What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
Moderators: cupcakesnake, infinite11285, Dirk, Harry Garris, ken6199, zimpy27, bwgood77, bisme37, KingDavid, Domejandro
What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
- T-Spot
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,604
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jan 30, 2008
What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
In a general sense, I'm talking about shooters. What do you guys think the "Mendoza Line" for FG% for shooters is in today's NBA?
[Mendoza line: Baseball term for someone batting of around 0.200 [20%], named after Mario Mendoza who had a career batting average of 0.215 [21.5%]]
[Mendoza line: Baseball term for someone batting of around 0.200 [20%], named after Mario Mendoza who had a career batting average of 0.215 [21.5%]]
Re: What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
-
- On Leave
- Posts: 41,221
- And1: 8,697
- Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Re: What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
T-Spot wrote:In a general sense, I'm talking about shooters. What do you guys think the "Mendoza Line" for FG% for shooters is in today's NBA?
[Mendoza line: Baseball term for someone batting of around 0.200 [20%], named after Mario Mendoza who had a career batting average of 0.215 [21.5%]]
Well for bigmen... it is .400
for FT shooting it is also .400
For guards it is .300
Re: What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 51,577
- And1: 20,313
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: What is Basket ball's "Mendoza Line"?
Blame Rasho wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Well for bigmen... it is .400
for FT shooting it is also .400
For guards it is .300
Seems about right. I was thinking .350 for perimeter players though.
btw, my definition of the Mendoza line would be "There is no excuse for this, you're hurting the team."
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
- rsavaj
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 24,863
- And1: 2,767
- Joined: May 09, 2007
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Schad
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 57,727
- And1: 17,389
- Joined: Feb 08, 2006
- Location: The Goat Rodeo
If you want to be fancy, I'd say that a TS% under .500 would be a Mendoza Line that accuracy gauges awful shooting from all positions.
The bottom five (500 FGA minimum):
1. Quentin Richardson (.444)
2. Darko Milicic (.456)
3. Sebastian Telfair (.462)
4. Jannero Pargo (.468)
5. Larry Hughes (.468)
The bottom five (500 FGA minimum):
1. Quentin Richardson (.444)
2. Darko Milicic (.456)
3. Sebastian Telfair (.462)
4. Jannero Pargo (.468)
5. Larry Hughes (.468)
**** your asterisk.
- Schad
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 57,727
- And1: 17,389
- Joined: Feb 08, 2006
- Location: The Goat Rodeo
Death Knight wrote:Lets be honest............anything under 40% is bad enough. I don't care what position you play, from guard to center, if you shoot 39% or below, you just flat out suck. Anytime your fg% starts with a 3, 2, 1 or 0, you don't deserve to be in the NBA.
That's a wee bit of hyperbole. Jason Kidd's career FG% is .401, and I'd say that he deserves to be in the NBA.
**** your asterisk.
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 51,577
- And1: 20,313
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Schadenfreude wrote:If you want to be fancy, I'd say that a TS% under .500 would be a Mendoza Line that accuracy gauges awful shooting from all positions.
The bottom five (500 FGA minimum):
1. Quentin Richardson (.444)
2. Darko Milicic (.456)
3. Sebastian Telfair (.462)
4. Jannero Pargo (.468)
5. Larry Hughes (.468)
Trivia: What recent player flirted with the TS% Mendoza line on his way to be voted MVP?
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
- MalReyn
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,503
- And1: 5
- Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Death Knight wrote:Lets be honest............anything under 40% is bad enough. I don't care what position you play, from guard to center, if you shoot 39% or below, you just flat out suck. Anytime your fg% starts with a 3, 2, 1 or 0, you don't deserve to be in the NBA.
While I'd agree shoting below 40% is horrible, the number being looked for needs to be lower than that, since players can shoot under 40% and still be very valuable to a team in other respects.
Take Jason Kidd, shooting a god-awful .385 right this year.
I'd say probably about 35% across the board. Some players who qualify right now:
Brian Cardinal - 34.1%
Donyell Marshall - 32.7%
Robert Horry - 31.9%
Smush Parker - 34.8%
Rasual Butler - 35%
Plus of course the usual assortment of rookies and 10-day-contracts. You'd be hard-pressed to find a player shooting under 35% who serves a valuable role on a team.
- Schad
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 57,727
- And1: 17,389
- Joined: Feb 08, 2006
- Location: The Goat Rodeo
Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Trivia: What recent player flirted with the TS% Mendoza line on his way to be voted MVP?
Heh, also the second-worst pure FG% by any MVP in league history, and the worst by 4.5% in the modern era. How Shaq collected only 7 of 124 first place votes that year I'll never know.
**** your asterisk.
- Rooster
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 25,140
- And1: 11
- Joined: Aug 26, 2005
- Location: Frozen Wasteland
Schadenfreude wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Heh, also the second-worst pure FG% by any MVP in league history, and the worst by 4.5% in the modern era. How Shaq collected only 7 of 124 first place votes that year I'll never know.
Iverson carried that team because he was surrounded by talentless hacks.
I guess there's always the argument to be made that a shot-blocker with no other function can shoot whatever the hell he wants, seeing as he'd see about 10MPG and get maybe a shot attempt per game. (I'm thinking of a Trybanski type here, although maybe the fact that he's playing in Europe right now is indicating something.) Under 40% isn't so bad but under 35%... yeesh, that's worse than Jamaal Tinsley. Although...
82 games played
820 total minutes (10 minutes per game)
164 total shot attempts (2 per game)
56 made shots (approximately 0.68 per game)
.341FG%
100 blocked shots (approximately 1.1 per game)
And he's 7'2" and mobile. Does said fictitious player get a spot on your team?
Schadenfreude wrote:Not going to lie, if I found out that one of the seemingly illiterate morons we'd banned on the Raptors board was Primoz Brezec, it'd pretty much make my decade.
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 51,577
- And1: 20,313
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Schadenfreude wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Heh, also the second-worst pure FG% by any MVP in league history, and the worst by 4.5% in the modern era. How Shaq collected only 7 of 124 first place votes that year I'll never know.
Lakers weren't seen as having that successful of a season for until the end, at which point Iverson hadn't had to play meaningful basketball for a while and so it was hard for him to drop. In retrospect, it looks crazy, but at the time it made sense. When the main story behind your team for most the season is "Why are the Lakers self-destructing? Shaq's a lazy bum whose hurting team chemistry", you expect to lose out in awards voting. Had the voters been confident the Lakers could turn it on when they needed it, Shaq would have won hands down.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
- Schad
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 57,727
- And1: 17,389
- Joined: Feb 08, 2006
- Location: The Goat Rodeo
Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Lakers weren't seen as having that successful of a season for until the end, at which point Iverson hadn't had to play meaningful basketball for a while and so it was hard for him to drop. In retrospect, it looks crazy, but at the time it made sense. When the main story behind your team for most the season is "Why are the Lakers self-destructing? Shaq's a lazy bum whose hurting team chemistry", you expect to lose out in awards voting. Had the voters been confident the Lakers could turn it on when they needed it, Shaq would have won hands down.
Yeah, I remember the arguments at the time...but it's one of those MVP campaigns that was silly as soon as the season ended. I wonder whether the award should be voted upon later, so that voters have more perspective; the '00/'01 vote was a classic example of the narrative overtaking the facts of the season.
**** your asterisk.