Good article. I n evaluating players, I personally stick to the stats (including advanced stats) and ignore accolades and all that. I also believe that cumulative achievement above average (aka, "quality longevity") is important. Finally, I believe that players should be compared primarily to others at the same position.
Some keys for an evaluation of Nance are: 1) How good do you think his defense was? 2) How much do you value defense in overall evaluation? 3) How much do you value offensive efficiency (ORtg), especially shooting efficiency and low turnovers. My answers: Nance was a very good defender according to DBPM & DWS and on film and by reputation; defense should be weighted heavily; and efficiency & ORtg should be weighted heavily (Nance was very efficient). All pluses for Nance.
Based on all that, a quick glance shows me that Nance's best comps are probably McHale, Webber, and going farther back, Bailey Howell. All played PF and are similar in MP (longevity), BPM/VORP, WS & WS/48, and PER, plus the traditional stats. (Webber is lower in WS & WS/48 because of poor shooting efficiency and high turnovers.) All 3 of those players are in the HOF, which doesn't mean Nance should be. But it does help Nance's case.
I'll push back on sticking only with stats. This implies our measures are perfect, or close to it, but we know they're not. This is especially true for older players for whom we don't even have basic stats like steals, blocks, and turnovers, much less anything that's derived from play-by-play data. I think contemporary opinions (which can be inferred from awards and honors) are an important piece of the puzzle.
I know that I'm in the minority on this issue, but I'll take stats over opinion, even expert opinion for a couple of reasons.
First, we do have all those stats you mentioned (except for play-by-play) for the past 50 years, when the vast majority of NBA players played (expansion is the main reason). Maybe 10 of the top 50 players of all-time are pre-1974, so we know those for 80% of the top players ever. And even for those pre-1974 players, we do have the key stats: PTS, TS%, REB, AST, MP.
Second, stats are hard numbers that are collected for each possession by trained statisticians. They're imperfect, but I trust them much more than I trust than I trust accolades or contemporary opinions. For example, I was just reading a news clipping of a player from the early 1960s who didn't vote for Wilt for MVP because "I just don't like the guy." What I love about sports is that it's not a popularity contest: there's a scoreboard that you can't influence or BS or gaslight. All the PR in the world won't change a L into a W.
As you know, defensive evaluation is much harder than offense. We do have DWS (I think that's your stat, right?) but as you know it's fuzzy based on a lot of assumptions before 1974. Even post-1974, defense is harder to evaluate on the individual level. After 1974, we have DBPM and more-recent D stats based on play-by-play, etc. Even with those, it's still difficult to judge defensive value for individual players, so I concede that adding in contemporary opinion is not optimal but likely necessary.
Good article. I n evaluating players, I personally stick to the stats (including advanced stats) and ignore accolades and all that. I also believe that cumulative achievement above average (aka, "quality longevity") is important. Finally, I believe that players should be compared primarily to others at the same position.
Some keys for an evaluation of Nance are: 1) How good do you think his defense was? 2) How much do you value defense in overall evaluation? 3) How much do you value offensive efficiency (ORtg), especially shooting efficiency and low turnovers. My answers: Nance was a very good defender according to DBPM & DWS and on film and by reputation; defense should be weighted heavily; and efficiency & ORtg should be weighted heavily (Nance was very efficient). All pluses for Nance.
Based on all that, a quick glance shows me that Nance's best comps are probably McHale, Webber, and going farther back, Bailey Howell. All played PF and are similar in MP (longevity), BPM/VORP, WS & WS/48, and PER, plus the traditional stats. (Webber is lower in WS & WS/48 because of poor shooting efficiency and high turnovers.) All 3 of those players are in the HOF, which doesn't mean Nance should be. But it does help Nance's case.
I'll push back on sticking only with stats. This implies our measures are perfect, or close to it, but we know they're not. This is especially true for older players for whom we don't even have basic stats like steals, blocks, and turnovers, much less anything that's derived from play-by-play data. I think contemporary opinions (which can be inferred from awards and honors) are an important piece of the puzzle.
I know that I'm in the minority on this issue, but I'll take stats over opinion, even expert opinion for a couple of reasons.
First, we do have all those stats you mentioned (except for play-by-play) for the past 50 years, when the vast majority of NBA players played (expansion is the main reason). Maybe 10 of the top 50 players of all-time are pre-1974, so we know those for 80% of the top players ever. And even for those pre-1974 players, we do have the key stats: PTS, TS%, REB, AST, MP.
Second, stats are hard numbers that are collected for each possession by trained statisticians. They're imperfect, but I trust them much more than I trust than I trust accolades or contemporary opinions. For example, I was just reading a news clipping of a player from the early 1960s who didn't vote for Wilt for MVP because "I just don't like the guy." What I love about sports is that it's not a popularity contest: there's a scoreboard that you can't influence or BS or gaslight. All the PR in the world won't change a L into a W.
As you know, defensive evaluation is much harder than offense. We do have DWS (I think that's your stat, right?) but as you know it's fuzzy based on a lot of assumptions before 1974. Even post-1974, defense is harder to evaluate on the individual level. After 1974, we have DBPM and more-recent D stats based on play-by-play, etc. Even with those, it's still difficult to judge defensive value for individual players, so I concede that adding in contemporary opinion is not optimal but likely necessary.