Could even the worst NBA player score 20 points if they shot as much as Kobe?

[Figlo]

Mike James

[Overdrive]

Basically yes, aslong as the player hits atleast 33.3% of his 2pt FGs and 22.2% of his 3pt FGs and 66,6% of his FTs, but as others said that would mean that the player has no one to influence him from the outside.

The PG/other players would have to hand him the ball atleast 30 times and obviously that player isn't good at shot creation or even spot up shooting, so why should it be done? It would kill the team chemistry. The coach wouldn't allow this and the team would only lose.

Aside from that: How many minutes would it take for said player to get up those 30 shots. A game consists, if not for some high speed offense, of 60-70 shots per game. So that player to take half of those shots has to play huge minutes and command every second shot. So I think it's harder to get said player those 30 shots than to make a third of them fall.

The difference between this hypothetical player and Kobe Bryant is that Kobe hits his shot with good enough efficiency. He's not Wilt Chamberlain efficient, but he gets trashed for his shooting % by alot of people while Ray Allen, having no better % overall and scoring less gets praised as basically the best shooter ever.

[INDI]

[QUOTE=Faptastrophe]Today on Twitter I made the following assertion:


Being a wise person, @jon_e_nichols actually asked for proof on the subject. Of course, it

[upside24]

Found his exact tweet

https://twitter.com/NerdNumbers/stat...71892875239426

"I don't watch the games on a regular basis because I don't have cable. I'll wager I read more stats than 95% of fans."


How can anyone take that seriously?

[TheMarkMadsen]

This is the dumbest thread on ISH right now.

You'd think some people have no idea how basketball works.

This question was answered in like 6th grade

[longtime lurker]

Yes Steve Blake could hit 20 points given that he takes enough shots. Jesus this site is full of idiots. For the people saying yes to this question have u ever even played a basketball game or watched one?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Thats terrible logic. Could they? Yes. Will they without fail? No. Tell a crappy player to go out and score 20 and his FG% will plummet. He might have a good game and score 20, he might not and shoot 1 for 26. Reality is a harsh place.

[The Iron Fist]

why did they use Kobe as the standard when Lebron shoots more per game?

[AlphaWolf24]

NO..but the worst player could join Wade and Bosh and still win a Title...

[jjayfive]

Today on Twitter I made the following assertion:


Being a wise person, @jon_e_nichols actually asked for proof on the subject. Of course, it’s unlikely that I’ll get most NBA teams to just start handing out 20-30 shots to every random player. But let’s have a fun thought experiment. Using 500 minutes as a cutoff, I went searching for some bad players. Last season the player with the worst TS% was Shawne Williams with 37.2%. If we then looked for the player with the worst free throws vs. field goal attempts we get Mike Miller with 2%. Putting the two together we have a fun formula:

[FONT="Georgia"][True Shooting Percentage] = [Points] / (2 * ([FGA] + 0.44 * [FTA]))[/FONT]

or, with concrete numbers

[FONT="Georgia"]0.372 = 20 / (2 * (X + 0.44 * 0.02 X))[/FONT]

Fun right? I’ll break it down. That’s actually the break down for True Shooting percentage. I’m solving for X. Here’s the breakdown. If a player had the worst shooting in the league (0.372 on the left) and got to the line the lowest in the league (the 0.02 on the right) then how many shots (X) would that player need to get to score 20 points. The answer? 26.6!

So there you have it. If a player can take 26.6 shots at the worst shooting rate in the league without ever getting to the line…they can still break 20 points per game! This is a formula another player figured out…

-Dre

Source.

unfortunately, organized basketball doesn't work this way... it's easier going down the court and chucking up shots than running a system.. most average players in the NBA can not create their own shots... The worse players can't even get 20 shots up... there are more variables than just shooting percentage... I'm assuming you don't play basketball...

[Myth]

I would love to watch Joel Anthony shoot 23 shots a game.

[Owl]

This is the perfect case of statistical analysis void of context.

AI was an inefficient scorer. The question that should follow is, why was he inefficient, why did he have to take 28 shots a game. Basketball is not a vacuum; it's a highly dynamic entity, as is every sport outside of maybe baseball. Maybe. In this case, the reasoning is quite understanding: Iverson was a midget playing amongst giants, who was the ONLY individual on his team that the coaches, players, and fans could rely on to create offense, both for himself and others. He was the most capable on those Philly teams to put the ball in the basket, and that's why he averaged so many field goals per game. Because although he may only have a 40% chance on making that basket, it was more proficient to have the ball in his hands than Eric friggin Snow or Aaron Mckie. Or any of Philly's offensively incompetent bigs.

With that type of high player usage, with ENTIRE DEFENSES molded around a 6 foot player - because they literally did not have to worry for even one other player on those Philly teams offensively - AI's efficiency was bound to take a hit.

Try having some insight man, basketball was not born off of statistics and it has not evolved off of statistics. Stats are there to measure greatness, not explain it. Expand your peripheral, and start taking players and numbers into context.

Your explanation fits for why he shot that much in that season. But then you have to ask whether the reason a team was built around him with non-shot creator defenders was because he couldn't co-exist with shot creators. AI played with the likes of Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other solid scorers like Corliss Williamson and Clarence Weatherspoon. Those teams didn't contend at all and those players generally couldn't co-exist with Iverson. Later on (when he was older) he played well with Carmelo when it was clear he wasn't the first option or the star, but through his prime you do have to at least look at why Iverson played better with defensive oriented players who shot less (but at solid %s). This is not, of course, to assert that Iverson had no value (see below).

The main flaw with Dre (the author quoted in OP)'s argument is the implication that shot creation has no value. Because he has overstated his case he opened himself to ridicule. His taking the worst ts% and worst ability to draw fouls ignores the increase in defensive attention payed to such players. If a player who already shoots badly anyway is forced to create his own shot much more, with tighter defense and has to take shots late in the clock then their efficiency will tumble even further.

If you ignore the implication (central in Wages of Wins based analyses) that shot creation has no value, the point being made that it's not that hard to up your ppg by taking more/bad shots is a reasonable one.

[lilgodfather1]

I could score 20ppg if you gave me 30 shots per game... My team would go 0-82, I would have0 assists, but i'd be a 20ppg scorer for damn sure.

[DatAsh]

I'm not so sure this hypothetical player would be getting all that much more defensive attention. Why would you double a guy who's shooting 30 shots a game at 33%? Opposing teams should be encouraging him to shoot more, not less.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Your explanation fits for why he shot that much in that season. But then you have to ask whether the reason a team was built around him with non-shot creator defenders was because he couldn't co-exist with shot creators. AI played with the likes of Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other solid scorers like Corliss Williamson and Clarence Weatherspoon. Those teams didn't contend at all and those players generally couldn't co-exist with Iverson. Later on (when he was older) he played well with Carmelo when it was clear he wasn't the first option or the star, but through his prime you do have to at least look at why Iverson played better with defensive oriented players who shot less (but at solid %s). This is not, of course, to assert that Iverson had no value (see below).

The main flaw with Dre (the author quoted in OP)'s argument is the implication that shot creation has no value. Because he has overstated his case he opened himself to ridicule. His taking the worst ts% and worst ability to draw fouls ignores the increase in defensive attention payed to such players. If a player who already shoots badly anyway is forced to create his own shot much more, with tighter defense and has to take shots late in the clock then their efficiency will tumble even further.

If you ignore the implication (central in Wages of Wins based analyses) that shot creation has no value, the point being made that it's not that hard to up your ppg by taking more/bad shots is a reasonable one.

Lol, watch out now. If all those players were on the same team they would barely make the playoffs.