Bill Russell: 'How I Psych Them'

[DCL]

Actually, Jerry West had an almost perfect jump shot, as did Rick Barry. Yet, West had some awful FG% seasons early in his career. I still have not read a reasonable answer as to why FG% were so low in the early 60's, and then started a slow rise into the 70's, before they exploded in the 80's. So many players that played in both the 60's and 70's, either shot much better in the 70's, or at the very least, much better in the late 60's. Almost to a man.

All of which makes Chamberlain's numbers that much more staggering. He was shooting .510-.540 in most of his "scoring" seasons, and with much of his offense from 10-15 ft....in leagues that were shooting anywhere from .410-.441. And, then, in his "efficient" seasons of the mid-60's, and then in his last two seasons in the 70's, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the league average and his nearest competitor. No other player in NBA history can come close to just how far ahead of the league that he was. And one can only wonder what kind of FG% numbers he would have put up in his scoring seasons, had he played in the 80's (much less his efficent season numbers.)

well, jerry west was pretty special.. that's why he's the logo. rick barry mastered the shot too. but they were exceptions instead of the norm. most of their peers had incredibly funny looking shooting forms. i think i was amazed that even 40% of them went in.

[jlauber]

I also find it interesting that FT% have been pretty much the same for decades. Wilt took a lot of FTs in the 60's, so that would explain why the average was slightly less, but generally, they have remained a constant. Sharman was shooting 93% in the 50's. Barry had multiple 93% seasons in the 70's. Calvin Murphy held the record at .958, which he set in 80-81, up until Calderon's eye-popping .981 in 08-09.

[G.O.A.T]

In regard to shooting percentages, a few factors that I think contribute to the rise and fall of shooting percentages.

1) The Jump Shot - It really didn't become common until the 1950's. Joe Fulks is credited as one of the first to use it and he began playing after WWII in 1946, prior it was the one or two hand set shot and for decades basketball was a game played in the 20's and 30's with a lot of ball possession and patience before taking the shot, usually a set shot from 15-25 feet.

2) The Pace - Basically teams have an extra 7-10 possessions a quarter in the late 50's and the 1960's. They are playing a such a pace with the shot clock in effect trying to get a "good" shot before the defense sets up. This also explains why FT shooting has been so much more consistent. Players have time and can shoot a repetitive shot as oppose to the field goal which is always changing with the game around it.

3) Layups and Dunks - Once the goal tending rules came into effect, it took 8-10 years for players to fully start using them against shot blockers. Factor in the added athleticism of the players from the mid-70's on and leniency with dribbling rules and you see why shooting %'s went up and the number of fouls went down...which brings me to

4) Flagrant fouls. I've read from several players of the era that if a guy was scoring by getting inside, he was going to get leveled eventually if he kept attacking. Before they added flagrant fouls this was just a foul, one or two shots and the game goes on. Now it's a fine or suspension or at least a two shot and the ball foul which changes momentum. Hence more easy lay-ups and dunks and a higher FG%.

5) The Ball - Sometimes, usually it was round, but not always the same. It wasn't until 1970 that the 8 panel ball was introduced. If you've ever shot with a four panel ball, you'll see why this was such a dramatic improvement. Another minor factor initially may have been the laces in the ball. Until the 1940's that was still common. So some players from the 50's probably grew up shooting a ball with laces, hard to be consistent under those circumstances. We all remember what happened when the NBA changed the ball slightly a few seasons ago, imagine changes that big over 30 years.

[jlauber]

In regard to shooting percentages, a few factors that I think contribute to the rise and fall of shooting percentages.

1) The Jump Shot - It really didn't become common until the 1950's. Joe Fulks is credited as one of the first to use it and he began playing after WWII in 1946, prior it was the one or two hand set shot and for decades basketball was a game played in the 20's and 30's with a lot of ball possession and patience before taking the shot, usually a set shot from 15-25 feet.

2) The Pace - Basically teams have an extra 7-10 possessions a quarter in the late 50's and the 1960's. They are playing a such a pace with the shot clock in effect trying to get a "good" shot before the defense sets up. This also explains why FT shooting has been so much more consistent. Players have time and can shoot a repetitive shot as oppose to the field goal which is always changing with the game around it.

3) Layups and Dunks - Once the goal tending rules came into effect, it took 8-10 years for players to fully start using them against shot blockers. Factor in the added athleticism of the players from the mid-70's on and leniency with dribbling rules and you see why shooting %'s went up and the number of fouls went down...which brings me to

4) Flagrant fouls. I've read from several players of the era that if a guy was scoring by getting inside, he was going to get leveled eventually if he kept attacking. Before they added flagrant fouls this was just a foul, one or two shots and the game goes on. Now it's a fine or suspension or at least a two shot and the ball foul which changes momentum. Hence more easy lay-ups and dunks and a higher FG%.

5) The Ball - Sometimes, usually it was round, but not always the same. It wasn't until 1970 that the 8 panel ball was introduced. If you've ever shot with a four panel ball, you'll see why this was such a dramatic improvement. Another minor factor initially may have been the laces in the ball. Until the 1940's that was still common. So some players from the 50's probably grew up shooting a ball with laces, hard to be consistent under those circumstances. We all remember what happened when the NBA changed the ball slightly a few seasons ago, imagine changes that big over 30 years.

Best explanation that I have ever read!

Incidently, I bolded The Ball. I remember playing back in the 60's in city leagues, and they had a rack of balls that they used before the games so that teams could practice during the pre-game shoot-arounds. There was practically no consistency to them. Some were lighter or heavier, and as you stated, I don't believe they were all completely round. I used to spin them, and then toss them up in the air, and you could see a "waffling" effect.

Abe posted a quote from Wilt, as well, stating that the floors were uneven, and there was no heating or air in some buildings as well. Here again, take a shot from 20 feet in 80 degree weather, and then take that same shot in 40 degrees, and tell me it isn't affected.

Not only that, but Chamberlain claimed that some buildings had breezes blowing through, as well. I think most of us have played outside (I would sure like to think so anyway), and try adjusting your shots going downwind, and then switching sides, and shooting into the wind. Or having to adjust for cross-winds.

Along with the other factors you listed, it would help explain the large differences from the early 60's into the late 60's and beyond. It might even explain why FT shooting was marginally worse in the 60's (although, once again, Wilt took a ton of FTs in that decade...so his FT shooting, alone, contributed to those numbers.)

And these are important points. We are constantly reminded here, of PACE, and how it affected the stats, but very few acknowledge LEAGUE AVERAGE. I have long maintained that players like West, Barry, and other's did not suddenly wake up one morning, at some point in their careers, and figure out how to shoot better. West had near perfect form, yet, in his first three years he shot .419, .445, and .461. Havlicek had three seasons in the 60's (he played in the 60's and 70's about equally BTW), in which he shot .405, .402, and .399. Yet, in the 70's, he had EIGHT seasons higher than his best in the 60's.

That may explain the 60's to 70's transition...but, what about the 70's to 80's. There was an explosion in the 80's. There were ENTIRE LEAGUES shooting .492. There were 31-51 TEAMs shooting .504. Multiple players shooting in the 60% range.

I have used Kareem before, as an example. In the 70's, and in his physical prime, his best season was .579. BUT, he also had season's of .539, .529, .518, and .513. In the first eight seasons of the decade of the 80's, he shot .564, or better (and his last two seasons of that decade, he was 40, and 41...and he retired.) He had FOUR seasons in the 80's, in which he bettered his BEST season in the 70's. He had a high of .604, and .599 late in his career. One poster argued that Kareem took less shots. I have argued that Magic Johnson contributed heavily to his entire team's success. Still, Kareem was well past his physical peak. All you need for confirmation of that were his horrible rebounding numbers in that decade.

But, he wasn't the only one, either. Player-for-player, that played in both decades of the 70's and into the 80's shot better in the 80's, some dramatically. Even more perplexing, is the fact that the 3pt shot was in play the entire decade of the 80's. If anything, you would have expected a decline in FG%.

Which brings me to THIS point. I honestly believe that DEFENSE was better in the 60's and 70's. I couldn't tell you if there were some major rule changes, but if there were not, how else do you explain it?

Here again, Kareem is a great example. Late in his career, and when he could barely get off the floor, he was hanging games of 35, 42, 46 on Hakeem. And, in the same week he slapped Olajuwon with a 40 point game, he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Kareem was a career .559 shooter, and yet Wilt held him to .464 in their 28 H2H meetings. In their last ten games, Wilt, at age 36, held him to .434 shooting. And Kareem took a slew of shots against Chamberlain, too. In the 71-72 season, Kareem had 30+ shots (with a high of 39) in TEN of their 11 meetings. But, he only hit 50%, or better, in FOUR of them. In fact, in their 28 games, Kareem took 30+ shots in 18 of them, and hit 50% in only SIX.

Not only that, but after Chamberlain "figured him out", he was routinely swatting the sky-hook all over the court.

And, as well as Wilt played Kareem, Thurmond was even better. In their three playoff series in the early 70's, Nate not only held Kareem nearly 10 points under his scoring average, he held him to series of .486, .405, and .428 shooting. And, as was the case with Wilt, these games occurred in Kareem's statistically prime seasons. Even players like 6-7 Unseld, and 6-9 Cowens gave Kareem more trouble than Hakeem or Ewing did.

There are MANY more examples. Wilt, himself, shot and scored much less against Russell. And, although he only had a handful of games against Thurmond in his "scoring" seasons, Nate held him below his scoring averages, as well (although, to be fair, Wilt generally dominated Thurmond in those years.)

But once again, thye bottom line in all of this, is the fact that, many here diminish the numbers of the players in the 60's, yet they don't acknowledge that there were forces at play, which hindered their shooting. Whether it was the rules that were in effect, or the courts, or the floors, or the baskets, or the balls, or, maybe, just maybe, the defense that was played...it definitely has to be considered.

So, when someone says that Oscar wouldn't average a triple-double in today's game...maybe not, and while his shot attempts would drop his...his efficiency would go up dramatically. He would have seasons of 55%...even higher in Jordan's 80's.

And those that criticize Wilt for his "lack of efficiency" in his "scoring" seasons, need to realize that much of his offense was taking place from 10-15 ft., and that he was being SWARMED by defenses, AND, the LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% was MUCH lower. His 50 ppg season came on .506 shooting, in a league that shot .426. His 45 ppg season came on .528 (then a record) in a league that shot .441. And his 33.5 ppg season came on .540 shooting, in a league that shot just .433. And, even with all of that, and the fact that he was an incredible volume shooter, his percentages compare favorably with Olajuwon and Robinson's BEST seasons...both of whom took far less shots, and in leagues that shot MUCH higher.

Furthermore, what about Chamberlain's "efficient" season's? My god, to average 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting, in a league that shot .441, and to beat out his nearest competitor by a .162 margin. Or, as in his last season, to shoot .727, in a league that shot .456, while beating out the next guy by a .157 margin. Those numbers are just mind-numbing! He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the ENTIRE league. No other player in NBA history has ever come CLOSE to beating their nearest competitor by those margins, nor to have blown away the league average by such astonishing amounts.

[emsteez forreal]

cliff notes: "i psyched them.. by being black"

[Yung D-Will]

Great read =X

[jongib369]

Awesome post

[jongib369]

In regard to shooting percentages, a few factors that I think contribute to the rise and fall of shooting percentages.

1) The Jump Shot - It really didn't become common until the 1950's. Joe Fulks is credited as one of the first to use it and he began playing after WWII in 1946, prior it was the one or two hand set shot and for decades basketball was a game played in the 20's and 30's with a lot of ball possession and patience before taking the shot, usually a set shot from 15-25 feet.

2) The Pace - Basically teams have an extra 7-10 possessions a quarter in the late 50's and the 1960's. They are playing a such a pace with the shot clock in effect trying to get a "good" shot before the defense sets up. This also explains why FT shooting has been so much more consistent. Players have time and can shoot a repetitive shot as oppose to the field goal which is always changing with the game around it.

3) Layups and Dunks - Once the goal tending rules came into effect, it took 8-10 years for players to fully start using them against shot blockers. Factor in the added athleticism of the players from the mid-70's on and leniency with dribbling rules and you see why shooting %'s went up and the number of fouls went down...which brings me to

4) Flagrant fouls. I've read from several players of the era that if a guy was scoring by getting inside, he was going to get leveled eventually if he kept attacking. Before they added flagrant fouls this was just a foul, one or two shots and the game goes on. Now it's a fine or suspension or at least a two shot and the ball foul which changes momentum. Hence more easy lay-ups and dunks and a higher FG%.

5) The Ball - Sometimes, usually it was round, but not always the same. It wasn't until 1970 that the 8 panel ball was introduced. If you've ever shot with a four panel ball, you'll see why this was such a dramatic improvement. Another minor factor initially may have been the laces in the ball. Until the 1940's that was still common. So some players from the 50's probably grew up shooting a ball with laces, hard to be consistent under those circumstances. We all remember what happened when the NBA changed the ball slightly a few seasons ago, imagine changes that big over 30 years.

See this is why I like coming on here...I didn't realize the paneling was different

[jongib369]

When I had the opportunity to speak with Russell the one basketball question I asked him was about his approach to blocking shots; understanding that you can only block and only challenge so many shots and also about blocking the ball softly to a team not and not out of bounds. I asked him why if he essentially invented the block shot why no on else improved on it since. (Like dribbling and shooting strategy which have greatly evolved)

He said it was because he had perfected it long before people even realized what he was doing. He said there is no better way to approach blocking shots and he knew that because he spent 15 years trying to think of one.

Damn, you got a chance to speak to him?

[TommyGriffin]

[QUOTE]Say I am standing next to a rookie who has just come into the game

[jongib369]

Damn, what brutal mind games.

I'm sure that was the PG version lmao...But you're right, I'd probably just laugh if he straight up said that.