NBA Dog Days
Posted Aug. 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm by Mike SeelyFor reasons that will become clear within the space of about a week, I've been doing a bit of research on the career of former Washington Bullet off-guard Phil Chenier, who was a ringer for Walt Frazier in the mid-70s—and almost as good a player. In the course of my online travels, I came across this piece on Chenier, which contains the shocking revelation (to me, at least) that when the Bullets beat the Sonics in the '78 Finals, they had to play a 1-2-2-1-1 home and away format. Why? There was a previously scheduled mobile home show at one of the arenas. That's right: the NBA had to work around a mobile home show during its biggest showcase of the year. For anyone who thinks the sport is at some sort of nadir, please bear this in mind.
Researching Chenier also reminded me how fucking incredible Elvin Hayes was in his day (and how incredibly fucking stupid the Rockets were to trade him to the then-Baltimore Bullets). Which reminds us that maybe it's not such a foregone conclusion that Tim Duncan is the best power forward to ever play the game, which became a common refrain throughout the course of last year's playoffs. With apologies to Karl Malone, who never won a ring and whose rookie season was nowhere near as impressive as that of either Duncan or Hayes, consider TD's and Big E's respective cumulative averages over their first six seasons. Duncan: a staggering 22.8 points and 12.3 rebounds. But Hayes? 25.4 & 16.3. Take that, Timmy — and let's re-open the debate.
Topics: Media
Comments
Hayes was very good, great even. Duncan is still better...and by a lot. Really. Shrug.
Posted Aug. 15, 2007 at 10:54 am by hurm66Just looking at points and total rebounds does not give the full picture. Here's some more in depth analysis:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=1&p1=duncati01&y1=2003&p2=hayesel01&y2=1974
Looking at player efficiency rating (PER), Duncan outdoes Hayes 24.9 to18.6 They are about dead even on points/48 min. Hayes has more rebounds/48, but if David Robinson was his teammate, do you think he'd grab as many boards as Duncan? Duncan also has better FG%, FT%, and assists/48. Steals and blocks are about a wash. And for titles, Duncan outdoes Hayes 2-0. I'll take Duncan over Hayes ten times out of ten.
Posted Aug. 15, 2007 at 10:56 am by look at the statsWhen comparing players, we must be careful in the rebounding department. Keep in mind, there were a lot more shots going up in the 60's and 70's than there are today. It was very common for the league leader to average 20 plus rebounds. It is a better gauge to determine what percentage of his team's rebounds each player had.
Posted Aug. 15, 2007 at 12:17 pm by LchittamsThe late '70s really were the dark ages of NBA basketball. As a lifelong Washingtonian that hurts. But the facts are the facts. With Portland winning the brass ring in 1977 and the Supes in the Finals in 1978 and 1979 the league hit rock bottom in terms of national interest.
Posted Aug. 15, 2007 at 6:27 pm by Don WardYet another reason why league executives must have been popping antacid with the selections of Oden and Duran going to Seattle and the Trailblazers.
I was a kid in Washington in the 70s too — but I never knew that about the mobile home show.
I liked Chenier and I liked Elvin Hayes. Both of them were jump shooters, though, and that was a weakness of Elvin's, he didn't post up or roll to the hoop like Duncan and Mailman do/did. 45% FG shooting is not outstanding for a power forward. He was a great physical specimen, he could run. And don't discount Elvin's rebounding figures based on who he played alongside, which was Wes Unseld with the Bullets.
Posted Aug. 16, 2007 at 9:26 am by JBJ