Who is the Worst Career 20ppg+ Scorers

[Bologna Smasher]

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.

Blasphemy!

The fact that he even made the playoffs with most of those rosters is an achievement in itself.

Most? Rosters? Why do you imply plurality?
He made the playoffs ONCE as a top dog in SAC. More All-Star and All-NBA teams than playoff games. Go find me a similar guy.

Yes, he was decent as a second, third fiddle on an ok GSW team. But that's about it.

That was my bad. Meant to imply that most of the Kings rosters he played with had no business making the playoffs. Even the year they did, they probably shouldn't have. Throughout those years his best teammate through that span was probably Olden Polynice followed up with guys like Lionel Simmons, Walt Williams and a declining Wayman Tisdale. He wasn't a perfect player, but he certainly wasn't the problem.

[Schiltzenberger]

Mitch Richmond??? lol
Shaq??? wtf?

Then 'they took bad shots back in the 90s'......... ummmmm, the current era has them chucking up shots in someone's face from the logo, this is the era of bad shot selection, guys that barely notch 30% from 3 just launching them like they're Steph.

This thread is hilarious.

My answer though would be Westbrook, if he averages over 20ppg for his career. He has the lowest bball IQ for a star player ever, maybe the lowest overall IQ for an NBA player.

[Long2_noD]

Blasphemy!

The fact that he even made the playoffs with most of those rosters is an achievement in itself.

Most? Rosters? Why do you imply plurality?
He made the playoffs ONCE as a top dog in SAC. More All-Star and All-NBA teams than playoff games. Go find me a similar guy.

Yes, he was decent as a second, third fiddle on an ok GSW team. But that's about it.

That was my bad. Meant to imply that most of the Kings rosters he played with had no business making the playoffs. Even the year they did, they probably shouldn't have. Throughout those years his best teammate through that span was probably Olden Polynice followed up with guys like Lionel Simmons, Walt Williams and a declining Wayman Tisdale. He wasn't a perfect player, but he certainly wasn't the problem.

I hear you. However!

I went ahead and looked up 96-97 season. SAC (in Mitch's top statistical season) got beaten to 8th seed by the Clippers sporting a roster of:

[order by total points that season]

Loy Vaught
Malik Sealy
Rodney Rogers
Darrick Martin
Bo Outlaw
Lorenzen Wright
Lamond Murray
Terry Dehere
Brent Barry
Eric Piatkowski
Pooh Richardson
Stanley Roberts
Kevin Duckworth
Dwayne Schintzius
Rich Manning

Bang.

[Courant]

As for comparing Mashburn's shooting numbers to Allen Iverson's, Iverson gets the nod because he's one of the few players in NBA history who consistently averaged 30 points per game. Mashburn typically topped out at the low 20s.

AI in his lower-volume seasons was about as efficient as the best Mash ever managed. More so in the post-handchecking league. At some point, efficiency erodes with huge volume in the absence of elite shooting. AI took a lot of long twos and wasnt a competent 3pt shooter, so it took some off his efficiency, but he was always a better scorer than Mash, for sure. And a better playmaker/overall offensive player as well.

Having seen both Allen Iverson and Jamal Mashburn's entire careers (college and NBA), Iverson was a much more capable scorer than Mashburn. Iverson was great at getting separation in isolation and his game was predicated on speed, athleticism, driving to the basket and being a streaky shooter. So even though Iverson was hardly the most efficient scorer, you can overlook it somewhat because he was a big volume producer who consistently got 30 points per game.

At least I can understand Iverson being an inefficient scorer, being a six-foot scoring guard who largely scored on dribble penetration and streaky shooting. There was no reason for Mashburn with his size (6-8, 250 lbs.), strength and skill to have been content taking a bunch of unnecessary turnaround jump shots. Mashburn more often than not abandoned the low-post game he established in college. Mashburn's low-efficiency game would net you a peak of 20 points per game, which is not worth it. Mashburn was more efficient the less he scored, which is a sign of a bad scorer to me.

[Courant]

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.

Blasphemy!

The fact that he even made the playoffs with most of those rosters is an achievement in itself.

Most? Rosters? Why do you imply plurality?
He made the playoffs ONCE as a top dog in SAC. More All-Star and All-NBA teams than playoff games. Go find me a similar guy.

Yes, he was decent as a second, third fiddle on an ok GSW team. But that's about it.

It seems to me you're picking Mitch Richmond randomly for being on some bad Sacramento teams, and not based on key elements of research (box score numbers, advanced metrics, observation, etc.).

When Richmond arrived in Sacramento, his best teammates were a rookie Lionel Simmons (whose career took a major nosedive after his fourth season) and the late former jazz musician Wayman Tisdale. Spud Webb (the 5-foot-6 slam dunk champion) was their starting point guard for four seasons, then 5-10 Tyus Edney for one season. The most notable later additions were Walt Williams (and on-and-off-again combo wing player) and Brian Grant (undersized post player).

Richmond's numbers were consistently as good with a bad team in Sacramento as they were with a playoff-caliber team in Golden State with future hall of famers Chris Mullin and Tim Hardaway. His field goal percentage took a slight dip but it was because he was becoming a more effective 3-point shooter. Richmond grabbed more rebounds in Golden State because he was playing more in the interior like a small forward, while in Sacramento he definitely played far away from the basket. He always was a solid passer and dogged wing defender in both Golden State and Sacramento.

Richmond was a five-time All-NBA guard (three times on the second team) for five consecutive seasons (1994-98). That's no small feat, considering his competition for those slots were fellow hall of famer shooting guards Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler and hall of fame point guards John Stockton, Gary Payton and Hardaway. Richmond wasn't a "good stats on a bad team" type of player, but a solid No. 2 player who was as consistent on a playoff team as he was a bad team.

[tsherkin]

Having seen both Allen Iverson and Jamal Mashburn's entire careers (college and NBA), Iverson was a much more capable scorer than Mashburn. Iverson was great at getting separation in isolation and his game was predicated on speed, athleticism, driving to the basket and being a streaky shooter. So even though Iverson was hardly the most efficient scorer, you can overlook it somewhat because he was a big volume producer who consistently got 30 points per game.

I mean, it was a terrible strategy and Philly screwed it up badly, but because he was a pretty good passer and because he was able to beat the first line defense and force rotation so consistently, he ended up being a net positive offensive force. Not elite, but still good enough that in-era, with that defense, he was able to field a couple pretty good teams, for sure.

There was no reason for Mashburn with his size (6-8, 250 lbs.), strength and skill to have been content taking a bunch of unnecessary turnaround jump shots. Mashburn more often than not abandoned the low-post game he established in college. Mashburn's low-efficiency game would net you a peak of 20 points per game, which is not worth it. Mashburn was more efficient the less he scored, which is a sign of a bad scorer to me.

Generally speaking, players are more efficient the less they are asked to shoot. That's sort of how it works. Your easier, higher-efficiency shots represent a larger proportion of your shooting volume, you're often more assisted and thus working less against the POA defense, etc. It's pretty natural for that to happen, and would be counterintuitive if they got less efficient as they scored less.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Mashburn?

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

well, I didn't check in bref and he's below 20, so whatever.
But I think you're going a bit too far. He was a good player, what recent career 20ppg player he was better than? Big Dog? Maybe, but they were ina a similar tier. Whoelse?

[Infinite Llamas]

Most? Rosters? Why do you imply plurality?
He made the playoffs ONCE as a top dog in SAC. More All-Star and All-NBA teams than playoff games. Go find me a similar guy.

Yes, he was decent as a second, third fiddle on an ok GSW team. But that's about it.

That was my bad. Meant to imply that most of the Kings rosters he played with had no business making the playoffs. Even the year they did, they probably shouldn't have. Throughout those years his best teammate through that span was probably Olden Polynice followed up with guys like Lionel Simmons, Walt Williams and a declining Wayman Tisdale. He wasn't a perfect player, but he certainly wasn't the problem.

I hear you. However!

I went ahead and looked up 96-97 season. SAC (in Mitch's top statistical season) got beaten to 8th seed by the Clippers sporting a roster of:

[order by total points that season]

Loy Vaught
Malik Sealy
Rodney Rogers
Darrick Martin
Bo Outlaw
Lorenzen Wright
Lamond Murray
Terry Dehere
Brent Barry
Eric Piatkowski
Pooh Richardson
Stanley Roberts
Kevin Duckworth
Dwayne Schintzius
Rich Manning

Bang.

Kings second best player Brian Grant only played about 20 games that year. It was Mitch and a bunch of journeymen. That Clippers roster wasn’t anything special but swap Bill Fitch for Garry St Jean and I’m sure the Kings make the playoffs a couple more times.

[dhsilv2]

I guess this is both an indictment and a defense of Mashburn but on the Hornets the gameplan involved him taking tough shots. He put up a lot of long and contested 2 pointers. How many guys in the league today are getting plays drawn up for high post fadeaways? Maybe Kevin Durant?

Cross-era stuff is always challenging but je was persistently inefficient even in a low-efficiency era, even before Charlotte. I honestly dont think Charlotte's gameplan mattered much.

On topic: Glenn Robinson is the only one of the OP's guys where I've seen full games. And it's got me thinking that it was really viewed more favorably back in the 90's to early 2000's to take tough/bad shots.

It was. There was all sorts of prevailing mistakes in strategy at the time. And also, they werent necessarily understood to be bad shots at the time, no less. There was the hero ball mystique idiocy and overemphasis on isolation, but whole offenses were built around getting clear for elbow and baseline jumpers, right? And elbow post and such, right? Esp for a dude like Big Dogg.

Good old illegal defense era basketball...which somehow stayed around even post rule changes which was just god awful to watch.

[Courant]

Generally speaking, players are more efficient the less they are asked to shoot. That's sort of how it works. Your easier, higher-efficiency shots represent a larger proportion of your shooting volume, you're often more assisted and thus working less against the POA defense, etc. It's pretty natural for that to happen, and would be counterintuitive if they got less efficient as they scored less.

In Jamal Mashburn's case, his threshold for scoring and efficiency crossed at a much lower level than Allen Iverson's. In Iverson's more efficient shooting years, he still was putting up quality to elite scoring averages:

* 1997-98: 22 points per game on .461 FG (second NBA season, playing point guard in Philadelphia)
* 2007-08: 26.4 points per game on .458 FG (in Denver, playing alongside another top player in young Carmelo Anthony)
* 2005-06: 33 points per game on .447 FG (in Philadelphia, moved back to point guard)
* 2006-07: 26.3 points per game on .442 FG (traded from Philadelphia to Denver)

So a more efficient Iverson (at .450, which is average) still was good for 25-plus points per game.

In Mashburn's case, his most efficient shooting years in full seasons were the following:

* 1999-2000: 17.5 points on .445 FG (in Miami, second scoring option behind Alonzo Mourning)
* 1997-98: 15.1 points on .436 FG (in Miami, third scoring option behind Mourning and Tim Hardaway)
* 2002-03: 22.1 points on .422 FG (in New Orleans, effectively his final full NBA season)

So a more efficient Mashburn (at .440, mind you, which is still below average) got you about 16 points per game.

Mashburn took a lot of unnecessary turnaround, fading jump shots, which didn't make sense given his size and low-post game. He was a better shooter than Iverson (especially from long range), but he took a lot of bad shots. Not to mention Mashburn's scoring capacity was about 10-plus points per game lower than Iverson's, even in years where both players were relatively more efficient.

Finally, we have to take into consideration that Mashburn was a 6-foot-8, 250 lb. small forward who also had a good low-post game coming to the NBA and could handle the ball. There is really no excuse for him to have been a career .418 shooter from the field when he could have been more selective. Also, Iverson was the primary scoring during his Philadelphia run and 1A with Anthony in Denver so he was drawing more attention than Mashburn (who largely was a No. 2 or No. 3 option).

But overall, it sounds like we are in agreement. Good discussion.

[Hussien Fatal]

Nikola Jokic

(that's the answer Hussien wants to hear)

Actually Jokic doesn’t qualify because his career average is less than 20ppg

[lambchop]

Mitch Richmond??? lol
Shaq??? wtf?

Then 'they took bad shots back in the 90s'......... ummmmm, the current era has them chucking up shots in someone's face from the logo, this is the era of bad shot selection, guys that barely notch 30% from 3 just launching them like they're Steph.

This thread is hilarious.

My answer though would be Westbrook, if he averages over 20ppg for his career. He has the lowest bball IQ for a star player ever, maybe the lowest overall IQ for an NBA player.

*Hasheem Thabeet has entered the chat*

[WestbrookGOATed]

Kevin Martin

[Hussien Fatal]

As for comparing Mashburn's shooting numbers to Allen Iverson's, Iverson gets the nod because he's one of the few players in NBA history who consistently averaged 30 points per game. Mashburn typically topped out at the low 20s.

AI in his lower-volume seasons was about as efficient as the best Mash ever managed. More so in the post-handchecking league. At some point, efficiency erodes with huge volume in the absence of elite shooting. AI took a lot of long twos and wasnt a competent 3pt shooter, so it took some off his efficiency, but he was always a better scorer than Mash, for sure. And a better playmaker/overall offensive player as well.

In AI's best seasons, he was like a +5, +6 OBPM kind of guy. That isnt world-beating (and is only one metric, too), but worlds better than the best Mash ever managed. I imagine he looks similarly superior in RAPM, any of ElGee's metrics and so forth. But even strictly from a scoring POV, obviously better. Not so much because of the volume, though. That's just minutes played and shooting volume. But the whole profile of his draw rate, his iso skills, his efficiency at lower volume, all of that paints a very clear picture kf him as the better actual threat to get a decent shot and score.

Iverson is 2nd all time with 4 scoring titles which is as many as KD. You are not gonna get anybody to agree with you that he is the worst 20ppg scorer ever. Iverson has double the amount of 30ppg seasons than Kobe. Iverson is top 30 all time in total points. Yes he was inefficient but that was due to team design obviously. Past his prime in Denver he proved to be more efficient in a different role. Also Iverson is a 3 time all nba 1st team player and an MVP. The players I mentioned in the op never did any of these things, world b free is the only player I mentioned to have atleast 1 30ppg season. Iverson is an 11 time all star which is nearly as many as all the players I mentioned combined. Please stop trying to turn this into an Iverson bash thread.

[gavran]

Kevin Martin

Didn't really read the title of the thread, did you?

[Hussien Fatal]

I see a lot of people that didn’t read the title, with mentions of players like mashburn, Kevin Martin, mike James even Jokic and other below 20ppg career scorers. Remember we are talking CAREER average of 20ppg or more.

[Chronz]

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.

MJ called him his toughest cover

[cupcakesnake]

Averaging 20ppg over your entire career is quite an accomplishment. There's like... 75 guys who have done that, and some are active players who probably will dip below 20ppg if they're lucky to stack up enough post-prime seasons.

I don't know about some of these 70s guys like John Williamson or Geoff Petrie. The numbers suggest one of these guys is probably our man, but I've never seen them play and don't have insight to provide here.

I look at players who had very unhealthy shot diets. Guys who jacked tough/inefficient shots as a big part of their offense. Then I'm looking at their non-scoring skills to see how much value they brought outside their scoring.

Some guys immediately come to mind, but then I think of other aspects of their game and disqualify them from worst:
- Chris Webber. I really dislike Webber's scoring game. So many dumb high post fadeaway that he was never good at knocking down. One of those players who never learned what a good shot was for him. But Webber was a good rebounder, a really strong passer, was good in transition when he was younger, and not a poor defender overall. I think most of the time people overrate Webber because he was on a really really good team during his prime, and they correlate Kings success with Webber (despite evidence to the contrary).
- Pistol. Kind of an exaggerated Webber. A total savant in terms of basketball skill who had little idea what winning basketball was. Still I think Maravich's passing and ballhandling probably gets him out of "worst career 20ppg + scorer" ever territory.
- Gilbert "Agent Zero" Arenas. An insane, ahead of his time talent, but a total moron. Injuries and being a moron ended his career crazy early. But for a little bit, he had some of that game breaking cheat code shooting like a prototype for Steph.

I'm going: Demar Derozan.
Yes I know he improved his passing a lot in his late prime. But for most of his career, this guys only value came from scoring. For almost all of his career he was one of the WORST wing defender in the league and argubly the absolute worst 3-point shooter of any guard or wing in the NBA. He didn't make up for those giant weaknesses with plus rebounding, hustle, physical play, off-ball acumen (debatable). He posted a negative on-off every year of his career (until this year with the Bulls). He has for some reason been allowed to do his little Kobe impression his whole career despite offering no evidence his game has any positive impact. He is a strange outlier amongst basically all 20ppg scorers. On top of all of that, he's only barely an efficient scorer, due to his ability to draw fouls, something that almost always disappears for him in the playoffs when everything that matter most.

Derozan has been quite a bit better over the past 3 years, but only through being allowed to operate like a small ball 4, or point center on offense, which just doesn't seem like any kind of winning strategy considering he often flouders against larger defenders. He just has always felt like a charlatan. A player who looks and smells like the heroes of old but has never impacted winning at an all-star level.

[cupcakesnake]

As for comparing Mashburn's shooting numbers to Allen Iverson's, Iverson gets the nod because he's one of the few players in NBA history who consistently averaged 30 points per game. Mashburn typically topped out at the low 20s.

AI in his lower-volume seasons was about as efficient as the best Mash ever managed. More so in the post-handchecking league. At some point, efficiency erodes with huge volume in the absence of elite shooting. AI took a lot of long twos and wasnt a competent 3pt shooter, so it took some off his efficiency, but he was always a better scorer than Mash, for sure. And a better playmaker/overall offensive player as well.

In AI's best seasons, he was like a +5, +6 OBPM kind of guy. That isnt world-beating (and is only one metric, too), but worlds better than the best Mash ever managed. I imagine he looks similarly superior in RAPM, any of ElGee's metrics and so forth. But even strictly from a scoring POV, obviously better. Not so much because of the volume, though. That's just minutes played and shooting volume. But the whole profile of his draw rate, his iso skills, his efficiency at lower volume, all of that paints a very clear picture kf him as the better actual threat to get a decent shot and score.

Iverson is 2nd all time with 4 scoring titles which is as many as KD. You are not gonna get anybody to agree with you that he is the worst 20ppg scorer ever. Iverson has double the amount of 30ppg seasons than Kobe. Iverson is top 30 all time in total points. Yes he was inefficient but that was due to team design obviously. Past his prime in Denver he proved to be more efficient in a different role. Also Iverson is a 3 time all nba 1st team player and an MVP. The players I mentioned in the op never did any of these things, world b free is the only player I mentioned to have atleast 1 30ppg season. Iverson is an 11 time all star which is nearly as many as all the players I mentioned combined. Please stop trying to turn this into an Iverson bash thread.

He's been saying all-thread that Iverson is certainly not the worst 20ppg scorer ever.

[cupcakesnake]

I see a lot of people that didn’t read the title, with mentions of players like mashburn, Kevin Martin, mike James even Jokic and other below 20ppg career scorers. Remember we are talking CAREER average of 20ppg or more.

It's a bit wild that maybe more than half the thread is responses from people not reading the title.