LeBron’s Stats, Now With Pace Adjustment
Over the weekend I made the point that one important thing holding LeBron James back from ever averaging a triple-double in one season is that the game is played at a much slower pace today. Unfortunately, since I don’t work at a basketball think tank I wasn’t able to get anyone to do any rigorous research on pace-adjusting his stats for this year. But Neil Paine at Basketball-Reference has the goods:
Okay, so you’ve all seen Wilt and Oscar’s numbers from 1962… but have you ever sat down and looked at the league averages that year? In ‘62, the average team took 107.7 shots per game. By comparison, this year the average team takes 80.2 FGA/G. If we use a regression to estimate turnovers & offensive rebounds, the league pace factor for 1962 was 125.5 possessions/48 minutes, whereas this year it’s 91.7. Oscar’s Royals averaged 124.7 poss/48, while Wilt’s Warriors put up a staggering 129.7 (the highest mark in the league). On the other hand, the 2009 Cavs are averaging a mere 89.2 poss/48. It turns out that the simplest explanation for the crazy statistical feats of 1961-62 (and the early sixties in general) is just that the league was playing at a much faster tempo in those days, with more possessions affording players more opportunities to amass gaudy counting statistics.
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!! As you can see, those 35.5 extra possessions per game really make a huge difference when comparing the two players’ stats.
As is well known from basically all sports arguments, these comparisons across long spreads of time are problematic in a large number of ways. But suffice it to say that the main factor making it impossible for Robertson’s achievement to be replicated today is that there aren’t enough possessions per game anymore. Robertson’s rate of rebounding, assists, and scoring would be very impressive today but they’re not off-the-charts relative to what today’s best players are doing. Also — LeBron James is really good basketball player, but you probably already knew that.
43 Responses to “LeBron’s Stats, Now With Pace Adjustment”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
when lebrons playing for diantoni in 2 years were gonna see some present day gaudy pacey numbers
February 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am
How the hell did they play so fast? I’m not old enough to have watched basketball before the late 1980s. And yet I watch teams with large big men (like the Cavs) and it seems like games played against the “fast” teams by today’s standards make players like Zydrunas Ilgauskas look like grandpa trying to keep up with Olympic sprinters. Wilt Chamberlain’s numbers are obviously somewhat inflated by pace, but I’m still impressed that a 7-1 center was in such good shape.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“How the hell did they play so fast?”
Amphetamines.
Not only did Wilt score 100 points, but after he got home that night, he made love five times and then cleaned his house eleven times.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I think the answer is “no one played defense” and “shooting was worse”.
But doesn’t this suggest that the NBA should tweak the rules to up the pace even further, so that James can get his full-season triple-double and allow them to market him as perhaps the greatest ever?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
when lebrons playing for diantoni in 2 years were gonna see some present day gaudy pacey numbers
But not that gaudy. The Knicks still have to play in the current NBA. So even if you took Wilt’s Warriors and put them in the current league, their pace still wouldn’t come close to 129.7 per game because everyone else is around 90.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
One problem with using these multiplication factors here is that it assumes that LeBron’s skill level would remain constant as the pace of the game increases. It is certainly conceivable that LeBron (and his teammates) couldn’t play as well in a faster game. In other words, his shooting, rebounding, and assist percentages could very well be substantially lower.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
in the early 60’s, the shot clock was still new. coaches were so afdraid of 24 swcond violations that they told their teams to take the first shot they could. while it slowed down a little, it was still basically played this way when i was growing up in the 70’s and 80’s. this is why i preferred the college / h.s. game in that era– teams would set up their offense and not just race down and shoot. (the illegal defense rule encouraged this style as well– those quick shots were usually guarded by 1 man.)
the man who really changed everything was chuck daly. in an era where magic, bird, and jordan got all the press, daly taught his team to beat those guys and won 2 titles by playing stifling defense– his was the first post shot clock team to regularly hold opponents under 100 a game. phil jackson saw this, adopted an even more stifling defense that held teams under 90, and won 6 titles as a result.
watch a pre-chuck daly game on nba tv or espn classic sometime. watch them just chuck the ball up every possession. it was a different game.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
It is certainly conceivable that LeBron (and his teammates) couldn’t play as well in a faster game. In other words, his shooting, rebounding, and assist percentages could very well be substantially lower.
It’s also conceivable that his shooting and assist percentages could be higher. I remember reading something somewhere (sorry) that said faster pace had some positive impact on offensive efficiency. But maybe that’s not the case if every other team also plays fast. Dunno.
Not sure about rebounding rate.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
What James lacks is a Scottie Pippen.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Players back in the day were generally shorter, smaller, and much quicker than today’s hulking muscle men. The few really big centers were often left in the dust behind the fast breaks as everyone else sprinted down court. I also think teams worked on and looked for the really fast and long outlet pass a lot more than they do today, probably because they had some really fast guys who could get down court quick. I think the fast play made for exciting games to watch.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
when lebrons playing for diantoni in 2 years were gonna see some present day gaudy pacey numbers
But not that gaudy. The Knicks still have to play in the current NBA. So even if you took Wilt’s Warriors and put them in the current league, their pace still wouldn’t come close to 129.7 per game because everyone else is around 90.
agreed but the brilliant thing abt the diantoni effect is its not just abt pace – fg%s go up turnover ratio goes down etc – guy can coach 4 real – add that to the fact that lebrons game will be improved by a faster pace since hes one of the greatest fastbreak players ever and i wouldnt be surprised to see him average a trip dub if he makes it to ny
that btw is the shockingly under reported aspect of the beat to hell lebron to ny story
February 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Players back in the day were generally … much quicker than today’s hulking muscle men
I’m going to have to call bullshit on this one. While the NBA doesn’t have a combine, going by the NFL, there’s no reason to believe an increase in size leads to a reduction in speed and quickness.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“How the hell did they play so fast? I’m not old enough to have watched basketball before the late 1980s. And yet I watch teams with large big men (like the Cavs) and it seems like games played against the “fast” teams by today’s standards make players like Zydrunas Ilgauskas look like grandpa trying to keep up with Olympic sprinters. Wilt Chamberlain’s numbers are obviously somewhat inflated by pace, but I’m still impressed that a 7-1 center was in such good shape.”
That 7-1 center was the fastest man in the league in 1962.
The pace was due to a lack of team defense. It was much more likely that you would get a good opportunity to score early in the 24 second clock. Chaberlain’s 61-62 season was actually the beginning of team defense. In the playoffs, the Celtics revolutionized defense with their scheme to stop Wilt with. It ws the first instance of using defensive double teaming as an intentional scheme rather than as a matter of happenstance.
They also hammered him about a dozen times per game with fouls that would get you fined or ejected today.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I agree. Look at olympic sprinters. They’re all very heavily muscled.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Why did basketball players play so fast?
Well, back in the day, basketball players used to run up and down the court. And since there was no three-point shot, the goal of the offense was always to get the easiest shot possible, i.e. try for a fast break. Almost no team in the NBA these days runs like the Lakers and Celtics did in the ’80s.
The NBA today consists of a lot of standing around as players try to get the best matchup for the few scoring players. It’s a much duller game.
And no, you cannot just use a multiplier based on the pace of today’s game and came up with a number representing the number of points LeBron would have scored back in the 60s. LeBron James scores his points at today’s pace. You cannot just throw out that fact and assume he would be just as productive at scoring points/possession when the length of each possession is so much less. Perhaps he is scoring so efficiently because he is using the time well? Even if he were able to speed up the pace a bit, there is also the presumption that he could do so for the entire length of a game. It is much more physically demanding to play a fast break game than the walkabout game that is today’s NBA.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
a fastbreaking style can actually be less tiring than a half court game cause its less physical
February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
When folks talk about the slower pace today, there seems to be this assumption that current players prefer the slower pace because they’re lazy or something. That’s nuts! Players love to run. It’s how they play when they aren’t getting paid to do it. The reason more teams don’t run is that it doesn’t work very well. Dantoni has been about as succesful as anyone else playing fast paced basket ball and he never even got to the finals with a two-time league “MVP”.
Rings aside, I’m sure Lebron would love to play on a Dantoni style team.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Al’s right, the astonishing thing about watching a game from the 60d or 70s on ESPN Classic is the horrible shot selection. They just chuck it up there.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
The advent of the 3pt shot might have something to do with it, don’t you think? These comparisons are silly.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Even if he were able to speed up the pace a bit, there is also the presumption that he could do so for the entire length of a game. It is much more physically demanding to play a fast break game than the walkabout game that is today’s NBA.
Yeah, echoing J1mmy a bit here, I’m not sure the faster pace is that much more demanding. It’s certainly very physically demanding to rotate properly in a modern half-court defense (especially a good rotation defense like the Cavs). And come on, it’s not like there’s zero movement in a half-court offense. It’s still a pretty active sport for 48 minutes, even if teams take more time to battle with stout defenses.
Plus, how many strides does it take for LeBron to go end-to-end? Like, two?
February 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The advent of the 3pt shot might have something to do with it, don’t you think?
Also, my understanding is that you had to get shot in the face in order to get to the free throw line back then.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The idea that players today are lazier as proof by the fact they don’t run up and down the court as much as they did in the 60s is ridiculous. First playing good hard defense, something that wasn’t done much before Chuck Daly, is more demanding then running a fast break. Second, watch those old games, most of the time only 2 or 3 guys are actually running up the court on any given possesion the other guys are just standing around.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Sure, big guys can be fast for a possession or two, but not constantly running through four quarters like they used to. It’s too tiring moving all that weight up and down court. Look at the sizes of sprinters vs. distance runners. The sprinters can be big muscled guys because they don’t have to run very far.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
These arguments always ignore the VORP side of this equation. If it was just a function of the era, why is Robertson so far ahead of everyone else? Pace is not the only factor that would need to be adjusted for.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
ps Adjusted for pace, Wilt Chamberlain only averages a 35 and 18. Yeah, that guy sucked.
I am so ready for this planet to give up on contrarianism.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Also, remember that LBJ has a mediocre jump shot, so a faster paced game with more focus on close in shots could favor his skill set. On the other hand, it has been well documented that more assists are given now than they were in the past so his assist rate may well have been lower ignoring any difference in pace.
The idea, though, that players were more skilled or athletic 40 years ago is just absurd though. I am pretty sure that in any sport, the level of play goes up over time as people empirically figure out the best techniques and training regiments. Also, basketball is much more popular globally than it was a few decades ago so the talent pool is deeper.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
These arguments always ignore the VORP side of this equation. If it was just a function of the era, why is Robertson so far ahead of everyone else? Pace is not the only factor that would need to be adjusted for.em>
Of course not. And Matt sort of preempted that one:
I don’t think the idea is to knock down Robertson, but to see what major hurdle would need to be cleared in order to reproduce Robertson’s achievement. I think it’s clear pace is the biggest hurdle. But that’s not to declare it the ONLY one.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Italics are mad at me today.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
It must have been those short shorts.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Are there more rebounds in today’s game because of more missed 3s? Looking at stats pre and post 3-pointer isn’t apples and oranges, but it’s apples and strawberries.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
There’s also talent dilution. The NBA has expanded beyond its talent pool. While today’s players are better, that’s only because of weight training and the development of defensive techniques. Take the ‘62 Celtics, give them 18 months of conditioning and practicing modern play style, and they are the best team in the NBA today.
That’s why the league is so star-dominated. If you have one great player, you’re a contender for the championship. That star gets more points, rebounds and assists because his team mates are less capable of getting them. Cut the league down to 16 teams(US population has doubled since the league had 8 teams), and those stars have better team mates, and better opponents. The star’s stats will be diminished.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
It isn’t 4 times as deep. Talent-wise, players are worse. They are stronger, and they have better schemes, but they are less talented.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Take the ‘62 Celtics, give them 18 months of conditioning and practicing modern play style, and they are the best team in the NBA today.
That might be right, but free agency and salary caps also work against a franchise’s ability to come close to that level of excellence.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
It isn’t 4 times as deep. Talent-wise, players are worse. They are stronger, and they have better schemes, but they are less talented.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I’ve watched the game religously for the past 20+ years, and it seems ridiculous to me. But I could be wrong. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “talented,” but I can’t think of a definition that puts today’s NBA players behind the players of 40 years ago.
And I think the talent pool is at least 4 times as deep as it was when there were 8 teams (late 50s, early 60s). First, the population of the U.S. has almost doubled since then. Second, basketball is a more popular choice today for a really athletic young kid. Third, promising young players are groomed and coached much earlier on. And, of course, there’s the rest of the world. The NBA talent pool now includes pretty much the entire population of the planet.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Just think about the demise of the Big White Stiff. Back in the ’80s, every team had one on of these goons at the end of the bench. Now the big stiff on the bench is a guy like DJ Mbenga or Patrick O’Bryant — not great players, but at least decent athletes.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
===
Three with a crab-dribble.
===
===
One of my favorite (probably apocryphal) stories about legendary Utah Jazz Big White Stiff Mark Eaton:
Visiting player: “Hey, where’s Eaton?”
Jazz player: “He blew out his knee jumping for a rebound.”
VP: “Aw, man. Now why’d he have to go and try to jump?”
February 27th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
In 1968-69, the league’s average attendance was ~3000. Players were not paid especially well. You really don’t think that the explosion in popularity of the sport and the level of player contracts hasn’t increased the talent pool? I suspect that it is probably at least 10 times harder to make the NBA today than it was in the sixties.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Err, it was actually ~6000 because I divided total team attendance by 82, not 41. The point still stands.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
better athletes today better shooters pre three point era
does anyone have numbers that combines FG% and 3% so we could compare the 62 celtics to the 08 version?
eFG% doesn’t help
February 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Al, Eaton was a very good defensive player, but he was still a big, white stiff. He was just so incredibly big — 7′4″, IIRC, and about 3 feet wide — that he was effective defensively. Like Sabonis with healthy knees but no offensive skills.
I remember going to Cal-UCLA games when the entire crowd at Harmon Gym would wave their arms slowly up and down, Frankenstein-style, when he walked onto the court.
I also remember Joe Barry Carroll using his quickness to beat Eaton repeatedly in a 1st-round playoff series in 1987 when the Warriors came back from 2-0 down to beat the Jazz 3-2.
Again, he was a stiff, but if you’re that big and you have an idea of what you’re doing and you work hard, you can be a stiff and still be an effective player.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I wasn’t really thinking of Eaton — yes, he was big, he was white, and he was a stuff, but he wasn’t a Big White Stiff. You have to be totally useless to be a Big White Stiff. Think Uwe Blab. Jack Haley. Greg Kite. Paul Mokeski. Mike Smrek. Somebody stop me, I could go all night.
That species is almost extinct. Being 6-11 or taller is no longer enough, in and of itself, to get you on an NBA roster.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
wasn’t the main job of the BWS to foul Kareem
The Celtics had at least one BWS for the entire decade of the 80’s Robey-Kite-Roberts-Lohaus-Kleine-Popson
They 1985 draft was the pinnacle for the BWS
Konkak 4, Kleine 5, Rasmussen 15, Wennington 16, Blab 17
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
How are you. Facts are the enemy of truth.
I am from Arab and also now’m speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “The airline tickets source for cheap flights.”
Best regards
, Ruth.