How important is pace adjustment for older statistics?

[Noah]

Note: I have nothing against Wilt but this is a bigger example since '62 was a year of inflated numbers due to a crazy pace.

For example, Wilt Chamberlain's '62 season under an average pace today (93.9 compared to Philly's 131 then) averages 36-18-2 (which would be his per 48 minute averages). Still would be an inordinately dominant scorer and rebounder, but is it really head and shoulders better than other all time great seasons by other players when adjusting to modern pace?

Also if anyone wants to compare stuff like this just take average pace today (93.9) and divide it by the other player's teams' pace then multiply the players stats by that number. Since 93.9 divided by 131.1 is .71, I multiplied Wilt's averages by .71 to get an estimate of what he would've averaged this past year (but several other factors could come into play with whether he'd actually average 36-18-2). To put modern players into higher paces just divide the average pace then by the average one now and multiply again.

For example, DeMarcus Cousins in 1987 would've averaged (102.1/93.9 = 1.09) around 26-14-4 if he played his usual 34 MPG. Again, just a rough estimate and I wouldn't say as to whether I think he could average such.

My question is, how important is pace adjustment for comparing older players to now and vice versa? Is it important at all?

 

[fifth column]

I'm guessing you not too popular with the ladies

 

[Noah]

I'm guessing you not too popular with the ladies

Well I wouldn't be out asking her about pace adjusted shyts which is at least one thing I have going for me

 

[Professor K.]

I'm guessing you not too popular with the ladies

 

[1/2OfDaBruinz]

I'm guessing you not too popular with the ladies

Classic example of fishing for daps, smh.

OP, to answer your question, I don't know how important adjusting for pace is, but it definitely can't be ignored. As you stated, there are many more factors involved, but factoring pace does provide some type of perspective. Comparing players from different errors will always be somewhat of an exercise in futility, nevertheless, it's still fun to do.

 

[fifth column]

Classic example of fishing for daps, smh.

OP, to answer your question, I don't know how important adjusting for pace is, but it definitely can't be ignored. As you stated, there are many more factors involved, but factoring pace does provide some type of perspective. Comparing players from different errors will always be somewhat of an exercise in futility, nevertheless, it's still fun to do.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

My question is, how important is pace adjustment for comparing older players to now and vice versa? Is it important at all?

Since the sheer volume of variables (increasing the further you stretch back) distorts a picture comparison that isn't visibly clear, it's only important in that we don't allow it to transfer over in a vacuum, or worse, think that #s can be increased on some notion that the level of basketball isn't as great in this day and age - the 'Jordan would average 50 in this era' dilemma.

I don't know if that answers your question or not.

 

[Malta]

Note: I have nothing against Wilt but this is a bigger example since '62 was a year of inflated numbers due to a crazy pace.

For example, Wilt Chamberlain's '62 season under an average pace today (93.9 compared to Philly's 131 then) averages 36-18-2 (which would be his per 48 minute averages). Still would be an inordinately dominant scorer and rebounder, but is it really head and shoulders better than other all time great seasons by other players when adjusting to modern pace?

Also if anyone wants to compare stuff like this just take average pace today (93.9) and divide it by the other player's teams' pace then multiply the players stats by that number. Since 93.9 divided by 131.1 is .71, I multiplied Wilt's averages by .71 to get an estimate of what he would've averaged this past year (but several other factors could come into play with whether he'd actually average 36-18-2). To put modern players into higher paces just divide the average pace then by the average one now and multiply again.

For example, DeMarcus Cousins in 1987 would've averaged (102.1/93.9 = 1.09) around 26-14-4 if he played his usual 34 MPG. Again, just a rough estimate and I wouldn't say as to whether I think he could average such.

My question is, how important is pace adjustment for comparing older players to now and vice versa? Is it important at all?

I don't really think stats from before the merger should be compared to numbers from the modern era, pace should be brought up when someone really wants to debate the issue.

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

I don't really think stats from before the merger should be compared to numbers from the modern era, pace should be brought up when someone really wants to debate the issue.

... or rings imo

 

[FTBS]

I think that comparison to peers is more important than pace. For example when Wilt scored 50, the next closest guy was Baylor with 38. 12 pts is basically 25% of 50. So Wilt beat out his nearest competition by 25%. Nobody could get closer than 75% of his scoring average when playing at the same pace. That is and can't be attributed to pace. Compare that to Kobe's 35 ppg season where the closest guy was AI with 33. That's like 6%. Wilt put up 26 rpg that same year. However, Russell was right there with 24. That's like 8%. Then you look at Rodman in 92 when he avg 18 and the closest guy was Shaq with 14. So that's like 20% difference . Obviously pace (and rules) impacts some numbers. And in some cases guys were just head and shoulders. I think that looking at what other guys did at the same time helps you to get a clearer picture of both.


And no breh I don't think you will find very many seasons on par with 36 and 18 at today's pace.

 

[Noah]

@Malta @Gil Scott-Heroin

Yeah basically while Wilt might not for certain average 36-18 (though his per-36 under a modern pace is something along the lines of 27-14) it's always been pretty far fetched to me when someone brings up his 50 PPG season and equates it to "he could be that dominant now" or calling it the most dominant season of all-time (especially when his team was not built to translate his disproportionate scoring into wins). Pace should be brought up more I guess is what I mean.

I think that comparison to peers is more important than pace. For example when Wilt scored 50, the next closest guy was Baylor with 38. 12 pts is basically 25% of 50. So Wilt beat out his nearest competition by 25%. Nobody could get within 75% of his scoring average when playing at the same pace. That is and can't be attributed to pace. Compare that to Kobe's 35 ppg season where the closest guy was AI with 33. That's like 6%. Wilt put up 26 rpg that same year. However, Russell was right there with 24. That's like 8%. Then you look at Rodman in 92 when he avg 18 and the closest guy was Shaq with 14. So that's like 20% difference . Obviously pace (and rules) impacts some numbers. And in some cases guys were just head and shoulders. I think that looking at what other guys did at the same time helps you to get a clearer picture of both.

Agreed. Now keep in mind in that prior to the '06 year (another big year for many players) that there was a new rule that was implemented that pretty much nullified hand-checking. The crazy thing about that year was that it wasn't pace-related; average pace that year was actually lower than the years before or after it. Hand checking changed quite a bit, the Ron Harpers and Alvin Robertsons started turning into Shane Battiers and Tayshaun Princes. Not necessarily bad by any means, just man-to-man was changed so defenders have to now try to stay in front of an offensive player without using their hands, which is hard on-ball unless you're a physical outlier with lateral quickness or length (see Tony Allen and Tayshaun respectively).

There's also been a question raised about the 3 seconds in the lane rule, because it makes it tougher for bigs to rotate and stop the offensive player (stems partly from hand checking). The Mutombos and Eatons turned into Howards and Chandlers who can't camp in the lane anymore, though guys like Hibbert and Marc Gasol are excellent at bending that rule. But of course now with small-ball you might find Tristan Thompson or Draymond Green instead Game and rules like you alluded to have all changed. Defense has usually been in the backseat since the NBA's inception and a lot of people have said that it's simply harder for defenses to be historically good now (though we've seen some elite ones lately).

 

[FTBS]

@Malta @Gil Scott-Heroin

Yeah basically while Wilt might not for certain average 36-18 (though his per-36 under a modern pace is something along the lines of 27-14) it's always been pretty far fetched to me when someone brings up his 50 PPG season and equates it to "he could be that dominant now" or calling it the most dominant season of all-time (especially when his team was not built to translate his disproportionate scoring into wins). Pace should be brought up more I guess is what I mean.



Agreed. Now keep in mind in that prior to the '06 year (another big year for many players) that there was a new rule that was implemented that pretty much nullified hand-checking. The crazy thing about that year was that it wasn't pace-related; average pace that year was actually lower than the years before or after it. Hand checking changed quite a bit, the Ron Harpers and Alvin Robertsons started turning into Shane Battiers and Tayshaun Princes. Not necessarily bad by any means, just man-to-man was changed so defenders have to now try to stay in front of an offensive player without using their hands, which is hard on-ball unless you're a physical outlier with lateral quickness or length (see Tony Allen and Tayshaun respectively).

There's also been a question raised about the 3 seconds in the lane rule, because it makes it tougher for bigs to rotate and stop the offensive player (stems partly from hand checking). The Mutombos and Eatons turned into Howards and Chandlers who can't camp in the lane anymore, though guys like Hibbert and Marc Gasol are excellent at bending that rule. But of course now with small-ball you might find Tristan Thompson or Draymond Green instead Game and rules like you alluded to have all changed. Defense has usually been in the backseat since the NBA's inception and a lot of people have said that it's simply harder for defenses to be historically good now (though we've seen some elite ones lately).

Yeah a lot of people either don't know about this or overlook it. I don't think it was mere coincidence that Kobe, AI, and Bron all had their career highs that year. That's why I say you gotta look at what else was going on in the league in order to put numbers in their proper context.