Should Scoring title be changed to total points scored?

[youngthegiant]

So right now we have a 3 man race for scoring champion. Lebron, Joel, and Giannis all slightly above 30 points game, very close race, it can change game by game.....but it's all hidden behind the ppg category..we know they're all within .1 ppg of each other but to the casual fan it probably goes over their head.

What do you think about changing the scoring title to most points scored in a season? It rewards players for actually playing games instead of resting in between games..and it adds an actual tangible number you can count and see. As you'll see below Trae Young is only 9 points behind Demar Derozan...so it adds a little bit of extra juice to the conversation but also includes more candidates since Tatum and Embiid are also in striking range. Also the current leader Lebron is way down at 10th and clearly not deserving of the scoring title.

Right now the top 10 scorers if you ranked them by total points would be...

1.)Demar Derozan 2045
2.)Trae Young 2036
3.)Jayson Tatum 1999
4.)Joel Embiid 1963
5.)Nikola Jokic 1928
6.)Giannis Antetokounmpo 1925
7.)Karl Anthony towns 1771
8.)Devin Booker 1757
9.)
Luka Doncic 1756
10.)Donovan Mitchell 1695
10.)Lebron James 1695

[Feed Your Head]

I’d lean towards no, but I think availability has become under appreciated.

[BigGargamel]

Yes. Basketball is the only one of the big three American sports that does per game and not total. I guess it's easier to tell numbers that way.

[JShuttlesworth]

Yes

[Wallace_Wallace]

No objections for me. Score, rebound and assist title should be that way.

[bisme37]

Scal on the Celtics broadcast has been beating this drum for a while. He thinks the scoring title should be for total points scored.

As a former player he says it's much easier to put a lot of points on the board if you're taking games off to rest and refresh. Conversely playing every game and being a top scorer is much more taxing, difficult and impressive and should be rewarded.

I'm kinda on the fence about it myself but I think it's something to consider.

[Wolfgang630]

The way people keep taking so many games off I’d have no issue if it changed to total. Rewards players who play and don’t keep taking “rest” days.

[Slim Charlez]

It makes more sense than PPG honestly.

[shakes0]

yep, made this abundantly clear last week in my threads about this very subject.

But it shouldn't be just scoring. Should be all league leaders for all categories.



Back in the day PPG was better because most players played 75-80 games per year minimum. Now it's a antiquated joke because of rest days and everyone sitting out for hang nails and other weak "injuries"

[jasonxxx102]

My first instinct is no because it then it just becomes healthiest vs best scorer but it doesn't really bother me either way.

[matt6715]

Increase the minimum games played to qualify. 65-66 might be a good games played target - would be 80% of the regular season games

[Curmudgeon]

Without firing up a search engine, who was the first NBA player to score 2,000 points in a season?

[CIN-C-STAR]

Yes because it's way tougher and more impressive to do it night in and night out.
And the cutoff to be eligible for a scoring title (58 games, I believe) is completely arbitrary. Total points eliminates any arbitrariness from the award.

[raleigh]

The entirety of Georgia votes yes.

[Parataxis]

Yes. Basketball is the only one of the big three American sports that does per game and not total. I guess it's easier to tell numbers that way.

Baseball does a mix. Eg ERA, avg, OPS are all on a per-x metric, while HR, RBI, SO are counting.

[Parataxis]

My first instinct is no because it then it just becomes healthiest vs best scorer but it doesn't really bother me either way.

Yeah, but per game punishes players who may be slightly injured for coming out and playing 15 minutes, etc...

[algope]

Increase the minimum games played to qualify. 65-66 might be a good games played target - would be 80% of the regular season games

This is my opinion too. I prefer points per game but 58 is a very low standard. Is the same standard voters seems to use for voting for MVP (58) and in this case is a very low number for my taste too. I don´t know what number I would take but at the very minimun 62 (75% of season) and maybe 65-66 (80%).

[sca]

Without firing up a search engine, who was the first NBA player to score 2,000 points in a season?

Wilt would be my lazy (and probably wrong) guess.

edit:

Spoiler:

I looked it up and saw that I was wrong.

[TheNG]

You don't want to punish players who are injured for some games, if "some" is not too many. -> No "total points scored"
On the other hand, you don't want players to rest too much and still be eligible. -> No "Per game"
My solution: Measure "point per minute", and have a minimum of 82(games)*48(minutes)*<some threshold i.e. 70%> minutes to be eligible for the scoring title.

[boomershadow]

When players sitting out has become a part of the conversation about who will win the award I would say yes.