14 players averaging over 25ppg...

[yeaaaman]

There are Currently 14 players averaging over 25ppg. That's a lot. From a historical context here are the numbers of players averaging over 25ppg since the 2001-2002 season

19-20: 14
18-19: 11
17-18: 7
16-17: 13
15-16: 6
14-15: 3
13-14: 5
12-13: 5
11-12: 4
10-11: 7
09-10: 7
08-09: 6
07-08: 5
06-07: 9
05-06: 10
04-05: 7
03-04: 1 - Peja was 2nd in the leauge at 24.2 FYI
02-03: 6
01-02: 6

I'm curious about how people feel about this and what they get from the stats. People look at certain eras as over-inflated in terms of stats, but then you look at 2003-04 and see that TMac was the only player to top 25ppg. Trae Young and Doncic are well beyond that in only their 2nd year in the league.

Thinking about what that means for the record books moving forward it's interesting to think if the NBA continues like this Luka could be averaging 30+ ppg or close to it from his second year on until about the next 10 years if not more. Will we see a lot of recrods falling? Scoring has clearly been emphasized, so it's going to be interesting in how we view these players over time as they become younger and younger and continue to score seemingly easier and easier than ever

[STATUTORY]

huge if true

this is why the best measure of a player legacy is rings, because there is only one championship every season regardless of how inflated stats get

legacy is always about relative greatness and nothing reflects that better than rings

[red1]

its no secret - the scoring numbers are definitely inflated

[AlternativeAcc.]

huge if true

this is why the best measure of a player legacy is rings, because there is only one championship every season regardless of how inflated stats get

legacy is always about relative greatness and nothing reflects that better than rings
there's some truth to this actually. But not in the way you intended.

ring count isn't the best measure of a players legacy, but quality of rings won + overall quality of impact over the course of career are pretty good measures.

LeBron obviously comes out on top 10 times out of 10 when we think critically about impact, quality of rings, competition, and various other circumstances that affect a players "legacy".

LeBron has proven to have by far the most impact of any player ever (this isn't even close to being debatable) and also couples that GOAT impact with GOAT longevity. Definitely a no-brainer that LeBron is the GOAT. Making an argument for any other player is foolish at best.

[yeaaaman]

there's some truth to this actually. But not in the way you intended.

ring count isn't the best measure of a players legacy, but quality of rings won + overall quality of impact over the course of career are pretty good measures.

LeBron obviously comes out on top 10 times out of 10 when we think critically about impact, quality of rings, competition, and various other circumstances that affect a players "legacy".

LeBron has proven to have by far the most impact of any player ever (this isn't even close to being debatable) and also couples that GOAT impact with GOAT longevity. Definitely a no-brainer that LeBron is the GOAT. Making an argument for any other player is foolish at best.

I don' tthink it's as simple as either of you said. There is no 1 singular way to do it. Actually, there's many ways and it's obviously subjective so the criteria people use will be different.

In regards to my original post though, I find it interesting because we can easily get caught up in what a player is doing in the here and now and have almost zero context if considering that what we're referencing it to from the past had a completely different set of circumstances that aren't easily applicable across time. I would have never guessed there were so many players scoring +25 this year but also that Luka might score more in his second year than TMac did in any of his best years in his career outside of one. What does that say? It can say a whole lot really, I just find it interesting.

[DMAVS41]

I think it is also important to just talk about the individual players because some of these guys are historically good no matter what just based on how good at playing the game they are.

Lebron/Davis/Leonard/Giannis/Harden/Towns/Lillard...I doubt we are truly questioning if those guys could score a lot in previous eras if we are honest.

Trae/Wiggins...yea, we are.

Luka/Beal/Ingram...maybe a little, but the skillset for them translates really well imo.

I don't know who else is scoring over 25, but some of these guys are just amazing...I agree the numbers are easier to come by now, but I think we have some truly great offensive players in the game right now as well.

[SpaceJam2]

there's some truth to this actually. But not in the way you intended.

ring count isn't the best measure of a players legacy, but quality of rings won + overall quality of impact over the course of career are pretty good measures.

LeBron obviously comes out on top 10 times out of 10 when we think critically about impact, quality of rings, competition, and various other circumstances that affect a players "legacy".

LeBron has proven to have by far the most impact of any player ever (this isn't even close to being debatable) and also couples that GOAT impact with GOAT longevity. Definitely a no-brainer that LeBron is the GOAT. Making an argument for any other player is foolish at best.

Bullseye

[SpaceJam2]

DMavs hit the nail on the head. Please tell me in which era most of these guys aren't dropping 25?

The league has become more talented overall, and offensive efficiencies have proven to be true by way of shooting a larger number of 3-pointers...

But please tell me which era most of these guys aren't dropping 25? :lol

Basically the league has gotten more talented. That's what happens when you aren't playing against auto mechanics

[DMAVS41]

DMavs hit the nail on the head. Please tell me in which era most of these guys aren't dropping 25?

The league has become more talented overall, and offensive efficiencies have proven to be true by way of shooting a larger number of 3-pointers...

But please tell me which era most of these guys aren't dropping 25? :lol

Basically the league has gotten more talented. That's what happens when you aren't playing against auto mechanics

In my opinion...

After looking at the list...

Wiggins/Mitchell/Trae/Siakim would not be getting enough shots/possessions used to score that much.

Luka would be capable of doing it, but I think he'd play a bit of a different style and likely wouldn't shoot enough.

But, a guy like Embiid would almost for sure be scoring over 25.

[SpaceJam2]

In my opinion...

After looking at the list...

Wiggins/Mitchell/Trae/Siakim would not be getting enough shots/possessions used to score that much.

But, a guy like Embiid would almost for sure be scoring over 25.

100% agreed

[Bronbron23]

I think it is also important to just talk about the individual players because some of these guys are historically good no matter what just based on how good at playing the game they are.

Lebron/Davis/Leonard/Giannis/Harden/Towns/Lillard...I doubt we are truly questioning if those guys could score a lot in previous eras if we are honest.

Trae/Wiggins...yea, we are.

Luka/Beal/Ingram...maybe a little, but the skillset for them translates really well imo.

I don't know who else is scoring over 25, but some of these guys are just amazing...I agree the numbers are easier to come by now, but I think we have some truly great offensive players in the game right now as well.
It's hard to say because of the rules and era. The game was so much different in previous era's. Guys like harden, luka, Leonard. Lillard, Beal, trae, Wiggins and a few others wouldn't score 25 because of less possessions and more emphasis on ball movement compared to this era ball dominance style of play. People act like if you placed harden in 90's hed still play the same style. He wouldn't. Not because he couldn't but he wouldn't be able to because thats not how coaches did shit then.

On the flip side if you placed some of the guards from previous eras in this era they would of scored alot more. This is why comparing stats has become pointless. It's better to compare how players do relative to there competition.

[DMAVS41]

It's hard to say because of the rules and era. The game was so much different in previous era's. Guys like harden, luka, Leonard. Lillard, Beal, trae, Wiggins and a few others wouldn't score 25 because of less possessions and more emphasis on ball movement compared to this era ball dominance style of play. People act like if you placed harden in 90's hed still play the same style. He wouldn't. Not because he couldn't but he wouldn't be able to because thats not how coaches did shit then.

On the flip side if you placed some of the guards from previous eras in this era they would of scored alot more. This is why comparing stats has become pointless. It's better to compare how players do relative to there competition.

I agree mostly.

My point though was that some of these guys are just great players...and we shouldn't act like just because their numbers are a little inflated...that is somehow devalues what they are doing.

Harden is scoring with the best of them...doesn't matter the era...I think it would just be silly to try and say he wouldn't. Would he be doing exactly what he's doing? Of course not, but that is my point...we don't need to try and pretend someone as good as him is a product of this era.

But I do agree that players should be compared to their peers and then build out from there for the correct historical ranking.

[STATUTORY]

Please tell me in which era most of these guys aren't dropping 25?


complete strawman

[yeaaaman]

It's hard to say because of the rules and era. The game was so much different in previous era's. Guys like harden, luka, Leonard. Lillard, Beal, trae, Wiggins and a few others wouldn't score 25 because of less possessions and more emphasis on ball movement compared to this era ball dominance style of play. People act like if you placed harden in 90's hed still play the same style. He wouldn't. Not because he couldn't but he wouldn't be able to because thats not how coaches did shit then.

On the flip side if you placed some of the guards from previous eras in this era they would of scored alot more. This is why comparing stats has become pointless. It's better to compare how players do relative to there competition.

I think that's well said but especially that it's hard to say which I think is the main takeaway. Imagine James Harden playing on the 2000s championship Pistons. I can't see it. Now like you said imagine it in the 90s.

[ArbitraryWater]

talent pool is peaking


league just has a bigger amount of great players now

[DMAVS41]

I think that's well said but especially that it's hard to say which I think is the main takeaway. Imagine James Harden playing on the 2000s championship Pistons. I can't see it. Now like you said imagine it in the 90s.

The 04 Pistons? No, of course not, his style wouldn't fit.

In place of Iverson on the 01 Sixers? Hell yea you can imagine it.

[yeaaaman]

I agree mostly.

My point though was that some of these guys are just great players...and we shouldn't act like just because their numbers are a little inflated...that is somehow devalues what they are doing.

Harden is scoring with the best of them...doesn't matter the era...I think it would just be silly to try and say he wouldn't. Would he be doing exactly what he's doing? Of course not, but that is my point...we don't need to try and pretend someone as good as him is a product of this era.

But I do agree that players should be compared to their peers and then build out from there for the correct historical ranking.

For the most part yes. But we also shouldn't act like because someone has inflated numbers that automatically makes them an all-time great, or all of a sudden better than player x or y from era x or y. I mean, sometimes it's just obvious when you watch them play regardless of inflated stats that they are all around great like you'd mentioned.

I'm not really sure about Harden, he's a great scorer but the game was played differently and the paint was packed and the rules were different. You aren't waltzing to the ft line unless you earn it. He plays in a way that's so unique it's really hard to say he'd be the same type of effective player without seeing it, which we obviously can't.

You can compare across eras but it's important to be mindful of what you're considering and how you're doing it and as you said how said players compare with their peers.

[yeaaaman]

The 04 Pistons? No, of course not, his style wouldn't fit.

In place of Iverson on the 01 Sixers? Hell yea you can imagine it.

He could play there but my point is he isn't averaging 38 more than likely.

[yeaaaman]

talent pool is peaking


league just has a bigger amount of great players now

Is it just the offense that's peaking or the defense? The talent has improved in many ways but the game is also different in many others and the talent has changed with the change in the way the game is played.

[DMAVS41]

For the most part yes. But we also shouldn't act like because someone has inflated numbers that automatically makes them an all-time great, or all of a sudden better than player x or y from era x or y. I mean, sometimes it's just obvious when you watch them play regardless of inflated stats that they are all around great like you'd mentioned.

I'm not really sure about Harden, he's a great scorer but the game was played differently and the paint was packed and the rules were different. You aren't waltzing to the ft line unless you earn it. He plays in a way that's so unique it's really hard to say he'd be the same type of effective player without seeing it, which we obviously can't.

You can compare across eras but it's important to be mindful of what you're considering and how you're doing it and as you said how said players compare with their peers.

Completely agree with the bold.

Again, I spent last week arguing with people claiming that you'd draft Luka over Dirk...even knowing how great Dirk was for so long.

I just also think it is important to note that what a guy like Luka is currently doing...numbers aside...is insane. He's 20 and he's currently got the Mavs as the best offense in the league...by far.

To chalk that up all to "inflated numbers" or "era" is silly...

[Marchesk]

The league's pace (101.2) is the highest since the 85/86 season, and the points per game is second highest to last year since 84/85. Meanwhile the overall efficiency over the past several season are the highest ever.

So we have a game played at 80s level of offense while being more efficient because of threes, and you have better spacing with less rim protection.

That is going to boost good offensive player's numbers. Teams are average 110 points per game. That is early 80s approaching 1960s levels.

[Manny98]

So much talent in todays league, we are truly in the golden age for basketball :applause:

[Marchesk]

So much talent in todays league, we are truly in the golden age for basketball :applause:

Where would you rank prime Jordan in today's league?

[SpaceJam2]

Where would you rank prime Jordan in today's league?

You mean his competiton?

Starks? :lol Hornacek? :lol Ehlo? :lol

Umm....G league at best

[Xiao Yao You]

You mean his competiton?

Starks? :lol Hornacek? :lol Ehlo? :lol

Umm....G league at best

the fact that you put a great player like Hornacek with Starks and Ehlo tells us you are clueless about what you are trolling about

[Bronbron23]

I agree mostly.

My point though was that some of these guys are just great players...and we shouldn't act like just because their numbers are a little inflated...that is somehow devalues what they are doing.

Harden is scoring with the best of them...doesn't matter the era...I think it would just be silly to try and say he wouldn't. Would he be doing exactly what he's doing? Of course not, but that is my point...we don't need to try and pretend someone as good as him is a product of this era.

But I do agree that players should be compared to their peers and then build out from there for the correct historical ranking.
Yeah for sure. I'm not a harden fan but I know hed be great in any era. That said hes probably the hardest guy to try to predict how great hed be. Right off the bat you can almost cut his foul shots in half because he wouldn't get alot of the calls he gets now. So that's about 6 points less due to calls. Then you have to look at perimeter defenders being able to be more physical when guarding him. I'm not sure how much of an impact this would have. Id say maybe 4-6 pts or so. That would put harden at around 26-28 pts a game which seems about right to me.

[SpaceJam2]

the fact that you put a great player like Hornacek with Starks and Ehlo tells us you are clueless about what you are trolling about

Riiiiight :lol

[DMAVS41]

Yeah for sure. I'm not a harden fan but I know hed be great in any era. That said hes probably the hardest guy to try to predict how great hed be. Right off the bat you can almost cut his foul shots in half because he wouldn't get alot of the calls he gets now. So that's about 6 points less due to calls. Then you have to look at perimeter defenders being able to be more physical when guarding him. I'm not sure how much of an impact this would have. Id say maybe 4-6 pts or so. That would put harden at around 26-28 pts a game which seems about right to me.

But, and this is kind of my point, you have to account for him adapting.

He wouldn't play the exact same way...because it wouldn't work as well. He's not some robot that has to play the exact same way.

[Nike D'Antoni]

Luka Doncic would not be in NBA in 1990s, he would be cleaning the floor.

[yeaaaman]

But, and this is kind of my point, you have to account for him adapting.

He wouldn't play the exact same way...because it wouldn't work as well. He's not some robot that has to play the exact same way.

That part in my opinion can legitimately questioned - or at least his willingness to. The idea of him just parking himself in the corner whenever CP3 had the ball last year, the fact he scored 200 and some odd points unassisted - no back cuts nothing, tells me a lot about his mindset to the game.

Your other comparison, Iverson shot a lot at similar percentages but he also cut like crazy, ran back doors and basically worked like a maniac to get open and create. Hardens game is different just getting it at the top and pounding the rock until he makes his move. Sure it's effective enough in the regular season but I need to see more variety from him to give me the impression he'd be just as good today as he is in say the 90s.

[3ball]

there's some truth to this actually. But not in the way you intended.

ring count isn't the best measure of a players legacy, but quality of rings won + overall quality of impact over the course of career are pretty good measures.

LeBron obviously comes out on top 10 times out of 10 when we think critically about impact, quality of rings, competition, and various other circumstances that affect a players "legacy".

LeBron has proven to have by far the most impact of any player ever (this isn't even close to being debatable) and also couples that GOAT impact with GOAT longevity. Definitely a no-brainer that LeBron is the GOAT. Making an argument for any other player is foolish at best.
Lebron has 1 quality ring - 2016 - his other rings have no argument over anyone else's

Regarding his impact, teams that use a 1-ball-dominator approach (nash-ball, cp3-ball, harden-ball, lebron-ball) fall off more when they lose that ball-dominator than teams that move the ball more.. But teams that move the ball more have higher ceilings and win more in general with or without the star player (see the current raptors, the spurs without duncan, etc)

So many people erroneously think that a team falling off a cliff without a ball-dominator means the ball-dominator impacts championship odds more, without realizing that the ceiling of ball-dominator teams generally falls below championship level.. Ultimately, a ball-dominator whose team falls off without him isn't impacting championship odds more because the team's ceiling is inherently lower with the 1 ball-dominator approach, but most people don't realize this and overrate the impact of ball-dominators
.

[Manny98]

Where would you rank prime Jordan in today's league?
Top 3

His lack of a 3 point shot would hurt him in todays league

[DMAVS41]

That part in my opinion can legitimately questioned - or at least his willingness to. The idea of him just parking himself in the corner whenever CP3 had the ball last year, the fact he scored 200 and some odd points unassisted - no back cuts nothing, tells me a lot about his mindset to the game.

Your other comparison, Iverson shot a lot at similar percentages but he also cut like crazy, ran back doors and basically worked like a maniac to get open and create. Hardens game is different just getting it at the top and pounding the rock until he makes his move. Sure it's effective enough in the regular season but I need to see more variety from him to give me the impression he'd be just as good today as he is in say the 90s.

Well, he made it work with Paul for 2 years and they were legit contenders while having elite offenses both years.

So far this year...the Rockets once again have a great offense.

I'm not saying he'd be just as good in other eras as he is today...not at all. I'm simply saying that he's not going from MVP type player to something much much worse.

Again, you have to understand that his style...while I hate it...is working. To argue he doesn't care about what works just isn't fair because we've seen his game evolve and change over time.

Hell, just selfishly he'd adapt to get a big contract.

Like, and this again is my point...you guys have to stop pretending like these players simply can't adapt. Especially when we've literally seen it right in front of our eyes. When you have the size and skill-set of Harden...you are going to torch people on offense...yes, to varying degrees, but he's not waking up as anything other than an offensive force in NBA history.

[Marchesk]

I mean, if we put Harden on the Denver Nuggets in the 80s, he might put up similar numbers. Say switch him for Michael Adams.

[tontoz]

First of all we are still in small sample size theater. It is a lot easier to yaverage 25 through 20 games than 82 games.

Secondly if you are comparing different eras you should take into account the faster pace of today's game. Looking at per 100 possession numbers is a better way to compare players in different eras.

[STATUTORY]

First of all we are still in small sample size theater. It is a lot easier to yaverage 25 through 20 games than 82 games.

Secondly if you are comparing different eras you should take into account the faster pace of today's game. Looking at per 100 possession numbers is a better way to compare players in different eras.

per 100 numbers does nothing to adjust differences in efficiency across eras so it's not sufficient

[Bronbron23]

But, and this is kind of my point, you have to account for him adapting.

He wouldn't play the exact same way...because it wouldn't work as well. He's not some robot that has to play the exact same way.
Yeah I agree. There's alot of variables when comparing players of different era's. It's hard to say for sure really.

[tontoz]

per 100 numbers does nothing to adjust differences in efficiency across eras so it's not sufficient

It is far better than looking at per game numbers which is what OP is doing.

[yeaaaman]

It is far better than looking at per game numbers which is what OP is doing.

Obviously I know the pace of play is different in this era which is highlighted through the per game averages. I was saying in general, it speaks to the change in the way the game is played, skill level, lack of defenses whatever you want to attribute it to but lets be real most people used basic metrics in their arguments for players from one point in time to another.

But this thread was more a general discussion and not meant to be a comparison of eras. Especially when thinking about guys like Luka and Trey in their second year but how they are so dominant in scoring. Pace shouldn't account for skill age and ability, and they're showing, which may continue to be shown by future young stars that they are just as good as seasoned stars at scoring, in the regular season at least. I find that interesting.

I do agree I would expect the numbers to drop off but that's still to be seen.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Lebron has 1 quality ring - 2016 - his other rings have no argument over anyone else's

Regarding his impact, teams that use a 1-ball-dominator approach (nash-ball, cp3-ball, harden-ball, lebron-ball) fall off more when they lose that ball-dominator than teams that move the ball more.. But teams that move the ball more have higher ceilings and win more in general with or without the star player (see the current raptors, the spurs without duncan, etc)

So many people erroneously think that a team falling off a cliff without a ball-dominator means the ball-dominator impacts championship odds more, without realizing that the ceiling of ball-dominator teams generally falls below championship level.. Ultimately, a ball-dominator whose team falls off without him isn't impacting championship odds more because the team's ceiling is inherently lower with the 1 ball-dominator approach, but most people don't realize this and overrate the impact of ball-dominators
.
you've posted this 9 times in 4 different threads.

But anyways,

"ball-dominators" are nothing more than players who happen to be the best ball-handlers, decision makers, and passers on the team. They "dominate" the ball, because it's in the best interest of the team. Teams that lack talent and depth are forced to play a ball-dominating approach instead of a more balanced approach where the inferior role players inevitably get outplayed by the more talented role players on the opposing team. Having the elite player dominate the ball gives the out-matched team the best (and only) odds of winning the game or series.

[Bronbron23]

Top 3

His lack of a 3 point shot would hurt him in todays league
Lebron hits less than 2 threes a game on ok efficiency and hes been the best player in the world for a long time. Mj would be fine.

[SpaceJam2]

Lebron hits less than 2 threes a game on ok efficiency and hes been the best player in the world for a long time. Mj would be fine.

MJ was used to the WNBA lil Tykes 3 pt line tho

[Bronbron23]

MJ was used to the WNBA lil Tykes 3 pt line tho
Nope this is one of the biggest lies ever told. The 3 point line was shortened from 94-97 in the post season mj actually shot worse from the shortened line.

Mj was actually more efficient from the regular 3 pt line in the post season than lebron was :facepalm

[StrongLurk]

It's hard to say because of the rules and era. The game was so much different in previous era's. Guys like harden, luka, Leonard. Lillard, Beal, trae, Wiggins and a few others wouldn't score 25 because of less possessions and more emphasis on ball movement compared to this era ball dominance style of play. People act like if you placed harden in 90's hed still play the same style. He wouldn't. Not because he couldn't but he wouldn't be able to because thats not how coaches did shit then.

On the flip side if you placed some of the guards from previous eras in this era they would of scored alot more. This is why comparing stats has become pointless. It's better to compare how players do relative to there competition.

Why is Harden DOMINATING scoring the ball since last year then compared to the rest of the league? 2nd place scorer has been like 7-8 ppg less than Harden which is an absolutely massive gap.

[Horatio33]

Riiiiight :lol
He

[Bronbron23]

Why is Harden DOMINATING scoring the ball since last year then compared to the rest of the league? 2nd place scorer has been like 7-8 ppg less than Harden which is an absolutely massive gap.
Because of the regular season rules. Hes not dominating the same way come playoff time. Last year he was only a point above the next guy. His efficiency was worse the the next 5 or 6 guys also. The year before that he he was 5 th in playoff scoring.

[StrongLurk]

Why is Harden DOMINATING scoring the ball since last year then compared to the rest of the league? 2nd place scorer has been like 7-8 ppg less than Harden which is an absolutely massive gap.

Holy shit, major bump on this post.

Harden ended up with 60 tonight :lol

[Draz]

It speaks volumes that no one's playing true defense.

[Metroid]

I think the league made some changes last seasons to improve scoring. Specially perimeter players.