Has Scoring Become Undervalued Here?

[IGOTGAME]

With the enhanced use of advanced stats and increased reliance on box scores I have come to realize that scoring has become somewhat undervalued.

Many posters here seem to think that scoring a lot is a bad thing. But when is the last time a pass first point guard was the best player on a championship team. Thought so. It isn't coincidence, it is because of the nature of the game.

My question is, why has this sudden shift occurred? Is it because people don't understand the game and must rely on advanced stats or because they feel the need to down scoring to feel elitist?

[ThaRegul8r]

Im starting to notice a huge problem on this board. And that's dimissing players that can truly takeover a game scoring.

Really? A player's value on this board seems to be solely determined by whether or not he can takeover a game by scoring a lot of points.

I don't know where in the world this sentiment is coming from. Just because of one discussion on point guards, suddenly scoring has become "undervalued," when it's always been the #1 criteria for evaluating players by "most people."

[IGOTGAME]

I don't know where in the world this sentiment is coming from. Just because of one discussion on point guards, suddenly scoring has become "undervalued," when it's always been the #1 criteria for evaluating players by "most people."

post the opinion of one person and assume it = majority opinion.



and actually this has been going on for years here.

[Inactive]

Huh? Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Carmelo, Dirk, Dwight... All of the most popular players on this site are prolific scorers.

If all that you can do is score a lot of points, on low efficiency, then that is a bad thing, and it always has been.

[IGOTGAME]

Huh? Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Carmelo, Dirk, Dwight... All of the most popular players on this site are prolific scorers.

If all that you can do is score a lot of points, on low efficiency, then that is a bad thing, and it always has been.

Then we go back historically and look at Stockton, Nash, Wilt, Isiah and KG and look how how they are discussed. There lack of takeover ability is either overlooked or there takeover ability is disregarded.

Even look at how DRose is talked about here or Allen Iverson.

[DRose1899]

Huh? Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Carmelo, Dirk, Dwight... All of the most popular players on this site are prolific scorers.

If all that you can do is score a lot of points, on low efficiency, then that is a bad thing, and it always has been.

There's also opinion like "Reggie Miller/Dirk (or insert name) can only score"
Which can be pretty dumb as well.

[Smoke117]

Scoring...undervalued...HERE!? Hilarious thread.

[IGOTGAME]

Scoring...undervalued...HERE!? Hilarious thread.

really....

A place who constantly undervalues Allen Iverson greatness.

A place who constantly acts as though I. Thomas ability to take over games meant nothing because if other pgs felt like it they could do the same.

A place that pretends that if a player can score 15 points on good efficiency that he could automatically score 25 ppg when needed on decent efficiency.

A place that constantly goes at DRose for scoring on bad efficiency while he leads his team to wins.

A place that rated John Stockton over Kobe Bryant.

Come on, lets be real here.

[DRose1899]

Scoring...undervalued...HERE!? Hilarious thread.

Yeah, I see it many times on here people use that kind of argument to disregard player like Reggie, Dirk or AI.

[Inactive]

Then we go back historically and look at Stockton, Nash, Wilt, Isiah and KG and look how how they are discussed. There lack of takeover ability is either overlooked or there takeover ability is disregarded.

Even look at how DRose is talked about here or Allen Iverson.

I'm assuming that when you say "takeover ability", you mean the ability to score off isolations, outside of the team game? That's always been controversial. You're as likely to destroy team chemistry, and shoot them out of the game, as you are to be a hero, and win it.

[ThaRegul8r]

post the opinion of one person and assume it = majority opinion.

Get the emoticons out of here and improve your reading comprehension. I said nothing about "majority opinion." I posted that quote because you're now the second person today to express that general sentiment, and I'm wondering where this is coming from, when the #1 criteria for evaluating players here has always been whether or not they were a volume scorer and could takeover a game by scoring a lot of points.

It's not surprising that the average SAT reading scores are now the lowest on record.

[IGOTGAME]

I'm assuming that when you say "takeover ability", you mean the ability to score off isolations, outside of the team game? That's always been controversial. You're as likely to destroy team chemistry, and shoot them out of the game, as you are to be a hero, and win it.

that, as well as the ability to score in a high volume.

[ThaRegul8r]

Then we go back historically and look at Stockton, Nash, Wilt, Isiah and KG and look how how they are discussed. There lack of takeover ability is either overlooked or there takeover ability is disregarded.

Really? Wilt's always been ripped for his scoring dropping in the playoffs, and the knock on Garnett has always been that he isn't a "takeover scorer."

It's like this is Bizarro land now.

[kaiiu]

Its the Lebrick fan effect. Its the only way they can diminish what a player like Kobe, Durant,Melo and Rose bring to the table. Guys who like to wscore are considered" chuckers" to them

[ThaRegul8r]

There's also opinion like "Reggie Miller/Dirk (or insert name) can only score"
Which can be pretty dumb as well.

The recent knock on Reggie during the “Re: ISH All-time Top 25 guards project: #19 - Reggie Miller vs. Ray Allen” thread was that he didn't score enough with all the screens being run for him and for someone who only shot the ball, and that he "was not ever close to a takeover scorer."