RealGM

Basketball fans on this forum and worldwide often talk of the scoring title in hallowed terms. It's constantly referred to in legacy debates and talked about as a highly valuable and prestigious achievement. But what is the true value of leading the NBA in scoring? How does it correlate to overall success?

I was looking thru the list of annual scoring leaders in NBA history(https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_per_g_yearly.html) and found something very peculiar about the list across all eras. There is a striking lack of playoff success. In the 21st century, zero scoring title winners have won an NBA title that same year.

It's filled with great players, HOFers, sure, but it's almost a complete collection of the biggest playoff chokers in NBA history who receive the most negative attention from fans. It's a rogue's gallery of some of the most infamous failures, hero ball merchants, and playoff fallers decorating this list.

James Harden. Joel Embiid. Russell Westbrook. McGrady. AI. Gervin. Dantley. McAdoo. Paul Arizin. Wilt (6 years in a row winning and then losing in the playoffs).

Even the proven winners on the list often did so in years ending in playoff failure and poor overall offensive outcomes: Kobe in the Smush Parker era, Kareem in 72, LeBron, Wade, Steph, and KD never won a scoring title and an NBA title in the same year.

There's really only one outlier on this list, one we all know, in the 1990s. But the trend is almost entirely correlated with playoff failure - only 4 of the 36 players to win a scoring title also won a title the same season: (Mikan, Jordan, Kareem '71, Shaq in '00)

Why has the scoring title historically been such a poisoned chalice throughout NBA history? What is its true value? How should we value it in all time discussions?

Super important. I personally feel like anyone without it should be considered a failure in life.

I think I see the Defensive Player of the Year award mentioned more. The championship winning rate of a DPOTY in the same year is probably about the same as a scoring titlist but the scoring title tends to be a better indicator of ability to win championships overall.

The reason a scoring champion doesn't seem to win titles in the same year should be obvious right? A heliocentric offense built around a single scorer is probably not the theoretically optimal model for a team game. Still being able to score heavily if demanded is a trait that is very useful. If anything the scoring title isn't appreciated enough in comparison to some of the less objective awards that are given attention.

Only 1 player can win a scoring title each year, and only 1 team can win a championship. So the odds of both occurring simultaneously aren't all that great, especially given that there are often 4-5 other superstar players 3-4 ppg behind the scoring leader, who may also impact the game more in other categories.

Scoring in the RS =/= scoring in the playoffs either. Jokic routinely becomes one of the most prolific scorers come playoff time, and he does it efficiently. Russ has had some prolific scoring regular seasons, but he has never been remotely efficient as a scorer in the playoffs. Peak Harden was an analytics gem who was averaging 32-35ppg on elite efficiency every regular season with the rockets, but in the playoffs his results were more mixed, and virtually never up to par with his regular season level. Jimmy butler puts up like ~20-22ppg in the regular season and has had some absolutely monstrous playoffs where he looks like one of the 2-3 best players in the nba.

Zero importance IMO

LeBron could've won it every year in his prime.... If he really wanted to win it.

Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

Enough that you can cry your way to a mvp

it can highlight a special year by a player, or be a small consolation hardware for a player that never won a championship

it matters for guys like McGrady or Melo, but not guys like Kobe or Durant

zimpy27 wrote:Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

It doesn't? 5-6 of the names above are among the common names listed in top 10 all-time lists. Who is missing? Russell, Hakeem, Duncan three of the greatest defensive players ever; Bird, Magic, LeBron three of the greatest passers all around players.

What objective basic simple metrics are superior?

WarriorGM wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

It doesn't? 5-6 of the names above are among the common names listed in top 10 all-time lists. Who is missing? Russell, Hakeem, Duncan three of the greatest defensive players ever; Bird, Magic, LeBron three of the greatest passers all around players.

What objective basic simple metrics are superior?

We have 19 players here and ~50% wouldn't make a top 50 list.

Career turnovers is probably a better list than this.

The Celtics have never had a player win the scoring title.

The adage that Defence wins titles ultimately rings true, many high scoring teams with stacked/hall of players (like D'Antoni and The Suns/Rockets ultimately couldn't win a chip partly because they didn't have enough defensive grit come playoff time)

Pop's great SpursTeams led by Duncan had their dynasty based first and foremost on the defensive end/attributes

The Celtics and our defensive backcourt in Jrue and White was a significant factor in our championship, as well as improvement from both Jays defensively.

This is part of the reason I still think the Healhy Knicks are the 2nd best team in the East, I still can't trust Philly and esp their stars to lift their defensive games come the playoffs.

It's important when you do other amazing things, like win finals MVPs.

Doesn't matter at all to me. Players have different playstyles, Lebron or Larry Bird were both great playmakers that could have easily had higher scoring averages if they would have focused on scoring as many points as possible.

Scoring itself depends also on the level of teammates you have and the system you are playing. If you look at a team like the Duncan, Parker, Ginobili Spurs their individual scoring numbers aren't that impressive, but I think nobody would doubt that all 3 would have averaged more points as 1st option on lesser stacked teams. The Spurs focused also more on being a strong defensive team during their first years together.

Lastly, a scoring title also depends on your competition. In 98-99 AI lead the league in scoring with 26.8 points. In 99-00 he was in 2nd place with 28.4 points. So is him having an even higher scoring average the following season less impressive because somebody else scored more that year?

zimpy27 wrote:

WarriorGM wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

It doesn't? 5-6 of the names above are among the common names listed in top 10 all-time lists. Who is missing? Russell, Hakeem, Duncan three of the greatest defensive players ever; Bird, Magic, LeBron three of the greatest passers all around players.

What objective basic simple metrics are superior?

We have 19 players here and ~50% wouldn't make a top 50 list.

Career turnovers is probably a better list than this.

Well there was a 50th Anniversary Team composed of 50 players. I count around 11 players in the list above who would have been eligible for selection at the time. 8 of them were actually selected so 72% by my reckoning.

A career turnovers list would basically list those players who were good enough that you'd let them play despite piling up the turnovers. It shows one of the reasons a career list does not really measure what a per season list does and why I find there is a fundamental disconnect between longevity arguments and the goal of winning championships each season.

zimpy27 wrote:Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

Winning scoring titles might not correlate to a good ranking of all time great players and neither does the all time scoring record list.

Not very important. The only time people bring it up is to say Jordan has 10 and LeBron has 1... which is a dumb argument in itself. LeBron passed Jordan in scoring on less shots . BUT HE DID LEAD THE LEAGUE IN SCORING MORE. What are we doin here?

MavsDirk41 wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

Winning scoring titles might not correlate to a good ranking of all time great players and neither does the all time scoring record list.

Well it does a much better job than scoring champions list..

Top 19 of all time scoring list has 14 guys in the typical top 19 all time ranking.

Jordan, KAJ, LeBron, Kobe, Duncan, Malone, Wilt, Dirk, Dr J, Shaq, Hakeem, Big O, Durant, Moses

Cam Thomas SZN approaching

zimpy27 wrote:

MavsDirk41 wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:Scoring title pyramid:

5+: MJ/Wilt
4: KD/Gervin/AI
3: Harden/Johnston/McAdoo/Mikan
2: Westbrook/Pettit/Shaq/McGrady/Embiid/Dantley/Curry/Bryant/Arizin/KAJ

These are obviously good players but you can see that it doesn't exactly correlate to a good ranking of all time great players.

Winning scoring titles might not correlate to a good ranking of all time great players and neither does the all time scoring record list.

Well it does a much better job than scoring champions list..

Top 19 of all time scoring list has 14 guys in the typical top 19 all time ranking.

Jordan, KAJ, LeBron, Kobe, Duncan, Malone, Wilt, Dirk, Dr J, Shaq, Hakeem, Big O, Durant, Moses

Yes which is why players should be ranked on winning, defensive impact, performance in the clutch, etc and not stats, scoring titles, or all time scoring list.