Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 732 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject:
I don't know that an adjustment for 3pt shooting would reduce the scoring of today's players. I've heard tale of how great shooters of old were, but it's interesting to see how lousy 3pt shooting was when it was first introduced. In the NBA, the leauge didn't crack 30% for 8 years after the shot was implemented; it didn't make more than a third of 3pt attempts until 1993 -- 14 years after the shot came in. 3pt shooting numbers look similar in the ABA. It probably would have helped a few of the sharpshooters (Jerry West comes to mind), but I'm not sure how much it's actually boosted individual scoring in more recent years. I kinda think modern players without the 3pt line would merely adapt by working to get shots closer to the basket. _________________ My blog
Though it is painfully difficult to arrive at consensus on any issue here, might it be possible to agree on some standard procedures/disclaimers for adressing these time travel questions?
Among the statistical categories whose values have dramatically changed over time, we have:
(1) Game Pace. Adjusting for pace is simple to do so we typically do it (as is the case for normalizing minutes played).
(2) Height Distribution of Players. Normalizing the effect of deviations in player height (and the interactions with weight) by position needs to be taken into account. These calculations (regressions) of course are much more involved, and I am not aware if it has been done, but it is absolutely necessary.
In the case in point, the Big O was a Big Rebounding Guard back in '62. But it sure is funny how 6' 5" guys these days "(i.e. the last quarter century) just aren't as good.
(3) Athleticism. There will never be general consensus on this point, so this variable would go in the disclaimer category.
But this is the big flaw of the whole exercise, as the typical players that folks wish to engage in time travel are the curious specimens of a bygone era, whose relative dominance would be drastically diminished in the current environment.
Whatever.
(4) League Strength. This is another conversational non-starter, another for the disclaimer bin, barring referential research and analysis.
(5) Strategic Progress. There has been much of this over time, and it is not clear, conceptually, how to deal with it.
Up to the mid-80s, the game slowed but offensive efficiency improved. This can only be attributed to improvements in offensive strategy, conveyed from coach to player.
How then does one adjust for this? Does one simply take the Big O's actual offensive efficiency, or should one assume that he improved relative to the moving average?
Then since the mid-80s, there is the comparatively minor slowing of the game (beginning to be reversed by the recent hand-check rule modifications) and the accompanying comparatively minor decrease in offensive efficiency. But this scoring trend obscures big changes in the use and efficiency of the three-point shot (up and up, with two-pointers going down and down).
How does one adjust for this? Should one assume that the Big O would be able to elevate above the competition and sink uncontested mid-range jumpers that no longer exist for mere mortals? And was he even able to shoot from the current three-point line? If these answers are "no" and "no", is he even a star today?
Summarizing then, we can and (mostly) do (1), we could but haven't done (2), (3) and (4) though highly relevant are off the table, and we don't do (5) at least in any conscious way.
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 622 Location: Columbus, OH
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject:
But schtevie, you're talking about the time machine game, which is entirely different. I think we can get a reasonable answer to the question "What was 20 points per game in 1961-62 equivalent to today?" To me, that's like answering the question "What was $1.00 in 1962 worth today?" That's what I'm interested in. Honestly, I have little to no interest in playing the time machine game. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 732 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:
I pretty much agree with Justin's thought -- the time machine game is purely hypothetical. That said, I'm still unconvinced there needs to be any adjustment for the 3pt shot. _________________ My blog
Justin, whether called the time machine game or standardization, the exercise involves taking a performance from era X and translating it to era Y, and there are necessarily certain assumptions, overtly stated or otherwise, embodied in the transfer.
One can just adjust for pace and minutes (and I am not saying that this is all that you are playing with) and come up with a "result", but my point is merely that this is inevitably misleading without all assumptions laid bare.
Responding directly to your question, I think you can address the question "What was 20 points per game in 1961-62 equivalent to today?", but once you put a face on it, you definitely imply that that is what player X would have done were they to be playing today, and that is necessarily misleading - if not in degree, most certainly in interpretation. Alternatively, to state results as "pace adjustment factors" or whatever, you get a more neutral, and less prospectively misleading result.
And kjb, how can you not need to adjust for the 3pt shot when playing these games? The rise of the 3pt shot is the dominant offensive story of the past quarter century. Period.
I'm not sure, but Assists has been reducing the same like points, even having a lot of assisted 3p attempts in this era, and the supposed happy scorekeeping. I suspect is because more 1 on 1 game in this era, but it's difficult to know how focused would O.R. play. I think he would keep his points and reduce his assists.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 732 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:33 am Post subject:
Agreed that the 3pt shot has been a huge offensive story in the past several years. What I'm saying is that I don't think it necessarily follows that scoring would necessarily drop if there was no 3pt shot -- especially at the individual level. The game would be different, but I suspect that guys would simply adapt -- just as they did over time when the 3pt shot was introduced.
I guess I'd have no problem making an adjustment for the 3pt shot, so long as the adjustment also accounts for the crappy 3pt shooting when the shot was first introduced. That evidence suggests there was no critical mass of great long distance shooters waiting for the 3pt shot. That's not to say that guys of that time (and previous eras) were not capable of shooting from 3pt range -- it's just that they hadn't worked on developing the mechanics necessary to do it. _________________ My blog
kjb, I think it is very hard to make the case that scoring would not drop dramatically if there were no 3pt shot.
Since the mid-80s, 2pt% has dropped, "non-close" 2pt% has dropped more (an inference based on 82games data) but 3pt% has risen to attenuate the overall drop in offensive efficiency.
To me, the only coherent story explaining these facts is twofold: increasing defensive pressure extending outward and increasing offensive ability to shoot the long ball. Take the latter opportunity away, and rock, meet hard place.
Getting back to the main story then, given these facts, one is necessarily obliged to tell a particular story about each and every time traveller. Did the player in question appear to have the skill set such that their game could adapt to the modern 3pt regime, or not?
But wait, there's more! Come 2004, there is a rule-based shift to reduced hand-checking and, big surprise, 2pt% is again on the rise. The reasonable expectation (given the 25 year - and counting - learning curve on how to best exploit the 3pt line) then is that this trend will be continuing for quite awhile. Accordingly, one needs to have multiple time-travel stories for each player, depending on the start and end dates of the hypothetical experiments.
I am not saying that this is a futile exercise, just a much more demanding one. But the bottom line is that I don't see how it could be acceptable to assume away all these facts with a wave of the wand and still expect to have a reasonable result.
I really like this kind of discussions, the important thing to know is that there's no right answer.
First of all, I'm not sure how interpret the question in the topic:
1) how do those 60s numbers translate to modern era? what a player is supposed to average to have a season historically at that level?
2) time machine, move TheBigO to 2008, what would he average?
3) imagine Oscar being born 45 years later, what would be average?
I really don't like the second question, every player belongs to his era in and out the court. I'm not nearly smart enough to approach the third one, you gotta know his game REALLY well to answer it.
That's why I'd focus on the first one, and the best way is understanding how his peers were doing in the same area, to understanding what's needed to stand up the same way in the modern era.
Here are my guesses.
- ts% well over .600, I'd say around Magic's level
- rebounding adjusted with rebounding opportunities, probably around Jason's Kidd level
- assist, Oscar was leading the league by a huge margin, so no less than double digit
- scoring I'm not sure, I'd say around 25ppg: never led the league, I'd it's good for a
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1903 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:51 am Post subject:
Ryoga Hibiki wrote:
...
Here are my guesses.
- ts% well over .600, I'd say around Magic's level
...
I realize success includes doing things better than your competition, and Oscar was at a completely unprecedented level (ts% .56-.58 from a guard). But why would playing in a higher-%-shooting era mean he'd shoot a higher % ?
The 3-pt discussion is analogous. Is a .280 shooter (in an era of .280 shooting) as good as a .360 shooter in a .360 era? Or have shooters just gotten better?
The league shot FT around 72% in the '60s, and 75% in this century. Does this suggest that .720 in '65 is really equivalent to .750 in '08? Have the rims become kinder and gentler?
Finally, have 2-pt shots gotten easier to make lately? It doesn't look that way to me. _________________ `
There's no I in analysys.
I realize success includes doing things better than your competition, and Oscar was at a completely unprecedented level (ts% .56-.58 from a guard). But why would playing in a higher-%-shooting era mean he'd shoot a higher % ?
I was answering something like "what's the equivalent of Oscar's best seasons in 2k?", actually.
Btw, my point is that when we're comparing through eras the first thing we should normalize a number to is to how his peers were performing => unless we have some pretty good reasons to think different.
The only thing that imo invalidates this approach is when the talent base is reduced by things like racial issues, split leagues or low popularity.
Quote:
The league shot FT around 72% in the '60s, and 75% in this century. Does this suggest that .720 in '65 is really equivalent to .750 in '08? Have the rims become kinder and gentler?
the rims might have not become gentler, but current players had the luxury of superior coaching since elementary school that helped them to master every single movement while older guys started with 2 handed shots.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1903 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject:
Ryoga Hibiki wrote:
...current players had the luxury of superior coaching since elementary school that helped them to master every single movement ....
Quote:
...the important thing to know is that there's no right answer...
I think we agree. At some point, it translates: "If Oscar were playing today, he'd be better". Which translates as "He wasn't as good as he could have been".
These arguments can carry on to absurd levels: The guy who dominated at the Y in 1915 is equivalent to Shaq. Abe Lincoln is equivalent to KG; If only he'd had a ball.
Dolph Schayes dominated in an all-to-mostly white league of east-coast players. His best FG% was .401 . Who was stopping him 60% of the time? Other white northeasterners. Would coaching turn him into a 48% shooter in the modern era? (He made 85% of FT as he was.)
An innovator who learns to dribble with either hand, to make a shot while jumping(!), to fake left and spin right ... He gets to score more points than he otherwise would. When the defense figures these things out, it's not so easy. He doesn't do better in a smarter league; he does worse.
Since all these arguments go both ways, maybe we should leave TS% and RebRt right where they are, in era translations. _________________ `
There's no I in analysys.
I really like this kind of discussions, the important thing to know is that there's no right answer.
First of all, I'm not sure how interpret the question in the topic:
1) how do those 60s numbers translate to modern era? what a player is supposed to average to have a season historically at that level?
2) time machine, move TheBigO to 2008, what would he average?
3) imagine Oscar being born 45 years later, what would be average?
I really don't like the second question, every player belongs to his era in and out the court. I'm not nearly smart enough to approach the third one, you gotta know his game REALLY well to answer it.
That's why I'd focus on the first one, and the best way is understanding how his peers were doing in the same area, to understanding what's needed to stand up the same way in the modern era.
Here are my guesses.
- ts% well over .600, I'd say around Magic's level
- rebounding adjusted with rebounding opportunities, probably around Jason's Kidd level
- assist, Oscar was leading the league by a huge margin, so no less than double digit
- scoring I'm not sure, I'd say around 25ppg: never led the league, I'd it's good for a
A very efficient 25/8/10, no bad.
Yea the first question is the most important for me. What would his numbers look like in a more modern pace. I guess you could figure his rebounding to drop slightly like pestilence said but overall Im not trying to take away from his legacy. Just trying to modernize it to get a better idea of his level of play. Personally I think CP3 is playing at a comparable level
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1903 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:13 am Post subject:
Chris Paul is not nearly the rebounder that the young Oscar was, even after deflation. Standardized &etc, Paul's current season resembles these, statistically:
Code:
diff year per 36 minutes Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk
.00 2008 Chris Paul 24.3 3.9 9.0 2.1 2.9 2.7 .0
.42 1991 Kevin Johnson 23.8 3.6 9.4 2.3 2.2 3.6 .1
.46 1972 Jerry West 23.5 3.4 8.6 2.7 2.5 3.4 .2
.46 1997 Tim Hardaway 22.1 3.6 9.1 2.0 1.8 2.8 .1
.47 1973 Jerry West 22.8 3.6 8.7 2.1 2.6 3.5 .3
A couple of shortened-arc seasons noted by * .
Beyond 3 Wests, 2 Paytons, and some career years, we come to Oscar just before he slips below all-pro. (His boarding had dropped to half what it once was.)
Nevertheless, these are some of the very best seasons posted by everyone else listed. West only became a major assist man toward the end. Tiny had the one better year. _________________ `
There's no I in analysys.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
