Why are there so many guys averaging around 26ppg-31ppg?

[70sFan]

Again, there are 16 25+ players in the league right now, by far the most in the NBA history. Basically over half of the teams have one 25+ppg scorer. Not so long ago, it was always rare to find 25+ppg scorer.

Yeah, but it's not because of talent. It's simply because playing through your star is the easiest way to run your offense, especially without much talent. It's not like mediocre teams are led to good success by running everything through their stars anyway.

Just wrong? You run through your best player PERIOD! But doing it through that one player REQUIRES better talent around him, not less.

Sure, you run your offense through your best player but there are levels of that - not every star plays with comparable usage to Harden in Houston for example. You can run the offense through your best player, but he doesn't have to play in heliocentric system.

I don't understand your second point. Talented teams usually have secondary creator and good shooting/passing combination. Talented teams rarely turn their system into "give the best player the ball and get out". Some teams did that (Rockets with Harden), but most of them play more balanced offense.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, but it's not because of talent. It's simply because playing through your star is the easiest way to run your offense, especially without much talent. It's not like mediocre teams are led to good success by running everything through their stars anyway.

Just wrong? You run through your best player PERIOD! But doing it through that one player REQUIRES better talent around him, not less.

Sure, you run your offense through your best player but there are levels of that - not every star plays with comparable usage to Harden in Houston for example. You can run the offense through your best player, but he doesn't have to play in heliocentric system.

I don't understand your second point. Talented teams usually have secondary creator and good shooting/passing combination. Talented teams rarely turn their system into "give the best player the ball and get out". Some teams did that (Rockets with Harden), but most of them play more balanced offense.

Well, the rockets are a bit too extreme so that might confuse the topic. All else equal you want your best player taking the shot. And all teams are focused on that logic today while I don't think it was the same in the past. Teams were more focused on the "theory" of a good shot which of course was grossly wrong. But it was about getting a good shot vs getting a great player in position to take a good shot but they can today also pass from there. We're talking about a game of (since you're euro) millimeters not meters here. But those shifts move the 18 a game guy to 20. we're not talking Harden level crazy shifts here.

[UcanUwill]

league is most talented its ever been

[Galloisdaman]

league is most talented its ever been

That may or may not be true but wouldn't there be a case for the ball to be spread around more (not less) with more talent?

[dickfox]

More possessions and more threes

[UcanUwill]

league is most talented its ever been

That may or may not be true but wouldn't there be a case for the ball to be spread around more (not less) with more talent?

Good point, but teams breaking offensive all time records, they produce enough points for both role players and stars. Cleveland is least scoring team in the league with 103.8, that would be #1 in 2001 and 2003. Teams score far more points. Even prime Nash Suns were scoring 110 points, which would be only 21th, this year.

[G35]

So it sounds like the "smart play" is to make your best player to be a ball hog and have him shoot every time...if that is the new meta then are we going to re-evaluate players like Iverson, 2006 Kobe, 1988 Jordan, Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, etc etc.....

[SeniorWalker]

they allow carries, travels, push offs and moving screens and eliminated hand checking. It's by design. Players aren't more skilled. They're just now encouraged to break the rules with no repercussions.

This, this, and this.

I almost vomit everytime I hear people say

"players are just better now, they're more evolved".

They're not. They're just allowed to get away with **** players even 20 years ago couldn't. It's gotten way out of hand to be brutally honest. It's why there aren't anymore shane battier, tony allen, bruce bowen types. They're outlawed and all the players know it. Some have even spoken up about it, like marcus smart.

I simultaneously love stephen curry and hate that the league has blatantly sold out to inflate offense at all costs.

[Galloisdaman]

league is most talented its ever been

That may or may not be true but wouldn't there be a case for the ball to be spread around more (not less) with more talent?

Good point, but teams breaking offensive all time records, they produce enough points for both role players and stars. Cleveland is least scoring team in the league with 103.8, that would be #1 in 2001 and 2003. Teams score far more points. Even prime Nash Suns were scoring 110 points, which would be only 21th, this year.

That makes sense. Seems like points are just too easy at times not just this season but especially in last seasons bubble.

[SichtingLives]

The rulebook has evolved. The commish is the most talented ever.

[Warriorfan]

Short off season, less defensive cohesion, more 3s players get paid for offense using energy/focus there.

[tidho]

Because it is a clown no-defense,3pt chucking league nowadays.

this. its never been easier to score in the NBA than it is right now.

[dhsilv2]

league is most talented its ever been

That may or may not be true but wouldn't there be a case for the ball to be spread around more (not less) with more talent?

Yes, but defenses don't allow that in the way you'd think.

This is a game where 1.15 vs 1.13 points per shot attempt is the difference in a title contender and potentially missing the playoffs. That's effectively the difference in an allstar and a good starter throughout league history.

So sure an open look from a non star is better than a star in isolation, but you want the star to have the ball and only pass when he is creating a better shot for others. This vs letting a lesser player create the offense.

[dhsilv2]

So it sounds like the "smart play" is to make your best player to be a ball hog and have him shoot every time...if that is the new meta then are we going to re-evaluate players like Iverson, 2006 Kobe, 1988 Jordan, Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, etc etc.....

Nobody said shoot everytime...

[G35]

So it sounds like the "smart play" is to make your best player to be a ball hog and have him shoot every time...if that is the new meta then are we going to re-evaluate players like Iverson, 2006 Kobe, 1988 Jordan, Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, etc etc.....

Nobody said shoot everytime...

Sounds like you did

Well no...by you know math. Usage for a team can't change. Better coaching has lead to the best players on the middle tier teams getting higher usage vs spreading it out stupidly like was done in the past.... but team usage is a set number lol. Also minutes don't impact player usage either. But yes players playing less minutes is ALSO allowed by having better benches and more talent in the league is why teams can do that.

Reality?

There are 10 guys 26+ which as a percentage of the league isn't an outlier (it's just on the high side). That's just a statement of fact.

There is a huge spike in 20-25 scorers. Again statement of fact.

Data drive analytics shows that offenses are better when teams go through their best players which was always the case with the REALLY elite players but wasn't as much the case on teams with 2nd tier stars. Today even teams with second and third tier stars teams run their offense through them because it's the smart way to play.

Just wrong? You run through your best player PERIOD! But doing it through that one player REQUIRES better talent around him, not less.

You should clarify...when you say run your offense through your best player...what does that mean? Because this thread is specifically talking about scoring...26-31PPG scorers to be exact.

When you talk "data driven" how much "usage" should teams put on their best players? 40? 50? 60? 100?

Because usage is up for star players, so if the "data" is saying star players should be getting more usage, then perhaps we should re-evaluate how we looked at star players from the past when teams ran their offenses through them.

If you compare Lebron to Magic who everyone tends to compare because of how the run their teams offenses, there is one major difference. Usage.

Lebron's career usage average is 31.5...Magic's is 22.3

If you want to compare Magic to more of a traditional PG like Chris Paul which is 23.9....so teams ARE depending more on their stars to generate offense. Whereas back in the day teams were more "team oriented" and spread the offense around. There was not this one person to run the offense...even if you want to take John Stockton, who ran the Jazz offense every time down the floor and his career usage is 18.9. Stockton never exceeded more than 21.0 in any year that he played.

So as you can see, it is not just about running the offense through your best player, it is having your best player taking the majority of the shots. Which was not how the game was played in the past. It just wasn't. I think that is a key element that is being overlooked is that teams tried to play as a unit and not having just one player dominate.

Which brings up another thought...if players are so much more talented and skilled...why do teams have only one player dominate the ball? If everyone is that much more talented, you would think you would be spreading the usage around to take advantage of all this talent.

I mean every single player in the NBA can shoot, dribble, create at level we have never seen before...but teams are data driven to only let one person to run the offense.......

[dhsilv2]

So it sounds like the "smart play" is to make your best player to be a ball hog and have him shoot every time...if that is the new meta then are we going to re-evaluate players like Iverson, 2006 Kobe, 1988 Jordan, Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, etc etc.....

Nobody said shoot everytime...

Sounds like you did

Well no...by you know math. Usage for a team can't change. Better coaching has lead to the best players on the middle tier teams getting higher usage vs spreading it out stupidly like was done in the past.... but team usage is a set number lol. Also minutes don't impact player usage either. But yes players playing less minutes is ALSO allowed by having better benches and more talent in the league is why teams can do that.

Reality?

There are 10 guys 26+ which as a percentage of the league isn't an outlier (it's just on the high side). That's just a statement of fact.

There is a huge spike in 20-25 scorers. Again statement of fact.

Data drive analytics shows that offenses are better when teams go through their best players which was always the case with the REALLY elite players but wasn't as much the case on teams with 2nd tier stars. Today even teams with second and third tier stars teams run their offense through them because it's the smart way to play.

Just wrong? You run through your best player PERIOD! But doing it through that one player REQUIRES better talent around him, not less.

You should clarify...when you say run your offense through your best player...what does that mean? Because this thread is specifically talking about scoring...26-31PPG scorers to be exact.

When you talk "data driven" how much "usage" should teams put on their best players? 40? 50? 60? 100?

Because usage is up for star players, so if the "data" is saying star players should be getting more usage, then perhaps we should re-evaluate how we looked at star players from the past when teams ran their offenses through them.

If you compare Lebron to Magic who everyone tends to compare because of how the run their teams offenses, there is one major difference. Usage.

Lebron's career usage average is 31.5...Magic's is 22.3

If you want to compare Magic to more of a traditional PG like Chris Paul which is 23.9....so teams ARE depending more on their stars to generate offense. Whereas back in the day teams were more "team oriented" and spread the offense around. There was not this one person to run the offense...even if you want to take John Stockton, who ran the Jazz offense every time down the floor and his career usage is 18.9. Stockton never exceeded more than 21.0 in any year that he played.

So as you can see, it is not just about running the offense through your best player, it is having your best player taking the majority of the shots. Which was not how the game was played in the past. It just wasn't. I think that is a key element that is being overlooked is that teams tried to play as a unit and not having just one player dominate.

Which brings up another thought...if players are so much more talented and skilled...why do teams have only one player dominate the ball? If everyone is that much more talented, you would think you would be spreading the usage around to take advantage of all this talent.

I mean every single player in the NBA can shoot, dribble, create at level we have never seen before...but teams are data driven to only let one person to run the offense.......

Shoot MORE and shoot everytime even in the context of hyperbole is wrong. We today have the leading scorers also in a great many cases, not all, averaging increasingly more assists too. That's the bigger area of increase in usage than scoring. There's a reason I used the word usage and not shooting or taking shots. If I'd intended to say take every shot I'd have said that.

As for players of the past, that's really not going to change things. That would be more a way to reevaluate the great coaches, not the players. This is a coaching change not a player change. A shift in per game metrics doesn't really change how modern fans look at the game. Similarly even the stats that we generally look at, we all know are best being used year to year and peer to peer and get noisy and fuzzy when we compare different generations, even when the metrics normalize back to each season and the league as a whole. So again, I see little need to change well thought through analysis.

[Djoker]

This era is definitely much more offensively minded and even the pace has increased considerably. It's hard to deny that.

It doesn't mean that basketball is worse just different. But because of easier offense in general, offensive performances these days tend to be overrated and defensive performances underrated.

[G35]

Nobody said shoot everytime...

Sounds like you did

Well no...by you know math. Usage for a team can't change. Better coaching has lead to the best players on the middle tier teams getting higher usage vs spreading it out stupidly like was done in the past.... but team usage is a set number lol. Also minutes don't impact player usage either. But yes players playing less minutes is ALSO allowed by having better benches and more talent in the league is why teams can do that.

Reality?

There are 10 guys 26+ which as a percentage of the league isn't an outlier (it's just on the high side). That's just a statement of fact.

There is a huge spike in 20-25 scorers. Again statement of fact.

Data drive analytics shows that offenses are better when teams go through their best players which was always the case with the REALLY elite players but wasn't as much the case on teams with 2nd tier stars. Today even teams with second and third tier stars teams run their offense through them because it's the smart way to play.

Just wrong? You run through your best player PERIOD! But doing it through that one player REQUIRES better talent around him, not less.

You should clarify...when you say run your offense through your best player...what does that mean? Because this thread is specifically talking about scoring...26-31PPG scorers to be exact.

When you talk "data driven" how much "usage" should teams put on their best players? 40? 50? 60? 100?

Because usage is up for star players, so if the "data" is saying star players should be getting more usage, then perhaps we should re-evaluate how we looked at star players from the past when teams ran their offenses through them.

If you compare Lebron to Magic who everyone tends to compare because of how the run their teams offenses, there is one major difference. Usage.

Lebron's career usage average is 31.5...Magic's is 22.3

If you want to compare Magic to more of a traditional PG like Chris Paul which is 23.9....so teams ARE depending more on their stars to generate offense. Whereas back in the day teams were more "team oriented" and spread the offense around. There was not this one person to run the offense...even if you want to take John Stockton, who ran the Jazz offense every time down the floor and his career usage is 18.9. Stockton never exceeded more than 21.0 in any year that he played.

So as you can see, it is not just about running the offense through your best player, it is having your best player taking the majority of the shots. Which was not how the game was played in the past. It just wasn't. I think that is a key element that is being overlooked is that teams tried to play as a unit and not having just one player dominate.

Which brings up another thought...if players are so much more talented and skilled...why do teams have only one player dominate the ball? If everyone is that much more talented, you would think you would be spreading the usage around to take advantage of all this talent.

I mean every single player in the NBA can shoot, dribble, create at level we have never seen before...but teams are data driven to only let one person to run the offense.......

Shoot MORE and shoot everytime even in the context of hyperbole is wrong. We today have the leading scorers also in a great many cases, not all, averaging increasingly more assists too. That's the bigger area of increase in usage than scoring. There's a reason I used the word usage and not shooting or taking shots. If I'd intended to say take every shot I'd have said that.

As for players of the past, that's really not going to change things. That would be more a way to reevaluate the great coaches, not the players. This is a coaching change not a player change. A shift in per game metrics doesn't really change how modern fans look at the game. Similarly even the stats that we generally look at, we all know are best being used year to year and peer to peer and get noisy and fuzzy when we compare different generations, even when the metrics normalize back to each season and the league as a whole. So again, I see little need to change well thought through analysis.

You said that teams are data driven...this is why teams run their offense through their best player.

So what does the data tell you is a number you can apply to your star's usage that is better than how coaches used their stars from previous generations.

Since we are so infatuated by the numbers, why can't we apply a number to this situation.

As far as re-evaluating the coaches, they are evaluated on wins and losses. If you are not winning you are a bad coach...period.

Look at Nick Nurse...he won a title two years ago...in your opinion is he coaching well right now? His team is currently 12 games below .500...but not quite out of the playoff race. The Raptors have five to six players averaging double figures and they have a losing record. So obviously, they need a star to take more shots from these players who should not be getting the ball as much.

Players are evaluated on stats...period. Right or wrong, many fans are data driven. They do not apply context to situations...many fans, apply context to help their argument and then reverse course in a different situation. This makes using data across eras difficult...unwieldy. If only we could maintain a standard in our analytics.....

[JonFromVA]

Analytics and pace? Offensive skillsets are more dynamic. The star bigs ALL can shoot. Even guys like giannis and zion can shoot to a degree, but to make up for lack of a proficient jumpshot, they handle the ball like wings. Most of the wings and guards have better range than in the past and attempt more threes. Literally no one was taking step back threes in the 90s but now it is a shot you would expect guys to take and make. Players have more moves.. perimeter footwork, euro steps, are all now much more advanced collectively than they were 20-30 years ago. I also think the training and diet regimens nowadays are better as well. Improved spacing..

You can see glimpses of the future back in the 90's from Mark Price in videos like this:

Watch on YouTube

But he was a point-guard first and foremost and was looking to get the offense rolling more-so than hunting for his shot, and look at how terrible the floor spacing was. The Bulls were able to keep 2 or 3 guys near him when he'd run a high P&R. A number of his 3's were in transition before the Bulls could set up their defense.

So, this was more the type of game you'd see from time to time when a player got hot, rather than something that was easily reproduced game in and game out.

I imagine improved conditioning plays a role too, because it doesn't take much fatigue before shots start falling short.

[Wonka]

Extreme lack of defense and extreme uptick in pace. The league is trending in an alarming direction in my opinion.