Top 40 scorers - only 7 shooting over 50 percent

[Elosha]

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/scoring-per-game/sort/avgPoints/year/2016/seasontype/2

Out of the NBA's top 40 leaders in scoring per game, only 7 are shooting fifty percent or better. The best is Andre Drummond at "only" 51.7%. 7/40 is 17.5%

What, if anything, does this tell us about the state of the game?

Does this imply that top scoring players are more perimeter oriented in general? And perhaps so focused on threes, that their overall FG percentage may seem lower than expected, despite perhaps greater offensive efficiency?

Do today's top scorers get fewer easy transitional buckets than in the past?

What does this imply as to the state of the mid-range and in between game? Are top scorers less versatile and skilled in their repertoire?

Do these numbers suggest overall better defensive scouting, schemes and individual success against high scorers than in the past?

Is this an aberration, or can we expect to see similar numbers in the future?

Does the relative lack of high scoring/high FG percentage big men (4's and 5's) concern you? Is the NBA/basketball in general shooting itself in the foot by failing to teach big men traditional post moves?


Let's have some decent, rational thoughts in this thread. For once. Discuss.

[Marchesk]

How does that compare to past eras, though?

Did significantly more top 40 scorers shoot over 50 percent in the 80s, for example?

[Elosha]

How does that compare to past eras, though?

Did significantly more top 40 scorers shoot over 50 percent in the 80s, for example?

I just randomly chose the 87-88 season, and looked at only the top 20 scorers. 11/20 shot over 50 percent. That's 55% of the players shooting over 50%.

In addition, their overall percentage was much higher than today's scorers. McKale shot over 60%. Barkely was close to 58%. Jordan was 53.5%. Overall a very marked and drastic difference in quality and quantity.

It's clunky but you can do these comparisons to 87-88 season here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1988_per_game.html

and

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1988_leaders.html

[rapker]

Didn't really look into the individual statistics in detail - had a quick glance, but here's what I think about the current state of FG%.

It comes down to big men stretching their distance to the three point territory. Big men shooting threes are becoming a "normal" thing now. Back then, the bigs focused on their paint area, footwork, post-ups, and only scoring from the paint territory - they were the muscles of the team.

From what I can remember, since Nowitzki (and maybe Rasheed Wallace too), a lot of the big men are starting to practice their 3 point shooting, attempting to expand their game, stretching their "comfort zones" (i.e. Bosh, AD, Cousins, Love, Ibaka, Draymond). and obviously, with their bigger sized hands, threes are not as easily managed relatively in comparison to smaller players.. and therefore the overall FG% is tanking with this big men shooting threes mentality.

[3ball]

Out of the NBA's top 40 leaders in scoring per game, only 7 are shooting fifty percent or better.

Does this imply that top scoring players are more perimeter oriented in general? And perhaps so focused on threes, that their overall FG percentage may seem lower than expected, despite perhaps greater offensive efficiency?


There - that's it - you just stated the reasons for FG%

Teams average 24 threes per game, which constitutes nearly 30% of the shots taken - compare that to the 80's, when 3-pointers constituted 3% of the shots taken.

So it's a pretty simple, easily calculated answer - and not thread worthy.





Do today's top scorers get fewer easy transitional buckets than in the past?


It's funny that the NBA has provided data on fast break points on their website, which answers your question, yet you make a thread about it.

Then I have to come on here and post the actual information to inform you and everyone itt.. But somehow I'll be called irrational for posting STATISTICS:

League leader in Fast Break Points 1997 (http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/misc/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PTS_FB&dir=1): Toronto Raptors 17.5%

In 2016, there are 3 teams that are higher than the 1997 Raptors (GSW, WAS, OKC).. So there's your answer - teams get more points in transition today than the late 90's.

[Elosha]

There - that's it - you just stated the reasons for FG%

Teams average 24 threes per game, which constitutes nearly 30% of the shots taken - compare that to the 80's, when 3-pointers constituted 3% of the shots taken.

So it's a pretty simple, easily calculated answer - and not thread worthy.



It's funny that the NBA has provided data on fast break points on their website, which answers your question, yet you make a thread about it.

Then I have to come on here and post the actual information to inform you and everyone itt.. But somehow I'll be called irrational for posting STATISTICS:

League leader in Fast Break Points 1997 (http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/misc/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PTS_FB&dir=1): Toronto Raptors 17.5%

In 2016, there are 3 teams that are higher than the 1997 Raptors (GSW, WAS, OKC).. So there's your answer - teams get more points in transition today than the late 90's.

90% of what comes out of your mouth isn't threadworthy. But I usually try to focus on what constructively can be gleaned from you. You would be wise to follow suit. Obviously three point shooting is a big part, as I acknowledge. But it isn't by any means the sole indicating factor.

[3ball]

90% of what comes out of your mouth isn't threadworthy. But I usually try to focus on what constructively can be gleaned from you. You would be wise to follow suit. Obviously three point shooting is a big part, as I acknowledge. But it isn't by any means the sole indicating factor.
What can I glean from you?... Seriously - what have you ever showed me in any thread like I just showed you in post #5..

And what hoops knowledge do you have that I don't have 10 fold??... You only have erroneous misperceptions about the game, which I don't need.. But go ahead - tell me what you know that I don't.. You go first... then i'll go..

Also, it's mathematical fact that 3-point shooting is MOST of the reason for the FG%...

Again, 30% of today's shots are 3-pointers, compared to 3% in the 80's - so unless you can't do math, you should know that it's mathematical fact that this type of huge discrepancy is most of the reason.

[Im Still Ballin]

More perimeter scorers

/

[CavaliersFTW]

It means there are no dominant big man scorers. In the past there were. /thread.

[3ball]

More perimeter scorers

/

Interesting observation.. I wonder what the NBA has to say about it


http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html


NBA.COM: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

NBA: Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.


NBA.COM: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

NBA: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim.


NBA.COM: From an Xs and Os perspective, how have coaches adjusted to a more wide-open game? What have they done differently?

NBA: Coaches have utilized more space on the floor so to create more room for dribble penetration, two-man pick-and-roll basketball and dribble exchanges on the perimeter.


NBA.COM: When you watch the game today, does it closely resemble an international game or are there still distinct differences in the style of play?

NBA: Our game does more closely resemble an international game in terms of the style of play than it used to. However, there are distinct differences in the international game vs. the NBA game. The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.


There it is in black and white (and red).. :confusedshrug:
.

[dhsilv]

There are two drivers here.

The first is the use of zone which greatly nurfs the traditional post player. Teams can simply prevent the ball getting into a post player in ideal conditions which is limiting post play. This means post players who are great get the ball in less optimal positions and shoot worse.

Additionally, elite players shoot more 3's. Even those who perhaps should do it less. The 3 has become a huge part of creating better offenses and sometimes a player just has to be seen as a threat and thus shoot them to create the spacing needed.

The final factor is minor but players have gone to understand the value of getting fouled a bit more. Sure the flop kings like stockton and malone did it too, but there are some smarter guys with it today. They dont' get the call 100% of the time.

I'm sure if you look at TS% you'll see today's players are doing very well.

Also there are just less high volume scorers today. As a percentage of poitns the top guys score less today. The game today is far more of a team game and as we all know it's a better game.

[3ball]

Interesting observation.. I wonder what the NBA has to say about it:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html


As the article above shows (pasted into post #10 above) - the NBA officially stated that the rule changes worked as planned to increase penetration.


There it is in black and white (and red).. :confusedshrug:


Here's the main takeaway - with penetration becoming easier and 3-point shooting being better, drive-and-kick has SURPASSED post-ups as the most efficient option - but post play ITSELF hasn't become less efficient - we know this because today's best post players still achieve elite PPP on the post (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Time) (and they're inferior post players to previous eras).

More importantly, it's a mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.. This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick worthwhile, we can say with certainty that many of today's elite players would be lesser players back then - their 3-and-D skill sets exclude elite ability in any of the aforementioned areas.

[dhsilv]

It means there are no dominant big man scorers. In the past there were. /thread.

the lack of a "why" here is rather sad....but we lack great posts here too so I guess you made that point.

[Elosha]

What can I glean from you?... Seriously - what have you ever showed me in any thread like I just showed you in post #5..

And what hoops knowledge do you have that I don't have 10 fold??... You only have erroneous misperceptions about the game, which I don't need.. But go ahead - tell me what you know that I don't.. You go first... then i'll go..

Also, it's mathematical fact that 3-point shooting is MOST of the reason for the FG%...

Again, 30% of today's shots are 3-pointers, compared to 3% in the 80's - so unless you can't do math, you should know that it's mathematical fact that this type of huge discrepancy is most of the reason.

Well let's see. I know I've watched basketball far longer than you. I know your often unbalanced and increasingly repetitive posts indicate personality problems, perhaps mild disorders. I see a kernel of usefulness now and then from you, but it's often distorted and easy to overlook given your tone and blindness to any perception but your own.

For instance, to easily rebut your point, there are bigs like the Gasol brothers Anthony Davis, and Okafur, who take virtually no threes yet still shoot below 50 percent. Yet all three are considered some of the most skilled bigs in the game. Obviously something is going on here besides just three pointers. Also, it's amazing how few bigs can shoot well overall or even enter the leading scorers list. The only elite big man scorer is Cousins. He only takes 3.5 threes per 20.5 shots per game, yet he still only hit 45% FG overall. So this isn't a case where these elite bigs are being dragged down by the 3 point percentages. Other factors obviously come into play.

If you cannot approach this question with more than one perception- 3 point shooting - then so be it. No need to parrot yourself anymore. But I know you will, replete with your usual insults. And then I will have to decide if you'll be the first poster I ever put on my ignore list.

[3ball]

:rolleyes:

[3ball]

There are two drivers here.

The first is the use of zone which greatly nurfs the traditional post player. Teams can simply prevent the ball getting into a post player in ideal conditions which is limiting post play. This means post players who are great get the ball in less optimal positions and shoot worse.


This is a massive misconception by the dumb media - but here's the reality - it's a mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.. This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick worthwhile, we can say with certainty that many of today's elite players would be lesser players back then - their 3-and-D skill sets exclude elite ability in any of the aforementioned areas.

Another way we know that post efficiency hasn't declined is because today's best post players still achieve elite PPP on the post (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Time) (and they're inferior post players to previous eras).
.

[3ball]

For instance, to easily rebut your point, there are bigs like the Gasol brothers Anthony Davis, and Okafur, who take virtually no threes yet still shoot below 50 percent. Yet all three are considered some of the most skilled bigs in the game. Obviously something is going on here besides just three pointers. Also, it's amazing how few bigs can shoot well overall or even enter the leading scorers list. The only elite big man scorer is Cousins.


You haven't watched the game longer than me, unless you're really old.

Also, none of the guys you mentioned hold a candle to Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Parish, Sampson, Sikma, and more - these guys all learned post fundamentals, footwork, and developed great touch from an early age.

This happened because coaches sent them to the post from their very first practice, as opposed to today's coach that wants them to engage in screen rolls and shoot 3's.. So today's player doesn't have the post fundamentals, footwork or touch that previous eras had.

So there's your answer - today's post player simply isn't as good, because they're practicing 3-pointers half the time (cousins) and don't work on their post game as much as previous players when they're coming up (Davis, and basically all post players).
.

[3ball]

Teams can simply prevent the ball getting into a post player in ideal conditions which is limiting post play.


Doubling the post before the ball gets there is an extremely obvious move that leaves someone wide open - it prevents a post player from catching it, but that's only a consideration in today's game because the spacing gives players too much time and room to operate once they catch it... The spacing and further distance of help defenders makes today's post players too dangerous when they catch the ball.

Otoh, when there isn't spacing and help defense is much closer, a team is better off NOT compromising their defense by doubling early and leaving someone wide open.. The lack of spacing made previous eras better-equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Btw, when a post player is doubled without the ball in today's game, it's usually a halfway double, which is the same distance a help defender would be if there was no spacing...
.

[Elosha]

You haven't watched the game longer than me, unless you're really old.

Also, none of the guys you mentioned hold a candle to Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Parish, Sampson, Sikma, and more - these guys all learned post fundamentals, footwork, and developed great touch that today's player doesn't have.

So there's your answer - today's post player simply isn't as good, because they're practicing 3-pointers half the time (cousins) and don't work on their post game as much as previous players when they're coming up (Davis, and basically all post players).
.

See, that is an actually decent and relatively constructive post. I knew you could do it. Give yourself a hand. :applause:

I agree that 3 pointer volume and overall eroding big man skills are the main driving factors. But when you see 7/40 shooting over 50%, it puts the matter into stark perspective. The bottom line is that today's best scorers miss a lot more often than previous generations. The three or lay up mantra today in the name of efficiency is eroding basic basketball skills developed over many generations.

[dhsilv]

See, that is an actually decent and relatively constructive post. I knew you could do it. Give yourself a hand. :applause:

I agree that 3 pointer volume and overall eroding big man skills are the main driving factors. But when you see 7/40 shooting over 50%, it puts the matter into stark perspective. The bottom line is that today's best scorers miss a lot more often than previous generations. The three or lay up mantra today in the name of efficiency is eroding basic basketball skills developed over many generations.

3ball hasn't watched the nba by his own statements since 2011, he has no idea what he's talking about. You apparently are the same...?

[3ball]

See, that is an actually decent and relatively constructive post. I knew you could do it. Give yourself a hand. :applause:


Dude, stfu - I've been setting you straight the entire thread, starting with post #5, where I proved to you that they fastbreak more NOW, than they did in the late 90's.

I already knew this - but if I stated it without proving it with the stats, you'd say I didn't know what I was talking about..

But the reality is that all i DO is post stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12088374&postcount=10) proving my point... over and over and over again, in virtually every thread... you're just annoyed that I can prove my points with stats all day, while you have to just state your opinion and hope it's right.. this isn't the first thread that I've handed you your ass.

[Elosha]

Dude, stfu - your OP is a massive sign saying "I have a shallow understanding of the game"

And I've been setting you straight the entire thread, starting with post #5, where I proved to you that they fastbreak more NOW, than they did in the late 90's.

I already knew this - but if I stated it without proving it with the stats, you'd have said I didn't know what I was talking about..

But the reality is that all i DO is post stats proving my point... over and over and over again, in virtually every thread... you're just annoyed that I can prove my points with stats all day, while you have to just state your opinion and hope it's right.. this isn't the first thread that I've handed you your ass.

See I knew you couldn't stop parroting yourself. You don't convince anyone except yourself with your nonsense, stats or otherwise. Keep swinging at the windmills Don Quixote. You're worthless and I won't bother responding to you anymore. So fire away with another impotent insult.

[Elosha]

FYI, the top 51-80 scorers also only have 7 shooting over 50%. So even players shooting at a relatively smaller volume than the top 40 are generally just as inaccurate overall. Not a trend I like to see, 3 point/lay up "efficiency" be damned.

[Elosha]

3ball hasn't watched the nba by his own statements since 2011, he has no idea what he's talking about. You apparently are the same...?

Try to watch a game sometimes two a week. Got a a very busy life, career, too much going on to watch as much as you, apparently. But I've watched the NBA overall for well over 30 years. Any reason for your insult or did you not intend that?

[3ball]

.
^^^^^^^ A triple post from Elosha, which never does

:roll:


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dklv2XToGx0/hqdefault.jpg

[dhsilv]

Try to watch a game sometimes two a week. Got a a very busy life, career, too much going on to watch as much as you, apparently. But I've watched the NBA overall for well over 30 years. Any reason for your insult or did you not intend that?

It was a question...if you think he's right I'm pretty confused. Centers today can't GET the ball....it's a whole new game today!

[SexSymbol]

The defense pre 2000 was considerably worse than it is now, so there's no surprise about this

[3ball]

It was a question...if you think he's right I'm pretty confused. Centers today can't GET the ball....it's a whole new game today!


:rolleyes: ... And you guys say I say dumb stuff - here's post up frequency for a few players:

Al Jefferson - 51%
Marc Gasol - 40%
Zach Randolph - 39%


If these guys can post up that much - how often would Barkley, Malone, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, post up?


Btw, when a post player is doubled without the ball, it's usually a halfway double, which is the same distance a help defender would be if there was no spacing...

I've said it a million times - today's defensive rotations/schemes are only necessary because spacing now exists - they offset spacing, which is why league-wide ORtg (the stat measuring how hard it is to score) has been stable for 30 years (despite a brief downswing from 1999-2004, and an all-time high in 2009)..

extra rotations are either necessary due to spacing (today's era), or they aren't due to no spacing (previous eras)... and again, when there isn't spacing and help defense is much closer, a team is better off NOT compromising their defense by doubling early and leaving someone wide open.. The lack of spacing made previous eras better-equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.
.

[3ball]

today's post efficiency has gone down


This is a massive misconception by the dumb media - but here's the reality - it's a mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.. This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick worthwhile, we can say with certainty that many of today's elite players would be lesser players back then - their 3-and-D skill sets exclude elite ability in any of the aforementioned areas.

Another way we know that post efficiency hasn't declined is because today's best post players still achieve elite PPP on the post (http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Time) (and they're inferior post players to previous eras).
.

[3ball]

.
Even though MJ scored 5-10 ppg more than Lebron in the playoffs (on better efficiency), MJ still averaged more assists in his prime and thru the same age than Lebron:


6-Year Prime - Per Game Playoffs:

JORDAN 1988-1993 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1988-1993-sum:playoffs_per_game): 34.6 ppg.. 1.6 oreb.. 5.1 dreb.. 6.6 apg.. 2.3 stl.. 0.9 blk.. 50.5 fg.. 58.3 ts.. 120 ORtg
LEBRON 2009-2014 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#2009-2014-sum:playoffs_per_game): 28.1 ppg.. 1.5 oreb.. 7.1 dreb.. 6.1 apg.. 1.8 stl.. 0.9 bpg.. 50.4 fg.. 59.9 ts.. 118 ORtg



6-Year Prime - Per 100 Possessions Playoffs:

JORDAN 1988-1993 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1988-1993-sum:playoffs_per_poss): 44.2 pts.. 2.0 oreb.. 6.6 dreb.. 8.5 ast.. 3.0 stl.. 1.2 blk.. 50.5 fg.. 58.3 ts.. 120 ORtg
LEBRON 2009-2014 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#2009-2014-sum:playoffs_per_poss): 37.1 pts.. 2.0 oreb.. 9.3 dreb.. 8.1 ast.. 2.3 stl.. 1.2 blk.. 50.4 fg.. 59.9 ts.. 118 ORtg



Playoffs Thru Age 30:

Jordan: 34.7 ppg.. 1.6 oreb.. 5.1 dreb.. 6.6 apg.. 3.3 tov.. 2.3 spg.. 1.0 blk.. 50.1 fg.. 58.1 ts.. 119 ORtg
Lebron: 28.2 ppg.. 1.5 oreb.. 7.2 dreb.. 6.7 apg.. 3.5 tov.. 1.7 spg.. 0.9 blk.. 47.3 fg.. 56.5 ts.. 114 ORtg..


Finals Thru Age 30:

Jordan: 36.3 ppg.. 6.6 rpg.. 7.9 apg.. 3.4 tov.. 2.0 spg.. 0.76 bpg.. 52.6 fg
Lebron: 26.4 ppg.. 9.6 rpg.. 6.9 apg.. 4.0 tov.. 1.8 spg.. 0.54 bpg.. 44.6 fg



For their careers, Lebron has a tiny assist edge (no edge if you consider turnovers), but his edge will vanish as he gets older and reaches MJ's retirement age:


Career Playoffs:

Jordan: 33.4 ppg.. 1.7 oreb.. 4.7 dreb.. 5.7 apg.. 3.1 tov.. 2.1 spg.. 0.9 blk.. 48.7 fg.. 56.8 ts.. 118 ORtg
Lebron: 28.2 ppg.. 1.5 oreb.. 7.2 dreb.. 6.7 apg.. 3.5 tov.. 1.7 spg.. 0.9 blk.. 47.3 fg.. 56.5 ts.. 114 ORtg..


Career Finals:

Jordan: 33.6 ppg.. 6.0 rpg.. 6.0 apg.. 2.8 tov.. 1.8 spg.. 0.65 bpg.. 48.1 fg
Lebron: 26.4 ppg.. 9.6 rpg.. 6.9 apg.. 4.0 tov.. 1.8 spg.. 0.54 bpg.. 44.6 fg



There's never been a #1 option that scored 5-10 ppg more on better efficiency and wasn't considered the FAR better player - this is especially true considering old Jordan scored a far higher proportion of his team's points than prime Lebron, especially in the 4th:



..........Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


........................RS.....RS 4th... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997.... 36.0..... 40.1..... 37.7..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
JORDAN 1998.... 36.3..... 42.1..... 39.7..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)



LEBRON 2009.... 35.0..... 39.3..... 41.5..... 42.4
LEBRON 2010.... 34.6..... 44.4..... 32.6..... 40.3
LEBRON 2011.... 32.0..... 32.8..... 28.1..... 30.7...... 21.4...... 14.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2010-11&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
LEBRON 2012.... 34.2..... 33.8..... 34.5..... 34.9...... 30.0...... 33.3
LEBRON 2013.... 32.1..... 32.1..... 30.6..... 36.0...... 29.3...... 39.1
LEBRON 2014.... 33.1..... 38.2..... 35.3..... 32.1...... 39.6...... 29.5
LEBRON 2015.... 30.1..... 38.9..... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 42.4...... 40.0...... 44.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
LEBRON 2016.... 33.4..... 40.9



Imagine if we had stats from MJ's prime... :coleman:
.

[3ball]

Let's have some decent, rational thoughts in this thread.


How can we have "rational" thoughts on this issue when you completely ignored THE most important aspect of offense: SPACING.

Previous eras didn't have 3-point shooters to space out defenders, which creates a huge contrast between eras - defenders are either faced with making extra rotations due to spacing/spaced-out defenders (today's game), or having less rotations due to no spacing/bunched-up defenders (previous eras).

Today's defensive rotations/schemes merely offset the spacing, which is why league-wide offensive rating (the stat measuring how hard it is to score) has been stable for 30 years.. ORtg has ranged between 105 and 108 since 1980, excluding a brief downswing from 1999-2004.

The minor shifts within that 105-108 range are due to style of play differences between the eras that affect inputs to the ORtg calculation, such as offensive rebounding rate and FT rate.. Notice how (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html) as 3-pointers increase over the years, offensive rebounding rate declines, which reduces ORtg - that's just how ORtg is calculated - the higher proportion of 2-pointers taken in previous eras resulted in higher offensive rebounding rate, which inflated ORtg - it's statistical fact.. Nonetheless, the rule changes in 2005 began to inflate ORtg again, and it reached all-time highs from 2008-2011.

But again, regardless of these minor shifts, ORtg has remained within the 105-108 range for 30 years - stable ORtg over the years proves the difficulty of scoring hasn't changed, and the changes in offensive strategy (spacing) and defensive strategy (extra rotations) are offsetting - you either have extra rotations required by spacing and defensive 3 seconds (today's game), or the rotations aren't necessary because there is no spacing or defensive 3 seconds (previous eras).

[Phenith]

Doesn't the HUGE increase in 3 point shots taken/made help offset the lower percentage?

I'm not going to do the legwork, but I'm guessing the teams overall PPP league wide isn't wildly different now than it was in the past despite lower overall field goal percentages.

[dhsilv]

Doesn't the HUGE increase in 3 point shots taken/made help offset the lower percentage?

I'm not going to do the legwork, but I'm guessing the teams overall PPP league wide isn't wildly different now than it was in the past despite lower overall field goal percentages.

Points per possession? That would be interesting. League scoring is pretty in line and 2 point field goal percentages were around 48% last year, going back to 1980, it was never over 50% but has been as low as about 46%.