Volume Scorers

[BigKAT]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?

[IGOTGAME]

Iverson is underrated. Gilbert is overrated.

[Mr Feeny]

In my opinion, they're both overrated.
Anyone who takes 30 shots a game and and shoots 39%fg can't be a great scorer.
We get that it's harder to maintain efficiency as you increase volume, but when you're that woeful, it's not an argument in your favor.

Any wingman in the league could jack up shot after shot on 39%fg if they made it their goal to rack up points without worrying about the fact that their inefficiency is hurting the team.
If your goal is rack up points for your individual total, rather than play winning basketball, then your mindset is completely wrong.

I think that with the advancement of analytics, you can see how people's perceptions of these volume scorers - who used to be revered - are changing.
It's a similar thing to what's happening with Kobe. Not to the same extent but it's similar. PER, fg%, ts%. It's all going to be broken down and analysed. And it turns out that those who shot other impunity, looking to put up big totals, don't come out looking as good.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Iverson is underrated. So is Arenas. Look what Gilbert was doing 10 years ago and compare it to Irving, Dame, Curry now? It's the same explosive stuff. Actually Agent 0 had more diversity in his offensive game than 2 of those 3.

[IGOTGAME]

Iverson is underrated. So is Arenas. Look what Gilbert was doing 10 years ago and compare it to Irving, Dame, Curry now? It's the same explosive stuff. Actually Agent 0 had more diversity in his offensive game than 2 of those 3.

Gilbert had very little diversity in his game, that is why he is overrated. He is the worst of that group by a big margin. He was just a volume jumpshooter who could get very hot but was a bad playmaker, average finisher and just had an unremarkable midrange game.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Depends on who you're talking about.

Situation and context matters. I would have liked to see Iverson play for a team, in his prime, that wasn't innept offensively. He carried too much of a burden in Philly and the results were always a mixed bag. If we're being honest most of it was inconsistent hero ball.

Melo is another guy I would've liked to see play for a squad akin to 2009 Denver. In the right situation dude has potential to hit basketball supernova, at least offensively.


Gilbert had very little diversity in his game, that is why he is overrated. He is the worst of that group by a big margin. He was just a volume jumpshooter who could get very hot but was a bad playmaker, average finished and us an an unremarkable midrange game.

Yeah.

I always thought Gil was overrated and that his game could never translate in the playoffs.

[TommyGriffin]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?
Wade's efficiency rose because his scoring decreased more than 30% under LeBron. It is a natural function for a player's efficiency to go up as their scoring goes down. Many players can score efficiently, some can score on volume, very few can do both. That is why it was so impressive when Curry had a FG% of 50 percent this year and a TS of .669 while putting up 30 points a game! In only 34 minutes per game as well. Unreal.

[Akrazotile]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?


So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?

Players with bad teams usually choose to chuck, because they're gonna lose anyway and it's simply more fun. Even if a player is surrounded by average talent, ball movement and smart shot selection from role players will still be more efficient than a 'star' just heaving up shots. There may be some rare occasions like Iverson's where the offensive talent around him is exceptionally underwhelming, but these days, particularly with the way teams stock up on three point shooters now, there's simply no good reason for someone to play constant iso, unless they choose to. And if they choose to, they will be inefficient, and be criticized accordingly.

Lebron maintained his efficiency even with a bad team (on which he still scored amply, and contended for titles) because he simply had the discipline to play team ball. Most so-called stars do not.

[BigKAT]

So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?

Players with bad teams usually choose to chuck, because they're gonna lose anyway and it's simply more fun. Even if a player is surrounded by average talent, ball movement and smart shot selection from role players will still be more efficient than a 'star' just heaving up shots. There may be some rare occasions like Iverson's where the offensive talent around him is exceptionally underwhelming, but these days, particularly with the way teams stock up on three point shooters now, there's simply no good reason for someone to play constant iso, unless they choose to. And if they choose to, they will be inefficient, and be criticized accordingly.

Lebron maintained his efficiency even with a bad team (on which he still scored amply, and contended for titles) because he simply had the discipline to play team ball. Most so-called stars do not.


You can't use Lebron as an example.
We're talking about the general players.
Exclude anyone in the top 10-15 from this discussion.
We're talking about 90% of the NBA, not generational talent.

Do you see guys like Melo, Arenas, Heck, even Jennings as underrated due to having to shoot too much?

[Akrazotile]

You can't use Lebron as an example.
We're talking about the general players.
Exclude anyone in the top 10-15 from this discussion.
We're talking about 90% of the NBA, not generational talent.

Do you see guys like Melo, Arenas, Heck, even Jennings as underrated due to having to shoot too much?


Then you can't use Wade as an example of increased efficiency playing with a star, because Lebron improves his teammates effectiveness by exceptional amounts compared to the average star.

If you put Wade with Carmelo or Paul Pierce or... Chris Bosh, his efficiency doesn't spike the way it does with Lebron.

Kobe played with Shaquille ONeal and still never shot better than 46%.

It's a mistake to look at Wade's supercharged efficiency playing alongside LeGreatOne and assume just any ol star can do that for a guy. Only The Chosen One can.

[BigKAT]

Then you can't use Wade as an example of increased efficiency playing with a star, because Lebron improves his teammates effectiveness by exceptional amounts compared to the average star.

If you put Wade with Carmelo or Paul Pierce or... Chris Bosh, his efficiency doesn't spike the way it does with Lebron.

Kobe played with Shaquille ONeal and still never shot better than 46%.

It's a mistake to look at Wade's supercharged efficiency playing alongside LeGreatOne and assume just any ol star can do that for a guy. Only The Chosen One can.

I'm just saying that you can't judge a pattern using Lebron James.
He's too good.
He's going to be good in mostly any situation.
That's all. Can you maximize him? sure. But I don't see a situation or team where Lebron does not win MVP's or a scoring title.

But I disagree. I think that if you put Melo and Wade their efficency goes up as well.
They don't necesserily win chips, but the efficency will skyrocket. Same with bron.

[Akrazotile]

I'm just saying that you can't judge a pattern using Lebron James.
He's too good.
He's going to be good in mostly any situation.
That's all. Can you maximize him? sure. But I don't see a situation or team where Lebron does not win MVP's or a scoring title.

But I disagree. I think that if you put Melo and Wade their efficency goes up as well.
They don't necesserily win chips, but the efficency will skyrocket. Same with bron.


Skyrocket?? Seriously doubt that. I could see it going up a couple percentage points. But I don't see it going up as significantly as you do. Only LeJonahFalcon has that effect. Nobody else can produce it to that degree.

[TommyGriffin]

So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?

Players with bad teams usually choose to chuck, because they're gonna lose anyway and it's simply more fun. Even if a player is surrounded by average talent, ball movement and smart shot selection from role players will still be more efficient than a 'star' just heaving up shots. There may be some rare occasions like Iverson's where the offensive talent around him is exceptionally underwhelming, but these days, particularly with the way teams stock up on three point shooters now, there's simply no good reason for someone to play constant iso, unless they choose to. And if they choose to, they will be inefficient, and be criticized accordingly.

Lebron maintained his efficiency even with a bad team (on which he still scored amply, and contended for titles) because he simply had the discipline to play team ball. Most so-called stars do not.
LeBron's efficiency was decent but not great. Even when he had a stacked team in Miami. LeBron's most efficient year he scored on .649 %TS while scoring 25 points per game. For perspective Curry scored on .669 %TS while scoring 30 points per game last year.

[BigKAT]

Skyrocket?? Seriously doubt that. I could see it going up a couple percentage points. But I don't see it going up as significantly as you do. Only LeJonahFalcon has that effect. Nobody else can produce it to that degree.


I was about to get some stats from the Boston Big three to show you improvement in Field Goal percentage by the joining of 3 stars.


But actually..
The didn't really jump up.
Some went down.

Huh.
I'll give you this noe.

[TommyGriffin]

I was about to get some stats from the Boston Big three to show you improvement in Field Goal percentage by the joining of 3 stars.


But actually..
The didn't really jump up.
Some went down.

Huh.
I'll give you this noe.
They were all over 30 years old and past their prime (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html). That is why their efficiency did not skyrocket.

[BigKAT]

They were all over 30 years old and past their prime (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html). That is why their efficiency did not skyrocket.

You could say the same about Wade my friend.

[insidehoops]

LeBron's efficiency was decent but not great. Even when he had a stacked team in Miami. LeBron's most efficient year he scored on .649 %TS while scoring 25 points per game. For perspective Curry scored on .669 %TS while scoring 30 points per game last year.

A 64.9% True Shooting Percentage is great. That percentage would typically be one of the best 2-4 in the entire league, give or take a spot or two.

[Akrazotile]

LeBron's efficiency was decent but not great. Even when he had a stacked team in Miami. LeBron's most efficient year he scored on .649 %TS while scoring 25 points per game. For perspective Curry scored on .669 %TS while scoring 30 points per game last year.


No doubt about it, Curry had a phenomenal regular season. Historic tbh. Just because Lebron has never quite reached THAT efficiency in the regular season doesn't mean he isn't still on a superior level to 99% of players.

Curry absolutely deserved his regular season MVP. Throughout last year's regular season he was without question "the man."

[TommyGriffin]

You could say the same about Wade my friend.
Wade was 29 when LeBron joined. Look at Wade's statistics before the collusion and look at the Celtics players statistics before the collusion. Wade was on another level offensively than Pierce, Allen, and Garnett.

[TommyGriffin]

A 64.9% True Shooting Percentage is great. That percentage would typically be one of the best 2-4 in the entire league, give or take a spot or two.
It is great but 25 points per game is not considered a volume scorer.

[BigKAT]

A 64.9% True Shooting Percentage is great. That percentage would typically be one of the best 2-4 in the entire league, give or take a spot or two.

Definetly.

But let's get back to the discussion,

Do you think what most of us consider 'Chuckers' or 'Volume Shooters' are really just misused pieces having to carry offenses on their own?

I mean, let's look at Westbrook,
42% without Durant.
45% with Durant. 3% is nothing dramatic, but it's still there.


I just think some 'Chuckers' like Allen Iverson and Arenas, if you put them with other great wings, or guards or someone to take some of their shots and playmaking, they could really thrive.

For example I think if you put Allen Iverson with Manu Ginobli or Paul Pierce, you could really get something special. They would really open up things for each other and you'd see them thrive.

[TommyGriffin]

No doubt about it, Curry had a phenomenal regular season. Historic tbh. Just because Lebron has never quite reached THAT efficiency in the regular season doesn't mean he isn't still on a superior level to 99% of players.

Curry absolutely deserved his regular season MVP. Throughout last year's regular season he was without question "the man."
Agreed. Before Curry suffered his MCL injury he was phenomenal.

[BigKAT]

It is great but 25 points per game is not considered a volume scorer.


Well, I think anything above 22,23 is quite a lot.
Most players won't ever touch the 20 PPG.

25 is definetly the bottom of the volume scoring, but it's in there.
And I think that in that season he scored 27.

[Akrazotile]

Agreed. Before Curry suffered his MCL injury he was phenomenal.


And even when he returned to the playoffs after the setback and was completely healthy, he still performed pretty well, all the way up until the finals. There his productivity did spike down dramatically. But again, terrific regular season guy. Give him credit.

[TommyGriffin]

Well, I think anything above 22,23 is quite a lot.
Most players won't ever touch the 20 PPG.

25 is definetly the bottom of the volume scoring, but it's in there.
And I think that in that season he scored 27.
No, he scored 25 points per game while playing 37 minutes per game. That is not really considered a Volume Scorer.

For frame of reference in 2010 Chris Bosh scored 24 points per game while playing less minutes than LeBron. Would you consider him a volume scorer?

[TommyGriffin]

And even when he returned to the playoffs after the setback and was completely healthy, he still performed pretty well, all the way up until the finals. There his productivity did spike down dramatically. But again, terrific regular season guy. Give him credit.
Curry is not only a regular season guy. Last year's playoffs when he wasn't nagged by his MCL injury he scored 28 points per game on .607 %TS (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html).

28 points per game on .607% TS is volume scoring with extreme efficiency.

[BigKAT]

Curry is not only a regular season guy. Last year's playoffs when he wasn't nagged by his MCL injury he scored 28 points per game on .607 %TS (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html).

28 points per game on .607% TS is volume scoring with extreme efficiency.

No one is saying he didn't beast in the playoffs.
That OKC Series was one of the best I've seen with my own eyes by a point guard, or any player for that matter. (Though Klay's supernova in game 5 was amazing, Curry still shouldered the most burden.)

We're just saying he let the pressure get to him in the finals, where he messed up. Be it health, nerves or good opposing D, he didn't deliver.

[Akrazotile]

Curry is not only a regular season guy. Last year's playoffs when he wasn't nagged by his MCL injury he scored 28 points per game on .607 %TS (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html).

28 points per game on .607% TS is volume scoring with extreme efficiency.


That's true, although I do believe he faced a number of favorable matchups throughout the '15 western conference playoffs due to injured opponents. I think against Dellavadova in the finals he averaged 26 points on 58% TS while turning the ball over 28 times in 6 games.

So there is a pattern of his production dropping in the finals, injuries or not.

But like I said, he earned and deserved his regular season awards. They are reasonably impressive achievements. Make no mistake about it.

[TommyGriffin]

No one is saying he didn't beast in the playoffs.
That OKC Series was one of the best I've seen with my own eyes by a point guard, or any player for that matter. (Though Klay's supernova in game 5 was amazing, Curry still shouldered the most burden.)

We're just saying he let the pressure get to him in the finals, where he messed up. Be it health, nerves or good opposing D, he didn't deliver.
Bingo. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417740)

We both can agree that Curry's 2016 year was amazing. However let us not derail the thread any further than we may already have. :cheers:

[BigKAT]

Bingo. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417740)

We both can agree that Curry's 2016 year was amazing. However let us not derail the thread any further than we may already have. :cheers:

Curry is an example of a Volume scorer with the right enviroment.
Everything about the GSW is orchastrated so Curry does not need to Chuck.

Screens, ball movement,
Pass up a good shot for a great shot.
And when you give guys like Klay and Curry even -good- shots, not to mention great ones, you get 400 3s in a season.

Yet if you put Curry on the Nets, where he have to shoulder the offense, I think he may put up 28-29 Points, but on drastically lower fg%.

Though curry never really shot badly.
I think 46% from the field is his low point in the regular season.
Still, he won't shoot 50/45. Maybe 44/38.

[TommyGriffin]

That's true, although I do believe he faced a number of favorable matchups throughout the '15 western conference playoffs due to injured opponents. I think against Dellavadova in the finals he averaged 26 points on 58% TS while turning the ball over 28 times in 6 games.

So there is a pattern of his production dropping in the finals, injuries or not.

But like I said, he earned and deserved his regular season awards. They are reasonably impressive achievements. Make no mistake about it.
Curry saw a lot of double team attention during that Finals.

26 points per game is also considered Volume Scoring. 58% is pretty efficient as well.

Curry was able to be a Volume Scorer while keeping his efficiency high, while seeing double team attention from the Cavaliers. It was an incredible performance.

For frame of reference LeBron's efficiency in the 2015 Finals was 47%. That is 11 points lower than Curry's. LeBron was seeing single coverage.

[CTbasketball92]

Definetly.

But let's get back to the discussion,

Do you think what most of us consider 'Chuckers' or 'Volume Shooters' are really just misused pieces having to carry offenses on their own?

I mean, let's look at Westbrook,
42% without Durant.
45% with Durant. 3% is nothing dramatic, but it's still there.


I just think some 'Chuckers' like Allen Iverson and Arenas, if you put them with other great wings, or guards or someone to take some of their shots and playmaking, they could really thrive.

For example I think if you put Allen Iverson with Manu Ginobli or Paul Pierce, you could really get something special. They would really open up things for each other and you'd see them thrive.

I completely understand the logic behind what you're saying, but Westgod's jumper is just too, too streaky for him to do any better than he had. With that said, considering that he made it to the NBA finals, and a few wcf's pretty much every time he and KD were healthy, and that they always lost to historically great teams, it's hard to say Westgod has been anything but very, very successful.

Gilbert had a 58 TS%, which is really damn efficient. Honestly, I'd take Gill over John Wall anyday, and I like John Wall. Say what you want about him being a chucker, but his teams were solid and he showed up in the playoffs and also had elite regular season minutes. He played a shit ton of minutes, but being able to score even somewhat efficiently as the defense's main focus and still playing all those minutes says much more good than bad.

[SCRATCH THAT] Gil showed up in the playoffs once, lol/

[AintNoSunshine]

No, volume scorers are dime a dozen in the league. And you almost have to fall into the perfect scenario and surround them by the perfect talented cast in order to win - see Kobe, GOAT coach, best front court in the league and etc.

[Bankaii]

Wade was 29 when LeBron joined. Look at Wade's statistics before the collusion and look at the Celtics players statistics before the collusion. Wade was on another level offensively than Pierce, Allen, and Garnett.
2010 Wade: 27/5/7 on 48% and 20 FGA.
2011 Wade: 26/6/5 on 50% and 18 FGA.

Where exactly is the major difference in stats pre-"collusion"?:oldlol:

And all of the Celtics big 3 had decently major decreases in their stats. Just hold the L, Cucksfan.

[AirBonner]

2010 Wade: 27/5/7 on 48% and 20 FGA.
2011 Wade: 26/6/5 on 50% and 18 FGA.

Where exactly is the major difference in stats pre-"collusion"?:oldlol:
He's an idiot. Obviously he doesn't check stats.

[Bankaii]

He's an idiot. Obviously he doesn't check stats.
It's not even that. Just watch the games. The only difference in 2010/2011 Wade was that he had help instead of trash. His playstyle barely changed when Lebron joined.

But dudes an idiot that just started watching when the Warriors got good in 2015.

[TommyGriffin]

My post obviously went over both of your guys' head...How awkward.

[AirBonner]

My post obviously had no facts.
Agree.

[Bankaii]

My post obviously went over both of your guys' head...How awkward.
In other words you have no valid argument because I called you out on you bs.
Pretty much expected from you, Cucksfan.

[RRR3]

LeBron scored 27.1 PPG the year he had a 64.9 TS%. How on earth do you get 25 PPG from 27.1? WarriorsSPAM at it again

[Screamin A Smit]

In other words you have no valid argument because I called you out on you bs.
Pretty much expected from you, Cucksfan.
:lol

[iamgine]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?
It depends on the chucker. Gilbert Arenas and Allen Iverson were elite scorers regardless of their efficiency. We saw it, we saw they were elite scorers. On the other hand, chuckers like Antoine Walker? Nope.

[SamuraiSWISH]

It's not even that. Just watch the games. The only difference in 2010/2011 Wade was that he had help instead of trash. His playstyle barely changed when Lebron joined.

But dudes an idiot that just started watching when the Warriors got good in 2015.
:eek:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[BigKAT]

It depends on the chucker. Gilbert Arenas and Allen Iverson were elite scorers regardless of their efficiency. We saw it, we saw they were elite scorers. On the other hand, chuckers like Antoine Walker? Nope.

So let me present you with a situation,

Let's take Allen Iverson and give him a star that isn't 1st tier, but 2nd tier, enough to take off the load but not enough to make it that AI isn't 'The Man'

Let's give him Prime Vince Carter as his 2nd fiddle starting from the 2000's.

Does he win a championship? Does he win two?
Against the Spurs? Against the Lakers? Perhaps Dallas?

Once more, this only account to Wing/Guard stars. Adding a Big man allstar does not necesserily remove that 'Create a shot' late in the clock thing.

[iamgine]

So let me present you with a situation,

Let's take Allen Iverson and give him a star that isn't 1st tier, but 2nd tier, enough to take off the load but not enough to make it that AI isn't 'The Man'

Let's give him Prime Vince Carter as his 2nd fiddle starting from the 2000's.

Does he win a championship? Does he win two?
Against the Spurs? Against the Lakers? Perhaps Dallas?

Once more, this only account to Wing/Guard stars. Adding a Big man allstar does not necesserily remove that 'Create a shot' late in the clock thing.
Iverson and Arenas were elite scorers but it takes much more than that to win a championship. For one, like a lot of scoring minded players, they were limited defensively. Personality also plays a factor since both Iverson and Arenas could be stubborn therefore you need the right kind of coach.

That's just the start, we haven't even cover chemistry, strength of competition, injuries, etc.

[bizil]

One of the most OVERRATED stats can be FG%. Guys like AI and Arenas were BOTH alpha dogs FLAT OUT!! With these kind of guys, they are attackers. And with these guys, they can force up some bad shots because of that attack mentality. Maybe they play on teams where they HAVE to put a lot of shots. In the case of AI, he's had seasons where he's shot 45% to 46% from the field, which is a very good clip for a volume scorer.

Of course guys like MJ, Bird, Gervin, and Bron were EPIC BLENDS of PPG and FG%. BUT AI and Arenas were still great scorers, they just weren't as efficient. People make shit TOO COMPLICATED sometimes when it comes to FG%. The ability to put up great scoring numbers, killer instinct to keep a D on its heels, and clutch factor are MORE IMPORTANT than FG% when it comes to scoring.

When comparing alpha dogs to each other, FG% can be used as a tiebreaker at times. BUT if a player isn't an alpha dog to begin with, the FG% aspects can become VASTLY OVERRATED! Scoring wise, give me a true alpha who averages 28 points on 44% shooting over a true 2nd or 3rd option who averages 18 PPG on 51% shooting.

[BigKAT]

One of the most OVERRATED stats can be FG%. Guys like AI and Arenas were BOTH alpha dogs FLAT OUT!! With these kind of guys, they are attackers. And with these guys, they can force up some bad shots. Maybe they play on teams where they HAVE to put a lot of shots. In the case of AI, he's had seasons where he's shot 45% to 46% from the field, which is a very good clip for a volume scorer.

Of course guys like MJ, Bird, Gervin, and Bron were EPIC BLENDS of PPG and FG%. BUT AI and Arenas were still great scorers, they just weren't as efficient. People make shot TOO COMPLICATED sometimes when it comes to FG%.

When comparing alpha dogs to each other, it can be used as a tiebreaker at times. BUT if a player isn't an alpha dog to begin with, the FG% aspects can become VASTLY OVERRATED! Scoring wise, give me a true alpha who averages 28 points on 44% shooting over a true 2nd or 3rd option who averages 18 PPG on 51% shooting.

No doubt about that.
But in general most low FG% tend not to bring championships, know what I mean?

The exception is Kobe Bryant.

But Allen Iverson, Arenas, Mcgrady, Melo for most of his career.
These scorers don't seem to have success.

That I'd take Allen iverson over Ray Allen as 'The' guy is obvious.
But do you win a championship with him as your best player?

[bizil]

No doubt about that.
But in general most low FG% tend not to bring championships, know what I mean?

The exception is Kobe Bryant.

But Allen Iverson, Arenas, Mcgrady, Melo for most of his career.
These scorers don't seem to have success.

That I'd take Allen iverson over Ray Allen as 'The' guy is obvious.
But do you win a championship with him as your best player?

But u have to look at the ENTIRE SITUATION!! AI, Areans, T Mac, and Melo DIDN'T consistently play on teams equipped to win a ring. They had the Shaq-Kobe Lakers AND the Spurs to deal with in the West. And in AI's case, THE FACT that he got that Sixers team a Finals was a miracle. And a perimeter alpha dog shooting 45%to 46% ISN'T a bad FG%. That's a very good FG% for those kind of guys. ALL THE GUYS U NAMED have shot 45% from the field in given seasons. THEY'VE shown the ability to score A TON OF POINTS on a pretty good FG%.

[Smoke117]

Gilbert had very little diversity in his game, that is why he is overrated. He is the worst of that group by a big margin. He was just a volume jumpshooter who could get very hot but was a bad playmaker, average finisher and just had an unremarkable midrange game.

You can't just be called a volume jump shooter when you are putting up 10fta's a game.

[Big164]

So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?


Because Lebron James is practically the same height as Duncan and Olajuwon. He's a Big man masquerading as a perimeter player..

Grow some balls and play center like Hakeem did.

[bizil]

Some things ALSO need to be considered such as a player's scoring skillset AND their size. For example, MJ was likely the best postup SG of all time, the best midrange SG of all time, and the best slashing SG of all time. From there he was the ultimate freak athlete and had great size at 6'6 and anywhere from 200-215 pounds. He had SO MANY WAYS to beat u scoring that he could literally pick his spots and dominate u.

Some great scorers are great at only one or two facets and that's it. And from there, they may not have the size or athletic ability to their advantage. Other guys with similar tools like MJ might not be as patient to pick their spots. So u have to look at FG% in a number of different ways.

[ralph_i_el]

Gilbert had very little diversity in his game, that is why he is overrated. He is the worst of that group by a big margin. He was just a volume jumpshooter who could get very hot but was a bad playmaker, average finisher and just had an unremarkable midrange game.


.....shot 64% at the rim in his prime. Better than Kyrie has ever done for a season. They took a similar % of their shots at the rim.


Gil was a good finisher because he was big as **** for his position. Dude was a load

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

Well a chucking melo would have won the chip if not running into axe that is a prime healthy KObe.

[Pointguard]

BigKat,
Chucker is a derogatory term. When guys carry their team like Tmac, Kobe, Rose and AI, it's usually because they had too. And their coach suggested that they take a very high amount of shots. Its one of the hardest things in the sport to be a one sided scoring machine and win. Very rarely are teams like this living off of efficiency. They belong in the family of chaos makers which is a different animal. They are usually ultra aggressive players that can keep coming at you. Btw, aggression, or controlled attack, is a superior quality than efficiency in nearly every human competition. However the brain in analysis mode wants to believe efficiency is the greatest measure. As I brought up here several times that TS% is inferior to most aggression stats and that you guys never honor that Magic is the only top ten GOAT that was killer in TS%.

Coaches are rarely up to the task of coaching superior talent. Wilt, Shaq, Jordan and Kareem were around for years before coaching utilized them correctly. Now you take the Tmac, Rose, Arenas and AI who were primarily used as chaos creators who did not have much else around them offensively to go along with organizations that did not build for offensive powerhouses. If a team has shooters, passers, other superstars, strong team concept, sets great picks, floor spacers and complimentary players. Or basically the GSW model which promotes efficiency at every turn. They were built for that. Its the Mercedes construct - not the Hooptie model.

When Lebron first went to the finals he was 22 years old and faced a solid defensive team that just went at him. He was at 22ppg shooting 35% and 428 TS%. Rose went thru the same ordeal, 23ppg, shot 35%,43 TS% when a very quick defensive team, the Heat went at him. Neither had much offense to turn to or help that could take the burden. When Lebron gets the elements I talk about in the previous paragraph, he has this crazy efficient year and one of the most statistical impressive years. Ultimately, he would have been better if he just focused on attacking SA. Coach Pop can calculate a machine and develop a way to beat it. Contrast this series with Pop trying to calculate Kobe's reckless attack mode. Lebron would have been much better off abandoning his obsession with efficiency. Or look at Lebron in his next finals appearance where he alone nearly goes up 3-1 on a great team.

All of this to say, to carry a team because its all the team has to win is a great responsibility that few in most sports can do. So I wouldn't say its something derogatory at all. Most players can't get up for every game much less being the focus of every defense is a level few can attain.

[bizil]

BigKat,
Chucker is a derogatory term. When guys carry their team like Tmac, Kobe, Rose and AI, it's usually because they had too. And their coach suggested that they take a very high amount of shots. Its one of the hardest things in the sport to be a one sided scoring machine and win. Very rarely are teams like this living off of efficiency. They belong in the family of chaos makers which is a different animal. They are usually ultra aggressive players that can keep coming at you. Btw, aggression, or controlled attack, is a superior quality than efficiency in nearly every human competition. However the brain in analysis mode wants to believe efficiency is the greatest measure. As I brought up here several times that TS% is inferior to most aggression stats and that you guys never honor that Magic is the only top ten GOAT that was killer in TS%.

Coaches are rarely up to the task of coaching superior talent. Wilt, Shaq, Jordan and Kareem were around for years before coaching utilized them correctly. Now you take the Tmac, Rose, Arenas and AI who were primarily used as chaos creators who did not have much else around them offensively to go along with organizations that did not build for offensive powerhouses. If a team has shooters, passers, other superstars, strong team concept, sets great picks, floor spacers and complimentary players. Or basically the GSW model which promotes efficiency at every turn. They were built for that. Its the Mercedes construct - not the Hooptie model.

When Lebron first went to the finals he was 22 years old and faced a solid defensive team that just went at him. He was at 22ppg shooting 35% and 428 TS%. Rose went thru the same ordeal, 23ppg, shot 35%,43 TS% when a very quick defensive team, the Heat went at him. Neither had much offense to turn to or help that could take the burden. When Lebron gets the elements I talk about in the previous paragraph, he has this crazy efficient year and one of the most statistical impressive years. Ultimately, he would have been better if he just focused on attacking SA. Coach Pop can calculate a machine and develop a way to beat it. Contrast this series with Pop trying to calculate Kobe's reckless attack mode. Lebron would have been much better off abandoning his obsession with efficiency. Or look at Lebron in his next finals appearance where he alone nearly goes up 3-1 on a great team.

All of this to say, to carry a team because its all the team has to win is a great responsibility that few in most sports can do. So I wouldn't say its something derogatory at all. Most players can't get up for every game much less being the focus of every defense is a level few can attain.

EPIC POST!! You broke down perfectly why the term chucker is a derogatory term. As well as describing why FG% can be overrated. The guys like an AI DIDN'T LET DEFENSES off the hook by trying to be TOO EFFICIENT. AI KNEW his worth. If u KNOW YOUR WORTH in any facet of life, its incumbent upon YOU to take advantage of your gifts.

On certain teams, the great scorers KNOW they must be more aggressive for their teams to thrive. On other teams, the great scorers don't have as much pressure to take over a game all the time. They can still get their points in a more efficient manner.

[Pointguard]

EPIC POST!! You broke down perfectly why the term chucker is a derogatory term. As well as describing why FG% can be overrated. The guys like an AI DIDN'T LET DEFENSES off the hook by trying to be TOO EFFICIENT. AI KNEW his worth. If u KNOW YOUR WORTH in any facet of life, its incumbent upon YOU to take advantage of your gifts.

On certain teams, the great scorers KNOW they must be more aggressive for their teams to thrive. On other teams, the great scorers don't have as much pressure to take over a game all the time. They can still get their points in a more efficient manner.
Thanks.

As always you bring to light other aspects to contribute to the point.

[egokiller]

Why do people think that high volume shooters are of the mindset "I'm just going to chuck up as many shots as I can and fvck efficiency". Do people not realize that these players are part of a multi million dollar organization that serves to entertain it's viewers, that is trying to win, and that a player can't just go out there and just start chucking up shots because he alone feels like it. The entire coaching staff, the GM, the entire organization decides on how many shots a player should take and it's weighted on numerous factors. LOL at the clueless that think "oh hey, AI just took that many shots because he simply wanted to".

The guys that shoot such high volume do so because they are TOLD to do so. The decision is based on factors that most can't understand. That's why when people fault guys with low fg% on high volume they have no idea what they are talking about. "But if those shots would have been taking by the rest of the team....." Just stop right there and take a moment to pump your brakes lil fella. Do you really think that this idea didn't cross the minds of everyone else involved in the organization and taken into account before giving the directive for a particular guy to shoot at high volume?

:wtf:

[bizil]

Why do people think that high volume shooters are of the mindset "I'm just going to chuck up as many shots as I can and fvck efficiency". Do people not realize that these players are part of a multi million dollar organization that serves to entertain it's viewers, that is trying to win, and that a player can't just go out there and just start chucking up shots because he alone feels like it. The entire coaching staff, the GM, the entire organization decides on how many shots a player should take and it's weighted on numerous factors. LOL at the clueless that think "oh hey, AI just took that many shots because he simply wanted to".

The guys that shoot such high volume do so because they are TOLD to do so. The decision is based on factors that most can't understand. That's why when people fault guys with low fg% on high volume they have no idea what they are talking about. "But if those shots would have been taking by the rest of the team....." Just stop right there and take a moment to pump your brakes lil fella. Do you really think that this idea didn't cross the minds of everyone else involved in the organization and taken into account before giving the directive for a particular guy to shoot at high volume?

:wtf:

Awesome post! People don't realize that part of the OFFENSIVE game plan often times is for the great scorers to get up a lot of shots. It BAFFLES me how some people DON'T REALIZE the most premium asset in the sport is alpha dog scoring ability. If a player is an alpha dog, he COMMANDS a certain type of respect and fear. Teams game plan to try to stop these guys. AND YET they still get their points.

[BigKAT]

Awesome post! People don't realize that part of the OFFENSIVE game plan often times is for the great scorers to get up a lot of shots. It BAFFLES me how some people DON'T REALIZE the most premium asset in the sport is alpha dog scoring ability. If a player is an alpha dog, he COMMANDS a certain type of respect and fear. Teams game plan to try to stop these guys. AND YET they still get their points.

That actually makes sense.
I guess some team's offensive plan involves someone taking 20+ shots.
In fact, you could point to most contenders and find a guy like that on their team.


Question is, what we consider 'Chuckers' are people who normally don't have good FG%. 42-43 usually. do you think this is just an effect of not having enough attention-demanding teammates?

[tamaraw08]

BigKat,
Chucker is a derogatory term. When guys carry their team like Tmac, Kobe, Rose and AI, it's usually because they had too. And their coach suggested that they take a very high amount of shots. Its one of the hardest things in the sport to be a one sided scoring machine and win. Very rarely are teams like this living off of efficiency. They belong in the family of chaos makers which is a different animal. They are usually ultra aggressive players that can keep coming at you. Btw, aggression, or controlled attack, is a superior quality than efficiency in nearly every human competition. However the brain in analysis mode wants to believe efficiency is the greatest measure. As I brought up here several times that TS% is inferior to most aggression stats and that you guys never honor that Magic is the only top ten GOAT that was killer in TS%.

Coaches are rarely up to the task of coaching superior talent. Wilt, Shaq, Jordan and Kareem were around for years before coaching utilized them correctly. Now you take the Tmac, Rose, Arenas and AI who were primarily used as chaos creators who did not have much else around them offensively to go along with organizations that did not build for offensive powerhouses. If a team has shooters, passers, other superstars, strong team concept, sets great picks, floor spacers and complimentary players. Or basically the GSW model which promotes efficiency at every turn. They were built for that. Its the Mercedes construct - not the Hooptie model.

When Lebron first went to the finals he was 22 years old and faced a solid defensive team that just went at him. He was at 22ppg shooting 35% and 428 TS%. Rose went thru the same ordeal, 23ppg, shot 35%,43 TS% when a very quick defensive team, the Heat went at him. Neither had much offense to turn to or help that could take the burden. When Lebron gets the elements I talk about in the previous paragraph, he has this crazy efficient year and one of the most statistical impressive years. Ultimately, he would have been better if he just focused on attacking SA. Coach Pop can calculate a machine and develop a way to beat it. Contrast this series with Pop trying to calculate Kobe's reckless attack mode. Lebron would have been much better off abandoning his obsession with efficiency. Or look at Lebron in his next finals appearance where he alone nearly goes up 3-1 on a great team.

All of this to say, to carry a team because its all the team has to win is a great responsibility that few in most sports can do. So I wouldn't say its something derogatory at all. Most players can't get up for every game much less being the focus of every defense is a level few can attain.

Great post. Let me just reply on the bolded part.
When Thibs had Peak Rose, the team was VERY FOCUSED on the defensive side of the game. According to Hubie Brown, the Bulls spent a ton of time on defensive drills and Thibs demanded accountability and played the players who worked the hardest on stopping the other team from scoring that Korver didn't play a lot even he was hands down the team's best shooter.
This concept reminded me of Larry Brown's Sixers when they won the
Eastern finals with Iverson taking the bulk of the shots. They too played solid smothering defense that forced the other team from taking too much time of protecting the ball, thereby disrupting their offensive flow. Yes, the offensive concept of letting one player dominate the shots wasn't pretty but according to Doug Collins, it was also in a way effective cuz the opposing defense was forced to react in handling Iverson's aggressiveness that they were out of position for rebounds. AI's teammates also had an easier time on put backs=easy baskets plus their energy and focus are most spent on defense.

[LostCause]

BigKat,
Chucker is a derogatory term. When guys carry their team like Tmac, Kobe, Rose and AI, it's usually because they had too. And their coach suggested that they take a very high amount of shots. Its one of the hardest things in the sport to be a one sided scoring machine and win. Very rarely are teams like this living off of efficiency. They belong in the family of chaos makers which is a different animal. They are usually ultra aggressive players that can keep coming at you. Btw, aggression, or controlled attack, is a superior quality than efficiency in nearly every human competition. However the brain in analysis mode wants to believe efficiency is the greatest measure. As I brought up here several times that TS% is inferior to most aggression stats and that you guys never honor that Magic is the only top ten GOAT that was killer in TS%.

Coaches are rarely up to the task of coaching superior talent. Wilt, Shaq, Jordan and Kareem were around for years before coaching utilized them correctly. Now you take the Tmac, Rose, Arenas and AI who were primarily used as chaos creators who did not have much else around them offensively to go along with organizations that did not build for offensive powerhouses. If a team has shooters, passers, other superstars, strong team concept, sets great picks, floor spacers and complimentary players. Or basically the GSW model which promotes efficiency at every turn. They were built for that. Its the Mercedes construct - not the Hooptie model.

When Lebron first went to the finals he was 22 years old and faced a solid defensive team that just went at him. He was at 22ppg shooting 35% and 428 TS%. Rose went thru the same ordeal, 23ppg, shot 35%,43 TS% when a very quick defensive team, the Heat went at him. Neither had much offense to turn to or help that could take the burden. When Lebron gets the elements I talk about in the previous paragraph, he has this crazy efficient year and one of the most statistical impressive years. Ultimately, he would have been better if he just focused on attacking SA. Coach Pop can calculate a machine and develop a way to beat it. Contrast this series with Pop trying to calculate Kobe's reckless attack mode. Lebron would have been much better off abandoning his obsession with efficiency. Or look at Lebron in his next finals appearance where he alone nearly goes up 3-1 on a great team.

All of this to say, to carry a team because its all the team has to win is a great responsibility that few in most sports can do. So I wouldn't say its something derogatory at all. Most players can't get up for every game much less being the focus of every defense is a level few can attain.

Damn this is a good post.

[BigKAT]

Damn this is a good post.
It was a good post indeed.

[Pointguard]

Great post. Let me just reply on the bolded part.
When Thibs had Peak Rose, the team was VERY FOCUSED on the defensive side of the game. According to Hubie Brown, the Bulls spent a ton of time on defensive drills and Thibs demanded accountability and played the players who worked the hardest on stopping the other team from scoring that Korver didn't play a lot even he was hands down the team's best shooter.
This concept reminded me of Larry Brown's Sixers when they won the
Eastern finals with Iverson taking the bulk of the shots. They too played solid smothering defense that forced the other team from taking too much time of protecting the ball, thereby disrupting their offensive flow. Yes, the offensive concept of letting one player dominate the shots wasn't pretty but according to Doug Collins, it was also in a way effective cuz the opposing defense was forced to react in handling Iverson's aggressiveness that they were out of position for rebounds. AI's teammates also had an easier time on put backs=easy baskets plus their energy and focus are most spent on defense.
Thanks Tamaraw08, haven't seen you in a minute. Thanks Lost Cause and BigKat as well.