Could even the worst NBA player score 20 points if they shot as much as Kobe?

[Faptastrophe]

Today on Twitter I made the following assertion:

Take any random NBA player. Give them the green flag to shoot 20-30
shots a game. Not one turns it down and most will get 20+ PPG.

— Dre (@NerdNumbers (https://twitter.com/nerdnumbers)) October 9, 2012 (https://twitter.com/NerdNumbers/status/255804478194847744)

Being a wise person, @jon_e_nichols (https://twitter.com/jon_e_nichols) actually asked for proof on the subject. Of course, it’s unlikely that I’ll get most NBA teams to just start handing out 20-30 shots to every random player. But let’s have a fun thought experiment. Using 500 minutes as a cutoff, I went searching for some bad players. Last season the player with the worst TS% was Shawne Williams (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willish03.html) with 37.2%. If we then looked for the player with the worst free throws vs. field goal attempts we get Mike Miller (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millemi01.html) with 2%. Putting the two together we have a fun formula:

[True Shooting Percentage] = [Points] / (2 * ([FGA] + 0.44 * [FTA]))

or, with concrete numbers

0.372 = 20 / (2 * (X + 0.44 * 0.02 X))

Fun right? I’ll break it down. That’s actually the break down for True Shooting percentage. I’m solving for X. Here’s the breakdown. If a player had the worst shooting in the league (0.372 on the left) and got to the line the lowest in the league (the 0.02 on the right) then how many shots (X) would that player need to get to score 20 points. The answer? 26.6!

So there you have it. If a player can take 26.6 shots at the worst shooting rate in the league without ever getting to the line…they can still break 20 points per game! This is a formula another player figured out… (http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/08/missing-shots-where-allen-iverson-is-an-all-time-great/)

-Dre

Source. (http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/09/just-give-them-more-shots/)

[mattvNJ]

name the people u consider the worst players, play that scenario over in your head and you'll have your answer. No... mid-range and poor players yes, worst absolutely not.

[SyRyanYang]

Do you know some players only job is to defend?
Better put it this way: pick the best player from D-league and I'm sure he can score over 20

[red1]

Ben wallace couldn't score 20 points if you give him 200k and tell him meagan good will sukk his dikk. So no

[Heavincent]

Obviously not.

[Colbertnation64]

The guy that runs that twitter account has admitted that he doesn't even watch any games until the playoffs because he doesn't have cable. I couldn't care less about what he has to say about anything related to basketball.

[BlackVVaves]

Kobe's career average is 25 PPG on 45% shooting.

OP, how many guards/wing players in NBA history have a career average scoring as many or more points than Bryant on as good or better effeciency?

Edit: And has played in the NBA for at least 8 years.

[Legends66NBA7]

So Iverson had no place being considered an All-Star, All-NBA or MVP caliber player and even the worst NBA player can score 20 if you give them that many shots, huh ?

Well, whoever this Dre guy is, I shall put him on a list of people that I won't ever take his words seriously.

Oh, and he doesn't watch games come playoff time either ? Also more reasons to laugh and not take this guy serious.

[Colbertnation64]

So Iverson had no place being considered an All-Star, All-NBA or MVP caliber player and even the worst NBA player can score 20 if you give them that many shots, huh ?

Well, whoever this Dre guy is, I shall put him on a list of people that I won't ever take his words seriously.

Oh, and he doesn't watch games come playoff time either ? Also more reasons to laugh and not take this guy serious.
Found his exact tweet :lol :lol

https://twitter.com/NerdNumbers/status/252871892875239426

"I don't watch the games on a regular basis because I don't have cable. I'll wager I read more stats than 95% of fans."


How can anyone take that seriously?

[BlackVVaves]

So Iverson had no place being considered an All-Star, All-NBA or MVP caliber player and even the worst NBA player can score 20 if you give them that many shots, huh ?

Well, whoever this Dre guy is, I shall put him on a list of people that I won't ever take his words seriously.

Oh, and he doesn't watch games come playoff time either ? Also more reasons to laugh and not take this guy serious.

The logic behind that kind of inquiry is just :oldlol:

This Dre guy sounds like a joke. Shame on the OP for bringing this troll-esque reasoning to ISH. We have enough empty heads around here as it is.

[Heavincent]

You know what, this is one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen. kobe is one of the best scorers of all time, and you're telling me the worst player in the NBA could shoot the same amount of times as him and put up about the same production as a result?

That's beyond stupid. Is this is a joke thread or something?

[Legends66NBA7]

Found his exact tweet :lol :lol

https://twitter.com/NerdNumbers/status/252871892875239426

"I don't watch the games on a regular basis because I don't have cable. I'll wager I read more stats than 95% of fans."


How can anyone take that seriously?

The funniest part is, that I wager people who watch games on a regular basis might be have a knack for keeping the stats in their brain while watching and if not can check on them later... which is even more important because you can tell who actually had more impact on game by watching over reading a box score, because sometimes box score stats can be misleading.

Also, if he "reads more stats that 95% of fans", how the hell can't he not afford to stream games on his computer ? Or watch games of his phone ? I don't like fans like that who watch stats first and base a conclusion out of that, because now we get this talk about how Iverson isn't an all-time great and his accolades are phony. Call him overrated, fine. But it ticks me off how much these volume scores get shit on by over zealous stat watching fans.

He should also make another statment of stats, that if the worst NBA player took 40 shots a game, they could score 50ppg like Wilt. :facepalm

[jlip]

Don't know why it was necessary to include Kobe's name in the title, but on any given night probably 99% of the players in the league could score 20 points if they were given the opportunity to shoot at will. Now could the same number of players average 20ppg for a full 82 game season if given the green light to shoot? I'd say, No, but the % would still be high (i.e. 70ish%). My estimates are not scientific, but hopefully the point is clear.

I do think that points scored and ability to score are not necessarily the same though. IMO, if you take two all star caliber players who shoot roughly the same%, and one averages 25ppg while the other averages 30ppg the difference is rarely ability. It's the willingness to shoot.

[LT Ice Cream]

Yeah, totally. I'd put my money on Reggie Evans being able do it.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'm reading more about these tweets and check this out:

https://twitter.com/MIA_Heat_Index/status/255777283720245248

Yet, he's telling another dude on twitter to bet on it.

:oldlol:

[TheAesirsFinest]

The funniest part is, that I wager people who watch games on a regular basis might be have a knack for keeping the stats in their brain while watching and if not can check on them later... which is even more important because you can tell who actually had more impact on game by watching over reading a box score, because sometimes box score stats can be misleading.

Also, if he "reads more stats that 95% of fans", how the hell can't he not afford to stream games on his computer ? Or watch games of his phone ? I don't like fans like that who watch stats first and base a conclusion out of that, because now we get this talk about how Iverson isn't an all-time great and his accolades are phony. Call him overrated, fine. But it ticks me off how much these volume scores get shit on by over zealous stat watching fans.

He should also make another statment of stats, that if the worst NBA player took 40 shots a game, they could score 50ppg like Wilt. :facepalm

Seriously, **** people like that. The worst part about it is that they are often haughty about how they have "concrete arguments" in their stats. The reason arguments based on watching the games are supposedly invalid is the same one stat-heads' arguments ARE invalid: the game doesn't like being broken down into numbers.

It boggles my mind how people can actually believe the crap stats tell them. It's as if they've never even touched a basketball or watched a full NBA game, merely highlights.

[TheBigVeto]

Duh yes of course. Many people would score 82 in a game if they were given the opportunity to chuck as much as Kobe.

[RRR3]

Ben wallace couldn't score 20 points if you give him 200k and tell him meagan good will sukk his dikk. So no
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Bet he'd try harder than he ever had before though and take a shot everytime he touched the ball.

Then again, good chance he could get Meagan Good anyways. And surely Ben has had games where he scored 20.

[IGOTGAME]

name the people u consider the worst players, play that scenario over in your head and you'll have your answer. No... mid-range and poor players yes, worst absolutely not.

no they wouldn't. for one, they wouldn't be able to get off that many passable shots per game.

OP...do you really not see the flaw in your statistical analysis? did you take stats 101?

[Zedja]

nou.

[Smoke117]

The absolute worst players? No, but a lot could. A better gauge would be Allen Iverson. Here's a guy who once led the league in scoring averaging 31.4ppg averaging 27.8 shot attempts and there are people glorifying how amazing he was...:facepalm Do you realize how many players in the league could do that in the league in 2002 the year he did if they took 27.8 shots per game. He shot a .398%fg, .298%3pt, .489ts%, a .422efg%, I mean any all star guard in the league could have averaged 31.4ppg if he was chucking up 27.8 shots a game: Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Kobe, Vince etc. It's ludicrous how people just look at ppg or the flashy play but have no idea of efficiency or making the right play. They probably would have all done it a lot more efficiently too, hell Tracy and Kobe have and I don't see Ray Allen or Vince being any worse at it considering they are bigger and better shooters.

[Asukal]

You guys have to keep in mind, not everybody is a scorer. Given the the right opportunity and a hot hand then yes even the worst could manage 20 points in one game. :confusedshrug:

[shadow]

It's not just the number of shots, it's about shooting under pressure. Your average role player could probably do it but he'd need someone to create shots for him to remain decently efficient. AI's eff numbers suck on the surface but the fact is that if he was also the main guy creating looks for his team mates. Without him his team mates would probably be less effective as a whole, as with any other superstar.

[InspiredLebowski]

Anybody in the league? No. But the vast majority? Probably, a good 75% or so.

[Velocirap31]

There is a reason great players are given the green light to chuck up shots. They are simply the most likely to score at any given time compared to their teammates. If a player was shot chucking and wasn't the best player on the team, the coach would bench him.

[LakersReign]

Don't know why it was necessary to include Kobe's name in the title, but on any given night probably 99% of the players in the league could score 20 points if they were given the opportunity to shoot at will. Now could the same number of players average 20ppg for a full 82 game season if given the green light to shoot? I'd say, No, but the % would still be high (i.e. 70ish%). My estimates are not scientific, but hopefully the point is clear.

I do think that points scored and ability to score are not necessarily the same though. IMO, if you take two all star caliber players who shoot roughly the same%, and one averages 25ppg while the other averages 30ppg the difference is rarely ability. It's the willingness to shoot.

Just gotta love ISH, with their mindless sheep ISHoits, spouting ISHiotic nonsense:facepalm

Yeah Kobe's nothing special, just give him the ball and he just shotjacks. So....give ANYBODY else those same shots and they'll do exactly the same thing, with the exactly the same results. Just as ISHiotic as just slap ANYBODY in Kobe's spot, on a Lakers with Shaq and the Lakers still win
http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx150/cousin_e/OHDAMNLOL.gif

[BlackVVaves]

The absolute worst players? No, but a lot could. A better gauge would be Allen Iverson. Here's a guy who once led the league in scoring averaging 31.4ppg averaging 27.8 shot attempts and there are people glorifying how amazing he was...:facepalm Do you realize how many players in the league could do that in the league in 2002 the year he did if they took 27.8 shots per game. He shot a .398%fg, .298%3pt, .489ts%, a .422efg%, I mean any all star guard in the league could have averaged 31.4ppg if he was chucking up 27.8 shots a game: Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Kobe, Vince etc. It's ludicrous how people just look at ppg or the flashy play but have no idea of efficiency or making the right play. They probably would have all done it a lot more efficiently too, hell Tracy and Kobe have and I don't see Ray Allen or Vince being any worse at it considering they are bigger and better shooters.

This is the perfect case of statistical analysis void of context.

AI was an inefficient scorer. The question that should follow is, why was he inefficient, why did he have to take 28 shots a game. Basketball is not a vacuum; it's a highly dynamic entity, as is every sport outside of maybe baseball. Maybe. In this case, the reasoning is quite understanding: Iverson was a midget playing amongst giants, who was the ONLY individual on his team that the coaches, players, and fans could rely on to create offense, both for himself and others. He was the most capable on those Philly teams to put the ball in the basket, and that's why he averaged so many field goals per game. Because although he may only have a 40% chance on making that basket, it was more proficient to have the ball in his hands than Eric friggin Snow or Aaron Mckie. Or any of Philly's offensively incompetent bigs.

With that type of high player usage, with ENTIRE DEFENSES molded around a 6 foot player - because they literally did not have to worry for even one other player on those Philly teams offensively - AI's efficiency was bound to take a hit.

Try having some insight man, basketball was not born off of statistics and it has not evolved off of statistics. Stats are there to measure greatness, not explain it. Expand your peripheral, and start taking players and numbers into context.

[DJ Leon Smith]

Yes they could but you'd have to take out the variables of the player/team trying to win the game, the coach refusing to ever take the player out for poor shot selection, his teammates not caring/not being able to do anything about the amount of shots he takes, etc.

[ripthekik]

sometimes i wonder if these kids here play ball or not.
how about this, go play 5 on 5 at the gym. Jack up as much shots as you want, see if you can score 20 points. That is, before your teammates kick your ass out for shooting 20%.

Most other role players just can't create shots for themselves. It's not a simple statistics thing, where you transfer the shots to someone on their percentage. AI created his own shots. Now if you give it to a role player, they might not even be able to create their own shots. They end up jacking a shot that is half blocked, and they'll shoot a very low percentage.

Also, when you miss 4 in a row, how likely are you to keep shooting and embarassing yourself, even if you can eventually reach 20?

Not to mention, EVEN IF you can reach 20... your team probably lost a long time ago.

[BoutPractice]

Of course. Scalabrine could score 20 points a game if that was your only goal. Theoretically, you could just give him the ball every trip down the court, run every play for him... he'd get his 20 eventually.

But it would be at the expense of the team. He would have tons of turnovers, a terrible percentage, and even more terrible advanced stats.

Final score might even be 100 to 20 in the worst cases.

[Figlo]

Mike James

[Overdrive]

Basically yes, aslong as the player hits atleast 33.3% of his 2pt FGs and 22.2% of his 3pt FGs and 66,6% of his FTs, but as others said that would mean that the player has no one to influence him from the outside.

The PG/other players would have to hand him the ball atleast 30 times and obviously that player isn't good at shot creation or even spot up shooting, so why should it be done? It would kill the team chemistry. The coach wouldn't allow this and the team would only lose.

Aside from that: How many minutes would it take for said player to get up those 30 shots. A game consists, if not for some high speed offense, of 60-70 shots per game. So that player to take half of those shots has to play huge minutes and command every second shot. So I think it's harder to get said player those 30 shots than to make a third of them fall.

The difference between this hypothetical player and Kobe Bryant is that Kobe hits his shot with good enough efficiency. He's not Wilt Chamberlain efficient, but he gets trashed for his shooting % by alot of people while Ray Allen, having no better % overall and scoring less gets praised as basically the best shooter ever.

[INDI]

[QUOTE=Faptastrophe]Today on Twitter I made the following assertion:


Being a wise person, @jon_e_nichols (https://twitter.com/jon_e_nichols) actually asked for proof on the subject. Of course, it

[upside24]

Found his exact tweet :lol :lol

https://twitter.com/NerdNumbers/status/252871892875239426

"I don't watch the games on a regular basis because I don't have cable. I'll wager I read more stats than 95% of fans."


How can anyone take that seriously?
:lol

[TheMarkMadsen]

This is the dumbest thread on ISH right now.

You'd think some people have no idea how basketball works.

This question was answered in like 6th grade

[longtime lurker]

Yes Steve Blake could hit 20 points given that he takes enough shots. Jesus this site is full of idiots. For the people saying yes to this question have u ever even played a basketball game or watched one?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Thats terrible logic. Could they? Yes. Will they without fail? No. Tell a crappy player to go out and score 20 and his FG% will plummet. He might have a good game and score 20, he might not and shoot 1 for 26. Reality is a harsh place.

[The Iron Fist]

why did they use Kobe as the standard when Lebron shoots more per game?

[AlphaWolf24]

NO..but the worst player could join Wade and Bosh and still win a Title...

[jjayfive]

Today on Twitter I made the following assertion:


Being a wise person, @jon_e_nichols (https://twitter.com/jon_e_nichols) actually asked for proof on the subject. Of course, it’s unlikely that I’ll get most NBA teams to just start handing out 20-30 shots to every random player. But let’s have a fun thought experiment. Using 500 minutes as a cutoff, I went searching for some bad players. Last season the player with the worst TS% was Shawne Williams (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willish03.html) with 37.2%. If we then looked for the player with the worst free throws vs. field goal attempts we get Mike Miller (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millemi01.html) with 2%. Putting the two together we have a fun formula:

[True Shooting Percentage] = [Points] / (2 * ([FGA] + 0.44 * [FTA]))

or, with concrete numbers

0.372 = 20 / (2 * (X + 0.44 * 0.02 X))

Fun right? I’ll break it down. That’s actually the break down for True Shooting percentage. I’m solving for X. Here’s the breakdown. If a player had the worst shooting in the league (0.372 on the left) and got to the line the lowest in the league (the 0.02 on the right) then how many shots (X) would that player need to get to score 20 points. The answer? 26.6!

So there you have it. If a player can take 26.6 shots at the worst shooting rate in the league without ever getting to the line…they can still break 20 points per game! This is a formula another player figured out… (http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/08/missing-shots-where-allen-iverson-is-an-all-time-great/)

-Dre

Source. (http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/09/just-give-them-more-shots/)


unfortunately, organized basketball doesn't work this way... it's easier going down the court and chucking up shots than running a system.. most average players in the NBA can not create their own shots... The worse players can't even get 20 shots up... there are more variables than just shooting percentage... I'm assuming you don't play basketball...

[Myth]

I would love to watch Joel Anthony shoot 23 shots a game. :oldlol:

[Owl]

This is the perfect case of statistical analysis void of context.

AI was an inefficient scorer. The question that should follow is, why was he inefficient, why did he have to take 28 shots a game. Basketball is not a vacuum; it's a highly dynamic entity, as is every sport outside of maybe baseball. Maybe. In this case, the reasoning is quite understanding: Iverson was a midget playing amongst giants, who was the ONLY individual on his team that the coaches, players, and fans could rely on to create offense, both for himself and others. He was the most capable on those Philly teams to put the ball in the basket, and that's why he averaged so many field goals per game. Because although he may only have a 40% chance on making that basket, it was more proficient to have the ball in his hands than Eric friggin Snow or Aaron Mckie. Or any of Philly's offensively incompetent bigs.

With that type of high player usage, with ENTIRE DEFENSES molded around a 6 foot player - because they literally did not have to worry for even one other player on those Philly teams offensively - AI's efficiency was bound to take a hit.

Try having some insight man, basketball was not born off of statistics and it has not evolved off of statistics. Stats are there to measure greatness, not explain it. Expand your peripheral, and start taking players and numbers into context.
Your explanation fits for why he shot that much in that season. But then you have to ask whether the reason a team was built around him with non-shot creator defenders was because he couldn't co-exist with shot creators. AI played with the likes of Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other solid scorers like Corliss Williamson and Clarence Weatherspoon. Those teams didn't contend at all and those players generally couldn't co-exist with Iverson. Later on (when he was older) he played well with Carmelo when it was clear he wasn't the first option or the star, but through his prime you do have to at least look at why Iverson played better with defensive oriented players who shot less (but at solid %s). This is not, of course, to assert that Iverson had no value (see below).

The main flaw with Dre (the author quoted in OP)'s argument is the implication that shot creation has no value. Because he has overstated his case he opened himself to ridicule. His taking the worst ts% and worst ability to draw fouls ignores the increase in defensive attention payed to such players. If a player who already shoots badly anyway is forced to create his own shot much more, with tighter defense and has to take shots late in the clock then their efficiency will tumble even further.

If you ignore the implication (central in Wages of Wins based analyses) that shot creation has no value, the point being made that it's not that hard to up your ppg by taking more/bad shots is a reasonable one.

[lilgodfather1]

I could score 20ppg if you gave me 30 shots per game... My team would go 0-82, I would have0 assists, but i'd be a 20ppg scorer for damn sure.

[DatAsh]

I'm not so sure this hypothetical player would be getting all that much more defensive attention. Why would you double a guy who's shooting 30 shots a game at 33%? Opposing teams should be encouraging him to shoot more, not less.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Your explanation fits for why he shot that much in that season. But then you have to ask whether the reason a team was built around him with non-shot creator defenders was because he couldn't co-exist with shot creators. AI played with the likes of Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other solid scorers like Corliss Williamson and Clarence Weatherspoon. Those teams didn't contend at all and those players generally couldn't co-exist with Iverson. Later on (when he was older) he played well with Carmelo when it was clear he wasn't the first option or the star, but through his prime you do have to at least look at why Iverson played better with defensive oriented players who shot less (but at solid %s). This is not, of course, to assert that Iverson had no value (see below).

The main flaw with Dre (the author quoted in OP)'s argument is the implication that shot creation has no value. Because he has overstated his case he opened himself to ridicule. His taking the worst ts% and worst ability to draw fouls ignores the increase in defensive attention payed to such players. If a player who already shoots badly anyway is forced to create his own shot much more, with tighter defense and has to take shots late in the clock then their efficiency will tumble even further.

If you ignore the implication (central in Wages of Wins based analyses) that shot creation has no value, the point being made that it's not that hard to up your ppg by taking more/bad shots is a reasonable one.
Lol, watch out now. If all those players were on the same team they would barely make the playoffs.

[9erempiree]

Impossible.

The worst player in the league will not average Kobe's stats if he shot as much as Kobe.

The worst player in the league would not even be able to get a shot off. After getting 5 shots off the coach would just yank him. It's not just shooting as much as you can, it's also be able to get your shot off and we know Kobe has the most moves and ways in his arsenal.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I hate this kind of idiotic shit. The worst NBA player probably couldn't get 20 to 30 shots up per game without getting them smacked back into his face. If he did they likely wouldn't be good shots with a decent chance to go in. There is a reason guys like Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc. get paid the big bucks. They are able to create their own shot and get good looks at the hoop for themselves and their teammates. They caan do this within the flow of the game and they give their team a great chance to win. If the worst NBA players were able to do that, they would.

Whoever came up with this theory is as dumb as a box of rocks and knows f**k-all about basketball.

[LakersReign]

Yep. Give Kendrick Perkins the same amount of shots and he can score as much or the same as Kobe. Then they wanna turn right around and get mad when reasonable NBA fans don't take a thing they say seriously:roll:

[jstern]

Probably not, and at a much worst percentage. But it reminds me of something that I think about a lot, how lets say big name rookies get that opportunity to play good minutes, and develop their games, and that's something that the worst players never get to. So I wonder if there could be some surprise if in some alternate universe all mediocre player got that chance to play big minutes and learn. (Not a league where all the mediocre players got to play big minutes, but many different alternative universe where every one got to.) They should at least be a little better than their bench warming self.

[blablabla]

Have you ever played basketball OP

[fpliii]

not on topic, but note that TS% won't remain constant with an increase in touches, so you can't just scale PPG linearly

diminished returns and all that jazz

[97 bulls]

Lol, watch out now. If all those players were on the same team they would barely make the playoffs.
Maybe they weren't great players at the time theyr joined Iverson, but they were pretty damn good for the most part.

[97 bulls]

I noticed something about most of the posters in this thread. All of their theories revolve around isolation and then kick outs. There's so many ways players can score. Whether it be in the post, picks, screens, off the ball, fast break, the three pointer.


The key is the offense. And the work ethic of the player. As well as POLITICS. I can't tell you how many players I've seen lose out on a position due to someone else being more popular. But not neccessarily better.

As another poster mentioned a lot of a players situation is based on status. And economics. A players that's drafted high is gonna get every opportunity to be a star. Mainly due to the politcs and financial obligation the players team is responsible for to that player.


There is no big obligation on "12th men" most of their contracts aren't guaranteed. I think the landscape of the NBA would be so different if all players were paid equally.

I do feel every NBA caliber player is capable of scoring 15-20 ppg if given a fair opportunity.