I'm starting to warm to the idea of doing these two at a time, especially when they're short. There's so goddamn many of them that I can easily afford to; and I've given up on numbering them, because it's a stupid gag.
1) Footnote, p494 - "[Kevin Garnett] keeps in shape by running on the beaches of Malibu every summer. The sheer comedy of a seven-foot black guy sprinting along the sands of the whitest, most uptight place on the planet can't be calculated. Some of his neighbors probably hadn't seen a black person in twenty years."
Is Malibu really more white and uptight than, say, any dry county in Utah? Moreso than Amish Country? How about, I don't know, Boston?
Leaving aside the white part, how about all of North Korea? I also doubt that people in Malibu haven't seen a black person in twenty years. I would happily take that bet.
2) From page 225 – “Given the racial climate of the fifties and the general resistance to the influx of black players, how could anyone have expected a fair vote when 85-90 percent of the players were white?”
which leads to...
Page 240 – In an MVP vote Simmons called “Fishy and Ultimately Not Okay”, Bill characterizes the selection of Bob Pettit this way: “…help me figure a coherent explanation for Pettit nearly tripling Russell in the ’59 voting that doesn’t involve a white hood.”
Wow. I guess the players put away their white hoods in 1958 when Russell won MVP and again in 1960 when Chamberlain won. And consider the implication: whites will never be fair to non-white players. So in another “Fishy and Ultimately Not Okay” vote (Bob McAdoo, 1975), when the players were presumably majority African-American, is it Bill’s opinion that black players were being racially biased against Rick Barry?
The more you look at Bill Simmons and the things he writes, the more you get the idea that you should just turn off your brain in order to read him. Malcolm Gladwell's books are supposed to be really good and thought-provoking; because he is friends with Bill Simmons, I declare Gladwell's work stupid by association and will not read any of his books. Take THAT, Gladwell!
Oh, I was supposed to do blurbs in this post. Sorry. That post is still coming.
Showing posts with label Bill Russell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Russell. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Debunking the Debunking: Myth #3 of the Russell-Chamberlain Debate
“Russell’s career offensive numbers can’t compare except for REBOUNDS (emphasis mine).”
We’re moving on to the next myth Simmons looks to debunk: “Myth no. 3: Statistically, Wilt crushed Russell.” And the quote above appears in the first paragraph of this myth-busting; how’s that for an inaccurate start? I’ll meet Bill halfway: a rebound can trigger the fast-break (especially with a rebounder who can pass the ball well), and of course, offensive rebounds can be directly put back for points. I will grant that we didn’t track offensive rebounds back then, but I’d wager good money that even in the sixties, 1) the great majority of rebounds were defensive and 2) most of those didn’t trigger a fast-break. I have nothing to bolster this opinion with, so draw your own conclusions on this point. My larger point is that rebounds aren’t offensive stats, which I assumed even casual fans knew.
While we’re on the subject of rebounds, Russell was a great rebounder of course and, as Simmons suggests, in the same zip code as Chamberlain. But Wilt was in a much nicer house.
Both men averaged 22 rebounds per game; Wilt 22.9, Russell 22.5. I don’t think they were this close in reality. Let’s consider a few things:
This table doesn’t account for some things, but this is just to give you an idea. From 1957-59, there were 62, 72, and 69 rebounds to be had per game – Russell’s three years without Wilt in the league. From 1970-73, Wilt’s three-plus seasons without Russell in the league, there were 53, 49, and 50 rebounds to be had. Anyone else think Wilt would have had more rebounds if he was exactly the same age as Russell?
This came after Bill mentioned Russell’s and Wilt’s head-to-head points/rebounds averages. But Bill came ready with a devastating counter:
Wilt’s record against Russell: 58-84
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58
You see, in Simmonsland, all stats are player stats. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, wins, losses, championships – these can all be achieved by individual players. But the hilarious part of the W/L stat above: it’s listed twice. All Simmons had to do was run the stat out there like this:
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58
And it means exactly the same thing as listing it twice. Was he trying to give Russell credit twice? (actually, he probably was)
But Simmons hasn’t emptied his pistol yet. Next, he urges us to check out their playoff numbers:
Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russ: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 60% FT, 43% FG
And after showing these lines off, Simmons says:
“Hmmmmmmm. Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically when there was money on the line, even though Wilt was routinely his team’s number one scoring option and Russ was number four or five.”
That passage is chock full of wrong. Let's start with the first part of that quote:
Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically
That is one (highly skewed) way to look at it. If Bill was talking about only scoring average, he’d be right about Wilt’s dipping dramatically (as far as it goes), but it’s just wrong to say Russell’s numbers jumped. We’ll start with Russell:
16.2 points (up from career average of 15.1)
24.9 rebounds (up from career average of 22.5)
4.7 assists (up from career average of 4.3)
60% FT (up from career mark of 56%)
43% FG (down from career mark of 44%)
Does this look like numbers jumping up to you? Yes, Russell did improve in all but one category, but the only mark which looks like a big jump was rebounds, and basketball fans are well aware that shooting accuracy goes down in the playoffs; why wouldn’t Russell’s rebounds go up?
Now let’s look at Wilt:
22.5 points (down from career average of 30.1)
24.5 rebounds (up from career average of 22.9)
4.2 assists (down from career average of 4.4)
47% FT (down from career mark of 51%)
52% FG (down from career mark of 54%)
Like Russell, Wilt’s numbers are in the same ballpark as his regular season numbers except for rebounds (which we just discussed) and points; but there is a very specific reason Wilt’s scoring didn’t drop as much as you might think.
As Simmons himself points out, Wilt Chamberlain changed his style of play over time. He was receptive to this change as suggested by Coach Alex Hannum before the 1967 season. This style of play resulted in Wilt 2.0, the do-it-all center fixated (in often ludicrous fashion) on assisting teammates’ baskets. Wilt 1.0 was wired to score every point in sight. (Wilt 1.0 played in 52 playoff games, Wilt 2.0 played in 108) I have a better way to illustrate a player’s playoff contributions – focus on each season instead of the aggregate.
I have a philosophical question here, and my frame of reference for it is the 1962 season and playoffs. This was the year Wilt averaged 50 points during the season and “only” 35 in the playoffs. And my question is this: is your team really hurting getting 35 per game as opposed to 50? I’m not asking people to break down the 1962 season and playoffs to look at the question exactly – I just mean in the general sense.
Let me explain the table. Numbers in red are stats that dropped significantly, numbers in green are the stats that rose significantly. The numbers in bold are the stats Wilt led the playoffs in, therefore sometimes a red or green stat will be in bold. (How I defined significant: 4+ PPG, 2+ RPG, 2+ APG, 2+ FG% points, 4+ FT% points)
As you can see, Wilt’s scoring and FG shooting dropped significantly on six and nine occasions respectively. His rebounding only dropped significantly once, his assists four times. His FT% was all over the place: it dropped significantly six times and rose significantly three times. Not surprising that Wilt couldn’t maintain consistency at the line, of course. Other significant gains: rebounding six times, assists twice, and FG% twice. Wilt was, overall, a little worse in the playoffs than in the season, but again – in reference to my earlier question, Wilt was worse to the tune of: 33 PPG, 35 PPG, 29 PPG, 28 PPG, 23 RPG, 6.5 APG, 57.9 FG%, 54.5 FG%, 56.3 FG%, 55.2 FG%. The standards he created were so great that those numbers were all significant drops compared to his season stats that year. I’ll admit that my methods are by no means comprehensive, but they’re more detailed than Simmons’ methods.
Let’s give Russell the same treatment:
In general, Russell was a little better during the playoffs than he was during the season, and Wilt was a little worse (owing in part to some stratospheric regular season standards). Russell certainly deserves credit for his playoff performance, but it is inaccurate to say that Russell’s numbers “jumped” or that Wilt “dipped dramatically” in the playoffs.
Next time: we'll discuss the second half of the "Russell's numbers jumped" quote.
We’re moving on to the next myth Simmons looks to debunk: “Myth no. 3: Statistically, Wilt crushed Russell.” And the quote above appears in the first paragraph of this myth-busting; how’s that for an inaccurate start? I’ll meet Bill halfway: a rebound can trigger the fast-break (especially with a rebounder who can pass the ball well), and of course, offensive rebounds can be directly put back for points. I will grant that we didn’t track offensive rebounds back then, but I’d wager good money that even in the sixties, 1) the great majority of rebounds were defensive and 2) most of those didn’t trigger a fast-break. I have nothing to bolster this opinion with, so draw your own conclusions on this point. My larger point is that rebounds aren’t offensive stats, which I assumed even casual fans knew.
While we’re on the subject of rebounds, Russell was a great rebounder of course and, as Simmons suggests, in the same zip code as Chamberlain. But Wilt was in a much nicer house.
Both men averaged 22 rebounds per game; Wilt 22.9, Russell 22.5. I don’t think they were this close in reality. Let’s consider a few things:
- Wilt played four seasons after Russell retired, from 1970-73. While Russell started his entire career in a very inaccurate shooting era, Wilt played three plus seasons (just 12 games in 1970) when teams shot the ball more accurately. Compare 57-59 with 70-73 to see what I’m getting at:
This table doesn’t account for some things, but this is just to give you an idea. From 1957-59, there were 62, 72, and 69 rebounds to be had per game – Russell’s three years without Wilt in the league. From 1970-73, Wilt’s three-plus seasons without Russell in the league, there were 53, 49, and 50 rebounds to be had. Anyone else think Wilt would have had more rebounds if he was exactly the same age as Russell?
- Russell was 0.1 rebounds better than his career average (22.6 from 22.5) from 1960-69, Wilt’s first ten seasons. During that same period, Wilt was 1.4 rebounds better (24.3 from 22.9).
- You have seen how really big guys don’t always make the best rebounders, right? Where they have a size and strength advantage on one hand, they are slower to react and move on the other, right? The best rebounders I’ve watched are Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Lafayette Lever, Dennis Rodman, Charles Oakley, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, Jayson Williams, Ben Wallace, and Zach Randolph. Not one of these guys was seven feet tall (despite Hakeem’s height listing), but they all had quick feet and reaction time to the ball. They were usually the first player off the floor when the shot rebounded and could jump repeatedly in one spot, like a jump rope exercise. In the films I’ve seen, Bill Russell looks bodily like Dennis Rodman – same height, same long arms – and it’s easy to imagine him dominating the glass in the way that Rodman often did. But in the games they played against each other, the larger and presumably slower Chamberlain was five rebounds better than Russell in 142 matchups. (28.7 RPG for Wilt, 23.7 RPG for Russell)
This came after Bill mentioned Russell’s and Wilt’s head-to-head points/rebounds averages. But Bill came ready with a devastating counter:
Wilt’s record against Russell: 58-84
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58
You see, in Simmonsland, all stats are player stats. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, wins, losses, championships – these can all be achieved by individual players. But the hilarious part of the W/L stat above: it’s listed twice. All Simmons had to do was run the stat out there like this:
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58
And it means exactly the same thing as listing it twice. Was he trying to give Russell credit twice? (actually, he probably was)
But Simmons hasn’t emptied his pistol yet. Next, he urges us to check out their playoff numbers:
Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russ: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 60% FT, 43% FG
And after showing these lines off, Simmons says:
“Hmmmmmmm. Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically when there was money on the line, even though Wilt was routinely his team’s number one scoring option and Russ was number four or five.”
That passage is chock full of wrong. Let's start with the first part of that quote:
Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically
That is one (highly skewed) way to look at it. If Bill was talking about only scoring average, he’d be right about Wilt’s dipping dramatically (as far as it goes), but it’s just wrong to say Russell’s numbers jumped. We’ll start with Russell:
16.2 points (up from career average of 15.1)
24.9 rebounds (up from career average of 22.5)
4.7 assists (up from career average of 4.3)
60% FT (up from career mark of 56%)
43% FG (down from career mark of 44%)
Does this look like numbers jumping up to you? Yes, Russell did improve in all but one category, but the only mark which looks like a big jump was rebounds, and basketball fans are well aware that shooting accuracy goes down in the playoffs; why wouldn’t Russell’s rebounds go up?
Now let’s look at Wilt:
22.5 points (down from career average of 30.1)
24.5 rebounds (up from career average of 22.9)
4.2 assists (down from career average of 4.4)
47% FT (down from career mark of 51%)
52% FG (down from career mark of 54%)
Like Russell, Wilt’s numbers are in the same ballpark as his regular season numbers except for rebounds (which we just discussed) and points; but there is a very specific reason Wilt’s scoring didn’t drop as much as you might think.
As Simmons himself points out, Wilt Chamberlain changed his style of play over time. He was receptive to this change as suggested by Coach Alex Hannum before the 1967 season. This style of play resulted in Wilt 2.0, the do-it-all center fixated (in often ludicrous fashion) on assisting teammates’ baskets. Wilt 1.0 was wired to score every point in sight. (Wilt 1.0 played in 52 playoff games, Wilt 2.0 played in 108) I have a better way to illustrate a player’s playoff contributions – focus on each season instead of the aggregate.
I have a philosophical question here, and my frame of reference for it is the 1962 season and playoffs. This was the year Wilt averaged 50 points during the season and “only” 35 in the playoffs. And my question is this: is your team really hurting getting 35 per game as opposed to 50? I’m not asking people to break down the 1962 season and playoffs to look at the question exactly – I just mean in the general sense.
Let me explain the table. Numbers in red are stats that dropped significantly, numbers in green are the stats that rose significantly. The numbers in bold are the stats Wilt led the playoffs in, therefore sometimes a red or green stat will be in bold. (How I defined significant: 4+ PPG, 2+ RPG, 2+ APG, 2+ FG% points, 4+ FT% points)
As you can see, Wilt’s scoring and FG shooting dropped significantly on six and nine occasions respectively. His rebounding only dropped significantly once, his assists four times. His FT% was all over the place: it dropped significantly six times and rose significantly three times. Not surprising that Wilt couldn’t maintain consistency at the line, of course. Other significant gains: rebounding six times, assists twice, and FG% twice. Wilt was, overall, a little worse in the playoffs than in the season, but again – in reference to my earlier question, Wilt was worse to the tune of: 33 PPG, 35 PPG, 29 PPG, 28 PPG, 23 RPG, 6.5 APG, 57.9 FG%, 54.5 FG%, 56.3 FG%, 55.2 FG%. The standards he created were so great that those numbers were all significant drops compared to his season stats that year. I’ll admit that my methods are by no means comprehensive, but they’re more detailed than Simmons’ methods.
Let’s give Russell the same treatment:
In general, Russell was a little better during the playoffs than he was during the season, and Wilt was a little worse (owing in part to some stratospheric regular season standards). Russell certainly deserves credit for his playoff performance, but it is inaccurate to say that Russell’s numbers “jumped” or that Wilt “dipped dramatically” in the playoffs.
Next time: we'll discuss the second half of the "Russell's numbers jumped" quote.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Sim Bit #22: Bill Simmons, President of Race Relations, Part One
Unfortunately, there are a bunch Sim Bits on race. From a footnote on page 91:
In fact, Simmons himself calls Bob Pettit the Alpha Dog of the 1957 season, but the people alive at the time who made the cards were racists for thinking the same thing?
Tomorrow: back to why we're here.
“Pettit’s quadruple-printed card remains the easiest to find. Go figure, they quadruple-printed Pettit (white) and single-printed Russell (black). I’m sure this was a coincidence.”Let’s look at this soberly: In 1957, Bill Russell wasn’t Bill Russell yet. You’ll recall that it was Russell’s teammate Tommy Heinsohn who won the Rookie of the Year award over Russell. At the time, I’m certain that no one beyond Red Auerbach understood Russell’s real value. It’s a fact that Bob Cousy, not Russell, won the MVP award that season. Bob Pettit won the MVP and the NBA scoring title the season before. I have no doubt that Bob Pettit was a more important player than Russell was in 1957, but no, go on ahead Bill Simmons – just keep on casually making accusations of racism.
In fact, Simmons himself calls Bob Pettit the Alpha Dog of the 1957 season, but the people alive at the time who made the cards were racists for thinking the same thing?
Tomorrow: back to why we're here.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Bill Russell on Offense: Filling in Bill Simmons' Blanks
Since Bill decided to disprove the myth that Bill Russell wasn't a very good offensive player by way of discussing his passing and athleticism, I'll once more step into the role of Simmons' unpaid researcher and help him along. After all, he couldn't have gone into much detail on this, having only 700+ pages to work with.
In the first place, we can look at Russell’s field-goal percentage as one indicator of his offense. It’s easy to imagine Russell, playing with the sort of high-scoring teammates he had, to be a guy who converted a high percentage of his shots just by hanging out near the rim for lay-ins or dunks from Bob Cousy passes or from gathering missed shots. Well, as it happens, Russell was the one missing quite a few of his shots: true, in his first four seasons, Russell ranked highly in FG% - 5th out of 42 qualifiers on 1957, 4th of 39 in ‘58, 2nd of 50 in ‘59, and 4th of ‘62 in 1960. Then, as the sixties moved along, Russell slipped well down on the FG% leaderboard. After that fourth season, Russell only finished in the top 40% of all qualifiers twice; in three of his final four seasons, he couldn’t crack the top 60%.
Of course, Russell was undoubtedly putting back many of his own misses and those of his teammates. If they were tracking such things then, we could see that Russell’s true shooting wasn’t as bad as all that.
At least, not from the field. Move this discussion to the free-throw line and Russell was nearly equally inept as his nemesis, Wilt Chamberlain. Russell was only 5% better than Chamberlain, making 56.1 of his free throws compared to Chamberlain’s 51.1. Granted, Russell was better in the playoffs and Chamberlain worse, but both were bad: 60.3% for Russell, 46.5% for Chamberlain. Russell was an unqualified liability at the end of games, but 1) the Celtics were usually far ahead at the end of games and 2) Russell wasn’t nearly as relied upon to score as was Chamberlain, so he was less likely to see the ball at the end of games.
To find out where Russell stood as an offensive player during his era, I looked at centers who played in the years 1957-69 and played at least 350 games. Twenty players met those two standards. First, we’ll look at field goal percentage. Russell ranked 7th, and not surprisingly, five of the six players above him began their careers in the sixties. Only four of the thirteen below Russell began their careers in the sixties.
Next, we’ll just quickly touch on free throw percentage. Eighteen players ranked ahead of Russell, just one below. (Guess who?)
Russell didn’t shine at points per game, but he didn’t really have to. Nevertheless, his scoring average was a solid 7th. And Russell was indeed an accomplished passer, second on a per-game basis to Wilt Chamberlain.
My question though, to wrap up discussion of Myth #2: Who the hell was out there saying that Russell wasn’t a very good offensive player? (God, what possessed me to critique this book?)
In the first place, we can look at Russell’s field-goal percentage as one indicator of his offense. It’s easy to imagine Russell, playing with the sort of high-scoring teammates he had, to be a guy who converted a high percentage of his shots just by hanging out near the rim for lay-ins or dunks from Bob Cousy passes or from gathering missed shots. Well, as it happens, Russell was the one missing quite a few of his shots: true, in his first four seasons, Russell ranked highly in FG% - 5th out of 42 qualifiers on 1957, 4th of 39 in ‘58, 2nd of 50 in ‘59, and 4th of ‘62 in 1960. Then, as the sixties moved along, Russell slipped well down on the FG% leaderboard. After that fourth season, Russell only finished in the top 40% of all qualifiers twice; in three of his final four seasons, he couldn’t crack the top 60%.
Of course, Russell was undoubtedly putting back many of his own misses and those of his teammates. If they were tracking such things then, we could see that Russell’s true shooting wasn’t as bad as all that.
At least, not from the field. Move this discussion to the free-throw line and Russell was nearly equally inept as his nemesis, Wilt Chamberlain. Russell was only 5% better than Chamberlain, making 56.1 of his free throws compared to Chamberlain’s 51.1. Granted, Russell was better in the playoffs and Chamberlain worse, but both were bad: 60.3% for Russell, 46.5% for Chamberlain. Russell was an unqualified liability at the end of games, but 1) the Celtics were usually far ahead at the end of games and 2) Russell wasn’t nearly as relied upon to score as was Chamberlain, so he was less likely to see the ball at the end of games.
To find out where Russell stood as an offensive player during his era, I looked at centers who played in the years 1957-69 and played at least 350 games. Twenty players met those two standards. First, we’ll look at field goal percentage. Russell ranked 7th, and not surprisingly, five of the six players above him began their careers in the sixties. Only four of the thirteen below Russell began their careers in the sixties.
Next, we’ll just quickly touch on free throw percentage. Eighteen players ranked ahead of Russell, just one below. (Guess who?)
Russell didn’t shine at points per game, but he didn’t really have to. Nevertheless, his scoring average was a solid 7th. And Russell was indeed an accomplished passer, second on a per-game basis to Wilt Chamberlain.
My question though, to wrap up discussion of Myth #2: Who the hell was out there saying that Russell wasn’t a very good offensive player? (God, what possessed me to critique this book?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)