This thread is bullshyt. As Loki pointed out, Jordan shot 50+% for his career and he had to take all the big shots, bail outs, etc.
Saying it's ok to shoot low 40s and below because you're the main guy on the team is basically saying it's ok to chuck chuck chuck and not worry about efficiency.
A high scoring player that's EFFICIENT is extremely valuable. To pretend fg% "doesn't matter" is quite ignorant, IMO.
Where's the debate? I think we all know which players in the league are true #1 option and who aren't. No one I know is confusing Marion and Kobe and which is more valuable to their perspective game.
But I do believe there is a argument to be had on how effective a tier player is in that role he has for that team. For instance, is Marion a better 2nd option than Kobe is a first? With arguments these, I feel we can better disect a players overall effectiveness for each individual player. Hence LeBron > Kobe
FG% is one of the most important stats in basketball. To undermine for silly reasons like 'they take circus shots when time is running out' is just flat-out wrong, because they don't. I'll take a 20-25 ppg scorer who shoots 50% over a 30-35 ppg scorer who shoots 40%.
statements like this are the reason I say Fg% is overrated..
I mean what else does the 30-35 ppg scorer do besides score 10 more points on a lesser shooting %?
The game is about a whole lot more than who shoots a better %..
*who is the better defender?
*who is the better rebounder?
*who is the better leader?
*who is younger?
*who is taller?
*who is more durable?
the thread starter is right, you cannot use FG% when comparing #1 options to role players, or even 2nd/3rd options. If you compare Kobe to Rip Hamilton for instance, Rip obviously has a better FG%, but that's because he gets easier shots because he isn't the primary option on the team, defense cannot concentrate on him. Also he has a premier PG on his team. So it's only logical that someone like Kobe (or AI, TMac in Orlando etc), who is forced to create for himself because of worse teammates will shoot a lower percentage.
You can only use FG% as a decisive factor if two players are in similar situations, when comparing the likes of Wade, Bron, Kobe, AI, TMac to each other. Or Rip to Josh or something.
can you explain shaq's, MJ's, hakeem's, kareem's, wilt's, larry's, or duncan's insanely high FG% as 1st options then ? those guys knew all the possible combinations and even dreamed about double teams.
the whole premise of this thread is just trying to deny the fact that some 1st options are better than others.
can you explain shaq's, MJ's, hakeem's, kareem's, wilt's, larry's, or duncan's insanely high FG% as 1st options then ?
Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Duncan are all big men who play in the post.. so they had better have a high shooting % or they wont be worth much playing so close to the basket...Jordan, Bird, Magic shot a lower percentage than the big men, but they arent any less valuable
A better question would be:
is the best of that group the best because of their shooting %?
Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Duncan are all big men who play in the post.. so they had better have a high shooting % or they wont be worth much playing so close to the basket...Jordan, Bird, Magic shot a lower percentage than the big men, but they arent any less valuable
those big man also played against a PERMANENT double team, unlike the likes of iverson, kobe, tmac, carter, etc, so their advantage in size doesnt mean jack, they were playing against 2 people.
jordan and larry shot lower % than the big man, but still 50+% for a perimeter player is god damn FREAKISH.
jordan shot 50% for his career (51% before washington and as high as 54% one season), compare that to the "new mikes" of the league, none of them can shoot 50% for a season against single coverage, let alone shoot 51% for their careers against smothering defense focused on stopping you no matter what.
and yes, that group is easily better than any other group of players you can name who shoot in the mid 40's %, all the players i mentioned except duncan are probably top 10 scorers of all-time.
Last edited by DreamRockets : 03-12-2007 at 01:10 PM.
those big man also played against a PERMANENT double team, unlike the likes of iverson, kobe, tmac, carter, etc, so their advantage in size doesnt mean jack, they were playing against 2 PEOPLE .
Guards(especially top guards like AI, kobe tmac) get doubled too.. AIs double was permanent when he was here and he is alot smaller than most 2 guards, so I'd say size does matter...
Quote:
jordan and larry shot lower % than the big man, but still 50+% for a perimeter player is god damn FREAKISH.
yeah but Fg% need not be freakish in order to build a contender... Freakish is good, but freakish is not always a realistic expectation, Jordan was the best, so of course his stats will be superior to almost all other players.. Jordan, Bird, Magic those are special players..
jordan shot 50% for his career (51% before washington and as high as 54% one season), compare that to the "new mikes" of the league, none of them can shoot 50% for a season against single coverage, let alone shoot 51% for their careers against smothering defense focused on stopping you no matter what.[/quote]
and yes, that group is easily better than any other group of players you can name who shoot in the mid 40's %[/quote]
the problem with this argument is that it takes a handful of guys from all of league history and tries to form a coherent argument against Fg% being overrated...
a handful of the best guys to ever play dont effectively illustrate that Fg% is as important as people try to make it out to be....
it shows the best numbers, not the average numbers
It is a factor that needs to be considered, but its not always the most important factor...
the important thing is that its importance is dependent on the other factors within the team...
like:
*what other pieces are there on the team?
*what is the team philosophy?
yeah, AI was doubled a lot in his sixers years, but what was his FG% again ?
kobe's FG% drops to 41% during the championship years in the games shaq missed, did he forget that he shot 45-47% when he was on the court ? i don't think he forgot how to shoot.
their field goal % dropping supports my point (especially kobe's which dropped immediately when he became the main option on the team instead of the main beneficiary to Shaq's presence)
their field goal % dropping supports my point (especially kobe's which dropped immediately when he became the main option on the team instead of the main beneficiary to Shaq's presence)
i don't see it that way, i see it like if some 1st options can score against all the pressure and STILL shoot 50% and up to 58% in shaq's case, then why excuse those who can't ? let's just admit they aren't as good as the 30ppg/50%/1st options and move on.
One of the reasons that a player's field goal percentage drops in a situation like Bryant's (losing Shaq and then becoming the #1 option instantly) is that the team has to change its entire approach to accomodate.
If the Lakers lose Shaq, their entire offensive gameplan has to be instantly revamped. You don't run the same offense through whatever scrub backup you have for Shaq. You've got to change your approach completely. PS - you have no time to put in new sets or practice with your new #1 guy.
i don't see it that way, i see it like if some 1st options can score against all the pressure and STILL shoot 50% and up to 58% in shaq's case, then why excuse those who can't ? let's just admit they aren't as good as the 30ppg/50%/1st options and move on.
that doesnt take into account things like size..(Jordan is 6'6 and Shaq is 7'1)... It also doesnt account for team dynamic.. a great player playing on a loaded team might need to put up the offesive numbers another player on a strictly defensive oriented team might on offense
no it wouldnt, because jordan shooting 50% in his career from the Sg position might be argued to be more impressive than shaq's 58% career fg%, if kobe, iverson, carter or tmac were as good they would shoot close to that, the only one i can understand is AI who at 6'0 can't even finish above the rim as well as the others, sorry but this thread has the stench of "excuse making" all over it.
We don't need apologists for inefficient chuckers. There have been plenty of number one option-perimeter players who have been both efficient and high volume scorers.
If you're only hitting 40% of your shots, maybe you shouldn't be shooting so ****ing much.
no it wouldnt, because jordan shooting 50% in his career from the Sg position might be argued to be more impressive than shaq's 58% career fg%, if kobe, iverson, carter or tmac were as good they would shoot close to that, the only one i can understand is AI who at 6'0 can't even finish above the rim as well as the others, sorry but this thread has the stench of "excuse making" all over it.
you talk like its easy to do the things kobe and AI are doing.. Those guys will be first ballot hall of famers and though they dont shoot the ball at a similar clip to Mj, no guard ever has.... Mj is the best guard to ever play the game.... but there are championship still to be won and a player doesnt have to be Michael Jordan to be a great #1 option.....
the sum of that player's talents is more important than whatever his Fg% may be
These stats are relative and they should be viewed in that fashion....You make the argument that the guys with the lower percentage should be looked at as lesser players when you say : "i see it like if some 1st options can score against all the pressure and STILL shoot 50% and up to 58% in shaq's case, then why excuse those who can't ? let's just admit they aren't as good as the 30ppg/50%/1st options and move on."
there are many more factors that need to be accounted for when deciding "Who is better" besides Fg%....
Re: I've come to the conclusion that...
and he is alot smaller than most 2 guards, so I'd say size does matter...
