PDA

View Full Version : Stat line 14/10/3 at .470 FG% impressive or not?



the avenger
10-23-2013, 11:39 AM
A stat line for the big guys: 14 PPG, 10 RPG and 3 APG with a .470% FG. Would you call that impressive? At first, I thought this was just 'decent', but then I looked up how many big men actually managed to average this an entire season...

Some active players

Marc Gasol: 0
Dwight Howard: 0
Roy Hibbert: 0
Andrew Bynum: 0
Al Horford: 1
Blake Griffin: 2
Pau Gasol: 3
Kevin Garnett: 8
Tim Duncan: 8

Some all time greats

Patrick Ewing: 1
David Robinson: 3
Oscar Robertson: 3
Shaquille O'Neal: 4
Hakeem Olajuwon: 4
Karl Malone: 5
Larry Bird: 6
Wilt Chamberlain: 10
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 12
Charles Barkley: 15

Scary right?

Jamiecballer
10-23-2013, 11:51 AM
the 3 assists makes it quite rare. i would have said impressive even without your data.

Hellcrooner
10-23-2013, 11:51 AM
mmm mchale? dirk?

the avenger
10-23-2013, 12:02 PM
mmm mchale? dirk?

Not once in their career my friend, not even once...

the avenger
10-23-2013, 12:07 PM
Come play-off time, the same stat line:

1 Charles Barkley 8
2 Wilt Chamberlain 7
3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6
4 Shaquille O'Neal 6
5 Tim Duncan 5
6 Hakeem Olajuwon 5
7 Derrick Coleman 3
8 Bob Lanier 3
9 Larry Bird 2
10 Billy Cunningham 2
11 Brad Daugherty 2
12 Kevin Garnett 2
13 Pau Gasol 2
14 Magic Johnson 2
15 Jerry Lucas 2
16 Dirk Nowitzki 2
17 Bill Russell 2

Only 17 players managed to average the stat line more than once...

AIMelo=KillaDUO
10-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Pretty sure Oscar Robertson was a guard.

IndyRealist
10-23-2013, 12:10 PM
10rpg is also pretty rare over an entire season. Only a handful of guys manage it each year.

the avenger
10-23-2013, 12:13 PM
Pretty sure Oscar Robertson was a guard.

I never claimed otherwise...

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 12:17 PM
Funny thing is if Blake didn't idiotically get played just 32 minutes last year he would be 3/3 on this.

RipCity32
10-23-2013, 12:29 PM
Monroe- 16ppg, 9.6rpg, 3.5ast, .486% fg

Ill21
10-23-2013, 12:40 PM
Im sure the Blake Griffin haters will love to see this lol

cmellofan15
10-23-2013, 02:15 PM
nice find man.

the only ones I would have been for sure of before opening this thread were Pau, Shaq, and KG

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 02:35 PM
Im sure the Blake Griffin haters will love to see this lol

Only Kareem had more points, rebounds and assists in his first 3 years. I hope Blake explodes this year and shuts haters up.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 02:36 PM
Duplicate.

J4KOP99
10-23-2013, 02:46 PM
Further proof that Barkley was a god damn beast. If only he focused a little more on the defensive end

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 03:00 PM
These numbers are a little arbitrary, IMO, and seem set up to make Barkley's production seem more impressive than it really is. For example, the assists and rebounds make it really tough for players today, because the pace of the game is far slower than it would have been in the 60s-80s. And the FG% makes it insanely hard for players in the 60s-70s when there was no 3-point line, floor spacing sucked and the average FG% is significantly lower than it was today. And the points are a little low, IMO. I think somewhere in the 16-20 range would have been a better barometer for a discussion like this.

And for big men, I think blocks are a better statistical variable to measure their worth by. A big man may have a lot of skill offensively and may have above average passing skills, but a big who can change opponents shots in the paint and have an impact defensively around the basket is far more valuable. Granted, you would have to throw out players prior to the shot block's inclusion in 74, but I'd prefer to do that anyway because of the advantage current players have in FG%.

I'd rather see a list of guys who have produced 20 points, 10 rebounds and 3 blocks while shooting 50% or better.

Now, obviously that would put PFs like Barkley at a disadvantage, but it's not always easy to measure PFs against Cs. Not all big men have versatility of guys like Hakeem, Duncan or Garnett to play either position. But even if you take blocks out of the equation, Barkley won't stack up to the Hakeems, Duncans, Kareems and Wilts in terms of points, boards and FG%.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 03:24 PM
I don't think a block can ever be more valuable than an assist for the simple fact that blocks which are controlled, or lead to turnovers happen less than half of the time probably. Most blocks return possession to the offensive team that got blocked with a couple seconds shed off the clock, valuable but not as valuable obviously. An assist is a pass leading to a bucket 100 percent of the time. I'd take 3 assists from a center over 3 blocks unless it's Russell or Wallace who were masters at controlling the block inbounds to teammates or themselves (which makes it a forced turnover).

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 03:38 PM
I don't think a block can ever be more valuable than an assist for the simple fact that blocks which are controlled, or lead to turnovers happen less than half of the time probably. An assist is a pass leading to a bucket 100 percent of the time. I'd take 3 assists from a center over 3 blocks unless it's Russell or Wallace who were masters at controlling the block inbounds to teammates or themselves (which makes it a forced turnover).
I totally disagree. An assist is often an arbitrary stat that doesn't always indicate how well a player passes the ball or plays within an offense. A great pass which leads to a basket is measured just as easily as a pass the average person could make to a wide open jump shooter or a player running toward the basket. Sometimes the best pass isn't the assist, but a pass which leads to a more open floor that later leads to an assist. A player with 2-3 assists could have had far more of an effect on an offense than a player with 7-8 assists. And a player could make a ton of great passes over the course of a game and end up with 0 assists because the shooters miss the shots.

Meanwhile, a block is an absolute guaranteed missed field goal to the other team. It's essentially erasing what likely would have been a made shot and taking 2-3 points off the board that would have otherwise been there. It's so much harder to get a block than an assist, because you have to time the jump perfectly, avoid fouling a shooter and get enough of the ball to prevent a freaking NBA player from putting the ball in the basket. And a good shot blocker has more of an effect than just the numbers. He makes penetrators think twice about driving the basket, often pulling up for tougher midrange shots or floaters. He makes post players pass out of the paint who otherwise might go up for a shot attempt out of the post. That's true power.

If you're measuring the worth of a great big man, a block has far more value than an assist does. Hell, you or I could get a freaking assist in the NBA. Neither of us could ever get a block.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 03:42 PM
I totally disagree. An assist is often an arbitrary stat that doesn't always indicate how well a player passes the ball or plays within an offense. A great pass which leads to a basket is measured just as easily as a pass the average person could make to a wide open jump shooter or a player running toward the basket. Sometimes the best pass isn't the assist, but a pass which leads to a more open floor that later leads to an assist. A player with 2-3 assists could have had far more of an effect on an offense than a player with 7-8 assists. And a player could make a ton of great passes over the course of a game and end up with 0 assists because the shooters miss the shots.

Meanwhile, a block is an absolute guaranteed missed field goal to the other team. It's essentially erasing what likely would have been a made shot and taking 2-3 points off the board that would have otherwise been there. It's so much harder to get a block than an assist, because you have to time the jump perfectly, avoid fouling a shooter and get enough of the ball to prevent a freaking NBA player from putting the ball in the basket. And a good shot blocker has more of an effect than just the numbers. He makes penetrators think twice about driving the basket, often pulling up for tougher midrange shots or floaters. He makes post players pass out of the paint who otherwise might go up for a shot attempt out of the post. That's true power.

If you're measuring the worth of a great big man, a block has far more value than an assist does. Hell, you or I could get a freaking assist in the NBA. Neither of us could ever get a block.

Is a defensive stop, returning the possession back to the offensive team normally more valuable than 2 or 3 points GUARANTEED? Never mind that it's not true that most blocked shots would have been makes necessarily. I don't see it. Maybe somebody like Chronz, Ballhog who have helped me understand metrics can explain this because it doesn't add up to me.

I think which is easier depends on the position. I think it's easier for a 7 footer to block somebody than to pile up assists. Just like I think it's easier for somebody playing PG to rack up assists than block shots. I just don't think it's fair to say a bigman who blocks more shots has more value than one who assists at a high level.

bagwell368
10-23-2013, 03:51 PM
Only Kareem had more points, rebounds and assists in his first 3 years. I hope Blake explodes this year and shuts haters up.

I didn't read the whole thread, but Larry Bird at: ~21.5/~10.7/~5.3 says hello.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 03:54 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but Larry Bird at: ~21.5/~10.7/~5.3 says hello.

I think it was literally total points+rebounds+assists, not averages. It also may have included 50+ percent shooting, don't remember 100 percent man. All I know is Blake is in a rare category in terms of skillset/first 3 year production. Although Bird is the 3rd or 4th best player all time and one of my favs, so wouldn't surprise me one bit. I just got that figure off NBA.com's Eric Patten, the Clippers beat reporter.

Blake's career is at 20.5 ppg/10.5 rpg/3.5 apg after 3 years I believe and if he played a more normal amount of minutes last year, it would be higher.

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 03:59 PM
Is a defensive stop, returning the possession back to the offensive team normally more valuable than 2 or 3 points GUARANTEED? Never mind that it's not true that most blocked shots would have been makes necessarily. I don't see it. Maybe somebody like Chronz, Ballhog who have helped me understand metrics can explain this because it doesn't add up to me.

I think which is easier depends on the position. I think it's easier for a 7 footer to block somebody than to pile up assists. Just like I think it's easier for somebody playing PG to rack up assists than block shots. I just don't think it's fair to say a bigman who blocks more shots has more value than one who assists at a high level.

But you're missing the point here, dude. You're treating an assist like a made field goal, which couldn't be further from the truth. The passer isn't the one making the basket. The shooter is. A 5-year-old child could pass to a jump shooter and get an assist. The child isn't the one doing the work in this case. The jump shooter is. Is an assist 2-3 points GUARANTEED? Yes. But those 2-3 points weren't scored by the passer.

Also, an offense with good ball movement is going to get assists to every player on the floor from the point guard to the center. And even a center with horrible hands is going to get an assist from time to time out of ball movement and understanding his role in an offense.

Is a big man with passing skills a valuable asset? Of course it is. A 7-footer who can make in interior pass to a cutting perimeter player or find an open 3-point shooter out of the post is a dangerous thing. But at the end of the day, it's that players ability to score in the first place which often creates looks for other players, and it's always going to be up to the player catching the pass to make a jump shot.

Regardless of whether or not a block leads to the end of an opponent's possession, YOU are the one preventing the shot from going in the basket, not somebody else. And the best part is that a block will (99% of the time) either lead to the end of a possession OR a shorter possession for the opposing team. If you block the ball out of bounds, but the team only has five seconds on the shot clock, that makes it far more difficult for that team to score on that possession.

Therefore a person who blocks a shot has more of an impact, IMO, on the success or failure of a possession than someone who gets an assist. Because the assisting player can do everything right, but the shooter has to make the shot. But the blocker will almost always have a direct impact on the likelihood of a successful possession or not.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 04:02 PM
I understand the fact that the shot blocker isn't depending on anybody else to finish the play. I still think at worst blocking a shot (unless controlled to a teammate, turned over) is at best marginally more valuable. I think you're undervaluing an assist, even for bigmen.

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 04:11 PM
I understand the fact that the shot blocker isn't depending on anybody else to finish the play. I still think at worst blocking a shot (unless controlled to a teammate, turned over) is at best marginally more valuable. I think you're undervaluing an assist, even for bigmen.

I'm sure that somewhere there is a statistical formula which could prove whether a block or an assist is more valuable, but I couldn't tell you how to prove it one way or the other. Based on the logic I just used, it just makes sense to me that a single block would be more valuable than a single assist.

I'd be curious to see what other posters have to say about this.

FlashBolt
10-23-2013, 04:38 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but Larry Bird at: ~21.5/~10.7/~5.3 says hello.

I think it was literally total points+rebounds+assists, not averages. It also may have included 50+ percent shooting, don't remember 100 percent man. All I know is Blake is in a rare category in terms of skillset/first 3 year production. Although Bird is the 3rd or 4th best player all time and one of my favs, so wouldn't surprise me one bit. I just got that figure off NBA.com's Eric Patten, the Clippers beat reporter.

Blake's career is at 20.5 ppg/10.5 rpg/3.5 apg after 3 years I believe and if he played a more normal amount of minutes last year, it would be higher.

Now, lets just compare Blake's playoff stats and see what happens. He doesn't produce because it's easy to stop him. Regular season, no one honestly puts as much attention to a player. In the playoffs, you bully Blake and remove him from the paint, he essentially forces horrible shots. Impressive stats but they don't say it all about Blake's game.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
10-23-2013, 05:03 PM
A stat line for the big guys: 14 PPG, 10 RPG and 3 APG with a .470% FG. Would you call that impressive? At first, I thought this was just 'decent', but then I looked up how many big men actually managed to average this an entire season...

Some active players

Marc Gasol: 0
Dwight Howard: 0
Roy Hibbert: 0
Andrew Bynum: 0
Al Horford: 1
Blake Griffin: 2
Pau Gasol: 3
Kevin Garnett: 8
Tim Duncan: 8

Some all time greats

Patrick Ewing: 1
David Robinson: 3
Oscar Robertson: 3
Shaquille O'Neal: 4
Hakeem Olajuwon: 4
Karl Malone: 5Larry Bird: 6
Wilt Chamberlain: 10
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 12
Charles Barkley: 15

Scary right?

You said "bigs" numerous times. Went on to mention big players... :confused:

ModernDaySavage
10-23-2013, 05:03 PM
But you're missing the point here, dude. You're treating an assist like a made field goal, which couldn't be further from the truth. The passer isn't the one making the basket. The shooter is. A 5-year-old child could pass to a jump shooter and get an assist. The child isn't the one doing the work in this case. The jump shooter is. Is an assist 2-3 points GUARANTEED? Yes. But those 2-3 points weren't scored by the passer.

Also, an offense with good ball movement is going to get assists to every player on the floor from the point guard to the center. And even a center with horrible hands is going to get an assist from time to time out of ball movement and understanding his role in an offense.

Is a big man with passing skills a valuable asset? Of course it is. A 7-footer who can make in interior pass to a cutting perimeter player or find an open 3-point shooter out of the post is a dangerous thing. But at the end of the day, it's that players ability to score in the first place which often creates looks for other players, and it's always going to be up to the player catching the pass to make a jump shot.

Regardless of whether or not a block leads to the end of an opponent's possession, YOU are the one preventing the shot from going in the basket, not somebody else. And the best part is that a block will (99% of the time) either lead to the end of a possession OR a shorter possession for the opposing team. If you block the ball out of bounds, but the team only has five seconds on the shot clock, that makes it far more difficult for that team to score on that possession.

Therefore a person who blocks a shot has more of an impact, IMO, on the success or failure of a possession than someone who gets an assist. Because the assisting player can do everything right, but the shooter has to make the shot. But the blocker will almost always have a direct impact on the likelihood of a successful possession or not.

You make the point earlier saying none of us could ever make a block in the NBA, then go to this as an example? Maybe on an empty court standing a foot away could a five year old do that, they would never be able to bring a ball up court or pass with any type of defense come on now guy.

Of course the second bolded is true even bad handling guys can get assists, but averaging 3 over an entire season is NOT just randomly getting an assist time to time from a good setup. You are undervaluing this greatly.

Really with that last bolded statement? You put up the number 99% to make the value look so insanely good. Except the part that it should be 100%, no **** it either ends the possession or gives them a shorter one. Can it ever possibly ADD time to a possession?...A block with like 17 seconds on the shot clock, they get it inbound with 15 seconds. Is that really doing anything worth much value? You could argue momentum or confidence, and the fact it had a 40-50% chance to go in on average, but there are too many variables.

It would however be nice if there was a block stat that showed blocks on dunks/sure layups, or blocks with 5-6 seconds or less on the shot clock. Maybe there is a stat I just don't know of it. Hopefully this gives another view on the matter.

ModernDaySavage
10-23-2013, 05:05 PM
You said "bigs" numerous times. Went on to mention big players... :confused:

Well for a PG Oscar was big as ****, all I could come up with.

But yeah OP is confused because he clearly leads us to think PF/C.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 06:20 PM
I want Chronz, Ballhog etc to chime in on the statistical value of a block or assist.

Guppyfighter
10-23-2013, 06:26 PM
I don't know because I haven't look at raw stats in forever. Only efficiency.

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 06:27 PM
You make the point earlier saying none of us could ever make a block in the NBA, then go to this as an example? Maybe on an empty court standing a foot away could a five year old do that, they would never be able to bring a ball up court or pass with any type of defense come on now guy.
You're totally missing the point and getting bogged down in semantics, dude. My point is simply that ANYONE could technically get an assist in the NBA, because that **** is totally based on factors outside of the passer's control. Hell, you can accidentally get an assist. You cannot accidentally block a shot.


Of course the second bolded is true even bad handling guys can get assists, but averaging 3 over an entire season is NOT just randomly getting an assist time to time from a good setup. You are undervaluing this greatly.
But it's a hell of a lot harder to average 3 blocks a season than to average 3 assists a season. Half the starting players in the league average 3 assists a game. But only one player in the league last year averaged 3 blocks a game.


Really with that last bolded statement? You put up the number 99% to make the value look so insanely good. Except the part that it should be 100%, no **** it either ends the possession or gives them a shorter one. Can it ever possibly ADD time to a possession?...A block with like 17 seconds on the shot clock, they get it inbound with 15 seconds.
Again, you're arguing semantics, but the statement that it's 100% likely to shorten the possession length is totally inaccurate. You're forgetting the cases in which a player gets a piece of the ball, but the ball still touches the rim. A player can get a block, but the attempt could still feasibly create a new 24 second shot clock. Happens all the time, but it's still the exception to the rule.


Is that really doing anything worth much value? You could argue momentum or confidence, and the fact it had a 40-50% chance to go in on average, but there are too many variables.
Of course it adds value. Suppose an offense starts running a play with 18 seconds left on the clock and the play ends up with a defender blocking it out of bounds with 6-8 seconds left. Not only does the offensive team now have to get the ball in bounds, but the offensive team now will only have a few seconds to set up a play and get the best shot possible. If you only have a few seconds left on the clock, you don't have time for a ton of ball movement. At best, you'll get maybe 2-3 passes and then someone's gotta take a shot.

I'd like to see numbers on this, but I'm willing to bet that teams are far more likely to score when they have a full shotclock to work with than when they've only got a few seconds left to work with.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 06:30 PM
Now, lets just compare Blake's playoff stats and see what happens. He doesn't produce because it's easy to stop him. Regular season, no one honestly puts as much attention to a player. In the playoffs, you bully Blake and remove him from the paint, he essentially forces horrible shots. Impressive stats but they don't say it all about Blake's game.

Blake's been injured all but 3 of his 17 career playoff games. The first 3 games of the 2012 playoffs when healthy the guy put up like 21/7/4. Stop reaching and speaking without even a basic knowledge of the situation. It's too small of a sample to apply your idiotic, unfounded labels that you do all too often around here.

Chronz
10-23-2013, 06:35 PM
Blocks aren't really of any statistical importance, its overall rim protection that matters for bigs. 2 players can have equal block averages and have significantly different rim protecting ability. Thats not something picked up on the boxscore really, though other stats attempts to capture the influence in their own ways, but generally, the good shot blockers are the best rim protectors. Guys like Ibaka walk a fine line.

Assists value is similarly subjective tho. Dependent on pts produced, teammates, system etc...


In terms of Value of a Possession, I dont recall blocks being more valuable than assists in many weighting systems, but some of them made no sense to begin with.

In terms of correlating with wins, from 92-94(Per DeanO), the team with the advantage in blk won .609% of the time, team with edge in assists won 72% of the time, behind only fg%, fgm, and drbs.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 07:58 PM
Blocks aren't really of any statistical importance, its overall rim protection that matters for bigs. 2 players can have equal block averages and have significantly different rim protecting ability. Thats not something picked up on the boxscore really, though other stats attempts to capture the influence in their own ways, but generally, the good shot blockers are the best rim protectors. Guys like Ibaka walk a fine line.

Assists value is similarly subjective tho. Dependent on pts produced, teammates, system etc...


In terms of Value of a Possession, I dont recall blocks being more valuable than assists in many weighting systems, but some of them made no sense to begin with.

In terms of correlating with wins, from 92-94(Per DeanO), the team with the advantage in blk won .609% of the time, team with edge in assists won 72% of the time, behind only fg%, fgm, and drbs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying although these systems aren't particularly reliable the conclusion was assists correlate more with wins than blocks? What is your personal gut instinct on which is more valuable? Because as you said I personally feel overall rim protection/altering shots is the true value... and there are plenty of guys like Tyson Chandler who alter or affect TONS of shots, while blocking nowhere near the shots of others.

IndyRealist
10-23-2013, 08:48 PM
I understand the fact that the shot blocker isn't depending on anybody else to finish the play. I still think at worst blocking a shot (unless controlled to a teammate, turned over) is at best marginally more valuable. I think you're undervaluing an assist, even for bigmen.

You have to consider that you can get assists by "accident" through nothing you did particularly well. All you did was not turn over the ball. Conversely, blocks are almost impossible to get accidentally. They require more than just going through the motions.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 08:57 PM
You have to consider that you can get assists by "accident" through nothing you did particularly well. All you did was not turn over the ball. Conversely, blocks are almost impossible to get accidentally. They require more than just going through the motions.

But the downside to them as I pointed out is I'd say 70 percent of the time a block returns possession to the offensive team who was blocked, reducing the value of it, even if not accidentally accomplished.

kdspurman
10-23-2013, 09:40 PM
But the downside to them as I pointed out is I'd say 70 percent of the time a block returns possession to the offensive team who was blocked, reducing the value of it, even if not accidentally accomplished.

That's to the fault of some big men who like blocking shots in the stands for highlights, as opposed to blocking to keep possession. This article was pretty good, written last year comparing some of the big men and has %'s of what shots were blocked and retrieved and/or given to the other team.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2013/3/20/4117576/tim-duncan-is-the-defensive-player-of-the-year

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 09:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying although these systems aren't particularly reliable the conclusion was assists correlate more with wins than blocks? What is your personal gut instinct on which is more valuable? Because as you said I personally feel overall rim protection/altering shots is the true value... and there are plenty of guys like Tyson Chandler who alter or affect TONS of shots, while blocking nowhere near the shots of others.

See, but what Chronz was saying and what I'm saying are too completely different things. I never ONCE said that blocks were more important to a team's success than assists. A team which averages a high number of assists per game has exceptional ball movement and will be an overall more fluid team offensively, while a team with high block numbers doesn't necessarily mean anything because of the unpredictable nature of a block.

What I'm saying is that a single block has more value than a single assist, because of the nature of what a block is, essentially erasing what otherwise might have been a made shot from the scoreboard. And that statistic is FAR more value for a big man, because bigs aren't generally asked to run an offense or distribute the basketball, but they are asked to protect the paint.

These are two different points, and it's important that we differentiate between the two.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 09:56 PM
And I still disagree. I think the key is altering shots, not blocking shots. You can average low BPG or relatively low BPG and alter a ton. Tyson Chandler for example alters more shots than maybe anybody in the league.. but blocks less than HALF of what Ibaka does. I'm still wanting stats or formulas to compare a block vs an assist value wise. Not an entire team but 1 for 1.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 09:57 PM
That's to the fault of some big men who like blocking shots in the stands for highlights, as opposed to blocking to keep possession. This article was pretty good, written last year comparing some of the big men and has %'s of what shots were blocked and retrieved and/or given to the other team.

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2013/3/20/4117576/tim-duncan-is-the-defensive-player-of-the-year

I read that. Duncan, Ben Wallace, Bill Russell are a few masters of this but 90 percent of the guys in the league want to smash the ball out of bounds into the stands, which basically does nothing but intimidate an opponent potentially and stop the first chance at the basket.

kdspurman
10-23-2013, 10:42 PM
I read that. Duncan, Ben Wallace, Bill Russell are a few masters of this but 90 percent of the guys in the league want to smash the ball out of bounds into the stands, which basically does nothing but intimidate an opponent potentially and stop the first chance at the basket.

Right, more guys should realize the importance of it. I blame Dikembe lol

Chronz
10-23-2013, 11:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying although these systems aren't particularly reliable the conclusion was assists correlate more with wins than blocks? What is your personal gut instinct on which is more valuable? Because as you said I personally feel overall rim protection/altering shots is the true value... and there are plenty of guys like Tyson Chandler who alter or affect TONS of shots, while blocking nowhere near the shots of others.

They arent reliable if you were expecting perfection. Gut feeling would tell me to look at the players total package and make my decision on that, still assists ARE more valuable by just about any barometer, its just what the high blocks may entail that make you think twice. If its a question of elite rim protection vs elite playmaking, thats not something I can base on gut instinct. But I would side towards elite defense vs playmaking in most cases I think.

Clippersfan86
10-23-2013, 11:42 PM
They arent reliable if you were expecting perfection. Gut feeling would tell me to look at the players total package and make my decision on that, still assists ARE more valuable by just about any barometer, its just what the high blocks may entail that make you think twice. If its a question of elite rim protection vs elite playmaking, thats not something I can base on gut instinct. But I would side towards elite defense vs playmaking in most cases I think.

Tyson Chandler vs Serge Ibaka seems to be a good example of this? Chandler alters tons of shots, averages not as many blocks as you'd think. Ibaka on the other hand is an elite shot blocker but an average at best overall rim protector and defender. So defensively Chandler has more value.

mightybosstone
10-24-2013, 12:01 AM
And I still disagree. I think the key is altering shots, not blocking shots. You can average low BPG or relatively low BPG and alter a ton. Tyson Chandler for example alters more shots than maybe anybody in the league.. but blocks less than HALF of what Ibaka does. I'm still wanting stats or formulas to compare a block vs an assist value wise. Not an entire team but 1 for 1.


I read that. Duncan, Ben Wallace, Bill Russell are a few masters of this but 90 percent of the guys in the league want to smash the ball out of bounds into the stands, which basically does nothing but intimidate an opponent potentially and stop the first chance at the basket.

See, but you're operating under the assumption that a shot blocker is looking to block the shot first and play defense second. But for the all-time elite shot blockers, that couldn't be further from the case. Let's look at a list of the all-time leaders in blocked shots:

1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Dikembe Mutombo
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Artis Gilmore
5. Mark Eaton
6. David Robinson
7. Patrick Ewing
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Tim Duncan
10. Tree Rollins
11. Robert Parrish
12. Alonzo Mourning
13. Marcus Camby
14. Caldwell Jones
15. Ben Wallace

With this list, we see the point I was trying to make with my initial post in this thread. Not only does this list contain the greatest defensive bigs of the last 40 years, it contains the majority of the greatest bigs overall of the last four decades. And before you dispute why some names aren't on this list, we don't have to go far to find the following guys:

20. Kevin Garnett
23. Moses Malone
25. Elvin Hayes
27. Kevin McHale
33. Dwight Howard
35. Rasheed Wallace
43. Pau Gasol
49. Shawn Kemp

So you see my point. Blocks are more indicative of a great big than assist numbers. And aside from Barkley and Dirk, who were obviously not great defensive bigs in their prime, every elite big man with decent longevity from the past 40 years is on this list. The guys who weren't were either finesse players, didn't play long enough or were mediocre defenders.

Clippersfan86
10-24-2013, 01:27 AM
Notice how most of those players don't play anymore? The modern day big man isn't the same. In the perimeter based game now, blocks aren't as common and the guys who DO block the most shots like say Ibaka and Sanders aren't the all around dominant defenders and rim protectors those guys were.

I understand that historically blocks go with the high level D. I never disagreed that blocks are usually tied to great big men more than assists. Although the absolute cream of the crop were excellent at BOTH. Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, KG etc... all great passers/had well above average assist seasons for their position.

kblo247
10-24-2013, 01:35 AM
Further proof that Barkley was a god damn beast. If only he focused a little more on the defensive end

That's true.

Do you know who this is? Anyone?
15.2, 10.1, 3.7 47.3%
15.8, 9.8, 4.8, 46.8%
14.2, 10.6, 3.5 52.5%


Give you a clue, he isn't on the list but should be ... LAMAR ODOM

Candy for some postseason numbers
19.1, 11, 4.9, 49.5%
19.4, 13, 2.2, 48.2% - so close
14.3, 10, 3, 49.1%

mightybosstone
10-24-2013, 01:52 AM
Notice how most of those players don't play anymore? The modern day big man isn't the same. In the perimeter based game now, blocks aren't as common and the guys who DO block the most shots like say Ibaka and Sanders aren't the all around dominant defenders and rim protectors those guys were.

I understand that historically blocks go with the high level D. I never disagreed that blocks are usually tied to great big men more than assists. Although the absolute cream of the crop were excellent at BOTH. Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, KG etc... all great passers/had well above average assist seasons for their position.

First off, you're forgetting the historical perspective this thread began with. That's kind of the whole point of this discussion. The OP used a series of statistics to frame great big men in the history of the NBA. That's exactly what my last post was addressing. I'm trying to get back to the point of the thread and to the point of my original post, which is that assists are a ****** way to frame great big men in the history of the NBA.

Secondly, you're acting as if guys like Ibaka and Sanders are poor defenders, which isn't true at all. In fact, those are two of the best defensive bigs in the game today. Ibaka may not be great at man-to-man, but he's one of the best help defenders in the league, and Sanders is evolving into a defensive stud. You don't have to be a great shot blocker to be a great defensive big, but it certainly helps.

Look at the other four top shot blockers last season to round out the top six:
3. Tim Duncan
4. Roy Hibbert
5. Dwight Howard
6. Joakim Noah

Those are arguably four of the six best defensive centers in the NBA with Gasol and Chandler being the other two. So clearly there's a pretty solid correlation to blocked shots and elite post defense among big men in today's NBA.

Clippersfan86
10-24-2013, 02:51 AM
I don't remember once in the OP him making it about assists vs blocks. YOU were the one who changed the topic when you called assists trivial for big men. I don't agree with that premise and I told you that. I think it's a valid topic that players with the skillset are rare and valuable and it IS surprising more bigs haven't accomplished it, which was his point.

the avenger
10-24-2013, 03:51 AM
[QUOTE=mightybosstone;27263376]These numbers are a little arbitrary, IMO, and seem set up to make Barkley's production seem more impressive than it really is. For example, the assists and rebounds make it really tough for players today, because the pace of the game is far slower than it would have been in the 60s-80s. And the FG% makes it insanely hard for players in the 60s-70s when there was no 3-point line, floor spacing sucked and the average FG% is significantly lower than it was today. And the points are a little low, IMO. I think somewhere in the 16-20 range would have been a better barometer for a discussion like this.

You say the FG% I use makes it extremely hard... I think a .470 FG% is not that high for big men in any era.

And for big men, I think blocks are a better statistical variable to measure their worth by. A big man may have a lot of skill offensively and may have above average passing skills, but a big who can change opponents shots in the paint and have an impact defensively around the basket is far more valuable. Granted, you would have to throw out players prior to the shot block's inclusion in 74, but I'd prefer to do that anyway because of the advantage current players have in FG%.

I'd rather see a list of guys who have produced 20 points, 10 rebounds and 3 blocks while shooting 50% or better.

But you'd use a .500FG%? Even harder??? And 3 blocks?? Come on man, not even Duncan could average 3 blocks a game. That wouldn't be fair for the average pf... Your criteria seems fit for Hakeem...



Now, obviously that would put PFs like Barkley at a disadvantage, but it's not always easy to measure PFs against Cs. Not all big men have versatility of guys like Hakeem, Duncan or Garnett to play either position. But even if you take blocks out of the equation, Barkley won't stack up to the Hakeems, Duncans, Kareems and Wilts in terms of points, boards and FG%.

On the contrary, Barkley's numbers are better than Duncan's and Hakeem's when it comes to FG%, reb and pts...

the avenger
10-24-2013, 09:16 AM
Further proof that Barkley was a god damn beast. If only he focused a little more on the defensive end

Let me tell you how good Barkley was...
Career averages: 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3,9 apg, 1.5spg on 0.541 %FG.
Only one player managed to accomplish this for one season: Abdul-Jabbar in 77-78.

Try to do this for ANY other PF...

benzni
10-24-2013, 09:48 AM
a double double average for a season is always impressive. Helping the team out in more ways than 1

mightybosstone
10-24-2013, 11:09 AM
I don't remember once in the OP him making it about assists vs blocks. YOU were the one who changed the topic when you called assists trivial for big men. I don't agree with that premise and I told you that. I think it's a valid topic that players with the skillset are rare and valuable and it IS surprising more bigs haven't accomplished it, which was his point.
Because I think when you're looking at big men of the past 40 years, assists are a far more arbitrary stat to judge big men by than blocks. Look at the players I just showed you who crack the top 50. If you could pull up a list of the greatest big men in history in terms of assists, you would not see nearly as comprehensive a list of the league's greatest big men as you would see with blocks.

While passing for bigs is an asset, it has never been an emphasis for 7-footers, and it's not like they're running those offenses. Hence, assists are an arbitrary stat to judge the greatest big men by when compared to points, rebounds or blocks.


You say the FG% I use makes it extremely hard... I think a .470 FG% is not that high for big men in any era.
Bill Russell: 44% career shooter
Bob Pettit: 43.6% career shooter
Tom Heinsohn: 40.5% career shooter
Gus Johnson: 44% career shooter
Elvin Hayes: 45.% career shooter
Willis Reed: 47.6% career shooter (shot below 47% in 5 of 10 seasons)

These guys were among the greatest big men on the 60s and early 70s and none of them consistently shot above 40% for their entire careers.


And 3 blocks?? Come on man, not even Duncan could average 3 blocks a game. That wouldn't be fair for the average pf... Your criteria seems fit for Hakeem...
Fair enough. I think 2-2.5 blocks might be a better criteria. But clearly my point is made, because only the truly elite centers of all time have accomplished 20/10/3 with 50% shooting, including Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, Robinson and Ewing.


On the contrary, Barkley's numbers are better than Duncan's and Hakeem's when it comes to FG%, reb and pts...
Barkley was an extremely efficient offensive scoring machine and probably the greatest rebounder 6'6" or under in the history of the league. No one is debating that. But that being said, by using blocks as any kind of a parameter we see the one glaring weakness in Barkley's game: defense. He was an atrocious defender who was hard to build around because of his liabilities at PF on that end of the floor.

That and his lack of postseason success are the reasons Barkley is only a borderline top 15-20 guy and never came close to the greatest of the greats. Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan and Wilt all were far more balanced players, while I would also put Russell, Garnett and possibly Robinson ahead of Barkley as well.

I love Charles Barkley, both as a television personality and as a unique player who dominated the league despite his size disadvantages. But to ignore his defensive deficiencies is to ignore history.

Jamiecballer
10-24-2013, 11:30 AM
Let me tell you how good Barkley was...
Career averages: 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3,9 apg, 1.5spg on 0.541 %FG.
Only one player managed to accomplish this for one season: Abdul-Jabbar in 77-78.

Try to do this for ANY other PF...

thank you for posting this. i just looked at his career numbers again, i can't believe i forgot just how good he was. i was surprised by both the assists and steals. i suppose i was just a kid when he was in his prime but still. proof that our memory cannot always be trusted.

the avenger
10-24-2013, 11:53 AM
[QUOTE=mightybosstone;27267704]B

Bill Russell: 44% career shooter
Bob Pettit: 43.6% career shooter
Tom Heinsohn: 40.5% career shooter
Gus Johnson: 44% career shooter
Elvin Hayes: 45.% career shooter
Willis Reed: 47.6% career shooter (shot below 47% in 5 of 10 seasons)

These guys were among the greatest big men on the 60s and early 70s and none of them consistently shot above 40% for their entire careers.

Says a lot about their offensive efficiency... Wilt Chamberlain (mainly 60s), Kareem (70s and 80s), Moses Malone (mainly 80's), Hakeem-David Robinson- Ewing (80's and 90's), Shaq (90's and 00's) and Tim Duncan -Dwight (now)could all do it. All big men, different eras.


Fair enough. I think 2-2.5 blocks might be a better criteria. But clearly my point is made, because only the truly elite centers of all time have accomplished 20/10/3 with 50% shooting, including Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, Robinson and Ewing.

2-2,5 blocks is a ridiculous parameter to evaluate PF. It immediately leaves off guys like Karl Malone, Barkley, Griffin, Kevin Love, etc. Hell, even Garnett hardly averaged 2 blk/g. Plus, no stats available for Chamberlain and Russel...


Barkley was an extremely efficient offensive scoring machine and probably the greatest rebounder 6'6" or under in the history of the league. No one is debating that. But that being said, by using blocks as any kind of a parameter we see the one glaring weakness in Barkley's game: defense. He was an atrocious defender who was hard to build around because of his liabilities at PF on that end of the floor.

That and his lack of postseason success are the reasons Barkley is only a borderline top 15-20 guy and never came close to the greatest of the greats. Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan and Wilt all were far more balanced players, while I would also put Russell, Garnett and possibly Robinson ahead of Barkley as well.

Well, lucky for you the Rockets beat the Suns twice by a hair, resulting in two titles for Olajuwon nad zero for Barkley. Could have been the other way around pretty easily... Damn you Mario Elie!

Clippersfan86
10-24-2013, 11:57 AM
BTW Chris Webber did this for 5 seasons, just to add to the list.

mightybosstone
10-24-2013, 12:50 PM
Says a lot about their offensive efficiency... Wilt Chamberlain (mainly 60s), Kareem (70s and 80s), Moses Malone (mainly 80's), Hakeem-David Robinson- Ewing (80's and 90's), Shaq (90's and 00's) and Tim Duncan -Dwight (now)could all do it. All big men, different eras.
But that's not a fair comparison. That's like saying all wing players should be able to shoot around 50% because Lebron James and Michael Jordan could do it. Players in the 60s and early 70s just did not shoot good percentages. It's easy to look at just Wilt and say, "Well Wilt did it, therefore everyone else must have sucked in that era and had horrible offensive efficiency." Wilt was also a 7-foot giant playing against a bunch of 6'6"-6'9" centers. But look at 95% of the players of the era and you'll be stunned by how low the percentages were during that time.

That's just the era, and that's why 47% shooting is going to be generally biased toward players in the 80s, 90s and 00s.


2-2,5 blocks is a ridiculous parameter to evaluate PF. It immediately leaves off guys like Karl Malone, Barkley, Griffin, Kevin Love, etc. Hell, even Garnett hardly averaged 2 blk/g. Plus, no stats available for Chamberlain and Russel...
I'm not saying blocks are a parameter which wouldn't exclude great players, and I've already addressed that in previous posts. Also, I've done literally 0 research into what exact number would make sense. Maybe it's 1.5 or 1.75. But that's not the point. The point is that if you're trying to find a number of variables to single out the best big men of the past 40 years, blocks are a better variable to use than assists.

Also, I fail to see how Love and Grififn are relevant to this conversation. Neither of them belong in any conversation among all-time greats at this point. In a decade? Perhaps, and perhaps by then the block will be a poor paramater by which to judge bigs because of the lack of great defensive post players. But if we're talking the last 40 years, that's not the case.


Well, lucky for you the Rockets beat the Suns twice by a hair, resulting in two titles for Olajuwon nad zero for Barkley. Could have been the other way around pretty easily... Damn you Mario Elie!
True, but let's not pretend like Barkley didn't have his chances. The man played on a stacked Philly team early in his career with Dr. J and Moses, those Phoenix teams were good to make several deep playoff runs and get to the Finals, and he joined up with Hakeem and Clyde at the end of their primes. And generally Barkley's playoff numbers were still very good. But he didn't elevate those numbers in the postseason, and I think his poor defense at PF made him a somewhat difficult player to build around if you wanted to win a title.

IndyRealist
10-24-2013, 01:04 PM
But the downside to them as I pointed out is I'd say 70 percent of the time a block returns possession to the offensive team who was blocked, reducing the value of it, even if not accidentally accomplished.

That may be true, but it's a made up statistic (which you note) and I'd like to see a hard number that says more than two-thirds of blocked shots go back to the offense. Because no one here watches a statistically significant sample size of basketball games to really draw that conclusion, even assuming you could remember every blocked shot you saw last year.

Chronz
10-24-2013, 01:16 PM
True, but let's not pretend like Barkley didn't have his chances. The man played on a stacked Philly team early in his career with Dr. J and Moses, those Phoenix teams were good to make several deep playoff runs and get to the Finals, and he joined up with Hakeem and Clyde at the end of their primes. And generally Barkley's playoff numbers were still very good. But he didn't elevate those numbers in the postseason, and I think his poor defense at PF made him a somewhat difficult player to build around if you wanted to win a title.

Barkley peaked early but not so early that his years with Doc and Moses should be held against him. He wasn't an All-Star from day 1 and that year pretty much marked the end of that HOF duo, even as a rook he elevated them from a 1st round knockout to a legitimate contender. Towards the end his addition put the Rockets back into the fold as contenders (even if they inevitably failed on a GW).
Chucks kind of like Dream in how you have to look very early or very late to see him surrounded by championship caliber teammates. Like Dream, Barkley spent most of his best days on bad squads, 6 years of his prime and all 4 of his "Peak" individual seasons were essentially wasted. True Chuck had his chances in Phoenix, he was certainly still an upper echelon player to make it happen, but imagine if instead of seeing a top of his game Hakeem, think if he were tasked with the responsibility of carrying the 94 and 95 Rockets a few years older, more removed from his peak days, and against the Bulls no less. Would you still see chips coming? Thats kind of what Chuck had to deal with, he was great in Phoenix, his first year Id argue as good as any, but I think most would agree the guy in Philly was a superior beast.

And what do you mean he didn't elevate his numbers in the post season, he most definitely did. One of the best post season performers in my view. Not everyone is Dream or MJ in that regard tho so maybe thats why your jaded

mightybosstone
10-24-2013, 01:57 PM
Barkley peaked early but not so early that his years with Doc and Moses should be held against him. He wasn't an All-Star from day 1 and that year pretty much marked the end of that HOF duo, even as a rook he elevated them from a 1st round knockout to a legitimate contender. Towards the end his addition put the Rockets back into the fold as contenders (even if they inevitably failed on a GW).
Chucks kind of like Dream in how you have to look very early or very late to see him surrounded by championship caliber teammates. Like Dream, Barkley spent most of his best days on bad squads, 6 years of his prime and all 4 of his "Peak" individual seasons were essentially wasted.

True Chuck had his chances in Phoenix, he was certainly still an upper echelon player to make it happen, but imagine if instead of seeing a top of his game Hakeem, think if he were tasked with the responsibility of carrying the 94 and 95 Rockets a few years older, more removed from his peak days, and against the Bulls no less. Would you still see chips coming? Thats kind of what Chuck had to deal with, he was great in Phoenix, his first year Id argue as good as any, but I think most would agree the guy in Philly was a superior beast.
I hadn't really thought of it like that, but I suppose you're right. His career does sort of mirror Hakeem's, and you can't really hold the failure of those Philly teams against him completely. But I do think the guy had a little more help in his career than Dream did. Hakeem came into the league and almost immediately took his team to the Finals as a sophomore with the young Ralph Sampson as his No. 2. Barkley took a little longer to develop, but it's disappointing those teams with Dr. J and Moses never made a Finals run.

Both guys wasted their primes on mediocre teams with their best teammates being Hersey Hawkins and Otis Thorpe until the early 90s when Barkley was dealt to Phoenix. But that's where Barkley had an advantage. He got one year of his prime at age 29 to play with an all-time top 10 PG in Kevin Johnson and came up short in the Finals. Also, consider that Barkley dropped off after that point, and never got back to the Finals again despite four season with prime KJ. On the flip side, a 31-year-old Hakeem took a miserable supporting cast to a championship in 94 and did it again in 95 with the acquisition of a past-his-prime Clyde Drexler.

That's where Hakeem took the commanding edge was in that 3-4 year stretch where he won two titles with an inferior supporting .

But I love both players, and unlike a lot of Rockets fans, I have fond memories of Barkley in a Rockets jersey. I've always said that my greatest regret as a sports fan is that I never got to see the Rockets face off against Jordan's Bulls in the Finals, and I think that 97 Rockets team would have really given them a run for their money. That was Drexler's last really good season and both Hakeem and Charles still had a lot left in the tank.

That John Stockton 3-pointer will haunt my nightmares until I die.


And what do you mean he didn't elevate his numbers in the post season, he most definitely did. One of the best post season performers in my view. Not everyone is Dream or MJ in that regard tho so maybe thats why your jaded
Oh, I'm totally jaded. When it comes to most NBA arguments, I stay as objective as I possibly can. But I can't when it comes to Dream. He was my childhood idol and the reason I started watching sports. Even if I know I'm wrong, I'll take Hakeem's side just because I'm so stubborn.

the avenger
10-25-2013, 08:39 AM
@mightbosstone: respect my man, love for Sir Charles and Hakeem