Artis Gilmore was finally elected to the Hall of Fame yesterday. At this point, many NBA fans may not remember the A-Train. Gilmore last played NBA basketball in 1988, or 23 years ago (really…. 1988 was 23 years ago?). And although he played twelve seasons in the NBA, apparently it was for his work in the ABA – which hasn’t existed since 1976 (or 35 years ago) – that got Gilmore elected into the Hall of Fame (as ESPN.com note, Gilmore was elected by the Hall’s ABA committee).
Gilmore was certainly a very productive player in the ABA. As part of a research paper I am presenting this summer on the ABA, I have already measured performance of players in the ABA for the 1974-75 and 1975-76 seasons. And in these two years, Gilmore posted the following numbers:
- 1974-75: 23.7 Wins Produced, 0.326 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]
- 1975-76: 21.9 Wins Produced, 0.319 WP48
Gilmore’s Wins Produced mark in 1974-75 ranked 3rd in the ABA (behind Julius Erving and Moses Malone). And his mark in 1975-76 was only topped by Dr. J. So Gilmore was very good in the ABA.
When he moved to the NBA, though, he was also very good. The NBA started tracking all the data we need to measure Wins Produced in 1977-78 (the ABA started tracking all the data we need in 1973-74). And as the following table indicates, Gilmore – from 1977-78 to the end of his career in 1987-88 – was a very productive NBA player.
To put this performance in perspective, let’s compare Gilmore to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The following table details Kareem’s production of wins from 1977-78 to the end of his career in 1988-89.
Kareem was selected for the Hall of Fame in 1995. And it is easy to see why. Even in his 30s, Kareem was a very productive player.
But when we compare Kareem from 30-37 to Gilmore at the same age, we don’t see much difference. Kareem posted a 0.266 WP48 from age 30 to 37. At these same ages, Gilmore’s WP48 was 0.246.
And when we look at the individual stats, we can see that Gilmore offered more than Kareem with respect to shooting efficiency from the field, trips to the free throw line, and rebounds. Kareem did more when we look at blocked shots, assists, and personal fouls. But again, overall the two players were not very different in their 30s.
So why is Kareem considered one of the greatest NBA players of all time and Gilmore had to wait until he was 61 years of age to reach the Hall of Fame?
One possibility is that Kareem was probably a more productive player at his best than Gilmore was at his peak. But that is not the only difference.
Player evaluation in the NBA is driven by two factors. The first is scoring, and Kareem is the all-time leading scorer in NBA history. Meanwhile, Gilmore only averaged 17.1 points per game as an NBA player.
In addition to scoring, people tend to think players on winning teams are better than those on losers. In other words, people have trouble separating a player from his teammates (which is why we analyze player statistics in the first place). Until Gilmore’s last season in the NBA (where he played 86 playoff minutes with the Celtics), Gilmore never got past the second round of the NBA playoffs. In contrast, Kareem was part of six teams that won an NBA title.
Consequently – since scoring and winning drive perceptions – Kareem was an obvious choice for Hall of Fame voters. And Gilmore – whose production rivaled Kareem’s production in the NBA when each was in their 30s – had to sneak into the Hall of Fame via the ABA committee.
Let me close by noting that Stumbling on Wins offers a brief discussion of Gilmore and Kareem that focuses on the diminishing returns issue. Brief summary – even if we take diminishing returns into account, Gilmore was still a very productive NBA player. And now that career is finally going to be honored by the Hall of Fame.
- DJ
It’s a shame we don’t have all the data for some players like Kareem that I would include in the modern era. IMO, he’s the best C I ever saw.
Back in those days, I don’t even recall thinking much about Gilmore beyond knowing he was also very good. Great to hear you are doing some research on the old ABA.
Great article, Professor.
IS,
We have done some looking back to 1974 (unfortunately we can’t track all stats so more gets moved to team credit) and surprise surprise Kareem was amazing during those four years. That still leaves his first 4 years missing and he was scoring 30-15 lines back then. I agree on wanting more complete stats from historical data.
There is a simple explanation for this. Kareem stopped rebounding after 1980.
Re: Kareem “IMO, he’s the best C I ever saw. ”
Not sure how long you go back but Walton postdated Kareem and, speaking just of peak, I thought Walton was better.
Prior to that. I thought Russell was better and Wilt in his good years was better. Not sure about Shaq but I think you could make an argument Shaq was at least as good, and maybe better.
The one thing I don’t like about Kareem was his lack of versatility. You had to play a low-post offense if you had him. He couldn’t play anywhere except on the low block because he had no outside shot and he couldn’t put it on the floor.
“That still leaves his first 4 years missing and he was scoring 30-15 lines back then. :
I think it’s safe to say, aside from his rookie year when he had a little adjusting to do, his 2,3 and 4 years were comparable to the ones immediately after that. He was one of those guys who you wind up and they put up the same numbers year after year.
As a Raptors fan, they just lost to the Cavaliers
The entire post-game analysis (Raptors T.V. has th benefit of nation-wide coverage, 30 million people)……focused on Jerryd Bayless. The PPG mentality was through the roof.
Why do GM’s resist analysis. NBA = WWE
Now I’m watching Jay Triano fumble through an interview.
I hope that Demar will evolve to a better player.
What will it take to get our stuff together? Also, Lets Go Blue Jays
Kevin,
Perhaps Walton was slightly more productive than Kareem at their respective peaks, but Walton’s peak was relatively brief.
Walton’s career spanned 10 seasons, and he averaged about 46 games during each. Kareem played almost twice as long, more minutes per game, and about 50% more games per year.
Total career minutes:
Walton – 13250
Kareem – 57446
At what point does longevity and availablity take precedence?
kevin,
I did see Walton at his prime and thought he was also great for a short period of time.
This may be sacrilege, but I don’t consider Russel and Chamberlain to be part of the modern era. They played in an era when the shooting was atrocious compared to now (so it was easier to pile up rebounds) and there were fewer other big men. I don’t think you can compare their stats to the modern era players. They would not put up those numbers now.
I just randomly went to 1960. There were 5500 rebounds and 4800 missed shots at the league average.
I went to this year. There were 3200 rebounds and 3400 misses.
Do we see the problem with the rebound stats from that era?
The rebounding numbers between the eras can be resolved by referring to rebound percentage rather than totals, or even per 48 minutes.
When most analysts put up those numbers, they compare totals and that’s why those older numbers seem more impressive on paper.
Nick,
Players could be credited with more than 1 rebound per shot attempt. So the rebounding percentages can’t even be calculated for that era.
Off topic, but soon to be on topic.
It has been way longer than I care to admit since I took a probability class in college. This is probably a basic question, but I can’t remember how to do it.
If you can calculate the probability of each of two teams winning a game against each other (home or away), how do you calculate the probability of a best of 7 series when one team may have home advantage in the 7th game?
Nick,
I think marparker was making the salient point that there were more rebounds than missed shots, casting the reliability of box score stats from that era into doubt.
I’d long thought that Artis Gilmore, Adrian Dantley, and Sidney Moncrief were the 3 most deserving players who weren’t in the Hall of Fame. Adrian made it a couple years ago and now Artis is in. Hopefully Sidney’s time is coming soon.
Re: marparker and Philip above, that does seem like having more votes than voters. That’s something you’d have to clean up as part of a large-scale effort to compare those seasons.
http://deadspin.com/#!5786228/was-scott-howard-actually-better-than-teen-wolf-a-statistical-investigation
Playoff Calculations
This can be used as an example
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/postseason-odds/
Cotton Fitzsimmons was asked whether he could tell if Artis was going to have a good game. The reply, “Yes, when Artis catches the ball.”
@Kevin-
It seems like you never really watched Kareem. The insane aspect of his post game was that his Sky Hook was effective out to 15 feet. He did not have to be rooted in the paint in order to score. His hook, perhaps the most beautiful shot in NBA history (yes, I know, how could I possibly quantify that!) was effective from mid-range jumpshot territory. Here’s some video evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlB8X101kME
And he fought Bruce Lee :)
Greyberger,
How much footage is there of 1960s seasons?
This comment regarding Kareem was laughable:
“He couldn’t play anywhere except on the low block because he had no outside shot and he couldn’t put it on the floor.”
Uh… Every Center kevin listed as being better than Kareem had the same issue.
Russell – no shot from anywhere & couldn’t put it on the floor.
Wilt – the range on his jumper was less than or equal to the range of Kareem’s sky hook and he couldn’t put it on the floor, either.
Walton – ditto, when healthy.
Shaq – low block, couldn’t put it on the floor.
The only recent great centers that could face up & knockdown a jumper or put the ball on the floor were Robinson & Olajuwon.
Guess what coaches want their centers to do on offense? Catch the ball on the low block, turn & score. That’s it.
Pingback: WoW Network Podcast with Links and then More Links | The Wages of Wins Journal
I don’t get it, why is Kareem’s 1977-1978 WP48 listed as 0.438 in the paper(Calculating Wins Produced), but a much lower number
http://www.wagesofwins.com/CalculatingWinsProduced.html
Pingback: Dennis Rodman and Artis Gilmore: Two of the 50 Greatest NBA Players of All-Time? « Wages of Wins Journal
Pingback: The All-Time Spurs Team « Wages of Wins Journal