Are you annoyed by the high scoring eras making it hard to tell who is good?

[Kblaze8855]

And who is merely productive?

You look over history....some eras just have odd clumps of guys doing bonkers numbers. The really early 60s.....parts of the 80s....today.

You dont know if a guy like Richie Guerin is great because he scores 30 a game of if he scores 30 because his team scores 120. YOure not sure just hos good Kelly Tripuka is...because Isiah Thomas had his team running so much they scored like 124ppg. I liked Calvin Natt....tough guy. Wprker. Scored like 22-23 a game on the 80s Nuggets. IS that a "real" 23 a game or is it because they didnt do shit but run for 12-15 years? Do I count Michael Adams 21/11 on a 131ppg giving up Nuggets?

Forget even guys like Harden doing 37 a game or Westbrook with 32/11/10 or Giannis and Embiid with the wild numbers....

You look at lower level guy ...someone I like and think has a future like John Collins.

How do I put his 20/10 in context? His team scores 114 a game and gives up 120. Shots all over. Missed shots. Made shots. Someones gotta score. Assists will pile up. Shots miss...rebounds will be grabbed. How do you look at his production vs like...Alan Henderson?

The Hawks from 20 years ago put up 86ppg and gave up 83. We are talking a 36-37 point difference in PPG allowed. THe Hawks take 92 shots as opposed to 75. IF Alan Hendersons team had 17 more shots to take might he get...3 of them?

Is it out of line to think a nobody like Alan Henderson goes from 12-14 a game to 17-18 given way more stats for everyone to accumulate?


Obviously it brings us to the core issue/problem....which is thinking numbers=ability in the first place. But thats a somewhat different discussion....

There is simply no way prime Ray Allen plays 38 minutes a game today to come away with 22 points. IT was the time he played in that made that happen. Having to share it with Big Dog/Sam as well but even before that he did like 19 a game in 40 minutes. You imagine Ray Allen playing 40 minutes today coming away with 20 points a game? Course not. Hed be taking 11 threes a game and dunking on everyone in his Bucks form. THe floors are too spaced....the game would cater to him too well.

I cant help but think when I watch a lot of these second and third tier guys? THe 16-20ppg guys? I cant help but wonder if they would even be worth knowing 20 years ago. Not by skillsets...just off what they would be producing.

Give Brian Grant an extra 10-15 possessions....is he a 18/10 guy we talk about as a near star? If he does 15/9 on a team that takes 76 shots(8 less than the slowest today almost 20 less than the Bucks)? Is it unfair to speculate?


Its not about these players in particular....I like Collins as I said. I liked Calvin Natt too. But is it not fair to wonder if we are watching an unusual number of Richie Guerins who people will one day google like "Yea....but that was a 2019 30ppg" they won make an apples to apples comparison with?

Im not really trying to bash this era...im talking about all eras. The general discrepancies in how productive the league allows players to be. Like Stockton...who I love. Nobody is just 15 assists a game great as a playmaker. The late 80s Jazz wouldnt be THAT productive in the late 90s. The late 90s west didnt play like the late 80s west. Doesnt take anything away from John. Just a matter of the numbers available to put up.

Im sure some of these guys you watch now give you a "Yea but....thats like a Truck Robinson 22/14....not a Charles Barkley 22/14" vibe where you just feel like its the times giving them an edge.

Isnt that a bit annoying?

Makes you pay closer attention than usual. I gotta actually watch a guy closely to see if his 19ppg even impresses me. Mo Pete might be doing 20 a game on some teams right now....but hed still be Mo Pete you know?

Lot of Clarence Weatherpoon guys might be able to weasel their way into max money just off a cheap 24 a game and you cant really rule out them not being that good.

20ppg gets you 120 million now even if it would be 15ppg 20 years ago. You cant judge guys off yesteryears standards but it kinda feels like we are when we still look at the old 20ppg or 10 rebounds or whatever as a standard.

I dont know. Im not really going anywhere specific....just wondering if you feel that way sometimes when you see that *insert slightly above average player* is scoring like a near all star might years ago.

Im sick of tuning into league pass games to see some productive young guy I immediately realize is just getting a lot of looks because his team runs all day. You have to look harder than ever to see who really stands out. Or is that just me?

[stalkerforlife]

Been this way for a while.

Stackhouse averaged 30.

Ricky Davis.

SAR.

Jefferson.

Etc.

Low impact high scorers that have a f uck you mentality and get paid.

Happens at the lowest levels on.

[NBAGOAT]

per 100 is what I'm looking at more. It's not perfect but the best for adjusting for eras as a default. Then it's rts% for how efficient someone is. ts% compared to the league average ts%.

Then you just have to watch more but also account for someone's role with a team. Like collins is mostly a rim runner on a fast paced team which is obviously lead by trae. A very raw amare being generous. He's clearly not the offensive player lma is even though lma only scores 21 and they play in the same year.

[Kblaze8855]

Ricky really wasnt that productive. Maybe 21ppg off the top in probably 38-40 minutes?

Stackhouse was just on some wild shit. 7-34 games shit. I dont think he had too many people fooled.

Shareef to me ive never been that sold on being the dreaded "empty stats"(which almost nobody can even define). Well maybe at one time....but when I really think about it?

You hear guys talk shit about Shareef but almost nobody has an opinion on what he was really doing wrong. Its like they thought Shareef, Big Country, and Anthony Peeler were supposed to win. Who else they give him? Dickerson? A year or two with Mike Bibby who instantly went back to not winning once the Kings fell apart?

He kinds has a bad reputation for no particular wrongdoing.

I dont think his teams would have been good with like...Rasheed Wallace either.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Its why I'm not big on stats.

Or...numbers produced by perpetual losing players. And ball clubs.

Its hard to find that middle ground...where a player YOU KNOW has high impact, and can WILL average/below players around him.

2003 Mcgrady...2006 Kobe...2009 Wade naturally come to mind. Of course, Kobe and Wade already had the benefit of ringing.

[NBAGOAT]

i would say only kind of annoying thing this year was some rim runners/offensive rebounders without an outside shot scoring like 17 a game where even last year they were low teen types and brought most of their value defensively.

capela 16.6 in 34 min, gobert 15.8 in 32 min, 16.6 in 26min. The old standards of if you score 15+, you're more than a role player as a scorer didnt apply to those guys this year. I'm not counting drummond since he throws in some bad postups a game(could be underrating harrell here).

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Far as less obvious players?

As lead dogs?

Brandon Roy. Elton Brand. Ray Allen with those Sonic teams...

You could sort of tell just watching them play. They were all high iq, and made "winning" plays for the most part.

[red1]

many stats are absolutely inflated nowadays just because of the pace. it goes without saying harden and westbrook are clearly not as good as their insane stats indicate.

[tanibanana]

I am already contented with All-NBA selections to tell which players are good and which are

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Far as less obvious players?

As lead dogs?

Brandon Roy. Elton Brand. Ray Allen with those Sonic teams...

You could sort of tell just watching them play. They were all high iq, and made "winning" plays for the most part.

Elaborating a bit...

Brandon Roy could light you up, but played "safe" within that Portland offense. Safe or smart, whatever.

Money from mid range. Great finisher. Pretty good 3-point shooter. He never forced things though, unless you're talking about a hot streak or something. You never got the sense Roy chased numbers. He played hard...and was efficient doing so.

Ditto with Ray. Master off the ball. Amazing shooter basically everywhere on the court. Like Roy, Allen understood when to take over...and similarly never pressed it. Ray was a damn good defender too. Those Sonics didn't really make a lot of noise, but watching them, you knew he gave his team max effort. Today? Everything he did would be considered a "winning play". Seattle was just garbage outside of Ray. I don't think he was ever suited as a lead dog either.

[GimmeThat]

blame it on capitalism, small town heroes on the big stage pondering the multi-sport aspect because they spent too much time building on their entourage

or right, buffet

[Bosnian Sajo]

Michael Adams 1990-1991 season

26.5ppg, 10.5apg, 4rpg, 2.2spg

Looks incredible off of those stats alone, and then you look at the efficiency numbers...

39% FG, 29% 3pt attempting 8.5 three pointers per game


His efficiency stats look absolutely disgusting, but what surprises me the most is the fact that he took 8.5 threes per game in an era that I previously assumed that was unheard of. Especially listening to players from that era, they specifically say how no one has shot as many threes per game as Klay and Steph.

For all the 3's he attempts per game, Klay has never averaged 8.5 or more per game.


Just a completely random thing I noticed from reading the OP.

[Kblaze8855]

Yea that nuggets team was wild. Here is an unwatchable by modern standards video I did on them years ago that at least has a somewhat watchable intro on them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF0-JmUNQs0



Quality will give you heartburn but it was made a long time ago with 25 year old footage off a tape....

THey decided to abandon defense and do nothing but score. Adams gunned away like nobody ever had before.

[paksat]

just ask bron stans, they have the answer

EVERYone is good, greatest most skilled era in history!

[Bosnian Sajo]

Ricky really wasnt that productive. Maybe 21ppg off the top in probably 38-40 minutes?

Stackhouse was just on some wild shit. 7-34 games shit. I dont think he had too many people fooled.

Shareef to me ive never been that sold on being the dreaded "empty stats"(which almost nobody can even define). Well maybe at one time....but when I really think about it?

You hear guys talk shit about Shareef but almost nobody has an opinion on what he was really doing wrong. Its like they thought Shareef, Big Country, and Anthony Peeler were supposed to win. Who else they give him? Dickerson? A year or two with Mike Bibby who instantly went back to not winning once the Kings fell apart?

He kinds has a bad reputation for no particular wrongdoing.

I dont think his teams would have been good with like...Rasheed Wallace either.


I feel like you're underselling just how bad those Grizzlies teams he was on were, they weren't just missing the playoffs...3 out of the 5 seasons he was on the squad, the team was THE worst team in the league. The other 2 seasons, they finished bottom 4. I know there is only so much 1 player can do, but in an era where stars were not teaming up like they are today (not counting the Rockets of that era), how does a player like Shareef not impact them enough to at least win a few more games?

Yes his supporting cast was nothing special, but surly a 20/10 big man that was decently efficient could make SOME kind of impact.

Move onto his Atlanta years, he joined a young Jason Terry who was a walking bucket, Glen Robinson who was throwing up 20ppg still, and a defensive specialist in Theo Ratliff and still they couldn't make the playoffs in the east (3 seasons in total, think he left after the 3rd)? At some point the star player has to get the blame, he changed teams multiple times and it never worked out.


That's my argument for him being the definition of empty stats.


The same argument you're making defending him could also be applied to Demarcus Cousins during his Sac Kings years, but as we all see his reputation is playing a big role on why he is on back to back minimum contracts (plus of course his injury, but you can't say his reputation has nothing to do with it as well). He always had those big inflated numbers (as did his teammates...Rudy Gay, Darren Collison, Rajon Rondo, IT3, etc.) but never the wins to match.


To stay on topic about Shareef...I will admit that I was too young to watch those Grizzlies/Hawks teams myself and that you probably have a much better recollection of his game, but at some point you have to hold the player accountable..especially when it ends up becoming a trend throughout his career. Was he really just that unlucky to be playing for the worst teams during his 12 year career?


And it's not just these two, there are tons of players throughout history that put up good numbers on shitty teams (what I assume the basis of this thread is about), but I use Shareef's name when talking about players with empty stats because he only made the playoffs once in his 12 year career, and that was when Ron Artest joined the Kings and got them to the playoffs along with Mike Bibby, Bonzi, and Brad Miller. His teams were always bottom of the barrel.

[iamgine]

And who is merely productive?

You look over history....some eras just have odd clumps of guys doing bonkers numbers. The really early 60s.....parts of the 80s....today.

You dont know if a guy like Richie Guerin is great because he scores 30 a game of if he scores 30 because his team scores 120. YOure not sure just hos good Kelly Tripuka is...because Isiah Thomas had his team running so much they scored like 124ppg. I liked Calvin Natt....tough guy. Wprker. Scored like 22-23 a game on the 80s Nuggets. IS that a "real" 23 a game or is it because they didnt do shit but run for 12-15 years? Do I count Michael Adams 21/11 on a 131ppg giving up Nuggets?

Forget even guys like Harden doing 37 a game or Westbrook with 32/11/10 or Giannis and Embiid with the wild numbers....

You look at lower level guy ...someone I like and think has a future like John Collins.

How do I put his 20/10 in context? His team scores 114 a game and gives up 120. Shots all over. Missed shots. Made shots. Someones gotta score. Assists will pile up. Shots miss...rebounds will be grabbed. How do you look at his production vs like...Alan Henderson?

The Hawks from 20 years ago put up 86ppg and gave up 83. We are talking a 36-37 point difference in PPG allowed. THe Hawks take 92 shots as opposed to 75. IF Alan Hendersons team had 17 more shots to take might he get...3 of them?

Is it out of line to think a nobody like Alan Henderson goes from 12-14 a game to 17-18 given way more stats for everyone to accumulate?


Obviously it brings us to the core issue/problem....which is thinking numbers=ability in the first place. But thats a somewhat different discussion....

There is simply no way prime Ray Allen plays 38 minutes a game today to come away with 22 points. IT was the time he played in that made that happen. Having to share it with Big Dog/Sam as well but even before that he did like 19 a game in 40 minutes. You imagine Ray Allen playing 40 minutes today coming away with 20 points a game? Course not. Hed be taking 11 threes a game and dunking on everyone in his Bucks form. THe floors are too spaced....the game would cater to him too well.

I cant help but think when I watch a lot of these second and third tier guys? THe 16-20ppg guys? I cant help but wonder if they would even be worth knowing 20 years ago. Not by skillsets...just off what they would be producing.

Give Brian Grant an extra 10-15 possessions....is he a 18/10 guy we talk about as a near star? If he does 15/9 on a team that takes 76 shots(8 less than the slowest today almost 20 less than the Bucks)? Is it unfair to speculate?


Its not about these players in particular....I like Collins as I said. I liked Calvin Natt too. But is it not fair to wonder if we are watching an unusual number of Richie Guerins who people will one day google like "Yea....but that was a 2019 30ppg" they won make an apples to apples comparison with?

Im not really trying to bash this era...im talking about all eras. The general discrepancies in how productive the league allows players to be. Like Stockton...who I love. Nobody is just 15 assists a game great as a playmaker. The late 80s Jazz wouldnt be THAT productive in the late 90s. The late 90s west didnt play like the late 80s west. Doesnt take anything away from John. Just a matter of the numbers available to put up.

Im sure some of these guys you watch now give you a "Yea but....thats like a Truck Robinson 22/14....not a Charles Barkley 22/14" vibe where you just feel like its the times giving them an edge.

Isnt that a bit annoying?

Makes you pay closer attention than usual. I gotta actually watch a guy closely to see if his 19ppg even impresses me. Mo Pete might be doing 20 a game on some teams right now....but hed still be Mo Pete you know?

Lot of Clarence Weatherpoon guys might be able to weasel their way into max money just off a cheap 24 a game and you cant really rule out them not being that good.

20ppg gets you 120 million now even if it would be 15ppg 20 years ago. You cant judge guys off yesteryears standards but it kinda feels like we are when we still look at the old 20ppg or 10 rebounds or whatever as a standard.

I dont know. Im not really going anywhere specific....just wondering if you feel that way sometimes when you see that *insert slightly above average player* is scoring like a near all star might years ago.

Im sick of tuning into league pass games to see some productive young guy I immediately realize is just getting a lot of looks because his team runs all day. You have to look harder than ever to see who really stands out. Or is that just me?
If you are keen on stats, there's a per 100 possession stat.

[warriorfan]

No. It

[Marchesk]

Michael Adams 1990-1991 season

26.5ppg, 10.5apg, 4rpg, 2.2spg

Looks incredible off of those stats alone, and then you look at the efficiency numbers...

39% FG, 29% 3pt attempting 8.5 three pointers per game

Whoa, I take it nobody else has shot that many threes under 30% in history?

[Phoenix]

I think that's why people need to actually *watch* the games for the context of how stats are achieved, instead of quoting basketball reference pages which a number of people on this forum seem to do. Two guys can average 25ppg and mean very different things, but someone ignorant to what actually happened( by using boxscores as their sole source of info) will argue they were equal scorers.