Who is the Worst Career 20ppg+ Scorers

[Infinite Llamas]

OJ Mayo?
Corey Maggette?

Pretty sure Mayo didn’t sniff 20ppg for a season let alone for his career

[Kent]

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.

Wait, what?

Shaq is a top 10 player on many a list.

[the7boss]

OJ Mayo?
Corey Maggette?

Pretty sure Mayo didn’t sniff 20ppg for a season let alone for his career

You’re right. It was 18.5 his rookie season, I was sure it was over 20. It was Tyreke Evans who averaged more than 20ppg.

[oldncreaky]

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

World B. Free is not the worst on the list. When he was on the road, he had a large contingent of fans who would scream his name " World. B. Free" whenever he scored. It was wild -- it took over the arena. For that alone, he should be exempt.

As a Piston fan, I hate to admit it, but it might be Dave Bing. Great man, outstanding citizen, good shooter. Won't say anything negative to be polite to the Piston's franchise player at a time when they were mostly horrible. I think he won 1 playoff series in his long career.

[TheBobster]

John Drew - 739 GP, 68.9 WS
Mark Aguirre - 923 GP, 67.8 WS
World Free - 886 GP, 67.7 WS
Gilbert Arenas - 552 GP, 51.3 WS
Geoff Petrie - 446 GP, 22.6 WS

Petrie only had six full seasons, but he was a great shooter.
Arenas had three great years, but wasn't anything spectacular the rest of his career.
Drew's career was shortened by his drug banishment.
Free had two great years and a bunch of very good ones.
Aguirre was really good in Dallas and more of a complimentary player is Detroit.

I guess I would have to say Petrie of Arenas.

[hardenASG13]

Lol people saying they wouldn't want Iverson as a number 1 option because TS%. He was the best scorer in the league for years.

[tsherkin]

Lol people saying they wouldn't want Iverson as a number 1 option because TS%. He was the best scorer in the league for years.

He really wasnt, no. He was the highest volume scorer, but not the best. A common misunderstanding.

[Im Your Father]

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.

Wait, what?

Shaq is a top 10 player on many a list.

Yeah, this is an insane take.

[Dom801e]

Don’t know for career, but worst 20ppg season I remember was Ricky Davis in Cle before Lebron got there.

[hardenASG13]

Lol people saying they wouldn't want Iverson as a number 1 option because TS%. He was the best scorer in the league for years.

He really wasnt, no. He was the highest volume scorer, but not the best. A common misunderstanding.

Na he was for sure the best. He had to work hard for his looks, and was forced to gun all game because nobody else on his team could create shots. Common misunderstanding is that he was some inefficient ball hog. Sadly, a big part of phillys offense was Iverson getting the ball on the glass and their bigs crashing for rebounds, because that was their strength and they otherwise couldnt get up shots. He was the best and most talented scorer in the game, had to have seen it though.

[Pennebaker]

After looking at the other 20ppg career scorers these are players are who I believe to be the worst players to average 20 for their careers. Here are my nominees…who do you think is the worst player of these career 20ppg career scorers?

Geoff Petrie-21.8ppg Two time Allstar
Glenn Robinson-20.7ppg Two Time Allstar
John Drew-20.7ppg Two time Allstar
John Brisker-20.7ppg Two time Allstar
World B Free-20.3ppg One time Allstar
Bob Verga-20.2ppg One time Allstar

Tough choice but I’m gonna go with the big dog Glenn Robinson, obviously he was a decent scorer like the other players but he lacked a high motor, he always seemed like he wasn’t putting in his top effort so for me he’s the worst if this bunch.

Big Dog and World B Free were definitely not the worst so it's not them.

The others have some of them have very interesting stories.

John Brisker vanished in Uganda and was never seen again. Check out this description of him:

Brisker developed a reputation as one of the most volatile players in basketball. According to his Condors teammate Charlie Williams, 'He was an excellent player, but say something wrong to the guy and you had this feeling he would reach into his bag, take out a gun and shoot you.'

Brisker was ahead of his time as an American! Most people seem to agree that Brisker was very talented.

John Drew got himself addicted to cocaine and has the distinction of being the first player banned by the David Stern's substance abuse policy, but he had a relatively long and productive 11 year career in the NBA.

Geoff Petrie averaged 24.8 ppg as a rookie and set the Blazers individual scoring record for one game - 51 points - which he did twice, and he has the distinction of being the first player to switch from Converse brand shoes to Nike.

Bob Verga owns the Duke record for points per game (26.7) in a single season.

Conclusion:

Bob Verga is the least interesting fella and he only played 21 games in the NBA (5 pgg) so my vote goes to Bob Verga for being boring and having by far the least NBA experience of the group.

[Backcountry]

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.

Wait, what?

Shaq is a top 10 player on many a list.

He was a big guy who was only dominant because of his size. If he was 6'8" we wouldn't even remember his name. He averaged just shy of 24 ppg.

[Pennebaker]

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.

Wait, what?

Shaq is a top 10 player on many a list.

He was a big guy who was only dominant because of his size. If he was 6'8" we wouldn't even remember his name. He averaged just shy of 24 ppg.

Shaq was dominant because he was super athletic at his enormous size with his enormous strength. So it was really about the combination of size, strength and elite athleticism.

Once Shaq got into the NBA he started to gain weight and he gained something like 100 pounds over the first 10 years of his career.

In short, Shaq probably would've still been in the NBA if he was 6'8 because of his elite athleticism.

[tsherkin]

Lol people saying they wouldn't want Iverson as a number 1 option because TS%. He was the best scorer in the league for years.

He really wasnt, no. He was the highest volume scorer, but not the best. A common misunderstanding.

Na he was for sure the best. He had to work hard for his looks, and was forced to gun all game because nobody else on his team could create shots. Common misunderstanding is that he was some inefficient ball hog. Sadly, a big part of phillys offense was Iverson getting the ball on the glass and their bigs crashing for rebounds, because that was their strength and they otherwise couldnt get up shots. He was the best and most talented scorer in the game, had to have seen it though.

I lived through that era. You're definitely wrong. There were certainly reasons he shot as much as he did, and that volume coupled to his weak 3 and that proportion kf long twos definitely hurt his efficiency. But he was very not the best scorer in the league at any point during his career. A better overall offensive player than some recall kr are willing to admit, certainly, but clearly below the actual upper tier of scorers.

If you want to discuss him in the context of purely isolation ability, that's one thing, but quality scoring extends far beyond that. That and he is far from the only guy to land on bad offensive teams and be required to score against heavy coverage with little help.

It's inappropriate to call Iverson the worst 20+ ppg scorer but it is equally so to call him the best kn his era. He shot a lot. He put up a lot of points as a result. He played a lot of minutes. He is more impressive for his stamina and passing than his scoring ability.

[mowcrowbar]

Bad Porn doesn't get an obviously mention?

[Bird4Three]

Bad Porn doesn't get an obviously mention?

He averaged 16ppg for his career, so…..no

[Tim Kempton]

Reading comprehension certainly isn't RealGM's strength, is it?

[Capn'O]

For my period of watching it's gotta be Big Dog, which is a shame to say because I loved his offensive game.

[Ray Donovan]

Wasn't familiar w/Mr Verga's work

[tsherkin]

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.

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.

You know circling back to this, I realized i totally skies the title and looked lnly at the post itself. and sure enough, it says "career" right there, doesnt it? Whoops!