this year compared to his other seasons and so if he wasn’t an MVP then, he’s not an MVP nowOHWAIT no he didn’t. He had his best statistical season of his career, in fact. Nice work MVP voters!

BUT then there’s always the argument that it’s the definition of an MVP that is still in debate. So Dwight shouldn’t have gotten it simply because he’s a superior statistical player, but rather Rose got it because he’s the player whose team, the league feels, couldn’t possibly live without. I mean you just have to believe your gut, which keeps telling you he’s totally necessary otherwise that team would be super ~~boring~~ unsuccessful, because we just don’t have the data to determine how teams play without their best playerOHWAIT yeah we do.

So… based on my expert level research that took me years to hone, also known as “82games.com,” Howard is +9.8 net points per 100 possessions on the court vs off, while Rose is only +2 net points per 100 possessions.

By comparison…
Blake and Kobe are +5
Wade is +7.9, LeBron is +9.9 (used to be like +15)
Paul is +13.9
Dirk is +13.8
ZBo is +7
…and our MVP is +2.
Seriously? Even EJ is +7.1.

Some other shockers are that Melo is +0.8, Amare is -0.6, while Fields is +2.2.
Durant is +0.5, Westbrook is -7.6 (lol), while Harden is +3.

It’s truly dizzying how little research the voters do. What the hell is wrong with contemporary media? My guess is that this has a lot to do with the way Rose arches his back and brings the ball way back before he dunks. Because that ~~sells tickets~~ wins ballgames.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Jun 1, 2011 4:47 PM PDT reply actions

By the way, if I misunderstood that number I'm taking from the bottom of those 82games.com pages

Someone tell me so I can shut my cake hole.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Jun 1, 2011 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions

They won't just not do research

They hate you for doing research.

by John R on Jun 1, 2011 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with the first commenter

Basically, this is what was celebrated in the confusing post-Jordan era.

I’m not much of a sports history guy (history defined as before I started watching) so I can’t add to much to the solid article, but I wanted to say that I thought it was a great read.

by Michael White on Jun 1, 2011 4:57 PM PDT reply actions

His Airness as the rehabilitator of the ballhog

If only they could all match his >60%TS and single digit TO%.

by John R on Jun 1, 2011 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

I too thought the article was interesting

I think it’s very difficult to compare players of different eras. I suspect that many players of the 1950s for example don’t have the physical ability to play today.

I also think that stats are not easy to compare. For example, the league was smaller then with fewer players. Does that mean that the talent was less diluted then today? I don’t know.

They also didn’t have three pointers. If they did, I suspect great shooters like the logo would be more highly rated.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Jun 1, 2011 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions

The End Note concerned me a bit...

It was an interesting enough idea, but when the guy had difficulty figuring out that the 20th player in a league with 12 teams would reasonably have a lower MWS than the 20th player in a league with 30 teams, I got a little concerned that maybe he’s not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Why bother to tell us that he struggled with that idea? I’d be to embarrassed to admit it.

In fact, that was my first thought reading the article. Were the Wes Unselds and Bill Russells better appreciated because the observers understood the game better? Or were they simply the best there was to offer? No seven footers shooting jump shots in the 60s.

In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by Steve Perrin on Jun 1, 2011 11:33 PM PDT reply actions

Dwight vs. Wilt

Article was a good read until he said “Dwight is the Wilt of today”. While Dwight is a great player, Wilt was absolutely dominant. Wilt did things no other player could do and many things Dwight doesn’t do. Wilt almost never rested, got great assist numbers, others teams were intimidated by him. None of those describe Dwight.

He says Dwight has had several “dominating seasons in a row”. He does not dominate the way Wilt did, just look at the stats in his own article and by his own admission, Wilt was the best “by a country mile”. Dwight has “never sniffed an MVP” because he’s not nearly a country mile better than other players like Wilt was.

He’s not the Wilt of today, he’s the Unseld or Lanier of today.

by Thretch on Jun 2, 2011 7:42 AM PDT reply actions

I disagree

Howard is a country mile separate from most of the league. Its him, Paul, Love and James and he is the center of the group, so he gets to be Wilt. Everything the Magic have been is because of Howard and Howard alone.

The fact that you don’t agree goes right to the main point of the article.

by John R on Jun 2, 2011 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Love

He’s the guy who seemingly may not belong in this elite group. The others have been able to lead relatively talentless rosters to, at minimum, moderate success. I wonder, for example, how much the Mavs would improve by swapping Chandler for Love.

by supac on Jun 2, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions

My answer to the hypothetical is "some".

When we say relatively talentless though, its really impossible to be close to as talentless as the Wolves were beyond Love.

Top line-up: Ridnour (average) – Wesley Johnson (turrrrble) – Beasely (merely awful) – Love – Milicic (grotesque)
Next line-up: sub in Brewer (turrrrble) for Johnson.

Without Love’s excellence they almost certainly challenge for worst team of all time.

by John R on Jun 2, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Love had a GREAT year. But wouldn’t you want to see him replicate that over a larger sample of years to compare him to Paul, Howard and James?

by Michael White on Jun 2, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Of course

But I can’t do anything about that but wait and see.

by John R on Jun 2, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Well

I guess the improvement YOY wasn’t that extreme. For 09-10 WP/48 of 0.340 compared to an incredible 0.474 this past season. Plus, the jump from year 2 to year 3 is when you expect young players to really start hitting their stride.

Incredible numbers. Curious to see how he does with Rubio next year.

by Michael White on Jun 2, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

But I was speaking in terms of a snapshot of right now

The current world that Howard exists in, not to careers.

by John R on Jun 2, 2011 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

You're overrating Howard

Howard is not a “country mile” better than Lebron, Kobe and Wade. He’s AMONG the best players, and certainly plays center on the all-NBA team. But Wilt was better than the rest ofthe all-stars; there may have been Elgin and others but not in the same league as Wilt. Sure, I agree when you say Howard is “a country mile separate from MOST of the league” … any All-NBA player should be. But Wilt was a “country mile” better than EVERYBODY.

I generally appreciate the concept he’s making, but feel he goes off-the-rails comparing those two players.

Wilt would be still be an all-star today, except for being dead and all.

by Thretch on Jun 3, 2011 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Well that's not what I said at all

I put one specific group: “him, Paul, Love and James” a country mile from the rest of the league. And yes these four are a country mile from Kobe and Wade. They are a country mile apart from the at large group of all-stars. Yes I am putting up 4 guys as the top tier, but Wilt started in a nine team NBA with 11 man rosters, so with 30 teams now and 15 man rosters, I’m good with that inflation.

“but feel he goes off-the-rails comparing those two players.”
You might want to offer some support for an idea like that. There is little evidence Wilt did anything on the basketball court that Shaq or Howard could not have done if they played in Wilt’s day.

I’m perfectly rating Howard. As the article is about, people these days have forgotten how to rate…I’d say everything but scoring, but they are actually bad at that too.

by John R on Jun 3, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Evidence

“There is little evidence Wilt did anything on the basketball court that Shaq or Howard could not have done if they played in Wilt’s day”. OK for starters:

1) Wilt averaged over 20 rebounds per game for 10 straight seasons.
2) He once averaged over 50 ppg for an entire season
3) He once average almost 9 assists per game (as a center)
4) Averaged over 45 minutes per game for his career.

Shaq and Howard have never come even close to any of those achievements. And no one else came close either now or back then.

CP3 is greater than Deron Williams by a country mile? Love is that much better than Dirk? If you look at the article, the gap between Wilt and any player at any position is obscenely huge. What evidence is there that CP3 >>>> DWill or Love is >>>> Dirk.

by Thretch on Jun 3, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Elite players

Love’s 2010-11 PER and WS/48 aren’t that dissimilar from Dirk’s career numbers. Small sample sizes are stupid, though, and we have no meaningful sample size of Love when he gets minutes yet.

Paul does seem head and shoulders above Williams, according to these two measures, mainly because of 2007-2009.

LeBron is definitely better than Wade overall, but one year Wade was better than LeBron, again using PER and WS/48. I can’t really say LeBron’s THAT far ahead of Wade. I would have actually put Wade with James, CP3, and Howard, and excluded Love until he can prove his abilities over the long term.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden

by Erik O on Jun 3, 2011 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Love got minutes this year. And I poted his WP/48 numbers above (with links) for the past two years, so that’s a pretty good sample size when evaluating NBA players.

by Michael White on Jun 3, 2011 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions

What evidence is there that CP3 >>>> DWill or Love is >>>> Dirk.

Statistics.

by Michael White on Jun 3, 2011 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Not really

The claim was that CP3 and Love are WAY better than anyone else (including Deron and Dirk). What statistic would support that claim?

by Thretch on Jun 4, 2011 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions

20 years ago Howard would have played the PF position and he would not be has dominant in a more center centric league.

Dwight is very athletic, but Wilt was a class athlete. So even in today’s game Wilt could dominate. Wilt was just way ahead of his time. The big man position is anemic in today’s game..that is why a guy like Dwight sure he’s very good..is considered so dominant today.

by tenkaistar on Jun 2, 2011 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions

well

Bill Russell was overlooked when he played. Only, when time passed did people start noticing his brilliance. So it’s stupid to say he would be overlooked in today’s game because he was overlooked back then, hell Hondo was probably a more beloved Celtic.

Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas

by bacek on Jun 2, 2011 11:49 AM PDT reply actions