Spring Training: Kerry Wood Already Injured?
February 26, 2009Coast To Coast – 02.26.2009
February 26, 2009This item was touched upon by basketball bloggers all over creation earlier this week, but we would be fairly remiss if we did not mention it here. With LeBron James posting PER numbers that are relatively unheard of, Neil Paine did some research to compare his current statistics against Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robinson and Bill Russell – arguably three of the best number-producing basketball players in the history of the game.
1961-62 was the year that Robertson averaged the historical triple-double (30.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 11.4 apg). In the year 1962, Chamberlain and Russel produced epic seasons. Wilt averaged 50.4 points and 26 rebounds per night – including his 100-point game. Russell averaged nearly 24 rebounds of his own, albeit with a considerably lower points total. Both of these men put up numbers that have not been seen since. Could our own LeBron James come close to reaching these numbers? He is already pretty close given his 28/7/7. Basketball-Reference’s Paine did some digging to find out just that.
In ‘62, the average team took 107.7 shots per game. By comparison, this year the average team takes 80.2 FGA/G. […] Let’s say LeBron ‘09 could switch paces (note that I didn’t say “places”, which is another argument entirely) with Oscar ‘62… That means we would have to scale down the Big O’s per-game numbers by multiplying them by .715, giving Robertson a far more reasonable line of 22.0 PPG, 8.9 RPG, & 8.1 APG — which are still really good numbers, to be sure, but not as crazy as they looked at the breakneck pace of ‘62. By contrast, we have to multiply LBJ’s stats by a factor of 1.4 if we want to see what they would look like if he played at a 1962-style pace. The results: 40.1 PPG, 10.3 RPG, & 10.0 APG!!
So, as you can see, even using the pace regression numbers, James falls just a bit short on the rebounds and assist numbers that were handed out by Robertson in 1961. However, had someone of James’ talent been playing then, (or if Robertson were to be playing now) it goes to show that they are increasingly more similar that today’s numbers show.
We always hear about how today’s athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than they were “back in the day.” However, Davis’ study shows that it is not just the physical nature of the player, as much as the environment in which they played.
Forty, 10 and 10. Just soak that in for a bit. Okay, now check out the video below. What can’t this guy do?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVjcDwkNF1I]
—
Stray Thoughts on 1962 [Neil Paine/Basketball-Reference]
(Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
7 Comments
If it is true that a basketball player’s prime is late 20s, what’s to say, pace or not, that LeBron can still average a triple double? As impossible as that record sounds in today’s NBA, LeBron averaging 30 ppg, 12 rpg and 10 apg seems very possible.
Love that video of the underhanded half-court shot. I won more than a few games at the buzzer in “NBA Jam” back in the day with Mark Price’s full-court underhand shot.
glad you mentioned this…hadn’t seen it…good stuff. can always use more ammo for the “lebron is the greatest” argument.
Cleveland’s King for the next ten years, AT LEAST!!! Sit back and cheer my fellow Cavs fans.
Is it a slow news day or what? No new posts in about 3 hours.
Well that’s interesting. But what does that say about Kobe’s 81 point game? 113 points?
The bigger, faster, stronger argument kind of holds up when you’re talking about the average player. Sure, comparing superstars is fun, but let’s look at the kind of numbers a Tarence Kinsey puts up versus an average bench player from 1962. That says a lot more about the competition these guys play(ed) against than just looking at the superstar’s numbers adjusted for the number of shots taken.
Let’s just take the bigger, faster, stronger argument as fact for a moment. If that’s true across the board — not just for the LeBrons and Kobes of the NBA — then that stat line of 40-10-10 is even more impressive than Robertson’s, I think.