Assuming .565 of 43.7 FG are assisted, that's another 17.8% added to everyone's 2009 assist rates. So a 7.7 APG player from 2009 could be a 9 APG guy in 1969. Assuming, perhaps, that he took his scorekeeper along on the time machine.

There were 7 players over 7.7 APG this season.

I'd also suppose a guy who gets 25 PPG with a high TS% would get more shots (and more points) than the guy who scores 25 with lower TS%, when put into the same environment.

How do you account for unknown opponent rebounds in 1969?

What about fewer assists (per made FG) in the '60s? Any adjustment for that?

Yay, progress.

Was it poor shot selection? Were star player usages lower back then, meaning the best scoring options weren't taking a high enough percentage of the shots? Was the game so physical that making a shot was a more difficult proposition? Were the skills or strategies to score over defenses still in a developmental stage and not reliable yet (that might account for why teams tried to shoot early in the clock)? My memory only goes back to the '80s (the late 80's at that), and when I talk to older guys, they never really have an answer for me. In fact they're usually pretty shocked to find out the FG% disparity exists at all.

Also, strictly out of fan-geek curiosity, could you average the numbers in multiple seasons to create a more general neutral environment? Would the usefulness of the data hold up when using cumulative league and player seasons? It would be interesting if we could take a long (say 50 season span) and use that to equalize any player seasons (or ranges of player seasons) for one to one comparison. If so that might be sort of a golden goose - sort of an opposite approach to all the metrics that try to measure players from disparate eras against each other by breaking down the box-score stats by estimated possessions.