When Schedules Were Really Fierce!

As this continues to ebb and flow

Just another factor in the then and now debate, how many players of the 50's had second jobs during the off season to make ends meet? How many do now? How many had lucrative endorsment contracts back then?
and one final note ALL of the NBA players that played prior to 1963 had NO LEAGUE pension to fall back on when they retired at that time. And no idea if they would ever get one.

Just sayin.

beat

RE pensions

The NBA and the National Basketball Players Association, through collective bargaining, established the players pension plan in 1965 to cover players who participated in the league for at least three years in 1965 and beyond. In 1988 those parties agreed to extend benefits to the pre-1965 pioneers, but only those who had played in a minimum of five NBA seasons. This double standard for retired three and four year players has forced many of these pioneers to continue to work well into their 70s. The average player in the 1950s made less than $5,000 per year, while current players average over $2.2 million. Not many players could afford to play five years for only a few thousand dollars a year.

here is the whole piece

http://www.apbr.org/pension.html

beat

Outside, Swish, Beat et al,

It's interesting that I started this thread to discuss what I thought might be an interesting perspective on scheduling differences then and now. It had nothing to do with my personal experiences and nothing to do with statistics—but everything to do with hard "data" on schedules that I looked up (as anyone could have done).

As threads often do, this one took some understandable tangents, including an early one based on graphic data. I expressed a belief that the graphs didn't really accomplish their desired purpose of placing qualifiers on my initial claims. To date, not one soul has refuted the validity of my response, which used as partial proof insights into the very graphs in question.

So then the conversation ventured more into the area of opinion or belief. Language became what appeared to me to be a bit more slanted—involving the use of words such as "vastness" for instance. I responded with my own perspectives, some of which were admittedly based on personal experience (some associated with basketball, some associated with other factors such as the evolution of transportation in general).

I'm sorry if my having had personal experiences causes any concerns, although I wouldn't trade them for the world. Many posters over the years have shared personal experiences that have been totally foreign to me. I think there's a time to learn from others' experiences and a time to challenge them. Personally, I feel I have grown more by learning from them rather than trying to disprove them—whether it's 10-0 or 9-1 or whatever. As far as i'm concerned, they've had the experiences because (1) they say they've had the experiences, (2) they talk knowledgeably about the experiences, and (3) I don't immediately know of any reason why I should doubt them and am not motivated to go on a crusade to refute them.

Apparently, there may be a feeling in some quarters that, whenever I mention Celtics history, it evokes little more than yawns. (By the way, is this thread supposed to be proof of that conviction?) As I've told many board members privately, I make a concerted effort to monitor my mentions of the past very carefully. Anyone is welcome to go back over my posting history and cite (with provable accuracy) a statistic to the effect that as many as 5% of my posts have even a passing reference to the distant past.

It happens that I rather consistently receive support (some public, some private) for occasionally sharing some reflections on the past. Perhaps many of those supporters are just trying to make me feel good. I'll have to be more sensitive to that possibility in the future.

I have no desire to get into some pissing contest about who knows more about the Celtics, beginning with the advent of Bob Cousy. I'm certain that different kinds of experiences produce different perspectives. I've always felt comfortable that a combination of extensive, personal Celtics-related experiences throughout my twenties and thirties, and a vividly clear memory has stood me in pretty good stead.

As for the value of statistics in supporting claims, my only hard and fast rule, as a professional statistician, is that stats can be very useful if they can stand the test of validity. I've always been happy—heck, eager—to indulge in debates with statistics at the core.

Swish, you say I have voiced my opinion on this subject many, many times. Please note that my topic was schedules back in the 1960s. I don't believe I have discussed that topic many, many times. Yes, the subject mushroomed due to the inputs of many people, including yourself and not including me.

Maybe you want to revive the discussion you and I had about the 1986 Celtics versus practically any Celtics team of the early 1960s. Perhaps you finally have a rejoinder to the premise I suggested that had as its foundation the exact year in which a contest (or series) between the two eras might have occurred. Basically, I said that, whether the game or series occurred in the 1980s or the 1960s, the 1986 team would lose its biggest advantage (height) because that advantage was gained through evolution and conditioning—not through being superior practitioners of the game of basketball. My thinking was not based on personal experience or on stats. It was based purely on good old logic.

It's been months since that discussion, and I've never received a syllable of rebuttal from you or anyone else to that train of thought. I'm not quite sure whether your current intent is to invite more people to weigh in on the subject of this thread (schedules) or whether you want to restart the earlier discussion. Frankly, I waited long enough (in vain) for a response back then and would only be repeating myself in a reopening of that conversation.

I have no desire to belabor a topic that (being initiated at the belaboring stage) probably can end in no good except emotional rancor. The board collectively has this year's team to support and be concerned about, and I invite people to do so on our Game-on Threads. If everyone insists, we can dredge up that old topic again and I will participate, on the assumption that you're willing to bear the weight of any negative consequences solely on your shoulders.

Sam

sam wrote:I'm sorry if my having had personal experiences causes any concerns, although I wouldn't trade them for the world.

Sam, I certainly didn't mean to imply that your personal experiences with the team were a negative in any way, shape, or form. On the contrary, I am incredibly lucky that you share your experiences, and I enjoy your perspective on those experiences immensely.

My comment about your personal experiences wasn't meant to denigrate those experiences in any way but to instead pose the point that if we had someone with similar first-hand experiences with current players, they might be able to point out factors that we otherwise wouldn't be aware of, and that the lack of that counterbalancing first-hand experience skewed the argument toward your side. That seemed like a fair point to make, but perhaps I worded it poorly.

I presented my arguments, you didn't buy them, and that's okay. This isn't the first time I haven't convinced you and you haven't convinced me, and I doubt it will be the last. I found it fascinating that you wouldn't bend an inch, did my darnedest to get you to concede at least one point, but didn't succeed. Personally, I find discussions where people earnestly, intelligently, and respectfully disagree more interesting and illuminating. I'd much rather have you stick to your guns than concede a point just to make someone with an opposing view happy. You certainly don't have to walk on eggshells on my account.

And in case I was somehow unclear, I consider those occasions when you share your experiences with the Celtics and your historical perspective and insight on the game to be invaluable. The first-hand perspective of those early days that you provide (plus Spike, Swish, Rosalie, and anyone else I'm forgetting at the moment) is something I truly appreciate.

Outside

Outside,

I understood your intent and meaning. There's no question that someone with insights about current teams and players could very well add some balancing or even contradictory perspective on the matter. But, until such a person surfaces, I'm looking at an absence of convincing perspective of a balancing or contradictory nature.

One research adage is that nothing can ever really be proven. It is the repeated inability to disprove something that eventually results in the aura of proof. That's how I feel in this case. I'm not just being hard-headed in insisting on getting my way. I honestly haven't been confronted with any evidence that I feel lowers my "odds" to 9-1. For example, perhaps the charts really did a number on my initial claim. But I believe I demonstrated that they didn't, and I haven't had any rejoinders to the contrary.

I guess Swish thinks I'm just an inflexible zealot because I happen to have certain views on the Russell Celtics. But there's one thing that is often overlooked about someone who is considered an inflexible zealot:

Scary as it may seem, there is the possibility that such a person has earnestly challenged his own beliefs myriad times over all-too-many years and—despite having done so from varying perspectives (outsider, insider, statistician, researcher, fan, whatever)—has consistently failed to disprove his own opinion.

Perhaps such a person has a zealot-like appearance because, despite the repeated attempts of himself and others, he has been presented with no realistic alternative but to be totally confident in his assumption. Present me with a realistic alternative that isn't relatively easy to refute, and then we can talk about my altering my stance. If statistics refute the alternative, I can't help that. If my own personal experience refutes the alternative, I can't help that. If logic refutes the alternative, I can't help that. If more than one of the three factors refute the alternative, I REALLY can't help that. The only remaining option is to jolly people along to make them feel good, and I think that's an insult to those people.

Perhaps none of this makes sense to anyone but me. I can live very easily with that. The one thing I could not live with is compromising my own integrity, whether on a message board or in any other aspect of life.

All the best,

Sam