Who is the Worst Career 20ppg+ Scorers

[Kampuchea]

Antoine Walker misses the cut.

Nowitzki has lowest FG%

[ropjhk]

To be fair his prime scoring seasons took place between between 2001 to 2004 which was a time when scoring efficiency around the NBA in general was down.

Irrelevant, though, because he was stank relative to his own era. That's why I was mostly discussing TS+. Mashburn was either very bad or mediocre enough to be not worth his volume.

His top scoring seasons were his second and third seasons, and he was bad in 95, and then REALLY bad in 96. Then around came Charlotte from 01-04. 02 and 04 are effectively write-offs because he just wasn't healthy at all, and he was crap in both of them (as a scorer). He was 49.3% TS in 01 (-2.5%) and 50.7% in 03 (his All-Star season, -1.2%). Not good.

Mash was a talent, but he wasn't good at scoring in the NBA. He was a good rebounder, and for his time, he was a good wing playmaker. But man, scoring well was not his thing.

Mr. -425 TS Add

Ah, Iverson. 99-01 and then again in 06, he was actually a reasonably high-impact player for his teams in terms of OBPM. He's a guy who definitely would have looked better in the modern era, even with his tepid jumper. With his speed and handle, he'd just be slithering into the paint all the time. He'd still not be a hyper-efficient player, but yeah, he'd look better today. I don't know that I'd call him the WORST 20+ ppg scorer, though, that's a little aggressive.

So between 2001 and 2004 Mashburn's TS+ was 95, 97, 98, 89. His last year was an injury year and his last in the league so we should probably throw that out. Iverson during that same period has a TS+ of 100, 94, 96, 93. You pointed out a reason why Iverson would look better today and I will offer up a notion that Mashburn would potentially have a higher TS+ if he played today because during his prime years he shot pretty well from beyond the arc and those shots would make up a greater percentage of his shots if he played today.

So if prime Mashburn focused more on 3pt shooting and took more 3pt shots at the .380-.410% range we could expect him to show some more decent TS+ numbers. Maybe he wouldn't be a 20 ppg scorer as a secondary option, but he would still probably be close.

With that in consideration could you view Mashburn in a different light? And if not, then what exactly is the reason why Iverson who also had low efficiency numbers is so different from Mashburn? Is there something else that goes beyond pure TS numbers?

[Ein Sof]

Nowitzki has lowest FG%

???

[Backcountry]

Not looking at any statistics, just going by eye test, I'd say Derozan for active players. Regular season guy.

All time? There are guys on that list that I have never seen play, but I'd go with Shaq. Pretty low shooting percentage for a guy that close to the basket. Top 5 worst FT% ever. Large number of turnovers etc.

[Backcountry]

To be fair his prime scoring seasons took place between between 2001 to 2004 which was a time when scoring efficiency around the NBA in general was down.

Irrelevant, though, because he was stank relative to his own era. That's why I was mostly discussing TS+. Mashburn was either very bad or mediocre enough to be not worth his volume.

His top scoring seasons were his second and third seasons, and he was bad in 95, and then REALLY bad in 96. Then around came Charlotte from 01-04. 02 and 04 are effectively write-offs because he just wasn't healthy at all, and he was crap in both of them (as a scorer). He was 49.3% TS in 01 (-2.5%) and 50.7% in 03 (his All-Star season, -1.2%). Not good.

Mash was a talent, but he wasn't good at scoring in the NBA. He was a good rebounder, and for his time, he was a good wing playmaker. But man, scoring well was not his thing.

Mr. -425 TS Add

Ah, Iverson. 99-01 and then again in 06, he was actually a reasonably high-impact player for his teams in terms of OBPM. He's a guy who definitely would have looked better in the modern era, even with his tepid jumper. With his speed and handle, he'd just be slithering into the paint all the time. He'd still not be a hyper-efficient player, but yeah, he'd look better today. I don't know that I'd call him the WORST 20+ ppg scorer, though, that's a little aggressive.

So between 2001 and 2004 Mashburn's TS+ was 95, 97, 98, 89. His last year was an injury year and his last in the league so we should probably throw that out. Iverson during that same period has a TS+ of 100, 94, 96, 93. You pointed out a reason why Iverson would look better today and I will offer up a notion that Mashburn would potentially have a higher TS+ if he played today because during his prime years he shot pretty well from beyond the arc and those shots would make up a greater percentage of his shots if he played today.

So if prime Mashburn focused more on 3pt shooting and took more 3pt shots at the .380-.410% range we could expect him to show some more decent TS+ numbers. Maybe he wouldn't be a 20 ppg scorer as a secondary option, but he would still probably be close.

With that in consideration could you view Mashburn in a different light? And if not, then what exactly is the reason why Iverson who also had low efficiency numbers is so different from Mashburn? Is there something else that goes beyond pure TS numbers?

According to basketball-reference, Mashburn's career average was 19.06 ppg so this discussion is moot.

[kenwood3333]

Pick anyone you have never heard of from this list:
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-players-with-20-ppg-in-career

[rtiff68]

I immediately looked up Shareef Abdur-Rahim’s career scoring average when I saw this thread.

18.1ppg. Doesn’t quite meet the threshold.

[Infinite Llamas]

Mitch Richmond.

Yes, a six time All-Star Mitch Richmond.

During his prime seasons in SAC he played in a grand total of 4 playoff games. One win.
Also averaged below 4 rebs. Pretty bleak for a guy with his frame.

Didn't do much besides scoring.

Lol this guy made multiple all-NBA teams as well. So the league noticed how great he was even if his teammates were horrible. He consistently edged out guys like Reggie/Clyde/Dumars on All-NBA teams. He didn’t rebound much because he was a phenomenal perimeter defender so he wasn’t in the paint much to grab boards. His best teammates in Sacramento at any given time was Tisdale/Brian Grant/Abdul-Rauf…he had precious little talent around him and was the sole offensive point of attack and he was still hyper efficient and played hard at both ends.

His name should never have been mentioned in this thread.

[tsherkin]

So between 2001 and 2004 Mashburn's TS+ was 95, 97, 98, 89. His last year was an injury year and his last in the league so we should probably throw that out. Iverson during that same period has a TS+ of 100, 94, 96, 93. You pointed out a reason why Iverson would look better today and I will offer up a notion that Mashburn would potentially have a higher TS+ if he played today because during his prime years he shot pretty well from beyond the arc and those shots would make up a greater percentage of his shots if he played today.

I suspect Mash would look a little better in the modern age as well. I think Iverson would look better because he was far more athletic, but Iverson was also a more effective playmaker, which is part of the reason he has higher offensive impact. And he's still not a guy I would want to build around.

With that in consideration could you view Mashburn in a different light? And if not, then what exactly is the reason why Iverson who also had low efficiency numbers is so different from Mashburn? Is there something else that goes beyond pure TS numbers?

Yeah, Iverson's impact beyond his scoring. With Mashburn, I've only been discussing his scoring because that's what this thread is about. His overall profile as a player is better than my commentary on his efficiency and value as a scoring threat, for sure. He would look a little better than he did at the time now, but he was far enough down that he has a long way to go. League-average this year was 56.6% TS, remember. So he'd have to climb 6% just to be a league average scorer. He wasn't good enough at making shots or drawing fouls in his own time to really drive his efficiency to interesting levels. That would improve a little in the modern environment, but only so much.

Iverson's scoring efficiency isn't far off. He peaked at 105 TS+ in 2008, but that raises another major point of conversation: he brought his volume down a ton and that's what happened. When his efficiency was similar to Mash's, he was also cranking out 25-28 FGA/g. He gained something like 3-5% TS when the rules changed, even as a Westbrook-level 3pt shooter, and was noticeably better about drawing fouls than Mash even prior to the rules change for 05. So when his overall shooting volume came down and he was bombing fewer of those long twos and bad threes, his overall efficiency rose some. Mash wouldn't have quite the same level of luxury.

This is, of course, a study in less-than-ideal scoring options. Iverson wasn't a guy I wanted to feature as a number one option then, nor would he be now, but if he could be convinced to "only" shoot 15-18 times per game and focus more on giving up the ball, his passing profile makes him slightly more desirable offensively than Mash.

Again I remind, I'm speaking only of their scoring profiles. Iverson, you can tolerate his mediocre efficiency to some extent because of his passing. Mashburn looks far worse by OBPM, WS/48, VORP, really any metric you care to examine, to be honest. There were other things in play which made him far less useful than AI. And Iverson, of course, is about as good an example of an extreme case working at odds with a general trend. He limits your overall upper bound on offense, but his floor-raising ability was noteworthy in the absence of a lot of help.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Bullet points:

- AI was a better scorer than Mashburn. He shot too much, which dragged down his overall efficiency, but because he was able to draw fouls far more effectively, when he shot less, he scored more efficiently.
- He was also a noticeably superior offensive player because of his notably superior playmaking.
- ITT, we're really only discussing scoring (or at least, I have only been discussing scoring, having thought that was the point), so I have only been focusing on how bad a scorer Mash was in his 20+ ppg seasons; AI wasn't a lot better in terms of raw efficiency or league-relative efficiency, which is a fair enough point if you stand that comparison independent of volume
- I don't think the adjustment to modern rules would help Mash enough to make a difference, because he'd need still to gain like 6% TS in order to just be a league-average scorer, and then he'd just be a mediocre scorer with a limp overall offensive effect.

Sidebar, but he did exist in the pulled-in-3 era, yeah? So from 95-97, he saw his 3PAr at .220, .266 and .373 (.399 being league average this year for teams). His TS% and TS+ in those years was 52.6%/97, 47.8%/88 and 48.7%/91, so no real correlation between increased 3PAr and efficiency. Of course, you'll note (correctly) that he only shot 32.8%, 34.3% and 32.5% in those seasons. In later years with the full-distance 3pt line, he grew to shoot much better. 00-03, he took 3.6 3PA/g at 38.1%, which would have helped. Not a lot, though, because again, we're talking about pretty weak efficiency to begin with.

Year/League Average/Mash/rTS

1995: 54.3%, 52.6%, -1.7% (80 GP)
1996: 54.2%, 47.8%, -6.4% (18 GP)
1997: 53.6%, 48.7%, -4.9% (69 GP)
2001: 51.8%, 49.3%, -2.5% (76 GP)
2002: 52.0%, 50.5%, -1.5% (40 GP)
2003: 51.9%, 50.7%, -1.2% (82 GP)
2004: 51.6%, 45.7%, -5.9% (19 GP)

For a moment, let's look at his 20+ ppg seasons. So there they area. And you can see that it's in injured seasons where the drop-off is immense, so let's look at him more as a -1.5% TS player relative to a league average of around 53%, right? That's about the average of the healthy seasons.

And remember that in 01-04, he had dramatically improved as a FT shooter and was around a 37, 38% 3P shooter. He was never REALLY a 40% shooter from 3 because one of those years was a lockout season (99) and the other was a 24-game season for Miami, but he certainly demonstrated high 30s enough that it counts. And in that time, he was still around 6% below league-average from today (56.6%), despite 3.5 3PA/g and higher FT/FGA from that raised FT%. This is not the profile of a scorer who would be efficient today. He would probably still be a -2% TS guy in this league, unless he really, really took to 3pt shooting in volume and maintained his percentage. And even then, not a guy you'd really want manning that many offensive possessions.

[cpower]

Il Mago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mazter]

Gilbert Arenas, made the most of the handcheck rule change (27.7 ppg), but his body wasn't able to handle it. In any other era he probably would not have been on this list.

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

Ricardo Davis

[Courant]

Mashburn?

Wash your mouth. That dude was a beast and a true point forward. He'd be great in today's game.

No but for real, he was stank garbage as a scorer. Career 96 TS+ guy whose three best seasons were 102, 102 and 101 TS+. 50.4% TS on his career, five seasons under 50%. Yeah, he could do some other things around that, but he was a BAD scorer at the NBA level.

Jamal Mashburn's career scoring average was 19.06 points per game, so he doesn't make the cut.

[Capn'O]

I think the intent was for career, not single season.

[HotelVitale]

Mike James - 2005, free chucking season
Shareef Abdur Rahim - did it 6 times, never won jack

Mike James was oddly very good that year.

That year was hilarious. Crap team, green light, wild-ass career-high from 3. He'd been a good 3pt shooter to begin with, second year after the rules changes... and he was just connecting like nothing I've seen. Least-assisted 3pt volume of his career and dude was trying to be Steph before Steph, it was insane. We were so, so bad on defense, but clicking on O because he was just driving it every game behind Bosh. Nuts. And then never again even close, lol.

My college fantasy league will never forget.

[KnIcKsYaNkSmEtS1127]

I immediately looked up Shareef Abdur-Rahim’s career scoring average when I saw this thread.

18.1ppg. Doesn’t quite meet the threshold.

Dude was always the best player on one of the worst teams in the league. Drop 18 but lose by 30.

[rtiff68]

Gilbert Arenas, made the most of the handcheck rule change (27.7 ppg), but his body wasn't able to handle it. In any other era he probably would not have been on this list.

No era, or set of rules was Gilbert’s problem.

Gilbert’s head was Gilbert’s problem.

[the7boss]

OJ Mayo?
Corey Maggette?

[tsherkin]

Wash your mouth. That dude was a beast and a true point forward. He'd be great in today's game.

No but for real, he was stank garbage as a scorer. Career 96 TS+ guy whose three best seasons were 102, 102 and 101 TS+. 50.4% TS on his career, five seasons under 50%. Yeah, he could do some other things around that, but he was a BAD scorer at the NBA level.

Jamal Mashburn's career scoring average was 19.06 points per game, so he doesn't make the cut.

I suppose that's fair if that is how we are interpreting the OP.

[mcfly1204]

"career"