Volume Scorers

[BigKAT]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?

[IGOTGAME]

Iverson is underrated. Gilbert is overrated.

[Mr Feeny]

In my opinion, they're both overrated.
Anyone who takes 30 shots a game and and shoots 39%fg can't be a great scorer.
We get that it's harder to maintain efficiency as you increase volume, but when you're that woeful, it's not an argument in your favor.

Any wingman in the league could jack up shot after shot on 39%fg if they made it their goal to rack up points without worrying about the fact that their inefficiency is hurting the team.
If your goal is rack up points for your individual total, rather than play winning basketball, then your mindset is completely wrong.

I think that with the advancement of analytics, you can see how people's perceptions of these volume scorers - who used to be revered - are changing.
It's a similar thing to what's happening with Kobe. Not to the same extent but it's similar. PER, fg%, ts%. It's all going to be broken down and analysed. And it turns out that those who shot other impunity, looking to put up big totals, don't come out looking as good.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Iverson is underrated. So is Arenas. Look what Gilbert was doing 10 years ago and compare it to Irving, Dame, Curry now? It's the same explosive stuff. Actually Agent 0 had more diversity in his offensive game than 2 of those 3.

[IGOTGAME]

Iverson is underrated. So is Arenas. Look what Gilbert was doing 10 years ago and compare it to Irving, Dame, Curry now? It's the same explosive stuff. Actually Agent 0 had more diversity in his offensive game than 2 of those 3.

Gilbert had very little diversity in his game, that is why he is overrated. He is the worst of that group by a big margin. He was just a volume jumpshooter who could get very hot but was a bad playmaker, average finisher and just had an unremarkable midrange game.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Depends on who you're talking about.

Situation and context matters. I would have liked to see Iverson play for a team, in his prime, that wasn't innept offensively. He carried too much of a burden in Philly and the results were always a mixed bag. If we're being honest most of it was inconsistent hero ball.

Melo is another guy I would've liked to see play for a squad akin to 2009 Denver. In the right situation dude has potential to hit basketball supernova, at least offensively.

Gilbert had very little diversity in his game, that is why he is overrated. He is the worst of that group by a big margin. He was just a volume jumpshooter who could get very hot but was a bad playmaker, average finished and us an an unremarkable midrange game.

Yeah.

I always thought Gil was overrated and that his game could never translate in the playoffs.

[TommyGriffin]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?

Wade's efficiency rose because his scoring decreased more than 30% under LeBron. It is a natural function for a player's efficiency to go up as their scoring goes down. Many players can score efficiently, some can score on volume, very few can do both. That is why it was so impressive when Curry had a FG% of 50 percent this year and a TS of .669 while putting up 30 points a game! In only 34 minutes per game as well. Unreal.

[Akrazotile]

Are volume scorers underrated?

People like Allen Iverson, or Gilbert Arenas.

They usually score lots of points, in so-so percentage. 40-44%.

Yet they take alot of shots, some at the end of the shot clock.
Just watch a few Knicks games, you'd be amazed at how many late clock posesions are just lobbed towards Anthony with a silent plea of 'Please make something happen'.

Is the difference between a volume chucker and an Elite offensive player merely the players around him?

Wade's Efficency took insane leaps in his last two years with lebron, culiminating with a 54% FG rate for SHOOTING GUARD. That's insane. Post Lebron and Pre-lebron it dropped about 6 percents. That's a nosedive, though 46-48% is still good for a shooting guard.

He also commented on taking 15 shots a game as opposed to 25, leading to better shot taking.

So what do you think? Are most chuckers one good player away from being Elite Scorers?

So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?

Players with bad teams usually choose to chuck, because they're gonna lose anyway and it's simply more fun. Even if a player is surrounded by average talent, ball movement and smart shot selection from role players will still be more efficient than a 'star' just heaving up shots. There may be some rare occasions like Iverson's where the offensive talent around him is exceptionally underwhelming, but these days, particularly with the way teams stock up on three point shooters now, there's simply no good reason for someone to play constant iso, unless they choose to. And if they choose to, they will be inefficient, and be criticized accordingly.

Lebron maintained his efficiency even with a bad team (on which he still scored amply, and contended for titles) because he simply had the discipline to play team ball. Most so-called stars do not.

[BigKAT]

So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?

Players with bad teams usually choose to chuck, because they're gonna lose anyway and it's simply more fun. Even if a player is surrounded by average talent, ball movement and smart shot selection from role players will still be more efficient than a 'star' just heaving up shots. There may be some rare occasions like Iverson's where the offensive talent around him is exceptionally underwhelming, but these days, particularly with the way teams stock up on three point shooters now, there's simply no good reason for someone to play constant iso, unless they choose to. And if they choose to, they will be inefficient, and be criticized accordingly.

Lebron maintained his efficiency even with a bad team (on which he still scored amply, and contended for titles) because he simply had the discipline to play team ball. Most so-called stars do not.

You can't use Lebron as an example.
We're talking about the general players.
Exclude anyone in the top 10-15 from this discussion.
We're talking about 90% of the NBA, not generational talent.

Do you see guys like Melo, Arenas, Heck, even Jennings as underrated due to having to shoot too much?

[Akrazotile]

You can't use Lebron as an example.
We're talking about the general players.
Exclude anyone in the top 10-15 from this discussion.
We're talking about 90% of the NBA, not generational talent.

Do you see guys like Melo, Arenas, Heck, even Jennings as underrated due to having to shoot too much?

Then you can't use Wade as an example of increased efficiency playing with a star, because Lebron improves his teammates effectiveness by exceptional amounts compared to the average star.

If you put Wade with Carmelo or Paul Pierce or... Chris Bosh, his efficiency doesn't spike the way it does with Lebron.

Kobe played with Shaquille ONeal and still never shot better than 46%.

It's a mistake to look at Wade's supercharged efficiency playing alongside LeGreatOne and assume just any ol star can do that for a guy. Only The Chosen One can.

[BigKAT]

Then you can't use Wade as an example of increased efficiency playing with a star, because Lebron improves his teammates effectiveness by exceptional amounts compared to the average star.

If you put Wade with Carmelo or Paul Pierce or... Chris Bosh, his efficiency doesn't spike the way it does with Lebron.

Kobe played with Shaquille ONeal and still never shot better than 46%.

It's a mistake to look at Wade's supercharged efficiency playing alongside LeGreatOne and assume just any ol star can do that for a guy. Only The Chosen One can.

I'm just saying that you can't judge a pattern using Lebron James.
He's too good.
He's going to be good in mostly any situation.
That's all. Can you maximize him? sure. But I don't see a situation or team where Lebron does not win MVP's or a scoring title.

But I disagree. I think that if you put Melo and Wade their efficency goes up as well.
They don't necesserily win chips, but the efficency will skyrocket. Same with bron.

[Akrazotile]

I'm just saying that you can't judge a pattern using Lebron James.
He's too good.
He's going to be good in mostly any situation.
That's all. Can you maximize him? sure. But I don't see a situation or team where Lebron does not win MVP's or a scoring title.

But I disagree. I think that if you put Melo and Wade their efficency goes up as well.
They don't necesserily win chips, but the efficency will skyrocket. Same with bron.

Skyrocket?? Seriously doubt that. I could see it going up a couple percentage points. But I don't see it going up as significantly as you do. Only LeJonahFalcon has that effect. Nobody else can produce it to that degree.

[TommyGriffin]

So why were Lebron's points and efficiency well above average, even when the players around him were Stinksville?

Players with bad teams usually choose to chuck, because they're gonna lose anyway and it's simply more fun. Even if a player is surrounded by average talent, ball movement and smart shot selection from role players will still be more efficient than a 'star' just heaving up shots. There may be some rare occasions like Iverson's where the offensive talent around him is exceptionally underwhelming, but these days, particularly with the way teams stock up on three point shooters now, there's simply no good reason for someone to play constant iso, unless they choose to. And if they choose to, they will be inefficient, and be criticized accordingly.

Lebron maintained his efficiency even with a bad team (on which he still scored amply, and contended for titles) because he simply had the discipline to play team ball. Most so-called stars do not.

LeBron's efficiency was decent but not great. Even when he had a stacked team in Miami. LeBron's most efficient year he scored on .649 %TS while scoring 25 points per game. For perspective Curry scored on .669 %TS while scoring 30 points per game last year.

[BigKAT]

Skyrocket?? Seriously doubt that. I could see it going up a couple percentage points. But I don't see it going up as significantly as you do. Only LeJonahFalcon has that effect. Nobody else can produce it to that degree.

I was about to get some stats from the Boston Big three to show you improvement in Field Goal percentage by the joining of 3 stars.


But actually..
The didn't really jump up.
Some went down.

Huh.
I'll give you this noe.

[TommyGriffin]

I was about to get some stats from the Boston Big three to show you improvement in Field Goal percentage by the joining of 3 stars.


But actually..
The didn't really jump up.
Some went down.

Huh.
I'll give you this noe.

They were all over 30 years old and past their prime. That is why their efficiency did not skyrocket.